Andrew Bowie MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 25 Mar 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is a sad and quite incredible day in this House. We have debated this Government’s energy policies on many occasions in the past few months. We have frequently debated the merits, or lack thereof, of Great British Energy, an organisation about which we still know very little—what it is for and what it will do. We were told by the Labour party that it would bring down bills by £300, but bills have gone up. We were told by the Labour party that it would create jobs, but nobody can tell us how many or by when. We were told by the Labour party that it would be based in Aberdeen, but the interim chairman is based in Manchester and it looks unlikely that we will see little more than a brass plaque in the granite city. We were told that it would employ thousands of people, but that then turned to hundreds. We were told it would generate energy, but it will not—it does not have a licence to do that. We were told that it would guarantee a positive return on every investment, but that is impossible. I therefore ask the Minister again: what will the entity actually do? Do they know? Will it be seeking an electricity generation licence? How will it bring down energy costs in this country? Turning to today’s proceedings, far from the Secretary of State and the Minister’s insistence that Great British Energy will free us from reliance on foreign dictatorships, this headlong rush to clean power by 2030 will, in fact, make us more reliant than ever on the People’s Republic of China. He and his Ministers are quick to note the reluctance to rely on petrostate dictators. I wonder how he would characterise the People’s Republic of China, where political opposition is illegal, where citizens have more limited political rights than in the Russian Federation, where dissent is invariably punished and where the use of forced labour is proven. In 2022 we blocked China General Nuclear from involvement in Sizewell C. In 2020 we prevented Chinese influence on our communications networks under the guise of Huawei. Yet despite serious concerns about the national security implications, the ethical implications and the high climate emissions, the Secretary of State and Ministers are opening the gates to Chinese technology in our North sea wind farms, to solar panels made with slave labour and to using coal power. It is in the context of our increasing reliance on foreign states that I wish to speak to the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 2, tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool. I am grateful to him, and we all recognise his long-standing dedication to this serious matter. I said that this was a sad day, and I feel for those Labour MPs, for many of whom I have a great deal of respect, who came into this House, into politics and specifically into their party because they believed in social justice and decency, and for whom this is not just a job but a vocation. They came here in July believing that they would be part of a project to create a better world, in the spirit of Bevan, Attlee, Hardie and Wilson. I wonder what those titans of that proud labour movement would make of this today, because it was on this day in 1807 that the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received Royal Assent, and 218 years on, Labour MPs are going to be whipped to allow the state to directly fund imports of goods built by slave labour in China. [ Interruption. ] They complain, but it is true.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will not be at all surprised to learn that I agree with him entirely. It is purely the imposition on this country of arbitrary, needless targets, such as clean power by 2030, to generate headlines and get the Secretary of State’s name up in lights that is requiring us to become more reliant on the People’s Republic of China for the goods, technology and equipment to develop the solar farms, nearly all of which will be tainted by slave labour in some way, given the reliance on slave labour in part of that country for that infrastructure and technology. So of course I agree with him, and of course it would be much better if we were issuing new licences and continuing to support our own domestic oil and gas industry. That is something that we have debated time and again, and I am sure we will come back to this House to debate it again in the future. Great British Energy is not great, it is not British and it will not generate any energy. Public funds should not be—must not be—funding imports tainted by modern slavery and slave labour. British taxpayers deserve better: a domestic supply chain that creates jobs at home rather than funding abuses abroad. That is why we support Lords amendment 2, and I urge Labour Members to do the right thing today and vote for it as well.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, with surprisingly little fanfare from the Department or the Secretary of State, the Climate Change Committee published carbon budget 7. Among the more eyewatering recommendations was the figure put on the cost of meeting the obligations: £319 billion over the next 15 years. Frontloading that will be a net cost to industry every year until 2050. Is that exorbitant cost the reason that he cancelled his Department’s review, commissioned by his predecessor, into the whole-systems cost of net zero?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman might be content with signing our energy sovereignty over to the People’s Republic of China, and he might be happy with his Government’s arbitrary targets and bans, pushing bills up and leaving us more reliant on importing and costing jobs, but we think it is time for a new approach, as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, focused on security and cost to the consumer, not pie-in-the-sky targets with no plan to reach them. Will he recommission the review into the whole-systems cost? If not, what is he trying to hide?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Nuclear Power · Hansard source

  More

  On 6 February, the Prime Minister announced that he would “take on the blockers” and build new small modular reactors, but do those blockers include his own Government? With essential work being delayed and paused at Sellafield, possible job losses at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and still no certainty for Sizewell C due to a general fear in the industry that the spending review will stymie the ambitions of Great British Nuclear, are the biggest blockers to new nuclear in the UK not in Labour’s Treasury?

• 6 Mar 2025 · North Sea Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Another day, another demonstration of this Government’s total ignorance of our 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 our North sea, as well as their dangerous ineptitude when it comes to our energy security. No other country in the world, especially at a time of heightened global instability and volatility, would actively choose to aggressively and at pace shut down its domestic oil and gas industry, but that is exactly what this Government and in particular this Department, led by the eco-warrior in chief, are doing. The consultation, announced yesterday, was trumpeted by Government spinners as the beginning of the end of the energy profits levy and a brave new dawn for the North sea. It is complete and utter rubbish. It is a total joke. The energy profits levy is higher now than it was before, because of the decisions of this Labour Government. The investment allowances have almost all been scrapped by this Labour Government. Crucially, the windfall tax is now in place for far longer—until 2030—because of this Labour Government. That is five years away, but the oil and gas industry does not have five years. Investment is drying up, and work is being put on pause. Companies are literally shutting up shop. The truth is that the high-paid, good, long-term jobs that the Minister speaks of do not yet exist in renewables in the north-east of Scotland. People are leaving in their droves for other countries, such as the USA, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Norway, where the industry does have a future. She says we owe it to the North sea’s workers and communities to come up with a proper plan for their future, but this Government’s plan for the North sea is simply to shut it down. This Government’s plan is a betrayal of those workers. This Government’s plan will devastate the communities of the north-east of Scotland. It is said that in every oil-producing country in the world you will find an Aberdonian. It turns out that the only country in which you will not find an Aberdonian working in oil in the near future is Scotland, driven by this mad rush to clean power 2030 and the Government’s obsession with renewables at the expense of everything and everyone else. It may be “Drill, baby, drill” in the United States, but it is “Dole, baby, dole” under Labour in the United Kingdom. The Government’s decisions will cost our economy some £12 billion in lost tax revenue to the Treasury, on top of the £12 billion in lost capital investment. This makes a complete mockery of their claim to be anything like pro-growth. It is insanity to be doing all this to our own industry while becoming increasingly reliant on imports from abroad and causing more carbon to be released into the atmosphere: more imports of liquefied natural gas, fracked in the USA, frozen and then shipped across the Atlantic on diesel-chugging ships; or more imports from Norway, a net exporter, which is drilling from the very same sea from which we could drill ourselves. It is completely nonsensical. This Government are a complete joke, overseeing the wilful deindustrialisation of our nation. If the Minister will not take my word for it, perhaps she will take the word of the GMB leader, who said: “In the new geopolitical reality—it’s madness. If the North Sea is being prematurely closed down and we are increasing import dependence—that’s bad for jobs, economic growth and national security.” Or perhaps she will take the word of the general secretary of Unite, who said: “we need to resist any calls that amount to offshoring our carbon responsibilities for the sake of virtue signalling.” May I ask the Minister whether she has personally met any oil and gas workers since taking office, in order to understand what her Government’s policy means for them and their families, and whether the Secretary of State has done so? Will the industry receive an answer on the uncertainty surrounding the calculation of scope 3 emissions and environmental impact assessments? Given the announcement of £200 million to support the 400 workers affected by the closure of Grangemouth, how much does the Minister think the Treasury might need to find to support the 200,000 workers currently supported by the oil and gas industry? Does she agree with the Climate Change Committee that we will need oil and gas until at least 2050, and has she accounted for the higher carbon emissions associated with importing liquefied natural gas instead? Finally, let me ask whether she still sees the Department as a sponsor and a champion for the industry—because the industry certainly does not trust that to be the case.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I add my congratulations to those of many others on the birth of the Secretary of State’s child recently. I read with some interest that the leader of the Scottish Labour party is considering publishing a league table to rank the performance of his Scottish Labour MPs. I will not ask the Secretary of State to say where he thinks he may sit in that table, but I will ask about jobs and the economy, specifically in relation to the energy industry. As a direct result of the eco-zealotry emanating from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the increase in the energy profits levy, the ban on new licences and the refusal even to defend the issuing of licences to Rosebank and Jackdaw, there will be a reduction in the total economic value of the oil and gas sector of £13 billion over the next four years, with 35,000 direct jobs at risk. Can the Secretary of State tell the House, as Scotland’s man in the Cabinet—the man on whom we all rely to make Scotland’s case and to act in Scotland’s interests—whether he has made any overtures to his beleaguered colleague at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, or indeed to the Treasury, to stop this madness?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) says, there is nothing wrong with Sunday leagues. Just as the Secretary of State and Scottish Labour were silent on gender recognition, and just as he and Scottish Labour are silent on taxing family businesses and farms out of existence, he and Scottish Labour are silent on the loss of an entire industry and its workforce, which will decimate the north-east of Scotland and impact the entire UK economy. If he and his Scottish Labour colleagues are not standing up for Scotland’s interests, Scottish workers and Scottish industry, can he tell me just what is the point of Scottish Labour?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State said that the questions just asked were similar. Well, we did not get an answer on either of our two attempts, so I might try on farming. Scotland’s beef sector is at the heart of Scottish agriculture, with 80% of the country’s agricultural land grazing land, yet domestic beef production levels are set to reduce by 5%, with a 12% increase in imports expected to meet our forecasted demand. It is clear that this Government’s tax changes could not come at a worse time for Scotland’s farmers. Will the Minister please stand up for Scotland’s farmers and make the case to stop this madness?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, will not detain the Committee for long, having already expressed the full support of His Majesty’s official Opposition for the Bill, and it will come as no surprise that we are not proposing any amendments in Committee. I do, however, have two questions for the Minister. When does he expect the Bill to go to the House of Lords, and can he assure the Committee and, indeed, the Church of Scotland that everything possible will be done to secure its swift passage to Royal Assent so that it is passed in time for the upcoming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to record the thanks of the Opposition to those who have made possible this Bill, which will hopefully soon become an Act, and to Members from across the House for their contributions. I am grateful for the engagement with the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church and Lady Elish herself. I think we can all agree that the Bill is a positive step and speaks well to the type of country that Scotland is today, which was certainly not the case 100 years ago. I express yet again my best wishes to the new Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly, and to all those attending its deliberations in its upcoming meeting in May. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. In fact, it is a genuine pleasure to be speaking, as a member of the Church of Scotland, on an historically significant piece of legislation. It could be argued that this is the latest piece of the work that was begun with the passing of the very legislation that it seeks in part to repeal—the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829—to ensure full equality for Catholics in our public realm. I grew up not quite a son of the manse—it was three doors down—but very much in and around the kirk, and in eight years as a Member of this place, this is the first debate on any issue regarding the governance or affairs of the Church of Scotland that I can remember. Given that it relates to one of the two established Churches of our United Kingdom, that is on the one hand surprising, especially when compared with the hours we spend debating governance and issues pertaining to the Anglican Church. But then, its privileged status as the established Church in Scotland—underpinned by the Acts of Union and the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707—means that since 1921, when the Articles Declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland formed part of the Church of Scotland Act 1921, it has not required any UK or Scottish parliamentary oversight regarding church worship, governance, constitution, membership or office bearers. This makes today an even more significant moment in the history of the Church and the nation, so infrequently are matters of the Kirk discussed on the Floor of either of Scotland’s two Parliaments. Our relationship between Church and state in the United Kingdom is a brilliantly fashioned piece of British pragmatism—or possibly a fudge, as some might describe it. Only in Great Britain could we have a Head of state who, while being Supreme Governor of one established Church, the Anglican Church of England, is also an ordinary member of a completely separate Presbyterian Church, the Church of Scotland. But we do, and no questions are asked. It is a piece of ecclesiastical deftness that would be inconceivable in any other country. However, I think we would all agree that it was carried out with ease by the late Queen Elizabeth, who demonstrated her commitment to, interest in and knowledge of both Churches throughout her reign—an interest, passion and dedication now matched by our King. Today, we see another brilliant piece of British pragmatism in what we are about to legislate for. To many in the outside world, the appointment of the brilliant Dame Elish Angiolini to one of the most significant roles in Scottish public life will rightly be seen as a well-deserved honour for one as successful as she has been in her field and in Scottish and British public life. When we think about it, however, it remains quite incredible that a practising Roman Catholic will represent our Protestant monarch, whose very first act as King, in accordance with the Act of Succession, was to take an oath to “inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled ‘An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government’”. Rightly, no questions will be asked about her appointment. There may in fact be some who question the appointment, but I think it speaks well to us as a nation—our two nations—that we are so relaxed about such an appointment today. It speaks to just how much Scotland has changed. I wonder if the Scotland of my grandfathers’ time—both of whom were born in Glasgow in the 1920s and both of whom went on to be Kirk elders—would have been as relaxed about such an appointment. Bear in mind that the Church of Scotland was formed out of the blood and fire of the Scottish reformation, with John Knox in his revolutionary zeal creating the only truly national Calvinist church. It dominated public life for centuries: for better, especially in the realm of public education; and for worse, given that for too long it excluded all other forms of Christianity and adherence to anything but the Kirk’s form of Christianity from most positions of influence in public life in Scotland. The songs still sung at certain football grounds between fans of certain rival teams speak to a more difficult time in the history of Scotland and indeed the Churches in Scotland—one that, sadly, has not totally been consigned to the history books. Scottish public life was until incredibly recently dominated by the Kirk. Its General Assembly was covered in the same way as the sitting of a Scottish Parliament—at that point not in existence—would have been. Its membership when I was born in the mid-1980s sat at around 1 million people, and its presence touched the lives of a great many more. It had daily five-minute slots on Scottish television, with “Late Call” being parodied so well by the late great Rikki Fulton, as well as the Boys’ Brigade and the Women’s Guild. So many people had so much interaction with the Church, but Scotland has changed, and in many ways for the better. In many ways, however, the changes in Scotland have presented challenges for the Church. Church membership, which was just shy of 1 million when I was born, sits now at just over 200,000. The General Assembly, which for many years sat as the one national forum in Scotland at which issues of importance to people across Scotland could be aired in public and debated, was covered as a sitting of a Parliament would be. Since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, it has not engaged the same media interest as it did in the years preceding 1999. The decline in numbers entering the ministry and the reduction in footfall in church buildings across the country have led to difficult—at times, heartbreaking—decisions being taken to sell buildings and reduce the Church estate. Yet there are huge positives as well. In recent decades, we have seen the Kirk move with the people of Scotland and modernise. It allowed women to be ordained back in 1968, some 24 years before the Church of England did likewise, and that led to huge growth in the number of women in leadership roles in the Church. The Church has had multiple female Moderators of the General Assembly, the first being Alison Elliot in 2004. In 2015, the Church allowed congregations to appoint ministers who were in same-sex marriages or civil partnerships. That was followed by it officially approving those marriages, and it allowed ministers to conduct them in 2022. Whether it is through traditional church services, outreach in communities across Scotland and Europe, the Guild, CrossReach, or missionary work across the world, the Church of Scotland continues to touch and guide our national life in many ways. Religion in Britain is a funny thing. On the one hand, we famously “don’t do God.” On the other, we have prayers before every meeting of our national Parliament. On the one hand, unlike other countries, we treat our religion as private. On the other, bishops of one of our established Churches sit in one of our legislatures, and our Head of State is the supreme governor of one of our two established Churches. What we are doing today will baffle most of those watching our proceedings, not least those who do not know that there are two established Churches in the United Kingdom, but it is important, and it has the official Opposition’s full support. It is a significant gesture of good will and unity between two of Scotland’s largest Churches, and builds on the St Margaret declaration of friendship between the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland in 2022. It is yet another display of fantastic British pragmatism, and the sensibleness that has underpinned how Churches and the state have interacted over centuries. It only remains for me, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, to wish the new Lord High Commissioner well in her role; to thank the outgoing Moderator of the Church, Dr Shaw Paterson, for his service over this year; to wish the Moderator Designate, Rev. Rosemary Frew, well as she takes up the role; and to wish all those attending the upcoming General Assembly wisdom and patience as they deliberate on matters that mean so much to the national life of Scotland.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Warm Home Discount · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Today, the Government have announced an expansion of the warm home discount, with a change to the criteria that will see more low-income households receive a £150 payment to heat their homes, but for many this payment will be immediately eaten up by the increase in the energy price cap. We must be clear that the best protection for vulnerable households is to prioritise cheap energy. The announcement today is, frankly, a sticking-plaster approach to rising energy bills. This Government fail to grasp the core issue: energy costs in this country are far too high for businesses, industry and, of course, bill payers. When the energy price cap rose in 2022, the now Secretary of State called it a “national emergency”. He called for an urgent freeze on energy bills and cited a lack of leadership. Now that he is in government, the only thing he is able to freeze is vulnerable pensioners by taking away their winter fuel allowance with no notice. Does the Minister think that shows leadership? I know that my constituents, and presumably hers too, will be concerned about their bills rising, concerned about inflation creeping back up—hitting 3% in January, despite the hard work done last year to bring it under control—and angry that Labour’s promise to cut bills by £300 is being broken. The worst part of all of this is that this Government, led by ideological zealotry from the Secretary of State, are doubling down. Their obsession with going further and faster than any country in the world to meet their own self-imposed 2030 target is going to increase people’s bills even further. The renewables industry has warned that their rush to build record renewables in the next five years will push up prices and “consumers will lose out”. The Government’s rush to build twice as much grid in the next five years as was built in the last decade will increase the network costs on people’s bills. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the environmental levies will increase to £14 billion in 2030, largely driven by the hidden cost of renewables, all of which will end up on people’s energy bills. The Labour party was not honest about its promise during the election to cut bills by £300, it was not honest about its plan to take the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners living in poverty, and now it is not being honest with the British people about what its plans will do to our energy bills. If we have learned anything over the past few years, it is that the cost of energy is absolutely critical to any modern economy. We cannot go on following ideology over evidence and putting political targets ahead of what will cut the cost of energy in this country. However, this Government are in denial, which is why they scrapped the full system cost analysis commissioned when the Conservatives were in office. Will the Minister say when proposals for a debt relief scheme will be published? Will she confirm by how much she expects levies to increase over the next five years? Will she commission a full system cost analysis of what the 2030 target will do to people’s energy bills? Will she confirm by how much bills will rise before we see the £300 off, which we were all promised?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Hobhouse—today’s SI has a pithy title. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. Today should serve as a salutary lesson for the new Government about the law of unintended consequences. In 2014, following the referendum on separation, the Smith commission was convened by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, resulting in a host of recommendations to increase the power and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. One of the powers devolved through that process was the ability to deliver elements of social security in Scotland. The devolution of certain powers by the Scotland Act 2016 was eminently sensible. On income tax, for example, although I passionately believe that it is not in the interests of the Scottish people, businesses or the wider economy to have more tax bands and higher tax rates than the rest of the UK, it is an eminently sensible and, indeed, Conservative belief that those responsible for spending public money should also be responsible for raising it. I just wish that Scotland would blaze a trail by being the lowest taxed part of the United Kingdom—I think of the investment and the economic benefits that would be reaped. We are gathered here this afternoon to discuss the devolution of certain elements of social security, and thereby the increased complexity of how these benefits are delivered to the people of Scotland and how they interact with other benefits and other delivery bodies across the UK. With hindsight, I wonder whether this was a positive move for Scotland and, indeed, the UK. Broadly speaking, this is a sensible and technical statutory instrument that has our support. Clearly, those who are entitled to Scottish adult disability living allowance should not also be entitled to the UK Government’s disability living allowance, attendance allowance or personal independence payment. The fact we have to take the time and effort to legislate to make sure that is the case is plainly absurd. The explanatory notes set out plainly that we are also legislating to ensure that those receiving Scottish adult disability living allowance retain access to the same treatment as those on disability living allowance: “while Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance operates in a broadly similar way to Disability Living Allowance, it should interact with reserved social security benefits in the same way as Disability Living Allowance.” Of course, it should. But that statement never needed to be made, that explanation was not required and this legislation was not needed before the creation of an entirely separate operation to deliver what is, in effect, the exact same benefit. We have created additional barriers, burdens and borders where there were none before, and we have added no benefit whatsoever for those receiving benefit payments either north or south of the border. It has cost more than £650 million to establish Social Security Scotland, which is years late, has resulted in duplication and has added cost and complexity to the process. The Smith commission, the Scotland Act 2016 and Social Security Scotland were all established, convened, reported and legislated for before any of us on this Committee were elected to this place. They are now a fact, but a lesson must be learned by the Labour Government. Just as many Labour members believed in 1997 that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, too many UK politicians of all parties—my own included—believe that giving ever more to the Scottish Government will appease the SNP’s desire to break away. Far too often, far too little thought has been given to the impact of devolution on the specific policies or functions on which people rely. Is the complex, expensive, duplicative and bureaucratic quagmire of Social Security Scotland after the 2016 Act really to the benefit of those in receipt of benefits? We must ensure that we do not have devolution for devolution’s sake. What must be decided is whether the devolution of a certain power or powers to the Scottish Parliament will or will not have a beneficial impact on the lives of the people and businesses of Scotland. If the answer is no, the answer must be no. I have some practical questions for the Minister about the implementation. Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions will need a very sophisticated operating system to ensure that the provisions of this draft order become a reality. Is the Minister confident that the systems are in place to accurately determine who is in scope and to avoid the duplication that this SI seeks to avoid? Given the cost and delays to Social Security Scotland—the IT systems have already cost more than £220 million—does the Minister have any indication of the cost of ensuring that the system is able to cope? On the other side of the coin, will the system be sufficiently agile to ensure that complex situations do not result in people being denied the payments to which they are entitled? Likewise, in relation to Northern Ireland, article 5(3) may be quite complicated to administer. What work has the Minister undertaken with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure a properly joined-up system across these islands? Although there has not been a formal consultation on the changes made by this draft order, will she update the Committee on whether she has consulted informally? Is she working with the Scottish Government on an information campaign to ensure that those affected are aware of the changes? Finally, it is possible that the Scottish and UK rates could diverge over time, with one becoming higher or lower than the other. Has the Minister assessed what this would mean for broader eligibility for UK Government benefits or, indeed, for people living on either side of the border? I note that the draft order will need to be reviewed should there be changes to the Scottish adult disability living allowance or the reserved legislation. Can the Minister outline what circumstances would bring this about? On a broader point, the devolution of welfare is not straightforward. It may well become much more complex over time as the systems diverge. Why we devolved welfare in the first place remains a complete mystery to me, but I would appreciate answers to my substantive questions.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies · Hansard source

  More

  The indication that Mingyang will get the green light from the Treasury to supply wind turbine technology to the Green Volt wind farm in the North sea is concerning. Indeed, alarm bells have been sounded by officials in the Minister’s Department and in the Ministry of Defence. This green revolution will come with a “made in China” label. The Government, in collusion with the Scottish National party in Holyrood, are determined to see Chinese companies reap the economic reward. The Minister’s party says again and again that the transition to renewable energy will reduce our reliance on hostile regimes. Chinese-controlled technology embedded in our critical energy infrastructure is evidently a threat to our security. Can the Minister assure us that she is taking this threat seriously? Can she explain how using wind turbines made by Mingyang reduces our reliance on foreign states? Just last week I, along with many MPs in the Minister’s party, was briefed by the Royal Navy on the vulnerability of our subsea communications and energy infrastructure. We have seen a pervasive rise in sabotage attacks on subsea cables in the Baltic, affecting our Scandinavian allies. If Chinese-manufactured turbines are installed, security experts have warned that sensors could spy on British seas, defence submarine programmes and the layout of our energy infrastructure. We would be reliant on Chinese equipment and software, and on Chinese suppliers for updates and maintenance, handing Beijing significant opportunity for interference. In the current international climate, it is unthinkable to disregard the security implications of this decision. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have scrapped the GIGA—green industries growth accelerator —scheme that we launched to build British supply chains in energy technologies? What discussions has she had with the Ministry of Defence about its concerns over our ability to ensure the security of our energy system? What safeguards will be in place to prevent Chinese maintenance ships accessing the turbines for repairs? What guarantees has she had, if any, from our defence and security agencies that this investment will pose no threat to our national security? If such assurances are not forthcoming, will she revisit this decision and put a halt to the madness of allowing the People’s Republic of China to have such a significant stake in our energy system?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the ruling on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields as unlawful.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  New applications?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  In August, this Government withdrew lawyers from the case defending the legal challenge to the issuing of licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea. Given this Government’s decision to revoke any defence, the Court’s quashing of approval was all but inevitable. It is deeply disappointing and yet unsurprising that this Government, driven by their zealotry, are happy to put billions of pounds of investment, and thousands of jobs, at risk just because something does not align with Just Stop Oil’s vision of the future. It demonstrates that this Government are not willing to stand up for businesses or workers. The Labour party seems to misunderstand this simple point: if we shut down our oil and gas industry, we will not use any less oil and gas—even the Climate Change Committee knows that. The Department seems to ignore the fact that we will simply rely on more imports instead. If those imports are liquified natural gas, they will come with four times the production emissions, and if we import from Norway, we will be shipping in gas from underneath the very same North sea. Sacrificing our domestic industry, only to rely on foreign imports and compound global carbon emissions, is utter madness for our economy and for the climate. It makes a mockery of our prospects for growth, and it will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue. To put that figure into perspective, it is equivalent to eight and a half years’ worth of winter fuel payments. Last week the developer of Rosebank, Equinor, announced that it is slashing its offshore wind investment. Does the Minister appreciate that the self-harm inflicted on the North sea is damaging investment in other offshore renewables industries, too? That could be wrecking our path forward. The Government are utterly confused. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State are completely out of touch with the public, obviously, but apparently also with each other. It is no surprise that the Secretary of State is prepared to sacrifice growth and investment in energy security for his ideological obsession, so may I ask the Minister for clarity? This is a very important point. Will the Department treat the applications, if they are resubmitted, as existing applications or new applications, given that it has a ban on all new licences moving forward? Will the Government back growth and back British workers when the decision reaches his Department, and who does he think will win this argument outright: the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Biomass Generation · Hansard source

  More

  I also apologise, as I am sure that the House is a little fed up hearing the Minister and me this afternoon. I thank the Minister for advance sight of this statement. In the past few weeks it has been difficult not to feel at least a little sorry for Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. First, their Secretary of State was forced out of hiding to defend a third runway at Heathrow—something that he once said that we could not do because it would make us look “completely ridiculous”. Cornwall Insight has stated that Ministers will miss their clean power target by a country mile, and I think it was clear during the urgent question that they are getting ready to be overruled by the Prime Minister on approval of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields—something that we on the Opposition Benches would welcome. Now the Secretary of State has sent the hon. Gentleman to the House this afternoon to defend the farce of chopping down trees in forests in Canada, converting them into pellets, shipping them across the Atlantic on diesel-chugging ships and burning them in a power station in North Yorkshire, all in the name of net zero. The Conservative party is under new management, and that means confronting hard truths, so let us get one thing straight from the outset: Drax’s biomass plant is neither clean, nor cheap. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has said, burning wood from the other side of the Atlantic—releasing more carbon dioxide in the process—and labelling it renewable is a product of a carbon budget system that forces politicians to make perverse decisions. Those decisions result in an extortionate level of subsidy, deliver a bad deal for British taxpayers and bill payers, and make the climate worse. We have started a reset on net zero, and we will not shy away from arguing for a more pragmatic approach that prioritises cheap, stable and reliable energy. Turning to the details of the statement, naturally we welcome a more limited role for Drax biomass in our power system, but more biomass subsidies are needed only in the short term, because this Government are embarking on a reckless experiment to have a grid based entirely on intermittent renewables at the expense of flexible and reliable baseload power. Drax’s role could be filled with more gas power plants, which are cheaper and cleaner than burning trees shipped in from Canada. Ministers know that burning wood at Drax produces four times the emissions of our last coal power plant, which in turn produces around twice the carbon emissions of gas. We could get that gas from the non-subsidised fields in the North sea, if this Government were not in such an ideological rush to shut down our domestic energy industry. On cost, the new agreement that the Minister has signed us up to comes with a genuinely eyewatering strike price of £160 per MWh in today’s money. That is higher than Drax’s existing agreement of £138 per MWh. In fact, Baringa’s analysis that Drax put out this morning shows that bill payers will still be paying over £450 million a year in subsidies to burn trees. If the analysis behind the Minister’s promise to cut bills by £300 is anything to go by, we should not rely on him too much. Has his Department carried out its own independent analysis, separate from that published by Drax this morning, to determine what the increased strike price will cost the British people and how that compares to supporting extra gas power in the capacity market? We welcome the strengthened sustainability criteria, as investigations by Ofgem and the BBC’s “Panorama” have revealed serious questions to be answered by Drax about the import of wood from untouched primary forests in British Columbia. But as the BBC journalist Joe Crowley, who reported on these issues for “Panorama”, stated this morning, more clarity is needed on whether wood from primary forests will be classed as unsustainable under this new regime. Will the Minister confirm that Drax will not be allowed to burn wood from primary forests during any of its generation—not just that which is subsidised? What work is being done to ensure that the new sustainability criteria are actually enforceable? On sustainability reporting, will the Minister confirm that the Department has received the KPMG report that the Prime Minister said he would look at? Will a copy be placed in the Library? The Minister’s statement has left the door wide open for the introduction of power BECCS after the transition arrangements end in 2031. That proposal to fit first-of-a-kind technology solely for the purpose of meeting our carbon budgets would cost the bill payer up to £40 billion—£1.7 billion a year. That is unacceptable. Will the Minister confirm whether his Department has produced any analysis of what a system without BECCS would cost? Will he rule out keeping this racket going indefinitely, with people’s energy bills rising to pay for BECCS? Will the Government set a date for the burning of the last tree in a British biomass power station? This Government have been promising us clean, cheap, home-grown energy, but burning trees at Drax is not clean or cheap, and the trees are certainly not home-grown. If the widespread burning of forests is part of the solution to climate change, we have to ask ourselves if that is the problem we are trying to solve.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Great British Energy: Regional Offices · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has a right cheek to come to this Chamber and talk about protecting jobs in Aberdeenshire, when tens of thousands of energy workers are going to lose their jobs because of this Government’s decisions on the North sea. The British people were promised lower bills by the next election; now, they have been given a vague assurance that in the very long term bills might come down, and they are meant to be grateful for that. The arrogance of this Government is staggering, if not surprising. They are so driven by ideology that they will not even allow Government lawyers to defend licences issued for Rosebank and Jackdaw, and are willing to see imports of fracked gas increase as long as they go down in history as the Government who shut down the North sea. While pensioners freeze as the Minister’s Government strip them of the winter fuel allowance, and as people are made unemployed due to his Government’s position on the North sea, can the Minister see why people across this country are quite miffed that the Government get to waste £8 billion of their money on the GB Energy white elephant?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Great British Energy: Regional Offices · Hansard source

  More

  It was refreshing yesterday to have some clarity on Great British Energy’s plans, not from the Secretary of State or from Ministers—that would be asking far too much—but from the Manchester-based chairman of the Aberdeen-based company, Juergen Maier. He stated that cutting energy bills is a “very long-term project”—not £300 by the next election, then—and that the Aberdeen headquarters, if we can call it that, will employ only 200 to 300 people, far from the 1,000 initially promised, although that may come in 20 years’ time. On behalf of the tens of thousands of energy workers worried for their future, and indeed the millions watching their energy bills rise yet again, can I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the now very interim chairman?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This Government’s ideological obsession with intermittent renewables at the expense of stable, clean, baseload nuclear power will, we think, be their greatest mistake. They have delayed the small modular reactor down-selection competition, and we have not heard a peep about the final investment decision on Sizewell C. However, none of that comes close to the monumental act of self-harm of deciding to throw away and bury—out of reach, underground—20 years of nuclear-grade plutonium, which could be used to drive forward a nuclear revolution in this country. How does the Secretary of State think this will play with the pro-growth, pro-nuclear MPs in his own party who are already worried about him being a drag on growth?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Twigg. It is a day full of energy; we cannot get enough energy—in all respects, I suppose. As we discussed just a few weeks ago with regards to the Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024, the capacity market scheme was introduced in 2014 as part of electricity market reform, to ensure security of electricity supply by providing payments for reliable sources of electrical generation capacity or, in some cases, reduced demand. The capacity market is responsible for ensuring that the right incentives are in place to deliver during periods of electricity system shortage and stress. As we mentioned when the previous amendments were introduced in November, the previous Government identified over a decade ago that, while introducing renewable energy sources into the energy mix, “The amount of gas capacity we will need to call on at times of peak demand will remain high, with potentially significant amounts of new gas generating capacity required by 2030.” As we saw in the January cold snap, a renewables-dominated system does indeed come under considerable stress. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine—as it often does not in the UK, especially in the winter—we experience a dearth in the supply of renewable-generated electricity. That is compounded by high demand on the coldest, darkest days. The draft instrument aims to improve security of supply and expedite investment in low-carbon technologies. It seeks to amend the timeframe for the Electricity Settlements Company’s determinations, bringing those adjustment decisions in line with the timeframe for penalty charges. It also seeks to use multi-year agreements to provide certainty, incentivising a greater range of technologies to participate. On that basis, and also because it was the previous Government who began this work, I do not wish to oppose the draft instrument. I shall not stand in the way of business today, as the draft instrument seeks to make only minor adjustments to the capacity market. However, as before, I do wish to put on record the Opposition’s apprehensions regarding an increasingly intermittent energy system, shored up by increasingly expensive capacity market payments. As I said, however, we support these moves today. Question put and agreed to.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. That is one reason why I am so proud of the contracts for difference scheme, which over our time in government supported emerging and developing technologies to ensure that we get the transition right to the tune of billions of pounds.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says the auction was unsuccessful on renewables. While it is certainly the case that we did not reach the targets on offshore wind that we would have liked, the auction was incredibly successful for other technologies, including the first ever ringfenced funding for new and emerging technologies, such as tidal and wave power, so it was not an unsuccessful auction.