partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,942 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Sixth sitting)

   One thing that my hon. Friend mentions is the Government’s stated intention to bring things closer to home, as opposed to the reality of the Bill as drafted. Does he agree with me that the document that explains what will happen to the commissioning of specialist services, and that talks about seven regions and how ICBs could collaborate within those regions, might imply that the Government are looking forward to having seven areas in which most commissioning takes place? These are even larger areas than have been described in the mergers so far.

   Hansard source
2. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

   My right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon have covered my points so effectively that I will be very brief indeed. How do we ensure that the consultation is not just well meaning and ticking the legal boxes, but actually listened to, so that people’s voices are incorporated into the plans? Also, I appreciate that amendment 28 is a well-meaning intervention, but how do we ensure that all voices are heard in a co-production, not just those who are the most articulate or the most able to engage with a process that they see online?

   Hansard source
3. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 16, page 12, line 10, at end insert— “(3) The regulations must ensure that integrated care boards may not impose operational policies requiring patients to wait a minimum number of weeks before they may access treatment.” This amendment would prevent minimum waiting times for NHS treatment.

   Hansard source
4. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

   The Government say they are firmly committed to cutting waiting times and meeting the NHS’ 18-week target. It seems odd that, despite that, it is necessary for me to table an amendment to prevent systems from forcing patients to wait artificially longer for their care through the imposition of minimum waiting times. Last year, The Times reported that at least eight local ICBs had introduced policies to pay healthcare providers for treatments only once patients have waited 12 weeks or more. I cannot think of any clinical reason why someone should wait for 12 weeks before having any treatment. At the time, the Minister said that while there was “no formal national policy supporting minimum waits”, local areas may “choose to include minimum waiting times in Activity Planning Assumptions to ensure delivery of targets within agreed financial allocations…to support commissioners in managing activity to ensure they can sustainably manage within their budgets”. I do not understand why we would want to make people wait longer than necessary. The Royal College of Surgeons has expressed concerns and made clear that minimum waits prolong “pain and anxiety” for those made to wait longer, saying that it is “counterintuitive…to give commissioners the green light to impose 18-week waits, while simultaneously working to ensure patients begin treatment within 18 weeks.” Age UK deemed it a “rationing approach” that is “potentially harmful to the health and wellbeing of older people.” NHS England has made it clear that ICBs cannot introduce minimum waits of more than 18 weeks—that is longer than the target, so that makes sense—but waits between 12 and 18 weeks are permissible. Will the Minister explain why that is a good idea? Amendment 51 seeks to ban ICBs from introducing any operational policies requiring patients to wait a minimum number of weeks before they may access treatment. There are safety risks involved in introducing minimum waiting times. They distort clinical priorities and may make patients wait in unnecessary pain and anxiety. Treatment should be delivered when possible, based on clinical needs. If a patient has a high level of clinical need, they might need to be treated earlier than the minimum waiting time because of the suffering they are experiencing. Minimum waits are not only detrimental to patient experience by forcing people to live in greater pain and discomfort; in some cases, the delay may make the patient’s condition worse, and the treatment they need may be more extensive and even more expensive. Their condition may even become life-limiting or life-threatening as a result of the delay. The introduction of arbitrary minimum waiting times that do not have any relevance to patient clinical need raises worrying issues, clinically, professionally and ethically. Minimum waits will also hinder the NHS’ ability to cut waiting lists and get waits to within 18 weeks. Some providers will have a list of people who can be available at short notice for a procedure, who they can call on if there is a cancellation on the day. If that person has not waited the minimum, that may be left as a gap, and that operation or appointment may not happen. That is wasted NHS resource. Each month that goes by, many people are added to the waiting list, and some are removed from it. We are aware that there seem to be a lot of unexplained removals from the waiting list, and that has spiked recently. Among the people treated by NHS providers in April, around 600,000 were treated within eight weeks of referral, versus 74,000 who were treated between 14 and 18 weeks. The introduction of a minimum waiting time will therefore push back many people’s treatment by as much as 10 weeks. Minimum waits also worsen and entrench postcode lotteries, because patients who have differential waits, based on whether their ICB has decided to implement minimum waiting times, may experience differential levels of care because of where they live. They are also another way of undermining patient choice, because patients may want to be treated in one area or one hospital because of the waiting time. If they all have different minimum waiting times, that distorts patients’ ability to choose. Minimum waits are also completely contrary to the 10-year plan for health, in which choice and productivity were considered central features, along with the Government’s wider commitment to keep people healthy. I hope the Minister will agree with amendment 51, which would ensure that minimum waiting times cannot be instituted. Amendment 52 also concerns waiting times. You will no doubt have seen, Dr Huq, the many newspapers articles about the Government fiddling the figures on waiting times, and there has been a spike in removals from waiting lists. People have found themselves removed from lists or going back on lists, or have suddenly found out that their waiting time started more recently than they thought. Amendment 52 would require the Secretary of State to publish the number of patients who are taken off treatment waiting lists each month and why they were removed. It is important that we are able to explain to our constituents why the Government have decided to remove them.

   Hansard source
5. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

   I should say that I am on a waiting list for treatment myself. The validation process seems to involve phoning people to check if they still need treatment, which after a long period is perhaps not an unreasonable thing to do. However, if they then say yes, they are phoned again a few weeks later; and if they say yes again, they are again phoned a few weeks after that. That puts pressure on people to say, “Okay”. If they are then asked, for example: “Would you be happy to see the consultant so that he can check that you are still listed for the right procedure, given that your condition may have changed and you may want to do something else?” it feels entirely unreasonable to say anything other than “Yes” to that. Would my hon. Friend be surprised to hear that when some people do that they find that they do indeed need the same procedure, but that their waiting time has now gone back down to zero?

   Hansard source
6. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

   Does my hon. Friend agree that when somebody—particularly a vulnerable person—receives a call asking them whether they would be prepared to see a consultant to see whether they still need treatment, they are aware of all the noise in the media? They are aware that other people are waiting. People do not want to waste NHS resources. The first time, they may think it is a routine process but, when they receive the second or third call, they may start to think to themselves, “They are trying to tell me that they want to do something else. Maybe I don’t need it as much as other people.” They feel obliged and pressurised into saying they do not need the procedure when they do.

   Hansard source
7. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

   The hon. Member for Ashford talks about social media and social media comments. I wonder if, where the DHSC or the Government have put that waiting lists are falling, my hon. Friend has read any of the comments that come in from the general public below such proclamations.

   Hansard source
8. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

   If a person has been waiting more than 18 weeks, the trust calls them and asks them to see a consultant to check whether they still need the appointment or whether they need a different treatment. If, after having that appointment, they are told that they still need the treatment, that same day they go back on the waiting list as if it were day one. Therefore, they have not waited less than 18 weeks, even though the Minister’s statistics might suggest they have. Does she accept that?

   Hansard source
9. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

   Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

   The clause imposes a duty on ICBs to have regard to the likely impact of their commissioning decisions on areas of Wales and Scotland close to the border. In some respects, this is like other parts of the Bill—a statement of the obvious regarding a person’s job. Are we suggesting that the Secretary of State, and in particular ICBs, would not consider the effect of their decisions? I hope that they would, but, given that the clause is there, what teeth does it have? What if they do not? Is there any consequence in the Bill if they do not? As others have said, will the Minister confirm whether there is a reciprocal agreement with Wales and Scotland? If there is not, what negotiations has she entered into and what progress are they making?

   Hansard source
10. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I have one question for the Minister. Which ICBs does she envisage being abolished, or is this just a precaution for the future?

    Hansard source
11. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    The Government’s explanatory notes state that the clause is intended to give ICBs the ability to provide a broad range of support to those involved in providing or administering the health service. The flexibility there aligns with the Government’s stated vision for more autonomy across the system. I have a couple of questions. If the ICB were to provide support in a way that was out of line with good practice or what is expected by the Department, what would be the recourse? Where will it be possible for right hon. and hon. Members to see the financial expenditure that ICBs make in any such circumstance?

    Hansard source
12. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    As has been said, the clause replaces the part of the NHS Act that requires NHS England to carry out performance assessments of the ICBs and rewrites it so that the Secretary of State has to carry out those assessments. That makes some sense, but, as the Minister said, it takes out the criteria against which the ICBs will be assessed. I accept what the Minister says—she wants those criteria to be set out more flexibly than can be done in primary legislation—but it is not reasonable or fair to assess people against criteria that they do not know in advance. It will be important, will it not, that ICBs know in advance what those criteria will be? Given what she said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston about writing to him, will she commit to writing to us to say not only what the criteria will be at the moment, but how far in advance ICBs can expect to receive them before they are expected to work to them and then be assessed against them? Will variation be a factor in whether an ICB is deemed to have been performing well or not? We know that there is a tension in the Bill between the Secretary of State’s need to equalise provision and the ICBs’ desire and intention to vary it and innovate. Given that the Secretary of State is a political individual, how will the assessment process be conducted in a way that gives ICBs and their leaders confidence that there will not be political interference in it?

    Hansard source
13. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 21, page 15, leave out from line 33 to line 6 on page 16 and insert— “(2) The constitution must provide for the ordinary members appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to include— (a) at least one person nominated by one or more NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts which provide services under arrangements made by the integrated care board, in accordance with regulations made under sub-paragraph (2A); (b) at least one person nominated by a body representative of providers of primary medical services whose area falls wholly or mainly within the area of the integrated care board, in accordance with regulations made under sub-paragraph (2A); (c) at least one person appointed by a local authority whose area falls wholly or partly within the area of the integrated care board; and (d) at least one member nominated by the mayor of each mayoral strategic authority whose area coincides with, or includes the whole or any part of, the integrated care board's area (if any). (2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the nomination of ordinary members under sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b), including provision about which NHS trusts, NHS foundation trusts or representative bodies are entitled to make nominations. (3) The constitution must set out the process for making nominations under sub-paragraph (2). (4) A person making a nomination under sub-paragraph (2) must have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State as to the selection of candidates.” This amendment modifies Clause 21 so that, rather than replacing the existing mandatory membership requirements in Schedule 1B to the National Health Service Act 2006 with a requirement for mayoral representation alone, the new sub-paragraph (2) reinstates and consolidates the full range of required ordinary members.

    Hansard source
14. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    At present, integrated care boards will have a chair, a chief executive and at least three further ordinary members. Those three ordinary members will include a representative of the NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in the area, someone from the primary medical services in the area and someone nominated by the local authority areas within the ICB area. Under the clause, the requirement for those individuals is replaced with a requirement to have someone from each of the mayoral authorities. Because of the order in which the Government have done this—removing half the budget from the ICBs, which has caused them to merge in a way that is not coherent with the Government’s not-yet-complete local government reorganisation—we have a situation where representation is not even. For example, in my ICB area the Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire and the Mayor of the East Midlands will each be able to choose someone to represent them on the board, but the proportions of the population are not even. Lincolnshire will be over-represented, which is not an issue for my constituents, but it may be for those from Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Likewise, the northern part of Greater Lincolnshire, which is in a different region, has a small population relative to its ICB. Some mayors will therefore have representation that is not proportionate to their population size. There is surely a risk that the next step will be for the Government to say they want to make things more even, with ICBs working in relation to mayoral authority areas. Yesterday, the Minister for Care suggested at his appearance before the Health and Social Care Committee that the ICBs should be aligned with strategic authorities, but the only way in which that can happen once the Government have decided where the strategic authorities will be is if things are changed once again. That brings ongoing costs—financial costs, opportunity cost for service development, and cost to the people delivering these services. The people working hard to try to deliver the Government’s plan find themselves and their jobs threatened and chopped and changed all the time. We heard evidence that the concentration on reorganisation rather than service delivery, provision and development is causing distress to those people. We also heard about the effect on social care, which, certainly in Lincolnshire and in other places, is delivered by the upper-tier local authority, but not all mayors have any responsibility for health—our mayor does not. We will therefore have someone who is not responsible for health on the ICB while someone responsible for delivering social care will have their seat on the ICB removed. I am afraid that I simply do not understand that. I watched through several times the Minister for Care’s Select Committee appearance, and I still do not understand the rationale. I will be grateful if the Minister for Secondary Care could explain that.

    Hansard source
15. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health Bill (Seventh sitting)

    Where a mayor is from one political party and local authorities are run by different political parties, the mayor, as part of the ICB, will be able to make decisions about spending done by authorities that are run by different parties. That will surely create a political conflict, or at least the potential for one.

    Hansard source
16. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Bob Blackman

    Business of the House

    I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business that we have scheduled. In addition to the business he has announced, on Thursday 9 July there will be a debate on a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, followed by a further debate on which we await confirmation from the sponsor. On Thursday 16 July, assuming that we are given that date, there will be the annual Sir David Amess pre-recess Adjournment debate, which is very popular with all colleagues. As we await the implementation of the new Government, it seems that Government business is reasonably light. Early notice of any extra dates that we might get before the recess would be appreciated, as we have only just cleared requests for debates in the Chamber dating back to December. We have a large queue. Let me turn to the debates in Westminster Hall next week. On Tuesday 30 June, there will be a debate on Government support for removing unlawful storefronts and regenerating local high streets. On Thursday 2 July, there will be a debate on reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke, followed by a debate on Government plans to tackle air pollution. On Tuesday 7 July, there will be a debate on UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends. On Thursday 9 July, there will be a debate on Government support for the lobular moonshot project, and a further debate to be confirmed. I can announce in advance that on Thursday 16 July in Westminster Hall there will be a debate on the impact of national planning policy framework changes, followed by a debate on capital funding for Changing Places toilets. Given the recent hot weather, I have been inundated with reports of individuals trapped in their flats in high-rise buildings, lifts going out of action and people being trapped in stairwells and collapsing because of the heat. That is particularly prominent in social housing. Given that this is about the design and upkeep of properties, can we have an urgent statement from one of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers on what action the Government will take to protect these very vulnerable people? I have to say that they are often from visible ethnic minorities and often have no recourse to the support that they need. This is an urgent matter. Given that the hot weather is likely to continue for some time to come over the summer, we must take urgent action.

    Hansard source
17. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Steel Trade Measure

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We welcome the partial U-turns that have been announced, the engagement there has been and the reflection, even at this very late hour, that the original proposals from the Government would have done great damage to British manufacturing. This decision could, however, have come months ago. If not, it could have come weeks ago, when Members of the House and businesses started raising the alarm and engaging with the Department. It took this Government—if Members can remember—more than a year and three quarters to come up with their original steel strategy, yet the industry is now expected to adjust with less than one week to go. That is not a reasonable way on which to proceed. The Government have left untouched the 50% tariff rate, and that will do great damage to British manufacturing, house builders and those who construct the nation’s infrastructure. It will mean higher inflation, fewer jobs, fewer homes and fewer public projects. The Government have made some welcome concessions on how much steel can be brought in but conceded nothing on the rate that punishes imported steel the very moment that the quota is exceeded. I know, as does the Minister, that he has received significant private representations from industry on this issue, particularly from defence and aerospace, and I imagine that the Minister does understand that this measure will not be enough. Of the 60 codes that we believe are relevant to aerospace and space, just two codes have been removed, and while quota uplifts have been applied, they are not particularly useful to the small-scale, high-value defence manufacturers, as commodity buyers will snap up all those quotas at the start of the year before they get a look-in. As a result, we are, I am sad to say, putting the defence of this country at risk by imposing a shock to defence industry prices, and it will either be the Treasury or the Ministry of Defence that picks up the bill. Projects such as AUKUS, Tempest, drones and much-needed munition rearming will all be vulnerable as a consequence. Finally, let me put some questions to the Minister on behalf of the industry. Will he commit to publishing the impact assessment on downstream steel sectors before Parliament rises for the summer? Does the Minister understand that by not exempting pre-agreed purchase contracts, which may in some cases run for years, he is damaging good, decent British manufacturing firms, even those in Rhondda and Ogmore? His exclusions rest on a test of “no production, or production paused”, but will he explain how he justifies keeping specialist grades in scope when in some industries, such as aerospace, it takes years to certify suppliers? Can he confirm that the EU’s reciprocal quota for exports from the UK will fully protect the 2.4 million tonnes of annual British exports of steel that would otherwise be at risk?

    Hansard source
18. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Andrew Griffith

    Steel Trade Measure

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that in a former life, the Minister was punctilious about standards in this House, so I seek your advice as to how he may correct the record. He referred to a letter that I believe he said his office had received this morning or yesterday. In fact, the Department will have received copies of two letters, one which was sent a week ago, not on my behalf, but on behalf of hundreds of thousands of small manufacturing businesses that were desperately worried, with one week to go before the tariffs. There was a second letter on Tuesday, jointly from me and the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), again, sent on behalf of this vital industry, which keeps us all safe. I have not yet received a reply to either of those. I would not necessarily have expected to, but it would not be right for the record to reflect that he had only received the letter this morning.

    Hansard source
19. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alex Burghart

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    I am sure that danger and excitement await the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister in whatever comes next. The Government have always maintained that they have withheld material from the Mandelson case only at the request of the Metropolitan police, but a fortnight ago, a Daily Mail journalist spoke to the Metropolitan police, who insist that they did not ask for a crucial series of messages to be withheld. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister explain why the Metropolitan police and the Government are saying different things?

    Hansard source
20. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alex Burghart

    Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

    Obviously the House does not want to do anything prejudicial to a case, but it appears that the Metropolitan police are saying that some documents could be released without that being prejudicial to the case. I know that things will soon move on, but the Humble Address will remain in force, even if there is a new Prime Minister. If there is a criminal trial—and even if there is not—it is likely that more information will be released. As this has been a particularly novel way of using and responding to a Humble Address, it is likely that there will be a Select Committee inquiry into how the process ran. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment now, at the Dispatch Box, that there is no material that the Government have withheld that the Metropolitan police have not explicitly asked to be withheld?

    Hansard source
21. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alex Burghart

    Topical Questions

    This may be the last time I come up against the right hon. Gentleman during parliamentary questions. When we first faced each other nine months ago, I said that he was one of the most able performers in Government, and I still believe that to be the case. I think there will come a time when his party regrets the fact that he did not stand in this leadership contest. I think he would have lost—

    Hansard source
22. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alex Burghart

    Topical Questions

    I was just trying to be nice, Mr Speaker. We will do it privately. Given that we may have a new Prime Minister on 16 July, does the right hon. Gentleman think that that new Prime Minister should take questions in the House before he goes off for the summer break?

    Hansard source
23. 25 Jun 2026·Parliament·Conservative·Alex Burghart

    Topical Questions

    I am very glad to be the one to break the news that the right hon. Gentleman wants to keep his current job and not move to another role. This is a serious question. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be appropriate for the new Prime Minister to answer questions before the summer break? If so, will he make representations to the next Prime Minister?

    Hansard source
24. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Warinder Juss

    Climate Change

    The hon. Member is making an important speech. Climate change is one of those issues that my constituents contact me about all the time, particularly my young constituents. This is something that really bothers them as much as it does us. Does she agree that climate change is something we are experiencing now—we know that when we step outside? Does she also agree that a dead planet with plenty of jobs is no good for any of us, so we need to focus on this and deal with it?

    Hansard source
25. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Uma Kumaran

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing a debate on such an important issue. I put it on record that I am the chair of the APPG on climate change. Frustratingly, the British public once again find themselves at the mercy of the latest chapter of the geopolitical crisis. Our constituents are looking at their energy bills and wincing at yet another increase, as people up and down the country pay the price for an energy market that is exposed to global conflict. The fact remains that the hard-earned money of British taxpayers and bill payers is lining the pockets of fossil fuel giants, which want us to believe that drilling oil is the only way forward. As long as the UK relies heavily on oil and gas, global conflicts and supply disruptions will continue to lead to price hikes. That is why we need to focus on cleaner energy sources. Those hikes are driving fuel poverty in every corner of our country, leaving less money in the pockets of workers and pensioners alike. For too long—we have heard this in the debate—climate action has been pitched as a zero-sum game in which economic activity will somehow be hampered, but it is not at odds with economic security or prosperity. There is a case for moving away from oil and gas and towards clean energy not only for our planet, but for British bill payers. Energy bills cannot and will not be brought down by North sea oil and gas. Our constituents are better protected from energy shocks by investment in renewables than by further exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets. The British taxpayer has been subsidising a hugely polluting industry for too long. Oil and gas companies enjoy an effective tax subsidy of £3 billion every year, when we should instead be investing in the industries of the future, such as renewable energy projects that deliver wealth back into our communities, building global leadership and growing global markets for clean energy technologies. I worked globally on such initiatives with nearly 100 countries in the United Nations. Countries are successfully shifting away from fossil fuel production. That is happening—it is a reality.

    Hansard source
26. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Uma Kumaran

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We are talking about communities that are dependent on this industry. As a proud member of the GMB, I absolutely understand why workers must be at the heart of this. North sea oil and gas reserves are in terminal decline. They cannot provide a secure future for workers, and there is no long-term future in them. We have heard that just 10% is left to be extracted.

    Hansard source
27. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Uma Kumaran

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I cannot say that I agree with all of it, but we need all voices around the table.

    Hansard source
28. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Uma Kumaran

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    The oil industry and fossil fuel lobbyists want us to believe that we need to take them on the journey with us. The case for renewables is there. At the moment, however, the voices for the renewables industry and more sustainable energy sources are being drowned out by those who want us to preserve the system that we already have.

    Hansard source
29. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Uma Kumaran

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I will not give way; I will continue. I am making the case for growing clean industries, ensuring that British workers are at the heart of the cutting-edge change that every country is now facing, for the jobs of today and the future. Workers need a credible transition plan, which means proactive planning, serious investment and putting their voices first. That is exactly what this Government are doing. This is about ensuring workers’ jobs and livelihoods so that they can pay their bills, rents and mortgages. These are the challenges that people are facing now. We are not talking about hypotheticals; people have bills to pay now, this month and next month. This is not a hypothetical scenario or an abstract discussion; we must take workers with us. We cannot allow the pipe dreams peddled by those with vested interests in fossil fuels to blind us to the realities in front of us. This is an industry already in decline. We know what a botched industrial transition looks like.

    Hansard source
30. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Uma Kumaran

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I will not give way; I will continue. We also know what success looks like. Countries in the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, ranging from Denmark to Costa Rica, are committed to ending reliance on oil and gas, so this issue is already being discussed globally. I find it interesting that Conservative Members here are passionately making the case for oil and gas today, because it was their Government that presided over an unmitigated collapse in jobs in the oil and gas industry. Half the jobs in the North sea disappeared in the last decade under a Conservative Government. We did not hear anything from the Conservatives at the time, so let us remember why so many of them are talking about oil and gas today. They are masking what they are saying as standing up for workers, but the truth is that they are fighting climate deniers on their own Benches and Reform’s climate sceptics on their right. They are using the industry as a tool in their own political fights here.

    Hansard source
31. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Uma Kumaran

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I will not give way; I will carry on. The case that I am making is backed by science. We heard earlier that a 1% increase in global warming would be catastrophic. We are already seeing extreme temperatures. The news right now is that France has just hit 44°, we have sweltering temperatures in Britain, and people are pooh-poohing the idea of a 1% rise in global temperatures. They continue to deny the reality of the climate crisis. Yes, this debate is about jobs, energy security and our future, but it is also about protecting the planet from the present and very real threat of climate devastation. The simple reality is that North sea production is not compatible with Britain’s climate commitments.

    Hansard source
32. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Uma Kumaran

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I will continue. Rosebank could produce the equivalent of 70% of the UK’s annual emissions of carbon dioxide. That is not compatible with the UK’s international climate obligations; they are international agreements, but they are obligations. These are treaties that we have signed up to and they reflect the deeper moral case that every country has a part to play in ensuring that we meet the global call to action. I want to take this opportunity to urge the Minister to continue along the path that the Government are already on and do everything in their power to continue to limit the expansion of fossil fuel production. That includes ensuring that Rosebank does not happen. We cannot abdicate responsibility at this vital moment. New oil and gas production in the North sea is not a solution. It will not bring down our constituents’ bills, it will not meaningfully diminish reliance on imported gas, and it is not delivering prosperity. However, it will risk further climate disruption, which is destruction that can never be undone. The solution is not inaction. It is a plan for a future that backs British workers, believes in British industry and ingenuity, and backs a transition to renewable energy sources. That is everything that we should be focused on delivering.

    Hansard source
33. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Uma Kumaran

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    The hon. Gentleman is making his case very eloquently, but let me correct him on what I said. I am not in any way accusing his wonderful constituents of being climate deniers; I am simply pointing out the case made by some of his colleagues. I absolutely agree that we need to bring communities with us, and I am sure the whole House shares that aim.

    Hansard source
34. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tulip Siddiq

    Engagements

    As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, Monday was Windrush Day, founded by Patrick Vernon to celebrate the contribution of migrants to our community. Will the Prime Minister outline exactly what this Government are doing to recognise and serve the Windrush generation, who did so much to play a vital role in our country’s history?

    Hansard source
35. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tulip Siddiq

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions today, the Leader of the Opposition called the Secretary of State for Education a “spiteful class warrior”, and previously she has compared her to a Gestapo officer. I started working in Parliament when I was a teenager, and in 25 years of being involved in politics, I have never seen the atmosphere here in Parliament and outside to be quite so hostile and intimidatory, especially towards female elected representatives. Words matter, and inflammatory language contributes to this hostility towards politicians, especially women. Could I ask your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether the language used by the Leader of the Opposition today towards the Secretary of State for Education—a woman who grew up in poverty on a council estate, was raised by a single mother and was on free school meals, and worked her way up to the Cabinet—is appropriate to be used in the Chamber? I ask because not only does this language contribute to hostility, it puts off women from coming into this important profession.

    Hansard source
36. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torcuil Crichton

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) on his recent win. Of course, his was not the only big win in Scotland in recent times. In Na h-Eileanan an Iar—the Western Isles—the Labour candidate Donald MacKinnon won a historic victory after 19 years of SNP neglect and complacency. What we did in Na h-Eileanan an Iar we did against the political tide: despite the polling and without the magic of Makerfield, we created a new king of the north. In short, we won because of Donald MacKinnon’s island credentials. Our local identity trumped the SNP’s artifice of a national identity. I know that we will be one Scotland tonight in Miami, but in reality, Scotland has many different communities and many different voices. A large part of our island identity over the last two generations has been the North sea. The issues that anchored the by-election in Aberdeen South were currents that ran through the Western Isles during our May election as well. The fortunes of the North sea have shaped my village in Lewis and many other communities on the west coast and in the north. It has sustained us for two generations now. It is not just the men who have made that contribution; women are effectively running single-parent families because of the two weeks on, two weeks off or three weeks on, three weeks off pattern of the North sea. The North sea has become part of our identity. Its shifts, weather and fortunes ripple through the Hebrides just as much as they do through the communities of our Doric cousins. It is not appreciated by many in this debate on the transition away from the North sea that our identity, a sense of belonging and who we are because of where we work are a big part of this. The UK is undertaking one of the greatest economic and industrial transformations of our time, from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear power. I wish the SNP Scottish Government, although apparently they now have a new industrial strategy, would show some maturity on nuclear power and recognise that it has a role in our future as oil and gas diminish. We should be clear-eyed about why we are moving out of the North sea. It is a mature and declining basin, and at the same time we face—as we do outside today—the undeniable reality of a warming planet. We have a responsibility to meet these challenges and a duty to those who will inherit the world after us to act. The transition away from the North sea and into renewables is not the same as abandonment. This Labour Government are not, and must not be, in the business of switching off the North sea. We must not allow a justifiable drive to renewables to lead us into decisions that as a nation we may later regret. There remains lots of work to be undertaken, revenues to be generated and energy to be produced in this sector. As long as this country requires oil and particularly gas, and that can be produced and processed domestically, we should carry on working in the North sea. We should make more of tiebacks, and I would like to hear about Ministers doing so. The industry knows what that means—using existing infrastructure to explore and extract extra resources from the basin—but the public do not, and I call on Ministers to make more of tiebacks.

    Hansard source
37. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Torcuil Crichton

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I hear him and I hope Ministers hear him as well. In that transition, we on the west coast and he in the Northern Isles have a privileged vantage point. We look eastwards to the North sea and the jobs and fortunes that it has provided to our islands, and we look westwards into the Atlantic and see the wealth of wind, the promise of renewable energy and the next chapter of our country’s story. The Minister knows that we in the Western Isles have the highest concentration of community-owned renewables anywhere in the UK. I believe that communities should have a big share in that new industry and in the renewables fortune. The Select Committee on Energy Security and Net Zero, of which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is a member, recently recommended that community power schemes should have priority access to the grid. Communities and councils should have the right—indeed, they already have the right; it is just that it has not been enacted—to take a 20% stake in any commercial renewables scheme in their area, onshore or offshore, and commercial wind farm companies ought to be incentivised through the planning system to see communities as partners, not just as peanut beneficiaries of their schemes. In that way, my community and those across Scotland that have earned a fortune for this country and for commercial companies in the North sea will have a share in the future and the fortune of renewable energy. Let me be clear that I support a pragmatic transition in which we utilise domestic gas production rather than importing it, and support Scottish skills and jobs as we move the workforce into renewables and elsewhere. I accept that, as the hon. Member said, there may not be a like-for-like match between existing jobs and emerging jobs. The North sea is one of the most dangerous environments to work in anywhere in the world, and the pay reflects that. But this is not just a question of pay. It is not just a question of economics, climate change or tax regimes, important as all those things are. It is just as much a question of who we are—a question of identity and belonging, and the relationship that we have with place and our place of work, which is a powerful political emotion that we should take note of. And as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said, it is not an either/or. Our task is not to choose between the two, but to manage the transition from one to the other responsibly, pragmatically and in a way that protects the country’s energy security and, crucially, ensures that we enrich the communities that have already powered this nation for two generations.

    Hansard source
38. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Tom Hayes

    Public Libraries: Bournemouth East

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of public libraries in Bournemouth East constituency. It is an honour to speak under your chairpersonship, Mr Turner. This debate is the third that I have called since my election. My first was on playgrounds all over our country; my second was on playgrounds all over my constituency. Sadly, today is not the third playgrounds debate, but just like “Back to the Future”, that trilogy will conclude. Playgrounds are a lot like libraries. They take us back to the future. They are two sides of the same coin of a healthy and happy childhood. In my constituency, many families visit Springbourne library and the play area beside it, bringing a packed lunch in the summer. That is so important for our families. Since 2008, playgrounds have been debated four times in Parliament. I have doubled the number of those debates. This is just the fifth Commons debate on libraries since 2008. When I banged the drum for playgrounds in this place, we began to make progress, with smoke-free playgrounds enshrined in law, protected playgrounds codified in planning policy and the first dedicated funds since 2008. In two years, this Labour Government have made better half the number of playgrounds made worse by Conservative Governments over 14 years. I know the positive steps that can arise when I bring my constituents’ hopes to Parliament, and I hope for the same for libraries. I wish to begin, here in Westminster, with Charminster. Charminster library, which opened on 7 January 1932 and closed on 22 December 2025, has now been padlocked for six months. I am fighting alongside Labour councillor Sharon Carr-Brown, Louise Norman, who is the secretary of the Friends of Charminster Library, and our community to reopen that library. There was a successful and packed demo there recently. In February, Labour’s plan to put £500,000 into Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole libraries was put to the administration. Every party but Labour voted against it. Now, those parties campaign to reopen Charminster library without saying how they would make the money available, although there is now £5 million in extra council tax flexibility for BCP council because of the Government’s support. Often, a fight for something entails a fight against something, but I want to be clear to my constituents that in fighting for Charminster library, fighting for library users and fighting for Bournemouth East, I am not fighting BCP council, I am not fighting the Liberal Democrats and I am not fighting their independent allies. Charminster library’s closure lies in 14 years of austerity that cannot be reversed in five minutes. The neglect that ensued was exacerbated by Conservative council leaders burning through £90 million of reserves on vanity projects. In our politics, there is so much to feel angry, feel upset and feel let down by, all at once. That is made worse by a technological revolution that puts the world’s information in the palm of our hand and simultaneously spreads fear, fake news, bile and hate. Rarely have we needed libraries, temples of reason and sanctuaries from menace like today. Another bug of modern politics is the rarely resisted urge to think only of the place, the building, the resources and the books. As any librarian or library user knows, those are but the building blocks. What matters most and is mentioned least is the people—the life force of people joining together, the hope and happiness that springs from spontaneous meetings of strangers often enough in the same shared space to form friendships and create connections. Charminster library created the space for these things to happen all at once, nearly every day: the toddler who falls in love with words before they read them aloud; the child with no computer at home who masters the technical means and enjoys a warm place to do the homework that they would otherwise have nowhere to complete; the jobseeker—in truth, the seeker of dignity and purpose—who gets on, because of the online connection, to complete their applications; the widowed pensioner living alone, with few reasons to leave the house, who will have a conversation, read a newspaper, hear laughter they would not hear at home and have a community to belong to and feel part of; the tired and nervous mum who never knew how much she needed a way to meet other new parents and learn everything that nobody teaches you when they hand you a newborn. So what is the solution? I have set countless council budgets and taken tough choices, as a councillor and deputy leader for a decade. I respect the creative councils that worked around Tory austerity rather than passively accepting the cuts, so I ask BCP council to show some vision, to grow our local economy by seeking investment and to develop the homes we need by setting out a local plan. That would not merely create the good that Bournemouth needs, but generate income so that the council can do more, rather than just protest in a passive state. That is what I did when I secured tens of millions of pounds in investment in green infrastructure and, with it, significant council developer contributions. I call on BCP council to just fight for our community. I thank my constituents who have taken the time and care to stand up for Charminster library. I want to put some of their views on the official parliamentary record. For new parents, it was clear that the library was a social lifeline. I think of Roxanne of Ashling Close, Harriet of Charminster Avenue and Helen of Mortimer Road. Helen says: “I made lifelong friends at Wriggle and Rhyme, and I was so grateful for these sessions as an isolated single mum.” I think of Victoria of Portland Road, Sarah of Richmond Wood Road and Wendy of Beatty Road. Wendy speaks for many when she says that the library “has been the hub of the local community for at least fifty years.” Carl of Brackendale Road, Iris of Meon Road and Mark of Strouden Avenue spoke about the importance of ending isolation and loneliness. Carl says: “There is too much social isolation, and losing this much-loved library will only add to it.” Stuart of Hambledon Road and Catherine of Charminster Avenue called the library “a godsend to the elderly and children” and “a place where older people get patient, free help to get online.” Charminster library is one of the last places that people can spend time without spending a penny. That was true for Vanessa of Mallard Close, Anne of Bartlett Drive, Glynis of Uplands Road and Rebecca of Chatsworth Road. Vanessa tells me: “The library services literally keep our family functional and bringing in an income. We cannot afford other types of paid childcare.” In a cost of living crisis that we seek to abate in the face of another energy price shock unleashed by President Trump’s recklessness, we need more libraries as a solution, not fewer. Charminster library sits within walking distance of six schools and hundreds of children. Denisa of Parkway Drive, Amy of Feversham Avenue and Emma of Pine Road have all written with concerns about their children. Of her daughter, Emma says: “The routine of popping in to borrow books, take part in activities and meet friends has been completely taken away. She is devastated.” Pamela of West Way, a special educational needs teacher, and George of Court Road agree. We need to think about the voices of children. A voice that I need to bring to this place is that of the schoolchild Sabong of Queen’s Park Avenue: “It is not just about books. It is also a quiet place where I can do my homework and meet my friends. We need the library back.” I was pleased to receive a letter from Lily and James of Strouden Park, who wrote to raise their concerns and say that they just want their library reopened. When a child writes to their Member of Parliament to ask for their library back, we adults need to do one thing: sit up and listen. We rightly worry about children lost to their screens. Kenelm and Amy of Bradpole Road see the library as a solution to that problem because of the role of books. Constituents also see the library as an answer to another—indeed, the opposite—problem, which is summed up by Adil of Charminster Road, who says of his childhood at the library: “I didn’t have any access to the internet or computers at home. Charminster Library let me have free internet access, borrow books, and join the reading challenge.” Olivia and Angela of Branders Lane remind us of the scale of the challenges that libraries help to overcome. Angela says that “a third of the nation are not online because of poverty, age, disability or ill health.” In all our libraries in Bournemouth, volunteer tech buddies support customers with learning how to use a computer, set up emails to apply for jobs and help with applications for a blue badge or universal credit. So many council services are now digital by default, but libraries offer a human being—a person who can support and refer citizens on. We cannot say that we will end digital exclusion and then let the buildings that fight it stay closed. A phrase ran through the letters I read: libraries matter because they offer a vital “community hub”. That much was true for Jenny of Homeside Road, Christine of the Grove, Andrew of Chatsworth Road and Gerard, who all said the same. For Christine, the library is “a children’s meeting place, an information centre, a landmark, and a treasured asset to the town.” On the theme of the beauty of the building, with which I strongly agree, David of Brackendale Road, Richard of Queen’s Park Avenue, Erik and Joanna all cared about this treasured asset. Richard describes the library as “an oasis of calm, with high ceilings and amazing light.” Nicola and Laura of Mavis Road and Bernadette of Beatty Road are among the many to celebrate the most important part of the library: the librarians. As Bernadette tells me, the staff ran four book clubs, and “whenever I visited the library, it was always well attended.” When I visited, I always had a very warm welcome. As the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I say clearly and proudly that the library is a community space that is brought to life only by the people who use the services and the people who work there, who committed years of service and who cared about each other and about their community. They deserve our thanks. I have worked closely with Councillor Sharon Carr-Brown and Louise Norman, and a plan is starting to form. A first phase of work is under way to remove the significant asbestos found in the roof space, and the hope is that with the first phase drawing to a close, we can begin to move towards the second phase. However, that does not guarantee the reopening of the library. This debate is therefore significant in keeping the pressure on and ensuring that local people feel heard. With Charminster library now closed, five libraries are open in my constituency. They have undoubtedly suffered from the worst hardships of austerity, and more than most. On the latest figures, the average total open hours per week for the six libraries was 26 hours, compared with 35 hours in England. Unsurprisingly, the most consistent issue raised in a survey that I launched after I secured the debate was limited and inconvenient opening hours, which were highlighted by Jonathan of Saint Mary’s Road, Kathy of Webster Road, Clare of Leaphill Road and Sarah of Broughton Avenue—the list went on. Elaine in Springbourne calls for more evening and weekend opening, so that working people can access services, while Lorraine of Petersfield Road and Jenny of Percy Road say clearly that opening hours do not reflect the needs of our modern society. Adjusted for inflation, spending on BCP libraries has fallen more than in England overall: by 52% since 2010, compared with 47% nationwide. Despite the challenges facing the libraries, they are strongly praised by hundreds of my constituents. Seren of Parkwood Road describes Boscombe library as “somewhere we all wanted to go and hang out.” Annette on Seafield Road highlights the same in relation to Pokesdown and Southbourne library, while Julie of Sunnylands Avenue reflects that Tuckton library is brilliant but could become even more of a community hub. Jenny on Leeson Road describes Springbourne library as a true community hub, while Isabelle on Seagrim Road highlights Castlepoint’s support and advice services. Children’s development and free family activities emerge as significant priorities. Emma of Uplands Gardens values Castlepoint library for “helping children enjoy reading and learning.” Fay of Southwood Avenue describes Pokesdown and Southbourne library as nothing less than a “lifeline” for children without access to resources at home. Tom of Bennett Road sees Springbourne library as a “warm, safe community space”, while Cathryn of Gloucester Road highlights the importance of children’s activities, alongside social connection, at Boscombe library. Emilia of Heathcote Road stresses that libraries are especially important for children and families. Alice of Seagrim Road links children’s learning directly to safe community spaces, while Victoria of Twynham Road makes the case that schools should actively encourage library use. Libraries give people access to digital inclusion and services that they would get nowhere else. Lucynda of Gladstone Road West and Jake of Boscombe Grove Road both emphasise the importance of Boscombe library’s free internet, computers and digital support, and Julie of Sunnylands Avenue highlights the role that libraries play in helping people to access training, benefits and local services. Alex of Knole Road and Jennifer of Boveridge Gardens point to the importance of libraries as places where people access practical support and information. More broadly, libraries across my constituency are seen for what they are: non-profit third spaces. Michelle lives near Castlepoint library and sees it as “a lifeline…a second home”. Catherine lives on Castlemain Avenue calls the wonderful Tuckton library “safe, welcoming, warm and free”. Emma on Gloucester Road described Pokesdown and Southbourne library as a “safe and supportive” space “for children and adults”. Emilia on Heathcote Road speaks of “free, accessible community spaces”, while Averil on Norwood Place describes her library as a peaceful centre for learning and advice. Castlepoint library will be especially busy at the moment, as it is exam season. It is an especially important space for children, particularly on Saturdays and in the summer, with there being three secondary schools, at least six primary schools, hundreds of children and many homes nearby. The Saturday morning Lego club is popular, with many families becoming friends as a side benefit of play and creativity. Emma on Uplands Gardens, Nathalie on Cecil Road and Lorraine on Petersfield Road are clear: they want more of this, and they want their libraries to reflect how communities live today. Jake on Boscombe Grove Road points to the need for play, as well as digital education services, while Tamzine on Southbourne Overcliff Drive and Katarzyna on Castle Lane West highlight an appetite for cafés, longer hours and more welcoming multi-purpose spaces. Throughout my consultation, constituents said that they want books to remain at the heart of our libraries. Rosemary on Rolls Drive says that “physical books should always be at the core”. Mary on Hengistbury Road calls for “more books and faster reservations”, while Fiona on Sparkford Close highlights the need for up-to-date fiction and bestsellers at Castlepoint library. Jill on Leydene Close similarly points to the importance of strong and varied book collections. Each library offers something different, based on the needs of the local community it serves. Boscombe library, for instance, has a large collection of books in Polish that were donated by the community. Books offer escapism, spark imagination and inspire empathy, as we jump into someone else’s world and experience it as they do. The ability to step into other people’s shoes is so critical in today’s politics, and it comes from the changing displays every month in the libraries, which highlight awareness months such as Pride Month. Sadly, the books at Charminster library are gathering dust in the year of reading. Clearly, that is unacceptable. I have named so many of my constituents who feel so disempowered, so powerless and in some cases so hopeless, because I want them to know that their fight is not in vain and that they are on the official parliamentary record for evermore. I want them to know that when they raise their voices, they will be heard by their representatives, and I want them to know that I and the Government are doing all we can to bring Charminster library back into use and to support all our libraries across Bournemouth East after 14 terrible years of austerity. On that note, I have some asks of the Minister. First, will he take back this point back to the Department and confirm that the duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 does indeed still bind BCP council? The Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to superintend the service and to make sure that councils discharge their duties, and where there is concern that a council is failing, the Secretary of State has the power to hold a local inquiry on a complaint or on the Department’s own initiative. Charminster library is a beautiful and historic building, but it has been closed for six months, because of neglect after years of poor maintenance, with the current administration voting down Labour’s library rescue plan to allocate just 10% of the extra £5 million secured from this Government in council tax flexibility on visible improvements such as upgrading our libraries. I have another request: will officials from the Department meet me and a delegation of Charminster library users to look at what an intervention could achieve? Lastly, will the new national libraries strategy directly cover buildings such as Charminster library and the gap between a council’s legal duty and the closure of libraries? I end where I began. As a new MP in 2024 without a parliamentary office in the constituency, I went into almost every library to hold my surgeries. Ever since, I have seen the work of librarians and libraries. They are absolutely fundamental to our democracy and indispensable to a thriving society. We need Charminster library to open once again. We need the lights to be turned back on and the librarians to be back doing their essential work of enriching and gluing together our community. This is my vision of the future of libraries in Bournemouth East. This is a future worth fighting for. I ask the Minister and the Government to support this vision and to back this future for the libraries of Bournemouth East and the constituents whom I am so proud to represent.

    Hansard source
39. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Steve Yemm

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I welcome this debate because it goes to the heart of two vital national priorities: tackling climate change and maintaining secure and affordable energy supplies. I support the transition to a low-carbon economy. The science is clear and the need to decarbonise and adapt is urgent, but if we are serious about delivering a just transition—as is the case with the electric vehicle mandate, which I have spoken about at length—we must be equally serious about protecting the workers and communities whose livelihoods depend on the North sea. Thousands of workers right across the UK are employed directly and indirectly in the oil and gas sector. When I talk to those workers, they are not opposed to change; they are asking a very reasonable question: what are the equivalent jobs, with equivalent pay, conditions and security, that are supposed to replace those that are being lost? At present, I do not hear a convincing answer, while, at the same time, the UK becomes more reliant on imported oil and gas. That uncertainty does not reduce demand; it simply exports jobs, economic activity and tax revenues. In an increasingly unstable world, energy security matters. It is hugely important, and recent international events have shown just how vulnerable global energy markets can be. We should be cautious about increasing our dependence on imports from countries that may have lower environmental and labour standards. That is why projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw should be considered in the contexts of jobs, industrial capacity and energy resilience alongside our climate commitments. The choice should not be between net zero and good jobs; the challenge for Government is to deliver on both of those things. That requires a clear industrial strategy, investment in new industries, a “North sea 2” vision, strong domestic supply chains and genuine job-to-job pathways for workers affected by the transition. A just transition cannot mean managed decline; it has to be planned, funded and delivered in partnership with workers and trade unions such as Unite and GMB, which have been doing great work representing their members. I urge the Government to ensure that energy security and decarbonisation go hand in hand and to demonstrate clearly how North sea workers and their communities can be protected as we make the transition to a cleaner energy future.

    Hansard source
40. 24 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Steve Yemm

    North Sea Oil and Gas

    On a point of order, Ms Furniss. In my contribution, I neglected to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular the donations that were made by Unite and GMB to my election campaign. I would like to put that on the record.

    Hansard source