What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the middle east conflict on energy security.

The UK benefits from a strong and diverse energy supply, with only 1% of our crude oil and gas coming from the Gulf, but the essential lesson of this conflict is that while we are dependent on fossil fuel markets, we are exposed as a country, because prices for oil and gas, wherever it comes from, are set on the international market, affecting families and businesses. For our energy security, the answer must be to go further and faster towards home-grown clean power that we control.

Our energy security is so exposed to events in the middle east because we have relied on oil and gas for too long. Not only do fossil fuels cause climate change, but we buy them on the open market, so no further drilling in the North sea would help to mitigate prices. The only true path to energy security is through renewables and nuclear, so can the Secretary of State set out how this country will do that, so that in future energy crises our country’s security is less exposed?

The North sea will continue to play an important role in our energy mix for decades to come, which is why we said in our manifesto that we will keep existing oil and gas fields open for their lifetime, including, as we announced last autumn, the use of so-called tiebacks. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the wider point he makes. That is why we have the largest nuclear building programme in half a century, it is why we have had two record-breaking renewables auctions, and it is why we recently announced that we will bring forward our next renewables auction to July, because we need to get away from our dependence on fossil fuel markets as soon as possible.

Given the recent jump in the price of oil, would it not be good for the UK economy, jobs and the Government’s tax receipts to maximise drilling for North sea oil, as Norway does, rather than phasing it out and closing those sites down because of this Government’s, and in particular the Secretary of State’s, left-wing dogma?

I disagree with the right hon. Lady on that one. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend Chris Murray, we are going to use existing North sea oil and gas fields for their lifetime. I think the right hon. Lady is referring to the question of exploration licences. What everybody says is that exploration licences make no material difference to production levels. On the tax question, I hope she will carry on supporting the windfall tax and will tell her Front Benchers that this would be the wrong time to abolish it.

I do not think I have ever been called an extreme left winger, but there is always a first time. In rural and coastal Britain there is deep worry among families about the effect of the conflict in the middle east on oil prices. We welcome the £53 million that has been announced to support them, but does the Secretary of State agree that those calling for an expansion of our reliance on oil and gas wholesale prices offer absolutely no long-term solution to energy security?

My hon. Friend is right. Those people offer no short-term or long-term solution to the problems of energy security, and they want to fly in the face of all the evidence. As I have said before, it was the last Government who said that more UK production of North sea oil and gas would make no difference to the global price of gas, and it is important that the House understands that.

The Secretary of State has just misled the House—inadvertently, I am sure. Can he explain why the price of gas in the United States is about a third of the price of gas in the UK? It is because the Americans use it domestically, is it not?

No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to alternative facts. What the last Government said, what this Government said and what every sensible economist says about more production is that his idea of more drilling—“drill every last drop,” or “drill, baby, drill”— would be precisely the wrong thing for our country because it will make no difference to the price. The answer is home-grown clean renewables that we control.

I call the Shadow Minister.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

“In the face of further geopolitical turmoil, now is the time to alter our approach to energy… Drilling in the North Sea and scrapping carbon taxes on British manufacturing would kickstart economic growth, tackle unemployment…as well as prevent further deindustrialisation.”

Does the Secretary of State agree with those comments from the Labour Member of Parliament, Henry Tufnell?

This party and this Government are taking a pragmatic approach to these issues. We are using existing oil and gas fields for their lifetime, including with tiebacks, which is welcomed by industry, but we are not going to fly in the face of the evidence. The answer to a fossil fuels crisis is not to double down on fossil fuels, but to double down on clean home-grown power that we control. The Conservatives used to believe that, before they jumped on another bandwagon.

This is extraordinary—mad, even. No other country on Earth would deprive itself of the vast natural resource we are lucky enough to have at our disposal underneath the North sea. The Jackdaw field alone could provide 250 million barrels of oil equivalent in natural gas to the UK, and it could be up and running by Christmas, but because of the Secretary of State it is stuck in limbo. It is utter insanity. His inaction is an act of national economic self-harm. When will he make a decision and act in the national interest?

Before the hon. Gentleman self-combusts, let me tell him that, as a result of the court decision, those projects are proceeding at risk. I will tell him the way we will make a decision. I am not going to comment on a live planning issue, but I will say in general that we will make a decision that is legally watertight. The last Government made a series of decisions that were found—[Interruption.] Conservative Members say “No, no”, but they do not care about the rule of law. We saw that when they said that we should rush headlong into a war with no regard for the impacts on our constituents.