Andrew Bowie MP: speeches

375 published records · newest first.

Speeches

25 Feb 2026 · Energy Profits Levy: Gas Sector · Hansard source
More
Mr Speaker, “I would have preferred that Europe could make do with green energy, but the reality is different, and I fundamentally believe that it is better for Europe to get gas from Denmark than from countries outside our continent.” Those are the words of the Danish Energy Minister—a Minister in a Government looking to extend licences in that country. The Danes can see what is blindingly obvious: we will continue to have a demand for oil and gas for many years, and it is better that we use our own to support our own economy, support our own workers and support the existing industry that will invest in the future. Who does the Secretary of State agree with—the Danish Energy Minister, the head of GB Energy, Scottish Renewables, the trade unions and everyone else, or his colleague the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero?
25 Feb 2026 · Energy Profits Levy: Gas Sector · Hansard source
More
The Secretary of State talks about global markets. Supporting the Scottish oil and gas industry supports 90 times more jobs than imports. Supporting the oil and gas industry yields 150 times more income tax and national insurance revenue than imports. Supporting the Scottish oil and gas industry delivers 400 times more oil and gas company taxes than imports, and supporting the Scottish oil and gas industry has a gross value added of £96 million for the UK, compared with zero from imports. Everyone else understands it. Will the Secretary of State please explain to everyone in the country what on earth the Government are playing at?
25 Feb 2026 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source
More
Given that the Secretary of State still expects us to believe that the Prime Minister has faith in Anas Sarwar’s judgment, it is quite clear that the Labour party can still have a laugh—although it does seem to have an aversion to having fun. Why else would it be waging a war against Scottish pubs? Just like Scottish Labour’s election campaign, the sector in Scotland is hanging by a thread. Last year, one pub in Scotland closed every single week. But it is not just pubs: cafés, restaurants and chip shops all face the same. Will he and his Scottish Labour colleagues join Russell Findlay and the Scottish Conservatives in our call for pubs and hospitality businesses to be exempt from business rates rises this year, and will he do what he can to ensure that his Government stand up for Scottish hospitality? That would surely be something to raise a glass to.
10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source
More
I also put on the record my thanks to the Committee and the role that it played in providing scrutiny to the draft statutory instrument before us today. The Minister has not explained why there are so few Scottish Labour MPs in the room this afternoon—the question I asked at the very beginning and thrice in my comments. It cannot be that, aside from the hon. Member for Glasgow West and the Minister, there is a lack of interest in this SI, given the important implications of the Bill and how law is delivered in Scotland—so might the Minister provide an explanation?
10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source
More
The Minister is being very generous with her time. As she referenced, I have been through numerous Committees with Conservative and Labour Ministers. It has never been the case that all but one of the Members on the Government Benches have been from outside Scotland. We are considering amendments to the Scotland Act 1998. Surely she does not expect us to believe that the 35 Scottish Labour MPs are so busy that they could not find time to come along to debate this important issue before us today.
10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I must start by saying that it is rather odd to rise in a Delegated Legislation Committee pertaining to an order that is significant to the functioning of the devolution settlement and that will affect constituents of mine, as well as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Gordon and Buchan and for Dumfries and Galloway, and to see such a lack of attendance from Scottish Labour MPs, with the notable exceptions of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), who is here in her capacity as the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee but cannot vote on the order. I was planning to begin my contribution by asking why the Government had not taken up the advice of the Scottish Affairs Committee to have this debate on the Floor of the House. I wonder whether we can read into the absence of Scottish Labour MPs, and even the Scotland Office Whip, some lack of support for the Government’s decision and a worry from the Government about getting the order through. It speaks to a lack of respect for Scots, who will be affected by this change, that a Government with 37 Members of Parliament representing constituencies north of the border could not muster more than one to sit on this incredibly significant Committee. Even in the Conservatives’ diminished capacity in the previous Parliament, when we had only six MPs on the Government side from north of the border, we would have been able to muster more than one to sit on the Back Benches of such an important Committee, considering changes to legislation that will have a direct impact on the lives of Scots. I wonder whether the Government might think about what that represents and how it looks to many Scots who will be wondering where their representatives are, given that the draft order pertains directly to their lives and how we move forward on the important issue of legislating for and regulating assisted dying in this United Kingdom. That is a question for the Government to examine their conscience on. As you said, Mr Twigg, this is not a debate about the merits of the assisted dying Bill being considered by colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, nor indeed of the Bill going through its stages in the other place here in the Palace of Westminster. There will be strong, impassioned views on both sides of the wider debate, but the progress of the Member’s Bill in Holyrood is a matter for our Members of the Scottish Parliament. It is a conscience issue for those in my party and others. The matter before us is not the political context of the draft instrument, but the modification order itself—its competence, the precedent it establishes and its consequences. I must say that His Majesty’s Opposition have grave concerns about the implications of this instrument. The order invokes the powers granted under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 to alter the devolution settlement, granting the Scottish Parliament new powers to legislate on medicines, medical supplies and poisons, which would otherwise be a reserved competence. Let us be clear: this is a novel and in some ways unprecedented circumstance. Use of that mechanism to amend the devolution settlement is rare. The last application was in 2012, enabling the Scottish Government to hold the 2014 independence referendum. That came about as a result of months of discussion, ending in the Edinburgh agreement signed by both the Scottish and the British Governments. The draft order, however, is unprecedented in so far as it makes provisions to enable the consideration of legislation that is not sponsored by the Scottish Government, but a Member’s Bill. The assisted dying Bill under consideration in the Scottish Parliament would, under clause 15, give Scottish Ministers the power to specify the drugs or medication to be used to assist a patient to die. As matters stand, that is within the reserved competence of medicines, medical supplies and poisons. The Member’s Bill under discussion in the Scottish Parliament requires clarity on that issue and a raft of other reserved competences, and it is entirely unclear how the Government intend to resolve them, hence the attempt with this modification order to tread a middle ground with a time-limited provision, as the Minister set out. Clearly, the issue of the regulation of medicines is integral to the MSPs’ consideration of the debate on assisted dying. This draft legislation, however, seems to be a leap ahead into a hypothetical position. It lays the foundations for the implementation of a Bill that the Scottish Government and the UK Government are neutral on. The Member’s Bill is not Government-sponsored legislation and, given that the assisted dying Bill is still under way in the Scottish Parliament and further steps remain required if that Bill is to sit within the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence, it seems a strange sequencing of events pre-emptively to order the limited devolution of such powers to provide for the circumstances were the Bill to pass in Scotland.
10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Lady give way?
10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source
More
We hold issue with the hypothetical nature of the draft order. Were the Bill to pass, it should then be for the UK Government to determine how we facilitate the devolution of such powers, so as to make it legal and competent within the Scottish Government’s purview. I do not think, however, that the right step is pre-emptively to devolve power ahead of a Bill being passed. That, I am afraid, runs the risk of setting a dangerous precedent for other issues and items, which may come about as a result of the Members’ Bill process in the Scottish Parliament—not least, perhaps, around issues pertaining to the constitution, which I am sure the hon. Member was not referring to in any way. On accountability, proposed new paragraph 4A(1) in article 2 of the draft order outlines the scenario in which powers can be conferred on Scottish Ministers to use subordinate legislation to identify the relevant medicines, medical supplies and poisons, subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Proposed new sub-paragraph (2) provides for the conferral of power to the Secretary of State for the regulation of such medicines. In either case, the Secretary of State retains a veto power over the regulation of medicines. The Scottish Government would not truly be accountable for the implementation, and the Secretary of State does not directly influence Scottish Parliament Bills. I understand the Minister’s argument regarding the coherent regulation of substances across the United Kingdom, and the implications for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, but does she foresee any incompatibility between the consistent regulation of substances across the UK and the effective implementation of any assisted dying subordinate legislation that would identify medicines to be used for that purpose? Section 30 orders have never previously been used to confer powers directly on a British Government Minister. The precedent the order establishes is one of piecemeal devolution and disintegration. Furthermore, the veto power conferred on the Secretary of State, and the resultant confusion in terms of authority and accountability, is an unprecedented power-sharing lay-out, representing a departure from the constitutional norm we have had since 1999. The Opposition are absolutely not against the sovereign Government of the United Kingdom taking an increasingly active and interested role in the governance of Scotland, but this is not the mechanism nor the way to go about having the conversation. Indeed, it is yet another reason why this debate should be taking place on the Floor of the House and not in a Committee Room at 2.30 pm on a busy afternoon, with no Scottish representation—bar one. Moreover, the limited approach does not resolve remaining inconsistencies that we would face should the Scottish Parliament’s assisted dying Bill pass—for example, the regulation of medical professions, and employment and industrial relations. There are significant concerns over the mechanisms that might be invoked to remedy the remaining competency challenges, namely through the section 104 order. The legislation poses a question that goes to the heart of issues surrounding devolution and Scottish Parliament competence. While we have consensus across the House that the issue of conscience regarding assisted dying in Scotland is now one for the MSPs in Holyrood to decide on, I cannot help but reflect on the truly disjointed situation the United Kingdom may land in if the Bill is passed in Scotland while defeated in England and Wales. What will the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues do in that situation? On that point, how does the Minister intend to preserve unity in the medical profession across the United Kingdom? How does she intend to preserve uniformity for those who conscientiously object within the medical profession more broadly? What was the reasoning behind selecting a section 30 order over a section 63 order? Does she have any concerns regarding the use of a section 104 order to resolve the remaining litany of inconsistencies that are not broached in this modification order? The Opposition will be voting against this mechanism today for the reasons I have set out. I must once again put on record my dissatisfaction—and that of the official Opposition—that this incredibly sensitive and significant debate is taking place with very little interest or representation from Scottish Labour MPs, and is not being given time on the Floor of the House.
10 Feb 2026 · Small Modular Nuclear Reactors: Jobs · Hansard source
More
It is unusual—indeed, unheard of, in recent months anyway—for the Secretary of State and I to agree on anything on energy policy, but it is probably not the first time this week that he secretly agrees with a Scottish politician. I know he agrees that new nuclear, particularly SMRs, offer huge potential for the UK and for Scotland. This week, Trade Unionists for Safe Nuclear Energy launched a petition addressed to the First Minister of Scotland, calling on him to lift the ban on new nuclear development in Scotland. Can that group expect the Department’s support?
10 Feb 2026 · Small Modular Nuclear Reactors: Jobs · Hansard source
More
The difference is that this Secretary of State’s ambition for nuclear pales in comparison with our ambition when we were in government. When I served as the Minister for nuclear, it was a source of the greatest frustration that, despite the many countless—indeed, huge—strides we took to kick-start the new nuclear age in the UK, none of the investment or the jobs would be seen north of the border. The Scottish National party is most at home refighting the battles of the past—they tend to be the battles of the 14th century—but in this age of nuclear revolution across the world, the aversion to nuclear is inexplicable. It is a luddite approach. The SNP is anti-science, anti-progress and anti-jobs. There can and should be a future for nuclear in Scotland. Does the Secretary State not agree that this is the time for the SNP Government to drag themselves into, and to move Scotland into, the 20th century—let alone the 21st century—change course and lift this ridiculous ban?
3 Feb 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 · Hansard source
More
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Jeremy. The draft order affects the implementation of the UK emissions trading scheme, which replaced our participation in the EU ETS from 2021. As the Minister set out, the scheme was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020. In the draft order, the Department seeks to expand the scope of the UK ETS in line with the Secretary of State’s net zero agenda. We saw just last week an instrument brought with the effect of reducing the free allowances under the scheme, increasing the carbon tax on industry from 2027 onward. The increasing cost on industry per tonne of greenhouse gas emitted is a burden that weighs on the UK’s industrial competitiveness. Food manufacturers, oil refineries, power stations and more are all subject to this framework. As the levy on emissions increases, naturally prices paid by end consumers are also driven up. That is why we have said that when we are re-elected to Government in three years’ time, we will repeal the ETS framework and begin to undo the great damage to Britain’s industrial base being done by the actions of this Government. We only hope that it will not be too late. The draft order requires maritime operators to participate in the scheme, enacting a requirement on ship operators to produce an emissions monitoring plan. The nominal purpose of this extension is to encourage decarbonisation in the maritime sector, which is a laudable aim—not that it will have any impact on global maritime emissions, given the fact that the USA, China, India and others have no plans to curb their emissions in the maritime sector. As a result, this mechanism will actually function purely as a carbon tax. To pretend otherwise would be this Government at their absolute abject worst. This is not a mechanism to decarbonise; it is a pernicious tax being levied on one of our most successful industries. Access to alternative fuels is not sufficient to decarbonise at the level required by the scheme. The infrastructure that the UK maritime industry requires to transition to low carbon simply does not exist at the scale that will be required. Worse, the industry is expected to comply in three months’ time, while still awaiting guidance to be published on how they can implement it. Even for this Government, that is either incompetence of the highest order, a deliberate attempt to squeeze a hard-pressed industry even more to make up for the shortfall in Treasury receipts as businesses and individuals up sticks and get out of the United Kingdom. The Department’s own impact assessment quotes an £85 million cost to British business as a result of this mechanism and we have not even turned to the burden that this mechanism is going to place on operators. This emissions monitoring plan represents a ridiculously onerous administrative burden on maritime businesses. Article 18 of the order details the facts to be logged on each voyage for ships completing fewer than 300 voyages per year, including: “(a) port of departure; (b) date and hour of departure; (c) port of arrival; (d) date and hour of arrival; (e) total amount of each type of fuel consumed; (f) emission factor for each type of fuel consumed; (g) amount of each greenhouse gas emitted.” The burden then falls on the maritime operator to produce a risk assessment to identify potential sources of error in data flows. I recite that content only to illustrate the extent of the burden that this regulation imposes on the sector. This instrument extends the ETS burden to the UK shipping industry to the tune of £175 million in administrative costs alone. That is utterly absurd. This is without doubt one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen come before us in three Parliaments and nine years on Government Front and Back Benches and now in opposition. For every £1 spent on decarbonisation as a result of the framework, £8 will be spent on bureaucracy. That is insane. That does not support businesses or growth. The only thing growing here is the burden of red tape—the Government’s favourite colour—on UK industry. I take this opportunity to put on record my support for the specific exemptions made for fishing vessels and ferry services providing essential connectivity for Scottish islands. It is vital that they are exempt from the burden of the restrictions, albeit it is to be for only one year. One questions why the Isles of Wight and Man and the Scilly Isles are not afforded the same level of concern. 1 would argue, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East will argue, that the connections to those islands are just as vital as connections to the Scottish isles. Believe it or not, Sir Jeremy, it gets worse. Although the extension is a major blow to the maritime industry and UK shipping competitiveness overall, it is another death knell for the oil and gas industry, which is yet again being totally shafted by this Government. This instrument includes in its definition of offshore vessels those that support the oil and gas industry, which are not protected by the 5,000 GT threshold. The Government estimate that more than 145 oil and gas support vessels will be impacted by this instrument, but we know they do not care, because most of the vessels sail out of the port of Aberdeen, which is already suffering job losses as a direct result of the Government’s policies on oil and gas. Aberdeen city and shire have no Labour MPs or MSPs, so we know the party does not care about the fate of that city, its industry, economy or people. Those of us who live there feel that every day. What impact does the Minister think the extension will have on the north-east of Scotland and the UK oil and gas sector—a sector already suffering blow after blow from the Labour Government? What impact will that have on energy security? May I also ask the Minister what assessment he has made of the risk of carbon leakage in the maritime sector and whether he believes the safeguards under this instrument are sufficient? We do not simply oppose this instrument; we will vote against it. We oppose the UK ETS and carbon taxes that are crippling UK manufacturing and businesses and deindustrialising Britain at a criminal rate. On behalf of all those who this Government are harming by their reckless actions, we ultimately oppose this Government.
3 Feb 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 · Hansard source
More
indicated dissent.
3 Feb 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 · Hansard source
More
No votes.
3 Feb 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 · Hansard source
More
As somebody who served in the Royal Navy for four years after I left school, I have full awareness of maritime operations and of the importance of our United Kingdom. I was talking about the gross unfairness of this legislation and the impact it is having on some communities around this kingdom, whether on the Isle of Wight or in Northern Ireland. The Minister has the audacity to claim that CBAM is protecting British industry, when his Government’s policies are doing more to undermine British industry than any policy of any Government in recent history. The deindustrialisation we are seeing in this country is something of which his party, which still laughably calls itself the Labour party, should be utterly ashamed. I ask him to withdraw his remark about the ignorance of maritime affairs.
21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source
More
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. Today’s announcement is long overdue—overdue by an entire year, to be exact. During the general election, the Labour party claimed that it would cut household bills. This announcement should be part of that, but in that time, since the general election and on this Secretary of State’s watch, energy bills have not fallen; they have gone in the opposite direction. Energy bills are up by £200 since the election, partly as a result of the Secretary of State’s own political choices. We believe that there is a greater role in our energy system for home batteries, we support a more technology-agnostic approach to air-to-air heat pumps, and, of course, we believe that rooftop solar is much better than carpeting the countryside in huge solar farms, but the Secretary of State is ignoring the core problem. We are in an electricity price crisis of his own making. Even if we are as charitable as possible and accept that the Government will reach the 5 million households who they say will benefit from this plan, it will do nothing to cut bills for 83% of the country. However, all those households will pay much higher taxes because of Labour’s Budget, including taxes to fund the Secretary of State’s £15 billion plan, and they are struggling with their energy bills now because of the choices of the Secretary of State. Let me now turn to the specific measures in the plan. The Department’s own figures show that the public are becoming more sceptical about heat pumps. Between winter 2024 and spring 2025, the proportion of people saying that they were unlikely to install an air source heat pump increased from 38% to 45%, and if you ask anyone why they do not want a heat pump, they will say it is because of the high up-front costs. [Interruption.] Yes, they will—but it is also because of the high ongoing running costs, which often make heat pumps more expensive to run than gas boilers. There is a serious risk that the Government’s legally binding targets are forcing them to push people into buying heat pumps, but all those families will be locked into sky-high running costs, because the Government have a political target that is pushing up electricity bills at the same time. This plan does nothing to address those high ongoing running costs. Indeed, last week the Government announced that they were locking the country into higher energy prices for decades through their botched wind auction. Just imagine that there was a plan on the table to cut the cost of running a heat pump by 20% instantly: a cheap power plan that would not involve raising taxes on working people to fund handouts; a plan that would axe the carbon tax, and scrap the Secretary of State’s rip-off wind subsidies to cut bills for every family in the country. Would that not be a far better approach to making make heat pumps much more attractive? What steps will the Department take to ensure that low-interest loans will provide good value for money? How many homes will benefit from the low-interest and zero-interest loans scheme, and how will it be determined who gets a low-interest loan or a zero-interest loan? As for the changes to the minimum energy efficiency standards for rented homes, the Secretary of State will know that the previous Government did more than any other to improve energy efficiency standards, with half of all homes having an energy performance certificate rating of C or above when we left office, compared to 14% when the Secretary of State left office in 2010. Has his Department carried out any impact assessment of what the 2030 deadline will cost landlords, and how much of the cost will be passed on to renters? His own Government’s data shows that it will cost more than £12,000 to upgrade a home from EPC E to C—£12,000 that will then be passed on to families in increased rents. We cannot ignore all the costs that this Government are imposing on the housing sector, and the impact that they will have on the cost of living for families. The Government are going to set up a new quango, the warm homes agency, to administer these schemes. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much this quango will cost the taxpayer, how it will be held accountable, and why he decided to spend money on setting up a new quango rather than those functions being delivered by his own Department, which he controls? The Secretary of State has already been forced, by this House, to ban Great British Energy from spending taxpayers’ money on solar panels when there is evidence of forced labour in the supply chain, and of course we welcome that, but can he assure the House that he will apply that same ban on slave labour to solar panel installations funded by the warm homes plan? When will he publish details of how that mechanism will work, so that it can be scrutinised by the House? The Government are ignoring the fact that the affordability crisis that the Secretary State talks about is a crisis of his own making. They are ignoring the fact that they are locking the country into paying higher bills for far longer. If they truly want to encourage people to adopt green technology, like heat pumps or electric vehicles, they need to make electricity cheap. They could adopt the Conservatives’ cheap power plan to cut everyone’s electricity bills by 20% and scrap the reckless clean power 2030 target, which is locking everyone into paying higher bills for far longer.
21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source
More
The bills have gone up!
20 Jan 2026 · Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Carer’s Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2026 · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Christopher. The consequential modifications are uncontroversial in and of themselves, serving only to substitute wording across existing legislation and update previous regulations to reflect the change in the definition of carer support payments. As the Minister set out, the order amends the defined terms in social security legislation to reflect the introduction of carer support payments, as introduced in the Carer’s Assistance (Carer Support Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 and the Carer’s Assistance (Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments, Revocation, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2025, as provided for by the Scottish Government’s Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. Although the order itself is technical and necessary, and we will not stand in its way, I would like to speak to the wider context of the instrument. The order follows the introduction of the 2023 regulations, an instrument of the Scottish Parliament that acted to replace the carer’s allowance in Scotland, originally administered under the Department for Work and Pensions, with a new type of benefit that served the same original purpose, administered by Social Security Scotland. The 2023 legislation epitomises the Scottish Government’s bureaucratic tendencies at the expense of Scottish taxpayers. In the wake of the failed bid for independence in 2014, the Smith commission set out provisions for greater devolution, and the resulting powers for devolution were set out in the Scotland Act 2016. From that flawed experiment, we now know that it matters not how much is given—for the nationalists, it will never be enough. Where devolution serves simply to duplicate work that is already undertaken, more efficiently and at lower cost, by the Department for Work and Pensions, we must ask whether the Scottish equivalent represents value for money for taxpayers or is simply yet another a marketing exercise for those who wish to create more separation between us. The division of payments for carers into a parallel system creates a new level of bureaucracy and adds complication in the system that we think is quite unnecessary. Those who are already in receipt of carer’s allowance would have to reapply for the carer support payment if they relocated to Scotland. This creates barriers within the United Kingdom, just as NHS Scotland, which is unable to share data and records with NHS England, prevents seamless care across the United Kingdom. We do not wish to stand in the way of this statutory instrument, which seeks to make technical adjustments to existing legislation as a result of the 2023 and 2025 regulations. However, I wish to put on the record the official Opposition’s frustration with the Scottish Government’s endless duplication, waste and inefficiency, which is costing Scottish taxpayers dear.
14 Jan 2026 · Cost of Living · Hansard source
More
One way to lessen the bite of the cost of living for hard-working Scots would be to cut their taxes, letting people keep more of their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, for the nationalists that appears to be anathema. Instead, they are increasing foreign aid spending, which is reserved, to £16 million. They are introducing yet more tax bands and more new taxes, but nothing to incentivise people to find good, well-paying jobs. Conservatives know that you cannot tax a nation into prosperity. Does the Secretary of State agree?
14 Jan 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source
More
The Labour Government are doing absolutely nothing to grow the Scottish economy, given the national insurance increase, the family farm tax, the unemployment rights Bill and the gutting of the oil and gas industry. Growth has been halved, unemployment is up and inflation is up. It is total incompetence. However, the Government are not only incompetent but weak—so weak that Scottish Labour announced that it would not oppose the SNP’s budget before its members even knew what was in it. We know that they are not very good at government, but you would have thought that after all these years they might have worked out how to do opposition, wouldn’t you?
14 Jan 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source
More
What we saw yesterday from the SNP was nothing more than the same old tired, stale Government with tired, stale gimmicks, handouts and an addiction to punishing hard-working Scots with the highest taxes for poorer services. There was nothing for growth, nothing for entrepreneurs and nothing for businesses, but what would we expect from the separatist pressure group cosplaying as a Government that is the SNP? Does the Secretary of State agree that, after 19 years, we need change in Scotland, and that the only party with a plan to cut tax, cut the benefit bill, support business and grow the economy is the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party?
17 Dec 2025 · INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth · Hansard source
More
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. The steps announced today by the Government to secure the ethylene plant at Grangemouth are welcome news, especially for the workers at the site who can now look forward to the new year, assured that their jobs will remain at the strategically vital site—and Grangemouth is vital, as the UK’s last plant producing ethylene, a key ingredient in plastics used in advanced manufacturing and the automotive and aerospace sectors. To have lost domestic production capacity for such a core product would have been unconscionable. However, this move, welcome as it is, demonstrates just how exposed sites such as Grangemouth have become under this Government. This Government’s policies are leading to the deindustrialisation of this country, with unemployment rates soaring and the economy shrinking as a result. From potteries in Stoke to the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire and, most obviously and glaringly, our oil and gas industry in the North sea, this Government are not just overseeing but engineering the decline of energy-intensive industries in this country. Of course, I am genuinely glad that 500 jobs at Grangemouth will be protected, but that will be cold comfort for the thousands of workers in and around the wider oil and gas industry who have already lost their jobs, or those who will spend Christmas next week not knowing whether they will have a job next year because of Labour party policy. Last week it was Harbour Energy, and before that it was the Port of Aberdeen, Apache and Petrofac. TotalEnergies has had to merge with NEO NEXT Energy to operate, while Shell has merged with Equinor. Those businesses all say the same thing: the exorbitant taxation regime, increased and extended until 2030, is driving away investment. Couple that with the utterly astronomical cost of energy here in the UK, pushed ever higher by unnecessary green levies and carbon taxes, and it is no surprise that, in his response to today’s announcement, Sir Jim Ratcliffe said that “high energy costs and punitive carbon” taxes were “driving industry out of the UK at an alarming rate. If politicians want jobs, investment and energy security, then they must create a competitive environment.” Week after week, more jobs in the sector are lost and critical national assets shut up shop as a direct consequence of policy decisions made by this Government. Since Labour stepped into office, more than 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost—that is the scale of the crisis we are dealing with. Great Britain has a proud manufacturing legacy, but current Government policy towards energy is squandering that legacy, damaging Scottish jobs, and damaging an important national asset. “There are 200,000 jobs in the UK associated with oil and gas, and they are all at risk unless the government changes course.” Those are not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but those of the chairman of Ineos at Grangemouth. Today’s announcement is timely, however, as tomorrow I will be visiting Mossmorran to meet the team following the news that the polyethylene plant there will be closing. ExxonMobil’s chairman there has explained that he does not have two of the keys needed for success because of Government policy. He said: “We’ve had windfall taxes, we’ve had a ban on production licences—I need cheap sources of abundant ethane, and I do not have them, because the North Sea—because of Government policy—is declining rapidly…we paid £20 million last year in CO2 taxes, that will double in the next four or five years.” What is shocking, though, is that for some inexplicable reason the Secretary of State for Scotland chose today to attack ExxonMobil when explaining why it was not receiving the same support as Grangemouth, saying that the management “weren’t able to give us a pathway to profitability.” Of course they cannot do that—at every turn this Government are putting up hurdles, shutting down the North sea and taxing these businesses until they burst. Honestly, this Government just do not get it. They are not listening. Today’s announcement does not even scratch the surface when it comes to rectifying the damage and pain that this Government have inflicted on industry in this country. Given that this is the second time this Government have launched an unprovoked attack on a leading investor in the United Kingdom, does the Minister want me to pass on an apology from the Government when I visit Mossmorran tomorrow? Today’s announcement is welcome, but this Government could do so much more. We should scrap the energy profits levy and remove the punitive carbon taxes—we are not getting an exemption to the EU emissions trading scheme anyway, according to the EU Commission. We should incentivise, not punish. A Conservative Government will do all this and more when we return to office in three years’ time—unfortunately, those are three years I do not think British industry has.
16 Dec 2025 · Draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source
More
Don’t get used to it!
16 Dec 2025 · Draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms Barker. The draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) Regulations will make some key amendments to the regulations pertaining to the CCUS and oil and gas sectors with regard to the publication of data connected to the wells in which they are operating, as the Minister has set out. That information, which includes geological assessments, rock and liquid samples and drilling data, is collected by the NSTA—or the OGA, as it remains in law for now—for publication to support research activities, wider industry and future licence applications. The changes made in the draft regulations set out, for CCUS, how long such data must remain confidential after being collected, and specifically when different data is published, in order to protect the commercial interests of sector operators. This brings CCUS in line with existing regulations in the oil and gas industry. There are changes for the oil and gas sector, too, in particular in respect of how petroleum well information is disclosed. At present, the two-year confidentiality period takes effect once the NSTA receives the information; under the draft regulations, the clock will start from the reporting deadline. All of that was ably set out by the Minister. Although the changes will bring consistency across the sector, questions remain. Will the Minister provide further details on enforcement when reporting deadlines are missed? Are we to expect a form of sanctions to be imposed? If so, when will details of those sanctions be released? There is also the question of how any operators will be affected whose reporting deadline for wells has already passed. Will they be given a new one and expected to comply by the new deadline? We recognise that the face of the North sea oil and gas industry is changing, with a significant amount of decommissioning work taking place now and over the coming years. Does the Minister think that the introduction of hard deadlines will add further administrative burden to operations? Have the Government made any assessment of the impact on decommissioning? The North sea energy industry is already facing a multitude of challenges emanating from Government policy, which is having a knock-on effect on wider investment in the sector. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on whether any assessment has been made of how these changes might affect investor confidence in the sector, and what discussions about them have been had with industry representatives. I echo the Minister’s comments about the NSTA, and particularly its chief executive officer Stuart Payne. They are doing an incredibly important job in managing the North sea basin. Notwithstanding the differences in how we think the North sea should be managed, the work of people in the NSTA should be recognised more than it is. They are undertaking vital work, and as a result of these changes the burden on them will be greater still. Notwithstanding my questions, to which of course we would like answers, the Opposition think that the draft regulations are a very sensible move, coming as they do from that almighty and indeed seminal piece of work, the Energy Act 2023. I therefore see no reason why we should object to them or stand in their way. I do not intend to detain the Committee any longer.
11 Dec 2025 · St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs · Hansard source
More
In 2007, when the decision was taken by the Scottish Conservatives to ensure continuity and certainty for Scottish business at the heart of the Scottish Government, it was indeed the right thing to do. However, hindsight is 20/20, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other Members present that no such agreement would be reached if we were to be asked at the next Scottish parliamentary election to support a Scottish National party Government for a further five years. Scotland was suffering under the SNP, and the very last thing it needed was another Government letting them down. Then, enter stage left—far left—the Labour party. My goodness, it is not going well. After having been sold a story of false hope, folks in Scotland now have no hope in the Labour Government. The harm that this Government are inflicting on key Scottish industries is staggering. Look at our farmers: already hammered by the daft policies that emanate from Bute House, they now have to contend with the brutal and callous family farm tax. The stories that we hear—and I know that hon. Members on the Government Benches are hearing them, too—are just heartbreaking. The Government are knowingly destroying an entire way of life for thousands of families across Scotland, placing entire rural communities and our food security in jeopardy. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) spoke recently of how this Government have no grasp whatsoever of the constant struggle facing our family farms. He was absolutely right. It is exactly the same for our energy industry. Oil and gas workers are an afterthought—if they are even thought about at all by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, whose messianic zeal to destroy the oil and gas industry knows no end. I have stood at this Dispatch Box many times now over the past 18 months and raised the plight of our oil and gas industry. Almost every week we find that another business operating in the North sea has made the decision to cut jobs in the UK. It was Harbour Energy the other week. Before that it was ExxonMobil at Mossmorran. It was the Port of Aberdeen before that, then Petrofac, then Hunting, then Ineos, then Apache—I could go on. One thousand jobs are going to be lost every single month, and £50 billion-worth of investment is being passed over. The country is being made more vulnerable through increased reliance on imports. A poison is spreading through the energy industry, and this Government are doing nothing to stem it. All of that begs the question of what the Secretary of State and his Ministers are going to do. Maybe the Secretary of State knows that the Prime Minister’s days are numbered and is just biding his time. Maybe, like every other member of the Cabinet, he is looking around the Cabinet Room and measuring the curtains. But time is something that workers in our oil and gas industry and on our family farms do not have. Scotland does, of course, have another option—something that neither the SNP nor Labour can offer—and that is common sense. That is something that only the Scottish Conservatives are offering, and Scotland desperately needs it. The Scottish Conservatives would put an end to the stagnant, tepid policies that have come from the SNP Scottish Government and put growth at the heart of every single decision. We would end the hostility to entrepreneurs and make it clear that Scotland is open for business. We would reverse the decline and go for growth. We would scrap the SNP’s 21% tax band and cut income tax to 19% for all taxable income up to £43,000.We would slash the number of quangos, restore regular police patrols, and allow for the building of new nuclear, bolstering our energy security, securing new jobs and driving investment. We would restore pride to our education system, so that it enables Scots to compete in a globally competitive marketplace for ideas. Scottish Conservatives in this House would scrap the energy profits levy and the family farm tax. We would proudly, without fear or favour, stand up for Scotland’s continued place within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To be British as well as Scottish is, I believe, something that should be cherished. It is, in my view, to win the lottery of life. It is the best of both worlds—our freedoms, our shared culture, our institutions and our history. Being British has never relied on the rejection of being Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish. Those identities are entirely complementary, not contradictory. To be British is to be part of something larger—a shared civic and cultural inheritance built across these islands together. Whether you find yourself in Dundee or Doncaster, you will realise that those shared values are to be discovered at every turn. The United Kingdom at its best is not a denial of national identity but a partnership that allows each nation to contribute its own unique character to something greater together. From the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers who shaped British democracy to the engineers and writers who helped forge its industrial and cultural strengths, Scots have never been passengers in the British story but always at the tiller. We will continue to be so, but we need change in Scotland, we need common sense in Scotland, and we need it desperately. The Scottish parliamentary election in May can be that moment. Change can and will be delivered. Of that I am certain.
11 Dec 2025 · St Andrew’s Day and Scottish Affairs · Hansard source
More
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing it. Today’s debate is timely and important because Scotland stands on the cusp of an election that will determine the future of our country. Regardless of our politics, we know how lucky we are to live in Scotland, represent it, bring our families up in it, and work for a better future for it. Unusually for a history graduate of Scotland’s finest university, I am going to focus my remarks on the future. I am a Scotland rugby fan, a Scottish football fan, an Aberdeen fan and a Scottish Conservative, so I have to be an optimist. And I am: I do believe that a better Scotland, in a more secure and prosperous United Kingdom, is possible, but only with change—a change in Government in Edinburgh and a change of direction by the Government here in London. Scotland has suffered 18 wasted years—18 years when we should have been focused on binding our country together, building a better economy, promoting Scottish business and building up and improving our education system. However, we were not doing that. Instead, we have had 18 years of division, constitutional obsession and the bitter and, at times, petty politics of grievance. It was Edwin Morgan who, in his poem “Open the Doors”, commissioned on the opening of the new Scottish Parliament building in 2004, wrote, “What do the people want of the place? They want it to be filled with thinking persons as open and adventurous as its architecture. A nest of fearties is what they do not want. A symposium of procrastinators is what they do not want. A phalanx of forelock-tuggers is what they do not want. And perhaps above all the droopy mantra of ‘it wizny me’ is what they do not want.” I am afraid that in the Scottish National party, that is indeed what the Scottish people have had for the past 18 years—a party that leads a Government so misguided from the priorities of the Scottish people that they have allowed themselves to be distracted by narrow political fads instead of focusing on the real issues, with hard-working Scots suffering ever higher taxes to pay for them. However, those are as nothing when compared to the eye-watering social security spending, which is forecast to hit more than £9 billion in Scotland by 2030—triple what it was in 2017. For a population of less than 5 million people, that is insanity. In Scotland, we have an economy that has lagged behind the rest of the UK ever since the SNP first took power. If Scotland’s economy had kept pace, the Scottish Government would have had £12 billion more to spend over that period. It is said that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out other people’s money; the problem with nationalism is that you eventually run out of other people to blame.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →