Ed Miliband HUMILIATED in Fiery Commons Showdown Over DISASTROUS Net Zero Costs #ukpolitics #uknews

追加: 2026-05-25

[00:00:00]In fact, this may be our last meeting across this dispatch box because the Secretary of State is once again on maneuvers.

[00:00:08]So, considering he's gunning for a promotion, let's review his record, shall we?

[00:00:13]He promised in the election that he would cut everybody's energy bills by £300.

[00:00:19]And what's he delivered? Energy bills up by £200 thanks to his plans.

[00:00:25]He said he would protect pensioners, but weeks into office he axed the winter fuel payment, a policy that many of them have cited as their worst political decision in power.

[00:00:36]He promised that Great British Energy would lead to, and I quote, a mind-blowing reduction in bills. And yet, 2 years in, it hasn't taken a penny of household bills, but it has given a six-figure salary to one of his mates.

[00:00:52]And now we learn that Great British Energy has been putting solar panels made by Chinese slave labor on British primary schools, something he promised this house he would not do.

[00:01:04]So, what's next?

[00:01:06]Oh, that's right. He said he could control the price of wind, but his botched wind auction signed us up to the highest prices in a decade, way more than the cost of electricity that he inherited. A senior opposition leader delivered a fierce attack on the government's energy policies during a heated parliamentary debate, arguing that ministers had completely failed to deliver on the promises they made to the public before the election. The speaker claimed that the government had repeatedly assured voters that energy bills would fall dramatically, pensioners would be protected, and Britain would become more energy independent. Yet, according to the criticism presented in Parliament, promise after broken promise. Bills up, pensioners betrayed, six-figure salaries for his mates, and eye-watering contracts for wind developers.

[00:01:54]And now, to top it all off, a so-called energy independence bill, which would shut down the North Sea.

[00:02:02]The greatest act of industrial self-harm in a generation.

[00:02:07]If that what what gets you a promotion in the Labour Party, then Lord help us all.

[00:02:13]So let's turn to this so-called energy independence bill.

[00:02:17]For true energy independence, we need our own oil and gas. But this bill enforces the willful destruction of the North Sea.

[00:02:27]We need our own petrol, diesel I will in a moment. We need our own petrol, diesel, and jet fuel, but this bill does nothing to save our refineries, which are being taxed into oblivion.

[00:02:38]We need an electricity system which keeps the lights on for British households and industry, but his plan will leave us at the mercy of foreign imports. This isn't independence. It doesn't even come close. It's an energy dependence bill that would leave us weaker, poorer, and more reliant on foreign The exact opposite had happened.

[00:02:57]Energy prices were described as rising sharply, while pensioners had allegedly been abandoned through cuts to winter fuel support. The speech also accused the government of rewarding political allies with highly paid positions, while ordinary families continued struggling with the cost of living. regimes.

[00:03:14]I'm grateful to have all giving way. Um she says that for energy independence we need our own oil and gas rather than investing in renewables. She'll know that under her government the government paid 44 billion pounds to subsidize our energy during the time of the Ukraine price spike. Can she tell us how much were our bills reduced as a result of having our own oil and gas when the Ukraine crisis happened?

[00:03:40]Firstly, let me say to the honorable gentleman, bills came down 500 pounds under me. They've gone up 200 pounds because of the Secretary of State's plan. And let me tell him another hard truth.

[00:03:50]Cutting off production in the North Sea, he should listen to this, he might learn something. Cutting off production in the Northsea doesn't mean we use any The opposition figure argued that the government's flagship energy projects had not lowered household bills and instead created expensive long-term commitments that would place even more financial pressure on British taxpayers in the future.

[00:04:11]The debate then shifted toward Britain's oil and gas industry, particularly the future of the North Sea.

[00:04:16]>> less oil and gas. Production is not linked to consumption. All that it means is that we'll import more of that gas from abroad. That is weaker. That makes us more reliant on imports. Now, he he used up his chance. He should have asked a better question. Now, look.

[00:04:34]There are some parts of this work that I welcome. The Fingleton review is impressive. I thank those involved and as I've made clear before, we will support this work going forward. Nuclear is the only form of energy that can provide round-the-clock totally clean power and I'll always support policies which make it as easy as possible to build. However, there is a catch. The Secretary of State says he wants to ease nuclear regulations whilst at the very same time he's canceled the project that they would be used upon. By canceling the third large-scale nuclear power station that I signed off, he has killed the nuclear pipeline. He's repeating his own mistakes.

[00:05:16]The speaker argued that shutting down domestic oil and gas production would not reduce Britain's need for energy because the country would still consume large amounts of fuel regardless of government policy. Instead, the claim was made that Britain would simply import more oil and gas from overseas nations, making the country weaker and more dependent on foreign supply. We are set to have yet another Labour government which has failed to start a singular new new large-scale nuclear power plant. And now This here Natural England are adding yet more delays to Hinkley Point C for little environmental gain. Is he fighting it? No, he's defending the status quo.

[00:05:57]But by the end of this Parliament, we'll still be waiting for a decision as to whether SMRs will go ahead. By 2030, there'll be less nuclear online than there is now. And in 2035, which is 10 years away, they still won't have started any new large-scale nuclear power plants in this country. This is the same old stop-start approach that killed the industry to begin with. If that's what he calls being ambitious for nuclear, he needs to give his head a wobble.

[00:06:30]I thank I thank the honorable lady for giving way.

[00:06:33]>> wires. According to the argument presented, this would leave Britain relying heavily on countries such as Norway, Qatar, and the United States while damaging domestic jobs, tax revenues, and entire industrial supply chains connected to the North Sea sector. The opposition also accused the government of pursuing ideological climate policies without properly considering the economic consequences for British workers and industries. Uh uh in my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale, we have Heysham one and two power plants. The reason that nuclear power will possibly go down is because plants are coming to the end of their lives.

[00:07:06]Plants coming to the end of their lives, and your and the honorable right honorable lady's government did nothing about it for 14 years.

[00:07:15]Why did she not deliver, Madam Deputy Speaker, when she was in government?

[00:07:21]Well, look, let me tell the honorable lady, under the last Labour government, which the energy secretary was part of, not a single Please explain. Not a single Not a single new nuclear power plant was started. So, when we came into power in 2015, when we got control of the energy brief, there was one nuclear welder left in the country. It is the stop-start approach which kills the nuclear industry. And here's the problem. They have killed the pipeline. Again, these are the same old mistakes. And that is why I'm raising them because we're Throughout the speech, nuclear power was presented as one of the few areas where there could have been agreement between both sides. The speaker praised nuclear energy as a reliable source of clean electricity capable of supplying constant power to homes and businesses.

[00:08:11]However, the government was accused of talking about nuclear expansion while simultaneously canceling or delaying major nuclear projects that were necessary to keep the industry alive.

[00:08:20]>> getting into the same trouble again.

[00:08:23]Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, he says they weren't mistakes. It wasn't a mistake not to start a single new nuclear power plant. That's what he thinks on the record. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, onto the North Sea.

[00:08:34]Andy Burnham, who is hoping to be Labour leader, talked yesterday about re-industrialization.

[00:08:40]But meanwhile today, the Secretary of State is asking his backbenchers to vote to shut down the North Sea. This is the single greatest act of industrial self-harm we have seen in a generation.

[00:08:54]Only a complete wacko would respond to a supply shortage by shutting down their own oil and gas industry. We are in the absurd position of the Labour Chancellor thanking Canada and Norway for increasing their oil and gas production while her own government is shutting British production down. And why? So we can be more reliant on higher emission gas from According to the criticism, Britain had suffered for decades from a stop-start approach to nuclear investment, leading to shortages of skilled workers and uncertainty for companies involved in the sector. The speech argued that current government policies would result in fewer operational nuclear plants in in coming years rather than more, undermining claims that ministers were serious about achieving long-term energy security.

[00:09:41]Qatar or the US. So, we can send billions of pounds to Norway to import gas from the very same basin that we could be drilling ourselves.

[00:09:50]>> Yes.

[00:09:50]And they're calling this energy independence. Have they lost their minds?

[00:09:56]I'll happily give way on that point.

[00:09:58]Very grateful to the right honorable lady. She talks of absurd positions. I did a little bit of research before the speech today. I went back to the 21st of May, 2024, just before the last general election. And in this house, in her capacity then as the Secretary of State, she said that she believed in net zero and that we will get there in 2050 and with the public on our side. Her position now is that she doesn't believe in net zero, doesn't believe it's desirable or achievable. Is that not absurd?

[00:10:27]Madam Deputy Speaker, people change their minds when they look at facts.

[00:10:32]I'm not You know, I'm not hiding this.

[00:10:34]I'm not hiding from this.

[00:10:35]>> It seems like you're thinking for yourself, though. I think the honorable gentleman needs to look at the The argument became even more aggressive when discussing net zero climate targets. The opposition figure openly admitted that their own views on climate policy had changed over time after reviewing economic realities and energy costs. They argued that Britain should not impoverish itself in pursuit of climate goals while major global competitors continued expanding fossil fuel production. The record of things I said in government The key thing, the first thing I said when I went into position is we cannot impoverish ourselves in the name of net zero.

[00:11:10]>> Exactly right. You know, I started true costing of renewables in department because we didn't have a proper costing of energy. Who cancels that work? The Secretary of State. I backed the North Sea. I signed off Rosebank. I legislated to protect those North Sea licenses.

[00:11:26]Who is turning all of that around? The Secretary of State. And we all know we all know the real reason that he's doing it. He's shutting down British oil and gas to show climate leadership. He put that in the King's speech. Let's be crystal clear though. What he's saying is that he's willing to turn his back on British industry even though we won't need any less. We'll just rely on higher emission imports from abroad because he cares more about the climate bureaucrats than the jobs of British workers. That is what climate leadership means to him.

[00:12:02]But the question I would ask The government was accused of sacrificing British industry in order to appear environmentally virtuous on the international stage. According to the speech, policies aimed at shutting down domestic production would not reduce global emissions because manufacturing and energy generation would simply move abroad to countries with weaker environmental standards and higher pollution levels.

[00:12:24]Is where exactly is this meant to be leading us to? Bankruptcy? Where does it end? Cheering as the lights go out as the last factory in Britain closes.

[00:12:34]That's what his North Sea and carbon tax policies are doing. They are simply offshoring British emissions to the coal-powered refineries of India, the diesel tankers bringing us gas from the US and Qatar, to the factories we are now getting our ammonia from in Trinidad. That doesn't help the climate and it doesn't help British workers. I could wait for the honorable lady. Thank you. I I thank my right honorable friend for giving way. And businesses in Bognor Regis and need stable and affordable energy to grow and invest. So would she agree that with our Get Britain Drilling Bill is vital not just for energy security but for our future economic security?

[00:13:21]I thank the honorable lady for her question. The North Sea >> Speaker described this as exporting British jobs and importing foreign emissions, claiming that ordinary workers would pay the price through factory closures, rising unemployment, and expensive electricity.

[00:13:35]Another major focus of the speech was economic growth. The opposition argued that affordable and abundant energy was the foundation of every successful industrial economy and warned that Britain was moving toward energy scarcity instead. Ministers were accused of maintaining high carbon taxes, discouraging >> vital part of our industry. It not only provides us with the gas that we need for energy security, but it provides feedstock that that feeds into our chemical industry, our plastic industry.

[00:14:02]There's a whole supply chain, a whole set of other industries which rely on the North Sea and us having a successful industrial base. You lose one of those I'll just make a bit more progress. You lose one of those foundational industries and it's like dominoes, the rest go. And this is the point. If we keep offshoring British emissions, it doesn't help the climate and it doesn't help British workers. And the question I would ask them is do they understand how bad it looks when they make speeches patting themselves on the back here in Westminster whilst hard-working Brits out there lose their jobs so we can import more goods with higher emissions from abroad.

[00:14:42]That's why the vote on the North Sea today should be a litmus test for them.

[00:14:48]Do they reject decarbonization investment, increasing regulation, and making it harder for businesses to compete internationally. The speaker claimed these policies were already leading to higher inflation, slower economic growth, and rising unemployment. According to the argument presented, governments across Europe were facing similar problems because they had adopted energy strategies that weakened domestic industry while increasing dependence on imported electricity and fuel.