Graham Leadbitter MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  We are witnessing in Gaza a catastrophe that was not only foreseeable but preventable. For over two years, the UK Government have hidden behind legal sleight of hand while a genocide has unfolded in Gaza. The definition of genocide set out in article II of the genocide convention is precise. It involves specific acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” First, article II(a) prohibits killing members of such a group. As of January of this year, 71,500 Palestinians have been killed, including 570 aid workers and 1,700 health workers. That is not collateral damage; it is the destruction of a people and it is sickening. Just yesterday, during the current supposed ceasefire, the BBC reported that at least 20 Palestinians, including several children and a paramedic, had been killed and almost 40 others wounded in Israeli strikes in Gaza, according to hospitals in Palestine. The response from the Israel Defence Forces stated that they had carried out “precise strikes”—so precise, apparently, that they had to further state, “The IDF is aware of the claim that several uninvolved civilians, including a medical staff member, were hit in the strike.” That is a familiar trope that they have used throughout the conflict. If those were the reactions of our own military, the standards we would apply in investigation and response would be rigorous and likely lead to court martial because it is not even close to our, rightly, highly robust rules of engagement rooted in moral integrity. Secondly, article II(b) prohibits “Causing serious bodily or mental harm”. We know that over 143,000 people have been injured, with many maimed for life, and the population has been subjected to torture and arbitrary detention. Thirdly, and perhaps most damningly, article II(c) prohibits “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”. Amnesty International has found that Israel has systematically destroyed life-sustaining infrastructure, including water, sanitation and energy grids. By creating a so-called buffer zone, Israel has razed 59% of agricultural land in that area and, as of last month, 81% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged, and all the while it has severely restricted vital aid and supplies. This is the deliberate erasure of the means of survival, which has led to widely reported and verifiable famine. When Israeli leaders describe Palestinians as “human animals” and speak of “flattening Gaza”, and then proceed to destroy 19 hospitals and block essential aid, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is the “intent to destroy” the group, as per the definition. Even now, despite the UN commission of inquiry finding in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide and Amnesty International confirming that the genocide continues despite the October ceasefire, the UK refuses to act. History will judge this Government and this Parliament for their—

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  My colleague in the Scottish Government, Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, has indicated a strong willingness to engage with the UK Government and other relevant bodies to trial things such as graduated licences and other road safety measures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is something the UK Government could proactively engage with to make positive progress across the home nations?

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the Prime Minister enjoys a dram as much as I do. For the record, I did welcome the Indian trade deal very publicly, so he may wish to correct the record on that. However, I want to focus on an issue that is important to employment in my constituency: the Ardersier site, part of the Cromarty Green freeport, in which Mingyang has expressed a significant investment interest. I fully understand the national security concerns that need to be addressed, but a decision is long overdue. The issue has been with the Government for a long time, and there is investor jitteriness. The supply chain is vexed about this, and the issue is certainly not helping with the just transition. It is putting important job opportunities at risk. When will the decision be made either to let Mingyang get on with it or to move on to another opportunity?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. In its recently published quarterly statistics, the Aberdeen chamber of commerce confirmed that business confidence in the north-east has slumped to levels not seen since the height of the covid pandemic, with almost half of companies forecasting a fall in profits. The clear reason cited was the Labour Government’s refusal to ditch the tax on Scotland’s energy, resulting in 1,000 jobs being lost each month—akin to what Thatcher was doing to the coal communities in the ’80s. Can the Minister tell me why his Government are happy to see crucial north-east businesses suffering, and the communities that their workers support? Will he apologise to the workers of the north-east for the thousands of jobs that have been lost at the hands of this Labour Government?

• 27 Jan 2026 · UK Bus Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the co-chairs of the APPG, the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), on securing the debate. I like to think I have a bit of an affinity with buses. For my entire time at high school—three years at Oban high school and three years at Biggar high school—every school day started and ended on a bus, as it does for many living in rural communities. At the age of 15, I volunteered at Biggar’s Albion works as part of a Duke of Edinburgh’s award, and helped to restore an Albion lorry. Albion was, of course, one of Scotland’s first vehicle manufacturers, and that included the manufacture of many buses. I do not know whether anybody here is old enough to remember that. Although Albion is sadly no more, Alexander Dennis has been manufacturing buses in Scotland for more than 100 years and provides significant skilled employment. In Scotland, we recognise the importance of bus travel. The SNP has put in place a number of measures to boost bus use, including an extensive bus pass system, which includes free bus travel for under-23s. It has had positive social impacts and gives young and old people access to vital services and to education, employment and social opportunities. Increased bus use means steady demand for new buses to replace or expand existing fleets, and higher demand means greater opportunity for manufacturers. In my former role as council leader in Moray, I had the pleasure of being a signatory of the Moray growth deal, which included the m.connect scheme—a combination of massively expanded on-demand bus services and expanded scheduled services over a large geography. It is well supported and well liked by the public and, again, more services mean more buses. However, there are serious challenges for bus manufacturers—notably from cheap foreign imports, especially from China—and that raises questions about the current procurement rules. The UK-wide Subsidy Control Act 2022 has prevented the Scottish Government from directly procuring from a single supplier, which puts avoidable strain on domestic bus manufacture. Protecting skilled manufacturing in Scotland is critical to building our transition to a green industrial economy. That is why the Scottish Government committed £4 million to retain more than 400 manufacturing jobs at Alexander Dennis through a furlough scheme to protect crucial skilled workers until work can recommence. It was because of that collaboration and determination, and a shared belief in the value and the future of domestic manufacturing, that the Scottish Government and Alexander Dennis were able to negotiate that deal. But the obvious preference for the company, the Government and, most importantly, those workers is to have a steady stream of orders and no requirement for such a scheme. There are several key things the UK can do to support bus manufacturing. The Subsidy Control Act needs reworking. As the hon. Member for Falkirk said, social value weighting needs to be ramped up. As a councillor, I argued very strongly for that for a wide range of contracts, and I continue to do so today. It is perfectly reasonable to place weighting on local supply chain content, quality assurance, apprenticeships and much more. We also need to significantly tighten up certification of buses to ensure consistently high standards, especially on issues such as cyber-security. There have been multiple investigations in various countries into so-called kill switches in imported vehicles and other technologies, so that is clearly of critical importance. There is a particular irony in trying to grow an electrically powered bus fleet in the UK by shipping buses in large numbers halfway around the world using heavy fuel-powered cargo ships. The green credentials of such procurement arrangements are highly questionable. The whole carbon impact of manufacture and delivery needs to be considered. Work also needs to be done by the Government and power distribution companies to ensure that grid connections for new charging installations are carried out in a timely way. Bus operators will not procure modern EV buses if they have nowhere to plug them in. In conclusion, there are several actions the Government can take to support bus manufacturing and manufacturing more generally. That would also give public authorities and Governments across these islands more tools in the box to support procurement that drives growth and skilled jobs in our manufacturing sector, and ensures a future for these well-known, well-liked companies.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Government Insourcing · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister repeated the promise that was made nearly 18 months ago when the Labour party came into power. We are not seeing a massive amount of insourcing at the moment. I have constituents in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey who work on three different military bases as contractors. Many used to be civil servants and they have lost considerable pension benefits as a result of that outsourcing. There are many others in a similar position in Department for Work and Pensions offices, the Cabinet Office itself and other Government offices throughout the country. When can those workers expect to see some fairness in their contractual arrangements?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Government Insourcing · Hansard source

  More

  9. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Government’s insourcing policies.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the additional investment in energy efficiency measures, which is a good thing. I certainly welcome the simplification of the energy efficiency systems that people can bid into, which can only be a good thing for consumers because that has been a veritable maze. However, the biggest barrier for many of my constituents and people across Scotland is price. They cannot invest in their home if they cannot get a decent price for their energy and deal with the cost of living that is affecting them right now, with the bills they are getting on their doorstep right now. The north of Scotland has the highest energy prices in the UK, and the SNP has put forward proposals for a social tariff. Will the Secretary of State seriously consider those measures, and put in place a social tariff to enable people to take advantage of such schemes?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  We should not underestimate the complexity of this issue or the potential for unintended consequences from a complete ban. There is early evidence that some unintended consequences are already occurring in Australia. Parents are rightly worried and they are demanding action. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to listen to those parents, young people themselves and the many organisations and individual experts in the field, many of whom oppose a full ban, to reach not only a considered position, but a robust and enforceable one? Does she also agree that enforcement of the Online Safety Act has not been remotely strong enough, and that, notwithstanding this consultation, existing enforcement must be better funded and ramped up?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Security of Greenland and the Arctic · Hansard source

  More

  3. What diplomatic steps she is taking to help Greenland strengthen its security.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Security of Greenland and the Arctic · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, the Prime Minister attempted to justify the hesitant approach that is being taken to Greenland, the US and the EU as being in the national interest, yet there was nothing in the national interest about Brexit, a false-hope deal that has left us far away from our European friends, desperately clinging to a US Administration who do not care about our national interests. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the UK is nothing but a cork in the ocean, bobbing around at this moment of international crisis, neither here nor there—and all because of a disastrous, isolationist, self-sabotaging Brexit?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Factored Energy Arrangements: Pricing · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered energy pricing for consumers with factored energy arrangements. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am pleased to have secured this debate on a systemic regulatory failure that is quietly draining the bank accounts of residents across Scotland and the wider UK. We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, yet large numbers of domestic residents are being charged inflated business electricity tariffs for the essential communal services that keep their buildings safe and functional. In a nutshell, the issue is that in many residential developments, services such as stairwell lighting, fire alarms, lifts and door entry systems are powered via shared electricity meters. Despite that electricity being used entirely for domestic living, residents are routinely charged business energy rates. It is not a niche issue; it is a systemic failure driven by outdated rules and weak enforcement. The financial harm to our constituents is stark. A typical communal supply, using around 1,000 kWh per year, would cost roughly £380 on a fixed domestic tariff. Under the frequently used standard variable business tariffs, that same usage can rise to around £1,465, an excess cost of approximately £1,100 per meter every year. Across a modest development of 75 flats, it can add around £12,000 annually to residents’ collective bills. What makes that particularly galling is that many residents are entirely unaware of how their communal electricity is billed. They may not know whether it is on a separate meter, how many accounts are involved, or whether it is charged at domestic or business rates. The costs are simply absorbed into factoring charges, leaving consumers unaware of both the issue and their rights—unaware when they are being roundly fleeced for someone else’s failure to either act properly or correctly inform them. The root cause of the issue is simple: it is a regulatory mismatch. The problem sits at the intersection of Ofgem regulation, supplier interpretation and third party management structures.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Factored Energy Arrangements: Pricing · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly agree on that point. It is not entirely the purpose of my debate to address that issue today, but it one that I recognise. I think there has to be a route for people to challenge the advice they are given and to take to task those who have given incorrect advice, and that has to be reasonably simple. In many cases currently, it is not. Ofgem’s guidance on domestic communal supplies, which suppliers ought to follow, is very clear: where the non-commercial collective purchase of energy is for mainly domestic use, that should be treated as a domestic supply, provided that the arrangement is not commercial in nature. That guidance makes it clear that classification should be based on how the energy is used, not on the legal entity holding the contract, yet in practice it is inconsistently applied and weakly enforced. Inconsistent supplier behaviour has created staggering inconsistency across the energy market. Some suppliers, including Ecotricity, Octopus and OVO, correctly apply domestic rates based on usage and do not override domestic classifications simply because a factor is involved. However, others, including EDF, British Gas, E.ON and SSE, often default to business rates, based solely on the identity of the contract holder. Indeed, in research carried out by my office, representatives of EDF have explicitly stated that they “override the domestic classification if the usage is for a communal area managed by a business entity”. That is in clear contradiction to Ofgem’s advice. The result is a supplier lottery. Two identical buildings on the same street can pay vastly different amounts for the same stairwell lighting, purely because of which supplier the managing agent selected. The lack of regulatory oversight is deeply frustrating for our constituents. No meaningful reform has followed the 2023 call for evidence and multiple parliamentary questions. The current Government have carried out some further consultation, but have not yet moved things on, either. When I come to my conclusion, I will have specific asks for the Minister in that regard. In April 2024, the Minister’s Department suggested that, due to physical set-ups, these consumers would continue to receive energy via non-domestic contracts. I have additionally met Ofgem on this issue. It recognises the problem, but consistent standards have not been enforced. Residents who do not choose their supplier are excluded from key domestic protections, including price cap coverage and Energy Ombudsman access. They are effectively trapped. More worryingly, when debts arise, suppliers may pursue residents directly as the “end users”, despite residents having no control over the contract. It is a Catch-22, where responsibility exists without authority, leaving residents unable to discuss the debts they are being chased for, because they do not hold the contract. If residents wish to complain, they often find the ombudsman route unavailable to them because the contract is held by a third party, leaving courts or tribunals as the only effective route for redress. I therefore have six targeted and practical policy asks of the Minister. No. 1 is to reform standard licence condition 6 in order to prioritise actual usage over contract structure. No. 2 is to mandate a standardised appeal process for tariff classification across suppliers. No. 3 is to enforce profile class integrity, so that domestic or PC 01 meters are not billed at business rates. No. 4 is to strengthen Ofgem’s enforcement powers, so that protections are enforceable and not just advisory. No. 5 is to reopen the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero call for evidence and commit to legislative change. No. 6 is to ensure that residents under third party communal contracts can access the Energy Ombudsman. The current system is a failure of logic and protection and a further cost of living blow to the people who can least afford it. We are effectively telling residents that, because they live in a flat with a shared hallway, rather than in a semi-detached house, they must pay business prices to power their light bulbs and fire alarms. To put it simply, the current situation is like someone being charged a commercial freight rate for a first-class stamp simply because the person posting the letter for them happens to be a professional administrator. It is time that the Government and Ofgem ensured that domestic use always equals a domestic price, and that residents are made fully aware of their rights when communal energy arrangements are put in place.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Factored Energy Arrangements: Pricing · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely the case. To take Scotland as an example, consumers have a route to address complaints about this issue through the regulation of factors, but it is complex and cumbersome. There should be a simpler way to do it through the energy regulator, as I will touch on later in my speech. Many communal meters are correctly classed as profile class 01, a domestic designation based on usage. However, where a property factor, managing agent or company holds the contract, suppliers often automatically apply the business tariff.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  1. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of her policies on the cost of living in Scotland.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  While the Labour Westminster Government have been killing jobs, hiking energy bills and exacerbating the cost of living crisis, yesterday the SNP Scottish Government’s budget cut child poverty, boosted funding for the NHS and slashed income tax for hard-working families. A clear majority of workers in Scotland will pay less tax than those in the rest of the UK. Does the Secretary of State support the action in the SNP’s budget, or would he prefer that the lowest earners in Scotland paid more tax, as they do under Labour?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Offshore Wind · Hansard source

  More

  Although the news on Berwick Bank and Pentland is hugely welcome, it risks masking serious jeopardy for Scotland’s offshore wind sector. There is great worry that today’s news represents a longer-term shift in the renewables industry from north to south, due to the unfair and disproportionate transmission charges regime. If Scotland’s offshore wind sector is to have a future, we need to see reform of transmission charges before auction round 8—will we?

• 12 Jan 2026 · New Medium Helicopter Contract · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, the biggest impact will be felt in the constituency of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), but there will be an impact on businesses that are in the supply chain across the UK, and most people will be asking how on earth the procurement process has taken so long. Focusing on the military impact, how much have the repeated delays cost the taxpayer through failure demand—through the extended use of existing helicopters, long past their sell-by date, with ever-increasing maintenance costs—and has any assessment been made of future failure demand costs? What impact has the increased downtime of ageing helicopters had on operational risks?

• 17 Dec 2025 · INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth · Hansard source

  More

  I know that Government Members forget which Parliament they are actually in—who knows, maybe they would feel better in the Scottish Parliament. This is a welcome announcement. For months now, the Scottish Government have been calling on the UK Government to intervene to protect jobs at Grangemouth and Mossmorran at a scale seen in other parts of the UK. The news will give some much needed Christmas cheer, at least to the Grangemouth community and the workers at Ineos Olefins & Polymers. Last week the Scottish Government, jointly with the UK Government and Celtic Renewables, announced an £8.5 million investment at the Grangemouth industrial cluster, including in MiAlgae. That will create up to 460 jobs, demonstrating that a long-term industrial future at the site is achievable. We will continue to do all we can within the limited powers that the Scottish Parliament has. However, the announcement today does not help those at the neighbouring refinery whose jobs have already been lost. Although there may be some crossover support for nearby Mossmorran workers, there is still a substantial gap in support. Will the Minister finally accept that one of the most fundamental causes of the need for support is the fiscal regime being inflicted on oil and gas and the use of the energy profits levy, which make a just transition a near impossibility?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Artificial Intelligence Skills · Hansard source

  More

  Science and technology skills are vital if we are to fully realise the economic and social opportunities available to us, and I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that science centres are a vital part of that ecosystem in engaging and enthusing young people in science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM—learning. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s funding of science centres has to date, as described by the sector, been piecemeal? Will she take action in support of the Science Centres for Our Future campaign and get science centres into sustainable and predictable funding arrangements?

• 17 Dec 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  While businesses are still reeling from last year’s national insurance increase, with this Bill the Labour Government are set to increase tax again by making salary sacrifice pension contribution schemes worse for workers. What has the Labour party said previously? In its 2024 manifesto, on page 79, it stated: “Our system of state, private, and workplace pensions provide the basis for security in retirement…We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners.” It gets even more ridiculous when we see that the same manifesto also stated on page 21: “Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance”. That is exactly what the Bill does. Recent survey data from the Confederation of British Industry showed that three in four employers will have to decrease pension contributions as a result of the measures in the Bill. As the CBI has said, it is “‘a tax on doing the right thing’”. It goes on to state: “Ultimately, this unwise move will only damage growth, investment and pension saving rates.” It is not just the CBI that has voiced alarm at the Bill. The Association of British Insurers stated: “Capping salary sacrifice for pension saving is a short-sighted tax grab which will lower pension saving and undermine people’s retirement security.” The Minister said in his introduction that “everyone who has thought about this” will come to the same conclusion. He might not wish to refer to the CBI and ABI coming to different conclusions, but they have clearly thought about it. It is not even clear that the measure will raise the money that the Chancellor expects. A former pensions Minister from the coalition era has said that he expects it to raise “a fraction” of the intended amount, as firms will restructure payments to evade it. In addition to the likelihood of payments being restructured, even the OBR has made it clear to the Chancellor that it expects employers simply to pass the cost on to employees through lower wages and less generous schemes. It will be working people who ultimately pay for this short-term thinking, with a lower standard of living and less spending power in their retirement. As we have seen with the maladministration of pension changes for 1950s-born women, politicians cannot and must not change the goalposts on retirement planning without giving significant advance notice. Any approach otherwise, such as in the Bill, is deeply unfair to savers. This move will land businesses with yet more administrative costs, disproportionately hitting small to medium-sized employers who are still absorbing the increased NIC costs from last year’s Budget. Is this muddled policy really from a Government who stood on a pledge of growing the economy? This is yet again another Budget with another rise in national insurance by Labour. There are numerous unanswered questions, but the following are top of the list. What assessment has the Minister made of likely behavioural changes to pension savings as a result of this policy? What is the estimated increased cost to businesses as a result of this policy? Does the Minister anticipate lower pensions for workers as a result of this policy, and if so, how much would the decrease be? Can the Labour Government seriously make a commitment in this Chamber not to increase national insurance in next year’s Budget, given the rises in both their Budgets since coming into power? This Bill is deeply flawed and the SNP will not support it today.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister said this morning that politics is about choices. The Chancellor chose not to disclose the improved tax outlook from the OBR when she addressed the country on 4 November; the Chancellor chose to overstate the challenges with the public finances; the Chancellor chose to withhold the more positive forecasts from her Cabinet colleagues; and the Chancellor chose not to be here today to answer questions on her conduct in office. Does the Minister agree that the Chancellor’s position is untenable and that she should now choose to resign?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  On both those points, I absolutely do. The previous Government introduced the climate change targets, and they have now withdrawn from those. That is the last thing that the energy sector needs; we need investment in renewables. On the jobs and skills side of things, there is investment from both the UK Government and the Scottish Government. I welcome their partnership on that, but compared with the impact of the energy profits levy, it is frankly small beer. It will not have an impact unless there is an underpinning fiscal regime that actually supports those jobs until we have a renewables sector ready to take those jobs on. That is simply not there at the moment, and unless the fiscal regime changes substantially, those jobs will not be there and people will simply be on the scrapheap. The worst cost of living crisis for any family is when a family member loses their job. Some 1,000 jobs are going every single month in the energy sector, and the transition plan—if the Government actually have one—is doing little to nothing to support those workers, their families, or the communities they live in. The Government must take urgent action on the EPL, or we will have another industrial jobs disaster, such as Ravenscraig, that will reverberate in communities for generations. Let me turn to the plight of WASPI women, who continue tirelessly to campaign against the wrong done to them. A year ago, almost to the day, I asked the Prime Minister when they would be compensated—he flannelled his answer and refused to commit. In the space of that year, around 3,500 WASPI women have died without compensation. The Chancellor made no mention of WASPI women in the Budget statement, despite the Government having to rethink things following recent court proceedings. Action must be taken urgently to give compensation to WASPI women, who have been left without the pensions they deserve because successive Governments communicated with them so badly.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will focus on particular measures in the Budget that will have a massive impact on my constituents in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, and more widely across the north and north-east of Scotland. First, one of the bigger contributors to the cost of living crisis is the cost of energy. To recap where we are at present, the Labour party promised a £300 reduction in energy bills in their manifesto, but since the 2024 election, consumer and business energy bills have risen substantially. It is estimated that by April, energy bills will be up to £560 higher than the Labour party promised. Taking into account the measures in the Budget, they will still be more than £400 higher than promised. The Resolution Foundation estimates that by 2029-30, energy bills will be £60 lower than current prices, making them about £430 higher than at the time when the Labour party made their manifesto commitment. The Labour party’s latest swindle on energy bills is already falling apart. To compound matters, my constituents and businesses in the north of Scotland already pay the second highest level of electricity prices in the UK, second only to north Wales and Merseyside, despite vast amounts of energy being produced on their doorstep. That basically means that those consumers are paying for a regulatory system that was created when Battersea power station sold energy rather than Rolexes—a system that successive Governments have manifestly failed to deal with. It is shocking energy price discrimination, with price increase misery heaped on top.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I would be happy to debate that when it is brought before the House by the Chancellor, if that ever happens. To accelerate the demise of an industry without ensuring that the right and appropriate time is available for the transition is frankly criminal. I have heard many times Labour Members railing against the impact of Thatcherism in the 1980s—and they are right to do so—yet now they are defending their record of doing the same thing to our oil and gas sector. It is utterly shameful.