Andrew Bowie MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member will recall that when the Conservative Government left office in July 2024, we had the fastest growing economy in the G7. He will also surely acknowledge that as a direct result of decisions taken by his Chancellor and his Government, growth has halved since Labour got into power. That is not a record of which he should be proud. Labour is growing the economy by far less than we had expected to grow the economy by when we left office. Surely he can acknowledge, because his name was on an amendment yesterday, that some of the decisions taken by his Government have been to the detriment of this country and its economic growth. Hon. Members should not take my word for it. Unite the Union has said that this Government have placed the oil and gas industry on a “cliff edge”. The Scotch Whisky Association said the increase in spirits duty was a “hammer blow”. The Scottish Hospitality Group called the Budget last year “a blow to businesses across the country”. The National Farmers Union of Scotland has made it clear that this Government’s decisions will cause “huge difficulties” to the agricultural sector in Scotland, because the family farms tax is devastating farms in Scotland. This is a Government who do not understand rural Scotland, and they clearly do not care to. National insurance contributions are up, increasing costs to businesses across the country. In my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, the conversations that I have had since the Chancellor’s disastrous Budget last October have revolved around reducing headcount and reducing ambition for expansion, which I know is an experience shared by just about every Member of this Parliament. With the Government’s Employment Rights Bill coming down the tracks, we will see the burden on businesses increase still further and growth shrink. Business confidence across the entire United Kingdom is falling dramatically, and that is especially the case in Scotland. This Labour Government do not understand business and they have decided not to prioritise growth or prosperity. The chief executive of Scottish Financial Enterprise was right to urge recognition that the UK Government cannot tax their way to economic growth and sustainable growth. As for the Scottish Government, the SNP has presided over 17 years of mismanagement during its tenure. Economic growth in Scotland has been consistently lower than it has been south of the border. There is no excuse. Higher income tax rates are driving away talent, there is a failure to pass on the savings from business rates, and there have been madcap schemes that undermine the UK internal market, such as the ill-conceived deposit return scheme. At every turn, the Scottish Government seek to make business in Scotland less profitable, less productive and less competitive. Now, on top of all that, we have to add the spending review from this UK Government, which, the Scottish Hospitality Group declared does “absolutely nothing” to support its sector. The Federation of Small Businesses said that the spending review “was not the business-focused day” that it had hoped for. Unite the Union said that the spending review “lacks the vision to deliver the fundamental change needed for everyday people” and that it was a “missed opportunity to lay out the funding to tackle key issues, including the energy costs crippling British industry”. It is clear that this Chancellor’s spending review does not deliver for Scots, Scotland or Scottish business. Although we welcome the Government’s commitment to defence and spending on new nuclear, it is evident that rural Scotland—aspirational Scotland—is being ignored, overlooked and left behind by the socialist Government in London and wilfully driven into the ground by a nationalist Government in Edinburgh. The Fraser of Allander Institute has described the spending review as a “rollercoaster”, with short-term boosts followed by real-terms cuts in later years. We welcome the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending. In a time of increasing uncertainty, it is essential that we have the domestic capacity, supply chain, resources and skilled personnel to defend this country. The continued investment in the Dreadnought-class submarines is essential, and I am incredibly proud that this fleet is hosted in Scotland, at HM Naval Base Clyde. Just last week I was in Rosyth, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), to see the missile tubes for the Dreadnought-class submarines and the Columbia-class submarines for the United States being constructed by the incredibly skilled workforce at that Babcock yard. This programme is expected to support thousands of jobs in Scotland. However, serious questions about defence spending remain unanswered. The Government have still not clarified whether the Chagos deal moneys will be classified as defence spending, and they have given no indication of how they will reach the 3% and now 5% commitment to defence spending overall. After yesterday’s farcical scenes, which failed to save the Government any money whatsoever, we have no idea how they will meet the commitments signed up to at NATO just last week. The oil and gas industry, which is incredibly important to my part of the country, has been let down year after year by the Scottish nationalists, who had a policy of presumption against new oil and gas. If left to the SNP Government, they would have shut down the industry yesterday—and it looks like, with the Labour party in charge, they will get their way. By increasing the energy profits levy, removing investment allowances and abolishing new exploration licences, this Government have signalled that the North sea is uninvestable and the oil and gas industry in Scotland is closed for business. This industry is vital to the economy of Scotland and the United Kingdom, with a supply chain spanning the entire country and with roots in every single constituency. But this Government’s total ignorance of the oil and gas industry and the north-east of Scotland, their incompetence on the economy and their disregard for the hundreds of thousands of workers in the North sea, as well as their dangerous ineptitude when it comes to our energy security, are deeply damaging. I turn to the trumpeted invention of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Great British Energy. I find it difficult to muster any enthusiasm or optimism. With the ongoing ambiguity over the company’s purpose and scope, the Government still cannot answer the basic question of what on earth this organisation is going to achieve, how many people it will employ and what it will do in the long run. While we welcome the announcement of an award to Rolls-Royce for the delivery of small modular reactors following the down-selection process that I proudly launched when in government, we regret deeply that the Scottish nationalists’ luddite opposition to new nuclear—to clean power and to opportunity for Scotland—means that those benefits will not be seen north of the border. There are some positive notes. Confirmation that Edinburgh University will host the UK’s most powerful supercomputer, paving the way for leadership in artificial intelligence and computing, is welcome, but this followed a delay of almost a year, after the Labour Government announced the cancellation of the project, which was unveiled by the Conservative Government just last year. Thank you, Sir John, for your patience and indulgence this morning. I, along with many Scots, am bitterly disappointed. Scotland has been let down for 17 years by a failing nationalist Government in Edinburgh, and now it is being severely let down by a Labour Government here in London as well.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir John, and I thank you for your patience and indulgence in chairing this debate. It is almost a through-the-looking-glass moment this morning, listening to the Labour party criticising the Scottish Government for their decisions and the Scottish National party representative, the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), criticising the Labour Government for the SNP’s decisions. For all of us, it has been an interesting morning after the night before. Scotland is struggling with the consequences of the Labour Government’s economic incompetence: taxes for businesses up, growth down, unemployment up and business confidence down. Scottish Financial Enterprise has warned: “The current inflationary pressures, coupled with stagnant productivity and increasing levels of tax, pose significant headwinds to business investment.” And that was before the charade—the farcical scenes—that we saw yesterday, which will inevitably mean more tax rises coming down the tracks in the autumn.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and for taking the time to speak with me on this issue earlier today. Today, hundreds of jobs are at risk, and a strategically significant asset is in jeopardy. The Lindsey oil refinery has a capacity roughly equivalent to 35% of British petrol consumption and 10% of British diesel, and it supplies aviation fuel to Heathrow airport via a pipeline. Refineries represent a core strategic interest for the United Kingdom. We are reassured that the oil and gas fields to the west of Shetland are not at risk, nor is the network of petrol stations affected by today’s announcement —I would like to reiterate that that side of the operation is not at risk. The refinery has been loss-making since it was acquired from TotalEnergies in 2021, and we are aware of long-standing financial issues with the Prax group, including its being unable to provide accounts to the Government. As such, we support the Government in ordering an investigation into the conduct of the directors and the circumstances surrounding this insolvency. However, despite the management issues facing the company, which, as the Minister has said, are multiple, it is clear that the refining industry as a whole is being driven into the ground by the high cost of energy in this country. In the late 1970s, Great Britain had 17 oil refineries; if the Lindsey refinery in the Humber closes its doors, only four will remain. Energy is the single largest cost of operating a refinery, so the sky-high cost of energy to industry in the UK is pushing manufacturers in energy-intensive industries such as refining out of business. As Sir Jim Ratcliffe at INEOS has said, the chemicals sector is “facing extinction” because of “enormously high energy prices and crippling carbon tax bills.” Industry in the United Kingdom is uncompetitive, with two oil refineries closing within six months. It is quite clear that we need a rethink. If our route to lowering emissions in the UK comes at the price of deindustrialisation, and costs jobs, livelihoods and economic growth—if it means impoverishing the UK and increasing dependence on imports, and a fragile supply chain for fuel and essential oil products—then we must rethink. If the Secretary of State brings refineries within the scope of the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme, he will be providing only a sticking-plaster response. Exempting specific industries from policy costs such as the renewables obligation, the feed-in tariffs, the contracts for difference subsidies, and capacity market payments does not fix the foundations. This piecemeal approach simultaneously accepts the devastating consequences of green levies for the industry and abdicates responsibility for fixing the root problem. We are already seeing the real impact on working people’s livelihoods and communities of not taking action. Some 400 jobs have been lost at Grangemouth; 60 have been lost at Moorcroft pottery in Stoke; over 1,000 have been lost at Vauxhall in Luton; and 250 have been lost at Nippon Electric Glass Fibre Works in Wigan. Now we see the same at the Prax Lindsey oil refinery, where 440 people are employed. Unite the union has warned the Government that their policies “have placed the oil and gas industry on a cliff edge”. This Government are driving up the cost of energy, increasing our reliance on imports, and offshoring our carbon emissions. That is not good for the climate, and it is very bad for Britain. Refineries have consistently raised the issue of the existential issues that the sector faces, including the cost of the emissions trading scheme and eye-wateringly high energy bills. Since the closure of Grangemouth, this Government have taken no action to tackle the fundamental problem: the need to reduce the burden on businesses, make UK manufacturing more competitive, and back British industry. I have some questions for the Minister. What are the Government’s plans for the Lindsey refinery? Does he expect to find an operator? How long will the Government support the refinery, and what plans do they have for the refinery if no buyer is forthcoming? What action will the Minister and his Government take to ensure that the situation is not replicated at Britain’s four remaining refineries? How many petroleum refineries does he expect to be left by the time the Labour Government leave office in 2029, and what will the Government do to bring bills down for all industrial energy consumers, not just those covered by the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Draft Nuclear Installations (Compensation for Nuclear Damage) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is an unusual experience to be in full agreement with most of what the Minister has said. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Do not get used to it. I took the Energy Act through the last Parliament, and it is under section 22 of the Act in which the amendments necessary to implement the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage are contained. Section 306 of the Act outlines the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning the CSC. The regulation before us today seeks to amend the classification of claims for compensation in respect of the convention on supplementary compensation, as set out under section 22 of the Energy Act/Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, if compensation claims, excluding CSC-only claims, reach an aggregate of €700 million from the responsible person, the appropriate authority may be required to satisfy further claims, including CSC claims up to the equivalent of the aggregate €700 million and the value of the CSC international pooled funds. For CSC-only claims, the responsible person’s liability limit is 300 million special drawing rights, after which the appropriate authority’s liability is limited to the aggregate of 300 million special drawing rights and the value of the CSC international pooled funds. Regulation 2(3)(b) will omit section 16(1ZAA) of the Nuclear Installations Act. Subsection (1ZAA) sets a financial limit on the compensation payable by a responsible person for CSC-only claims. Thereby, this regulation seeks to remove the lower liability cap for claims that relate only to the CSC, which is in place for claims arising under the convention on third-party liability in the field of nuclear energy: the Paris convention. As a result, the liability for claims under either convention is brought to €700 million. Any claim brought under the CSC, or under the CSC and the Paris convention, would have a cap on liability of €700 million plus the value of the CSC international pooled funds. As a nation seeking to build a golden age of new nuclear—not quite as golden as it might have been had the Government stuck to our plans, but a golden age none the less—and to implement a revival of civil nuclear in the UK as part of our secure, affordable, clean energy ambitions, it is incumbent on us to put in place the necessary mechanisms to ensure consistent liabilities in the event of damages. That is what the draft regulations seek to do. I am in violent agreement with the Minister on this point, and we do not oppose any of these changes today. Question put and agreed to.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In the dim and distant past, in 2023, the Secretary of State described the Rosebank oilfield as “a colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism”. Does he still agree with that?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Clean Power Industries: Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  Happy birthday, Mr Speaker, and very many happy returns. We obviously welcome new jobs when they are created, but will the Minister acknowledge the destructive impact of her Government’s policies on jobs in oil and gas in the North sea? On Friday evening in Westhill, in my constituency, I met many workers who are terrified for their future, their family and their community, because the skilled jobs in the supply chain that is maintained by oil and gas are not being replaced at the pace needed by renewables. That is due to a slowdown in offshore wind deployment and a steep decline in oil and gas activity. Will she not admit that the Government have got this dreadfully wrong?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Clean Power Industries: Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  There has been no contrition, or acknowledgement of the people losing their jobs today in this country as a direct result of the Government’s destructive policies. Some 3,000 jobs were lost in July 2024. Robert Gordon University estimates that there are 400 job losses every two weeks. Offshore Energies UK predicts that there will be 42,000 job losses unless there is significant policy change. The Just Transition Commission warns that 120,000 jobs may go by 2030, and that there is no prospect of a just transition, because the supply chain is just upping sticks and moving overseas. Will the Minister not acknowledge that this is the wrong course to take? Will she at least apologise to the men and women losing their jobs today?

• 4 Jun 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Licences: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I start by congratulating the famous Aberdeen football club—the only team in red I like to see winning—and the manager Jimmy Thelin, the players and all the coaching staff for winning their eighth Scottish cup a week and a half ago, qualifying for the Europa league in the process. The pride and jubilation on the streets of Aberdeen last Sunday show just how much the club means to the north-east of Scotland. Even more important to the north-east than Aberdeen football club is the oil and gas industry. What does the Secretary of State make of the report published by Robert Gordon University this week that warns of 400 job losses every two weeks in the North sea?

• 4 Jun 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Licences: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  To be absolutely clear, there is no transition under way. It is not the Conservative party saying that; it is the Robert Gordon University Energy Transition Institute. These mythical jobs in renewable energy simply do not exist yet. There is a slowdown in offshore wind deployment and a steep decline in offshore oil and gas activity as a direct result of Labour’s ideological policies—400 job losses every two weeks, a steep decline in skilled roles, nowhere for supply chain jobs to go but overseas, and a decline in the workforce of 25%. Why? Because of massive investor uncertainty due to negative sentiment around oil and gas as a result of the ban on licences and the EPL extension. When will the Secretary of State and the Scottish Labour party grow a backbone, stand up to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and stand up for Scotland and Scottish workers?

• 4 Jun 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Licences: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Economic Co-operation: Scotland and Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  For years, there has been under-investment in Scotland’s roads. The A9, A96, A77 and A75 are all in dire need of upgrading or dualling; work on all of them has been delayed or even cancelled by the SNP. In the spirit of improving economic co-operation between the nations of the UK, and specifically between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and given how vital the A77 and A75 are to individuals, businesses and hauliers, will the Minister seek the ringfencing of the Barnett consequentials that will arise as a result of this morning’s announcement by the Chancellor, so that the SNP must spend that money on improving roads in Scotland?

• 14 May 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: over the past decade and more, a cross-party consensus was reached in this House about the pernicious nature of modern slavery and the work we must do together to drive it out of supply chains that could be contributing to, or investing in, the United Kingdom. I think we all believe that we have to achieve that. Now that the Government have acknowledged that the mechanisms in the Bill were not up to the job, as we said at the time, I hope that we can revert to cross-party working on this incredibly important issue. The transition to clean power must be just, as we have said before and as the Minister has said many times, but it is clear that there is no justice where there is slave labour in supply chains, so we are glad that the Government have listened not just to the official Opposition, but to Members from across both Houses. However, there is a serious question: what does this mean for the clean power 2030 mission? If the route to decarbonisation relies on importing technology from China made with slave labour, surely there should be a rethink of whether that mission is conducive to good policy. We are pleased that the Minister has rowed back from the position that the Great British Energy Bill needed no extra provisions to exclude slave labour from supply chains, and have accepted an amendment that safeguards against slavery and human trafficking. While we welcome the Government’s change of heart, it would be remiss of me not to reiterate for the record that the official Opposition remain resolutely opposed to the creation of Great British Energy, which is not great, not British, and will not produce any energy. The Minister often cites my constituency in Aberdeenshire in these debates because of the location of GB Energy’s headquarters, but I say to him in all sincerity that the people and businesses of north-east Scotland do not want more government. They want government to get out of the way and let them get on with what they do best: extracting oil and gas from the North sea, keeping the lights on and homes warm in our country. Instead of wasting time on this wasteful vanity project, the Government should lift the ban on licences and work faster on replacing the energy profits levy. That would really create jobs—indeed, it would save jobs—and drive investment in Aberdeen, unlike this Bill. High industrial energy costs are pushing energy-intensive industries such as ceramics and petrochemicals overseas. The impact of those costs is real for industrial communities, and we need to see a real plan that shows that the Government understand that and will act on it. We are grateful to the Minister for heeding our calls—and, indeed, those of other right hon. and hon. Members—for provisions on slave labour to be included in the Bill, and for listening to the arguments made by Members from all Benches in both Houses. Today, we welcome a small victory, the acceptance of an amendment that seeks to prevent modern slavery in our energy supply chains. That is a positive change to the legislation—legislation that should not exist, but a positive change none the less.

• 14 May 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On 25 March, when we last debated amendments to the Bill, the Minister assured us that the mechanisms for preventing modern slavery in supply chains were adequate, and that the Procurement Act 2023 would provide adequate protection against technology that could have been manufactured using slave labour being deployed in the UK. He confirmed that in the coming weeks, he would convene cross-departmental meetings on that matter, and said that a broad strategy would be developed, through work with the solar taskforce and other Government Departments. Then we had the incredible sight of Labour MPs trooping through the Lobby, being whipped to vote against an amendment that would have prevented Great British Energy from investing in supply chains in which links to modern slavery were proven. The offshoring of our emissions, our manufacturing base and our skilled jobs is understood and acknowledged to be the result of Labour’s energy policies, but on that day, we also saw the offshoring of Labour’s moral compass. We saw its narrow-minded, ideological obsession with achieving the unachievable: clean power by 2030, at any price and any cost, delivered through solar panels made by slave labour and with coal power in the People’s Republic of China. Following all that, though, a screeching U-turn took place. Literally weeks after the Government whipped their MPs to vote against the modern slavery amendment the last time the Bill was debated, the Government conceded what we all knew to be the case—that the mechanisms cited by the Minister in this House were simply not up to the job. However, we sincerely welcome the acknowledgement that the UK must take a principled stand. The Procurement Act 2023 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 were groundbreaking when they were introduced, but it is evident that more needs to be done today to prevent goods tainted by slavery from entering UK supply chains.

• 1 May 2025 · Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries · Hansard source

  More

  Grangemouth, the Luton Vauxhall plant and now the Moorcroft pottery in Stoke-on-Trent—every single week, we hear of more job losses in energy-intensive industries and more British companies shutting up shop and laying off workers because of the toxic combination of high energy costs and this Chancellor’s devastating jobs tax. We have the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. Just this week, INEOS told us in no uncertain terms that carbon taxes and high energy costs are killing off manufacturing in the UK. This Government have been warned by Opposition Members, by the GMB this week and by Unite. This week, they were warned by none other than Tony Blair. What was their response? Advisers in No. 10 Downing Street picked up the phone and begged him to row back on what he said. They asked him to row back on what we all know to be true—what the Minister, Morgan McSweeney, apparently, and an increasing number of the Government’s own Back Benchers know to be true: the current approach to energy and net zero is doomed to fail, and voters are being asked to make financial sacrifices when they know that the impact on global emissions is minimal. That is at the heart of this madness. This Government are wilfully destroying British industry in oil and gas, ceramics, chemicals and metals when they know that it will not make a difference to global emissions. We will not use any less oil and gas; neither will we use any less steel, cement, bricks or chemicals. We will just import those things from abroad, at greater cost to our economy and the climate and with British job losses added to the bargain. As the Government are led by an ideological zealot, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and by a Prime Minister too weak to rein him in, we will continue down this path, and British workers will pay the price—in Aberdeen, in Grangemouth, in Luton, and today in Stoke. Energy is not a silo; energy costs underpin growth, prosperity, competitiveness and living standards. Without cheap energy, our industries will not survive—British manufacturers cannot remain competitive—so what will the Minister do to prevent more British jobs being lost in energy-intensive industries in this country? Will she listen to the head of Unite, who says that working-class people are losing their jobs and that this Government have no plan to replace them? Will the Government end their mad ideological plan to shut down North sea operations? What will it take for Labour Back Benchers to wake up and realise that this ideological approach is crippling this country?

• 1 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Waning!

• 30 Apr 2025 · Energy Grid Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and echo his comments; of course, the Conservatives’ thoughts are with all those affected by the blackouts in Spain, Portugal and more widely. The Minister rightly addresses concerns about the security of our grid in the context of the shutdown witnessed on the Iberian peninsula, and I am glad that he can confirm that he is carrying on implementing the recommendations from Exercise Mighty Oak, in which I was involved, on the action that would be required if such an event took place in GB. The primary responsibility of the Minister’s Department is to keep the lights on in this country. The images from Spain and Portugal are a sombre reminder of what happens when the grid fails. Extended blackouts are devastating, and it is a relief that power was restored to 99% of customers by 6 o’clock yesterday morning. The grid collapse in Iberia has demonstrated the fragility of the complex, interconnected systems that support modern life, and the very real impacts on human life of such a collapse. It is the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the same thing does not happen in Great Britain, as the price for our economy and for communities across this country would be catastrophic. We cannot get away from the fact that this Government’s plans to rush ahead to build a grid that is entirely dependent on the wind and the sun in just five years’ time will make our electricity grid significantly less reliable. The stability of our electricity grid depends on what is called inertia, which is the ability for the system to resist destabilising fluctuations in frequency. It is the reason our grid has been so secure and resilient over the decades the Minister references. This inertia is provided by turbines, like those found in nuclear, hydro or, crucially, gas power stations, but it is not provided by solar or wind farms. If the grid does not have enough inertia to resist sudden changes in frequency, it can become destabilised, and cascading grid failure can occur. That means blackouts. As the Spanish NESO said in its latest annual report, the closure of conventional generation plants, such as coal, gas and nuclear, has reduced the firm power and balancing capacities of its grid, as well as its strength and inertia. This has also happened here in Great Britain. Data from NESO shows that the inertia in our grid has been steadily decreasing over time, as gas and coal have come off the system, to be replaced by wind and solar. This comes with a hefty price tag, which is the problem with so much of the Labour Government’s approach to energy security. Their imposed targets are saddling the British people with mountains of extra costs, as the Government rush ahead towards a power system that depends on the weather, rather than on firm, reliable baseload. Tens of billions of pounds are spent subsidising wind farms, expanding the grid, and providing back-up from reliable gas plants. The Government set their 2030 target, and now they are trying to work out how they can achieve it, but they refuse to be honest with the British people. They refuse to do an open and honest assessment of the costs and risks that come with this approach. It is no wonder that even Tony Blair has said that the present policy solutions are inadequate and doomed to fail. The Conservatives believe in a system that delivers secure, affordable and clean energy for the UK. A cyber-attack has been ruled out by the Spanish Government as a cause of their grid collapse, but we know that the threat of interference from hostile states is constant. Will the Minister update the House on the action he is taking to protect the grid from hostile activity? When will he finally tell us which single Minister is responsible for the safety and security of our offshore energy infrastructure? The lessons from the incident on the Iberian Peninsula are abundantly clear. We must retain inertia in our grid to keep it stable and resilient. Nuclear power provides vital baseload power generation, along with inertia, which would have helped to mitigate a cascading failure like the one earlier this week. Will the Minister give the nuclear industry the certainty that it is asking for, and commit to 24 GW of nuclear power, as the previous Government did? Will he ask NESO to provide this House with a full, transparent update on the role of inertia in our power system, on the consequences of declining inertia, on the impact that has on grid stability, and on the costs associated with it? Finally, the Minister has said that Great Britain has never experienced a complete shutdown such as that seen on the continent. What assurances can he offer this House that work is being undertaken, so that NESO and the National Grid are prepared for a black start, if ever that is needed?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Energy Grid Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Not even the foreword!

• 29 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Voters “feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices…when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal… Present policy solutions are inadequate and…therefore unworkable… The current approach isn’t working… Any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.” Does the Secretary of State agree with his former boss Tony Blair?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  To be honest, I was looking forward to hearing what I said a few weeks ago, Mr Speaker. It is okay for the Secretary of State to admit when he is wrong. As Tony Blair said yesterday, this strategy is “doomed to fail.” Why can the Secretary of State not see what the GMB and Tony Blair see, which is that clean power 2030 is doomed to fail and it is time for a change of approach?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Great British Energy · Hansard source

  More

  When GB Energy was first proposed, we were told it would employ 1,000 people and create 650,000 jobs. Fast-forward to February this year and that number has been revised down to 200 to 300, with a vague commitment to 1,000 at some point in the next 20 years. As the general secretary of the GMB said yesterday, “they are going to open a shiny new office…on a high street full of charity shops because they are closing” the city of Aberdeen down. GB Energy is a white elephant. If the GMB can see it, why cannot the Minister? Surely he agrees that the way to deliver jobs, growth and energy security and to protect communities such as Aberdeen is to lift the ban on licences, replace the energy profits levy as soon as possible and declare the North sea open for business.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am always delighted to give way to my constituency neighbour.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Michael Gove, soon to be Lord Gove of Torry, is answerable for his own opinions on whether immigration powers should be devolved to Scotland. I would not be in any way surprised if his views on that issue have changed, as indeed have his views on certain other issues over the years. First, we should not enable regional immigration policies within the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is absolutely no case for a special immigration policy for Scotland outwith the United Kingdom’s legislative framework. Thirdly, the Scottish Government under the SNP over the past 18 years have demonstrated an unparalleled and unprecedented level of incompetence, which ought to preclude consideration of granting greater powers over, frankly, anything. We all know that there is such a thing as Scottish exceptionalism. The only exceptionalism that the Scottish Government have demonstrated is an exceptional reverse Midas touch to almost every single area over which they have responsibility, whether it is education, health or transport infrastructure. I could go on.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Goodness me—talk about taking responsibility! It was only a few weeks ago that the SNP’s Education Minister refused to take any responsibility for the situation facing higher education in Scotland and claimed that there is no direct link with the failed funding model on which Scottish universities rely north of the border. That model has made them far too reliant on foreign students paying exorbitant fees to keep their doors open, rather than being funded properly from the Scottish Government’s own budget. SNP Members have failed to mention that. When they talk about immigration in the context of higher education, they always fail to mention that the funding model designed by the Scottish National party has obliged our higher education institutions to be so reliant on stratospheric fees to keep the doors open and keep research going. No contrition and no responsibility—that is the Scottish National party.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are far better when we work together on these islands than when we drive each other apart. The Scottish National party’s model for higher education in Scotland has been nothing short of a failure. Disadvantaged teenagers are less likely to get into university in Scotland than their peers south of the border. The Scottish National party is failing the least well-off in society, blocking social mobility through the transformative power of education.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very happy to talk about our record on higher education and compare it with the Scottish National party’s. It is a fact that someone from a deprived background in England is more likely to get into university than someone from a similar background in Scotland. That is a record of which the Scottish National party should be ashamed. There are fewer opportunities for Scottish students to get into world-leading Scottish higher education institutions than before the Scottish National party came into office. The SNP cannot admit that its funding model has failed, although the University and College Union in Scotland has said so and has repeatedly called on the Scottish Government to address the decline in Scottish university funding. If the hon. Gentleman acknowledges and apologises for the Scottish Government’s failures, I might then engage in a debate about whether we should look at an immigration system that does more for Scottish higher education.