Graham Leadbitter MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  Westminster’s mismanagement of the energy sector is clearly being felt across these islands, and the Government were right to arrange a statement today to address the possible closure of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery. However, that is not a courtesy that the Labour Government have ever extended to Grangemouth in Scotland: they have not once come to the Chamber to make a statement about it. We have seen Labour pull out all the stops for Scunthorpe and now begin that process for Lindsey. Will they think again and do the same for Grangemouth? The Shetland gas plant is also owned by Prax, and is also a significant employer. What steps are the Government taking to secure the future of this site, and why did the plant not feature in the statement, if only for the purpose of an assurance?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The SNP welcomes the Bill, which will support the expanding use of sustainable aviation fuel. We view that as an important action among the range of actions that are needed to meet our legal and—most importantly —moral obligations to reduce carbon and support global efforts to tackle climate change. My constituency has already played an important role in the use of SAF, with RAF Lossiemouth being the first Air Force base to use a SAF fuel blend for routine operations, for both the Poseidon submarine hunters and the Typhoon squadrons operating with a SAF mix. The RAF has also conducted demonstrator flights with 100% SAF-fuelled aircraft, and refuelled jets in the air with SAF. Indeed, Group Captain Sarah Brewin, the station commander at RAF Lossiemouth, has stated: “The use of sustainable aviation fuel represents a significant milestone in the RAF’s journey towards helping mitigate against climate change. By integrating sustainable practices into our operations, we are not only enhancing our ability to protect the nation and deliver excellence on operations, but also contributing to a more sustainable future for generations to come.” I welcome the fact that the RAF has some ambitious targets to reduce its aviation carbon emissions. Inverness airport, publicly owned by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd and responsible to the Scottish Government, has offered SAF to operators since 2023—a vital piece of work towards the Scottish Government’s deliberately ambitious goal of creating the world’s first net zero aviation region by 2040. Offshore supply flights are one of the most promising parts of our aviation sector for SAF potential. With Scotland having the lion’s share of these flights from Aberdeen airport, it is vital that we see investment in SAF production in Scotland. Aberdeen airport, operated by AGS Airports, has supplied SAF since 2022, helping offshore industries to reduce their emissions. In 2021, one of the first fully-SAF helicopter flights in the UK took off from Aberdeen airport. BP is working with Bristow Helicopters to ensure that flights to BP platforms have used a SAF blend for more than two and a half years. Scotland has an immense SAF production potential. The Bill alone is insufficient to see us reach that potential, but it is an important part of that. Scotland’s SAF progress has been held back by the inaction of successive UK Governments on funding the Scottish carbon capture, usage and storage cluster. The CCUS cluster is, in turn, integral to the investment in SAF production at Grangemouth. Industry body Sustainable Aviation found that a UK SAF industry could deliver £2.9 billion annually to the UK economy, and create more than 20,000 jobs. It is vital that, with long-overdue funding finally confirmed today—something that the SNP has campaigned on for over a decade—the full detail is rapidly made clear and that pace is further injected into the process if that overdue cash is to be converted to construction and processing. My SNP colleague and Transport Secretary in the Scottish Government has put in place an expert working group on sustainable aviation fuel to exploit the potential for the Scottish economy. I have covered our broad welcome for the Bill, but there is one area that the Government must address, which is ensuring that feedstocks are coming from sustainable sources. We welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on further design work in the process and we will see that come through in the passage of the Bill. However, the Government must set out how they plan to manage the sourcing of sustainable aviation fuel feedstocks, so that the waste hierarchy is adhered to, and that existing businesses are not damaged by the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism. The most obvious illustration of this is the potential use of high-quality wood as one potential feedstock for SAF production. Some Members, but I suspect not all, will be aware that current demand for wood will outstrip supply by 2035. It will be obvious to everyone that it takes more than 10 years to grow a forest, so there is a real and well-articulated concern from organisations such as the Wood Panel Industry Federation and the many sawmill operators throughout the UK. The UK wood panel industry currently supplies 65% of the UK’s demand for wood panel products, utilising 25% of the annual roundwood harvest basket and 25% of the annual waste wood basket. Fully 10% of the UK economy utilises wood panel products and, again, it will not be lost on the Government that, in order to achieve a 1.5 million new homes target—something the SNP welcomes, given our own substantial success in social and affordable housing build in Scotland—protecting and growing wood supply will be absolutely vital. The eligibility criteria for the SAF mandate stipulates that feedstock materials must be waste that cannot be prevented, reused or recycled in accordance with the waste hierarchy. While the mandate acknowledges the waste hierarchy, which in principle would prioritise the use of waste wood for recycling before energy recovery, it is not clear how it will be monitored and enforced, leaving supplies of waste wood vulnerable to being used in SAF, against the eligibility criteria. There is a risk that the introduction of a revenue certainty mechanism will incentivise producers wishing to use this essential raw material for SAF production. There will be time during the passage of the Bill for Ministers to mitigate this risk and address this issue across the Departments involved, of which there are several. I particularly hope that the Deputy Prime Minister’s responsibility for housing will help to focus ministerial and wider departmental minds on ensuring that the final iteration of the Bill supports sustainable SAF feedstocks. There are many good ways to manufacture SAF, and there are some bad ones. Let us get the mix right in this Bill.

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

  More

  I hear that it is your birthday, Mr Speaker. Congratulations! The UK Government have announced £14 billion for new, extremely expensive nuclear energy projects, while crucial shovel-ready green developments in Scotland are receiving nothing at all. Both Cruachan 2 and the Acorn project are awaiting the Minister’s approval to create new green jobs in Scotland. When will that money be made available?

• 14 May 2025 · Digital Inclusion · Hansard source

  More

  There are some really good examples of the delivery of innovative products that provide access in remote and rural areas and some good small-scale providers, but in the Cairngorms national park area a provider recently unexpectedly ceased the service. Consumers have been left out on a limb, so is it time to put in place, as with the energy system, consumer protection should a provider fail to provide a service?

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

  More

  The point that the Secretary of State makes about the oil and gas sector is very pertinent. At Ardersier, the First Minister of Scotland and a representative of the UK Government met with Haventus relatively recently to support the investment there with joint efforts from both Governments. That was very welcome, but to support that we need a thriving service and hospitality sector, which is a real problem in my constituency. In parts of the highlands in Moray, in places such as Nairn and Aviemore, there is a growing population. Despite that, there are hospitality businesses that are open only five days a week out of seven, because they cannot staff them—they cannot get the staff. How does the Secretary of State suggest that we deal with that?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Pace is needed, understandably, but I do have some concerns in that due process needs to be followed with the devolved Administrations. Can she assure the House that sufficient time is being allowed for the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, to be fully involved and engaged in a consultation on policy development, and the Scottish Parliament for any legislative changes that may be required? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the potential for those changes to impact negatively on carbon emissions in the UK and Scotland, and our respective Governments’ ability to meet statutory climate change targets? Will she publish any such assessments?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Disruption at Heathrow · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has indicated that she spoke to the chief executive of Heathrow on Friday and again this morning. I would like to think that, with an incident of this scale, there were ministerial contacts throughout the weekend, possibly on a more than daily basis, given the impact it had on so many people. Will she commit to urgently reviewing the DFT’s response to this major incident, in addition to Heathrow’s? She will also be aware that airports the length and breadth of the UK are vital transport hubs and linked to critical infrastructure, such as Aberdeen airport and, in my constituency, Inverness airport, with dozens of helicopter flights servicing offshore oil and gas and renewables infrastructure; and airports are also home to air ambulances, police helicopters and coastguard services. Will she therefore commit also to reviewing the level of operational resilience in those and other locations that host services critical to people’s wellbeing and to energy security and national security?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The director of Family Business UK, Steve Rigby, has said that the single most important issue for the family businesses he represents is the retention of business property relief. That has come through loud and clear to me in recent weeks when I have been speaking to local businesses, both individually and collectively through organisations such as the Cairngorms Business Partnership and the local chamber of commerce. Other family businesses, which have never come together before and do not usually lobby their MPs, have come together too. They normally just get on with being hard-working and productive family businesses, but they have come together to lobby because they are so concerned about the impact of BPR. To give a flavour of the family businesses in my constituency, we have some of the most iconic family businesses in the UK. Many will know Baxters from its food products, and Walker’s Shortbread food products can be found in pretty much every airport in the world. Glenfiddich, owned by William Grant & Sons, is another family business, and Johnstons of Elgin produces some of the finest cashmere products in the world. In Scotland as a whole, it alone employs 1,000 people. Those businesses are not small fry. They put huge amounts of money and investment into those businesses every single year. I met a group of business owners last week who collectively represent 2,500 years of business ownership. They have a phenomenal story to tell. What is incredible about them is the stewardship of those businesses. They invest their time and energy. Family members get trained up and work in all aspects of the business, ready to take on the mantle of running it when it comes to them later in life. If the business was a limited liability partnership and you got rid of the business management of the business, it would not have any kind of inheritance tax to pay. Yet the only choice for family businesses operating on that scale, given the likely tax bill they will be hit with, is to either put away millions of pounds to cover the tax bill, which means they are not investing, or sell off large parts of the business. For manufacturing businesses, there is a very big chance that they will end up abroad rather than in the UK. They could be bought by a multinational or a conglomerate and the jobs would just be shipped abroad. That is not the way to grow the economy. I was okay with the first couple of bits of the official Opposition’s motion, but they would have been better to have a laser-like focus on inheritance tax and national insurance contributions. Their inclusion of trying to stop a workers’ rights Bill is frankly ridiculous, and as for adding in the beer measures, it seems as though somebody must have been on a heady brew to come up with that notion. Those things make the motion unsupportable, but I hope the Minister is listening to what I have said about those aspects of the motion that I do support and have concerns about.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry · Hansard source

  More

  That was a fairly lengthy intervention. The first point I would make is that the key concerns raised by the Scotch whisky industry are trade agreements and spirits taxation—and we are here to scrutinise the Government in Westminster, not Scotland. The tax increase means that a minimum of £12 of the cost of a bottle of Scotch is now claimed by the Exchequer in tax for the first time, disproportionately penalising those who choose to consume Scotch whisky over other beverages. I urge the Government to reconsider excise duty on Scotch whisky to ensure that its global success story is not undermined. On extended producer responsibility, we need a scheme that genuinely promotes a circular economy. The industry is supportive of EPR in principle, but it must not simply function as a packaging tax on producers. The costs imposed on producers through EPR are considerable and place significant additional cost pressures on the industry. Producers must be given clear figures to map their liability and meet their obligations. Better incentives need to be placed on local authorities to use the payments provided by producers to improve recycling and reprocessing services and in turn lower costs per tonne for producers. Supporting the industry’s sustainability goals is absolutely crucial and will, by extension, help meet the wider net zero goals that I believe most of us want to see achieved. The Scotch whisky industry has long taken its responsibility to address its own impact on the environment and to tackle our emissions seriously. The industry is committed to decarbonising its own operations by 2040 and becoming net zero by 2045. The Scottish Government’s Scottish industrial energy transformation fund and the UK Government’s net zero innovation portfolio are welcome and have been strategically important in de-risking new technology, supporting delivery and testing at scale. It is important to note the example of Chivas Brothers, which has set an ambitious target of becoming carbon-neutral in distillation by 2026—I repeat: by 2026, or next year—and is on target to achieve that. That is ahead of the Scotch Whisky Association’s industry target to decarbonise by 2040 and Scotland’s vision of being net zero by 2045. Chivas’s heat recovery technology programme is open source, encouraging the adoption of technologies that unlock the successful reduction of energy intensity and carbon generation at scale. It is extremely heartening to see an energy-intensive business such as distilling being willing not just to invest millions in developing innovative new technology, but to invite competitors, supply chain companies and others to share in that learning and use it in other locations. That is something many other businesses could learn from in terms of how we collectively tackle our energy usage. It is vital to protect the unique sales environment offered by duty-free and global travel retail, a critical market for the whisky industry. Duty-free sales have long contributed to the development of the Scotch whisky industry and are estimated to generate £6.2 billion in annual exports and support 42,000 jobs across the UK. Overseas duty-free sales provide a shop window for Scotland. The vast majority of major airports have shelves lined with an incredible variety of Scotch. Serious consideration of arrivals duty-free here in the UK could provide a new opportunity for whisky brands to showcase their products, while creating a critical new source of revenue through increased employment in the UK-based supply chain. The Scotch whisky industry is a vital part of both the Scottish and UK economies, and is a source of national pride. In my own Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey constituency, the sector operates 48 distilleries—soon to be 49—numerous labs, whisky storage sites and offices with engineers, technicians and architects, and is supported by a vibrant and extensive supply chain and a busy logistics sector. More than 5,000 of my constituents’ jobs are tied to the Scotch whisky industry—one in every nine jobs. It is the most concentrated group of distilleries in the world. By addressing the issues I have outlined today—trade, excise duty, extended producer responsibility, sustainability and duty-free sales—the UK Government can provide the support needed to ensure that the Scotch whisky industry continues to flourish for generations to come. We need all parties to champion our great exports, including Scotch whisky, and ensure that the sector has the support it need at home to deliver growth and investment, to flourish and to deliver on its sustainability objectives.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this morning’s debate. I will not speak for too long, because we have had several debates on this issue; instead, I will focus on the key points that I think need hammering home. For several years colleagues in the highlands and islands, and now my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) and I, have worked on the highland energy rebate campaign., which would mean a geographic rebate for people in the highlands and islands affected by higher fuel prices. I am not precious about the mechanism for that. There is a bit of kickback about a geographic mechanism, but it is a very useful debating tool because it hammers home the fact that there is a geographic discrepancy and discrimination for people living in the highlands and islands, and the north of Scotland more generally. We need a solution from the Government, and we need it urgently. For decades, people in the highlands and islands have been paying more for their energy than those in almost any other part of the UK. They pay more for distribution, and no other part of the UK pays more for transmission. All that people see are wires and pylons. The energy infrastructure, much of it in the highlands and islands, is used to send energy hundreds of miles away, but that is not distributed across bills in the same way as the distribution charges are. For example, in the flat that I live in when I am down here in this place, I pay roughly 40p on standing charges, and at home I pay 60p-plus on standing charges. That is a third extra every single day on that standing charge, and that is the same for people across the whole of the highlands and islands, which puts it in perspective for folk. For decades, successive Governments have failed to tackle poor regulation. Ofgem has shown little interest in dealing with energy prices in the north of Scotland. Twenty years ago, we were less focused on decarbonisation issues than we are now. We were trying to get people on grid because there were so many people off-grid in the highlands and islands. The authorities would not look at getting gas into more remote areas; that was very low on the priority list. I am not advocating that we should do that now; new technologies have come in since then and we need to focus on decarbonising our energy systems. But it evidences that this has been going on for a long time, and that solutions have not been found. Governments have always focused on urban areas with big populations to the detriment of rural customers. That is not acceptable, because the highlands and islands of Scotland are the coldest parts of the UK and have the highest levels of fuel poverty per head of population. That major issue needs to be addressed. I want to highlight a couple of strategic issues about generators. We have wind farms consented to produce many gigawatts, but they are not able to progress because the Ministry of Defence has not come up with a radar solution that will allow them to operate. That is a matter of urgency. It is about capacity within the MOD and the amount of effort that it has been able to put into coming up with a solution; it is not because there is no solution, but because not enough people are working on it. As a consequence, we have big projects that would generate employment through their construction and would contribute to our net zero goals, but they cannot get over that hurdle, despite being consented and having passed all the other barriers. If they cannot get over that hurdle, those consents will fall and the projects will be lost. That needs to be urgently addressed, and I urge the Minister to do what he can to work with colleagues in the MOD to get some focus on that. I welcome the work on social tariffs, on which the SNP has a manifesto commitment, and I know from colleagues in the Scottish Government that a lot of close working is going on with the Department, which I welcome. Hopefully we will see a positive resolution to that in the not-too-distant future. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the winter fuel payment. The £300 winter fuel payment has been lost to tens of thousands of people across the highlands and islands. That combines with the points I have already made—along with the cost of energy going up since the Government came in last July and the promise to reduce energy bills by £300 for the most vulnerable pensioners—so we are now looking for £780. I am not entirely sure how that £780 reduction in bills will be achieved, but that is essentially the position that the Government find themselves in—they need to find that for thousands of people in order to maintain that manifesto pledge, and it will be interesting to know how that is going to happen.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Changes to inheritance tax can be made that will prevent people from gaming the system and buying up land to avoid tax. That can be done without an impact on existing farming businesses. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for the Government not to have even considered such changes in their previous responses is not only unacceptable, but a dereliction when it comes to food security and national security?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Storm Éowyn · Hansard source

  More

  I offer my sympathies to everyone who has been severely affected by Storm Éowyn, and in particular those who have lost loved ones. I share the Minister’s acknowledgment of the work that has been and continues to be done in the aftermath of the storm. Huge thanks go to Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, the ScottishPower emergency network, our local authority, staff at Openreach, our road and rail teams and all the emergency services for the way they have handled and responded to this weather emergency. I have a couple of specific questions. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the operation of battery back-up phones, which are replacing phones on the copper wire network, including whether they are effective in a power outage, particularly in places where the power is off for long periods of time? Make no mistake: this weather event was caused by climate change and is yet another warning—if one were needed—against rowing back on our net zero commitments. Will the Minister acknowledge that and redouble efforts to tackle carbon emissions in an effort to protect future generations from the most extreme scenarios that we might face?

• 4 Dec 2024 · End of Radio Teleswitch Service: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Like my hon. Friend, I have significant concerns about the end of RTS in rural Scotland. Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey has a disproportionate number of RTS meters, and I include myself in that statistic. My own experience with OVO Energy and switching to a smart meter from RTS has left a lot to be desired. I have had several telephone conversations with OVO representatives as a private customer regarding the RTS switchover. The main question I had during those phone calls was, “If I switch, will I be better or worse off, or paying the same as I am now for electricity?” I had to push extremely hard to get a straight answer to that. If that is the difficulty I am experiencing, as someone who is experienced in assisting constituents with this very issue, does my hon. Friend share my concern about how more vulnerable people, who may feel immense pressure from operators installing new meters, will be impacted?

• 4 Dec 2024 · End of Radio Teleswitch Service: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  My experience is that the energy company has been in touch with me. The tone of the emails has been quite pushy, which is what we are talking about, in that they need to be pushing quite hard on customers to make that change and get the right meter in place. However, when I have subsequently been in touch with them—I do not have a smart meter yet; it is coming in January—the first time there were no appointments and they were unable to answer that simple question of whether it will be cheaper. I cannot stress enough how much I have had to push them to get that answer out of them. I am not a vulnerable customer; I understand why this is happening, like everybody else in the Chamber. Vulnerable customers, however, may just accept that. There is a sense of urgency that needs to be injected, but it needs to come with a note of caution about how it is injected and how it is communicated, and it needs to make sure that customers understand how much they are likely to be paying. There also needs to be a transitional arrangement so that if somebody gets the wrong tariff, they are not penalised for that and it can be changed.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware that there is a strong link between communications technology and the roll-out of smart meter technology in areas in the north of Scotland that are suffering from cold weather. Particularly at the moment, connectivity is really important for such alternative technologies to work. What discussions has he had with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on that issue?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The SNP supports the Bill and the Government’s position on the Lords amendments, mainly because the SNP Government in Scotland have already driven forward with public ownership. Sadly, without full and normal powers of independence—those will come in due course—the Bill is the current means to support and underpin those actions by the Scottish Government. I accept the Secretary of State’s position on Lords amendment 1. To take an example from my constituency, Inverness Airport station was opened relatively recently, and that adds time to the journey between Inverness and Aberdeen. Kintore station in Aberdeenshire was also opened, adding time to the overall length of the journey, but I do not think anybody would dispute that those are good improvements to the railway. They open up the railway to far more people, meaning that more people are using the line, spending money on rail services, and taking cars off the road, even if the overall journey time has not been reduced. Therefore the definition of an improvement in performance is really important, and the amendment gives no indication of how that will be dealt with. For that reason, the SNP does not support it. We agree that Lords amendment 2 could result in further loss to the public purse and the paying of excessive fees over an extended period. We want that money to come back to the public purse so that it can be reinvested in the railway and increase the usage of our trains. This is not the 1980s. There is a lot of talk about going back to how things were prior to privatisation, but governance and scrutiny are now in a very different place from 40 years ago, and we should acknowledge that. A railway that is publicly owned might bring about a real and sustained age of the train, which we might recall from our youth, with real infrastructure investment like that seen in Scotland. We want to continue to do more of that. That will drag people back on to the railways and move them off the roads, which will contribute to our efforts on climate change and gently improve people’s lives. That is why we support the Government’s position on the Lords amendments.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  First, I commend the maiden speakers in the House today. There have been some excellent maiden speeches. I particularly liked the reference by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) to Tolkien, of whom I am a big fan, but today we are talking less about the bounteousness of the Hobbit’s Shire and more about needing a wizard to figure out how the Budget is good for farmers. Like many Members across the House representing rural areas, I have received significant correspondence from those on family farms, and from industry representatives such as the National Farmers Union of Scotland. The changes to inheritance tax and agricultural property relief have sent a wave of despair through the farming community, given the impact on family farms. Labour Members have referred to farmers having time to do financial planning, but significant sums of money will have to be put aside; if we were talking about pensions, we would say that people needed 10, 15 or 20 years to change their financial plans in that way. The NFUS has given the example of a family farm worth £4 million. The vast majority of that value is tied up in farm buildings, machinery and livestock. A family member inheriting the farm could be liable for a £600,000 tax bill—a demand enforceable by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, with £60,000 due within six months. Let us be clear that for many people, the only way to cover that would be to sell off buildings, machinery or stock. That may inherently make the farm financially unviable and put the whole business at risk of failure. A farm owner may choose to protect their family farm assets by selling off tenanted land, creating huge financial uncertainty for tenant farmers, and giving many cause to question whether it is worth continuing in farming. Food security is national security, but these measures are increasing uncertainty and insecurity for hard-working farming families—and in most farms, the whole family is working it together. A constituent wrote to me to say that APR is not a loophole, as has been suggested, but a targeted and necessary relief designed to support multi-generational businesses, food production and economic growth. A second issue of real significance to my constituency is whisky tax. That might not immediately jump to mind when we think about rural affairs, but the vast majority of the 48 distilleries in my constituency are in rural areas. The supply chain for those whisky distilleries is in rural areas; these are rural jobs. If the increase in whisky tax reduces sales, that reduces investment. Those 48 distilleries range from big corporates such as Diageo through to small independents, and even a community-run distillery; I recently had the pleasure of being at its opening. The supply chain includes farmers producing grains—this is a double whammy for farmers in my constituency, as many of them produce grain for the distilleries—as well as mechanical engineers, process engineers, hauliers, maltsters, plumbers, joiners, gardeners, tour guides and those working in retail and hospitality. All those jobs are in rural areas, and they are a lifeline source of well-paid, good employment for many rural communities in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey. A third impact that I want to touch on is forestry. Here I can maybe throw the Minister a bone, having had a bit of a go about the first two issues. On forestry, I think we have a lot in common. We want to see more housing built; I am very supportive of that. I also support the need to see progress on sustainable aviation fuel. Both of those rely on significant investment in forestry. There is a serious issue about the availability of new wood beyond 2035, and if we are to achieve progress on sustainable aviation fuel and house building, that needs to be in the balance. Forestry needs to be in balance with the rest of our agricultural land needs. I urge the Minister to commit to a statement on the future of forestry beyond 2035, in order to support those two objectives, which, as I say, I believe we share.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Energy Rebates: Highlands and Islands · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about transmission charges versus distribution charges, transmission is, in effect, distribution to the rest of the UK. Energy is transmitted for people to purchase at the other end. It does not cost any less to do that—in fact, it costs more. Purchasing energy hundreds of miles away from where it is created, but paying less to receive it, seems completely inequitable.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Energy Rebates: Highlands and Islands · Hansard source

  More

  The basic issue relates to the regional inequity, which has to do with the regulation of the system and of how distribution charges are applied and basic unit prices charged. Those are generally much higher. It is more than just the temperature issue; it is about the whole structure of the energy system. Fuel poverty rates in our region are stark: 39.8% of households in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, 32.9% in the highlands and 31.6% in Moray experience fuel poverty. In Na h-Eileanan an Iar alone, 24.3% of households face extreme fuel poverty, a rate that is unmatched across the UK. The highland energy rebate would represent a fair solution. It would be an actionable, just and necessary response to the challenges. The rebate would provide essential financial relief to those burdened by the high cost of energy. Such a measure would help to alleviate the financial pressure on families and individuals who already endure the highest levels of fuel poverty in the UK. Beyond the immediate household impact, a rebate would boost the local economy and reinforce the economic stability of the highlands and islands. By lessening the financial burden of energy costs, we can empower residents, enabling greater participation in our communities and stimulating local economic activity. What can we learn from the existing frameworks? Critics may argue that implementing such a rebate is complex or costly, but let me be blunt: people who live in fuel poverty and face the choice of heating or eating on a day-to-day basis have a day-to-day existence that is also complex and costly. Similar rebate frameworks exist not only in various countries across Europe—Norway and Denmark, for example—but here in the UK. The hydro benefit replacement scheme was well intentioned, but it fell short of supporting our vulnerable consumers adequately. In 2022, a brief review noted that the scheme “does not…provide an efficient or effective way of” supporting “vulnerable consumers”. Given the additional £49 million paid by highlands and islands energy consumers over the past three years, our communities cannot afford continued shortfalls in targeted support. We deserve a scheme that is equitable, modern and regionally tailored. The recently proposed household energy rebate of £10,000 over 10 years for those living near new energy infrastructure underlines the precedent for providing regional support. A highland energy rebate would take us a step further, applying it to areas where renewable energy infrastructure already exists, and supporting the nation. In conclusion, this is a matter of fairness, equity and regional support. The highlands and islands play a pivotal role in the UK’s clean energy production, yet we bear the highest costs. The highland energy rebate would be an acknowledgment of the contributions of our communities and would ensure a share in the benefits of the energy they help create. I urge everyone here today to support this campaign for a fairer energy system and for economic justice for the highlands and islands, and I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide an assurance that the new Government will take this matter seriously and act quickly to address the inequalities in our energy system and lift people out of fuel poverty.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Energy Rebates: Highlands and Islands · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of energy rebates for the Highlands and Islands. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am here to address a matter of critical importance to my constituents in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, and indeed to residents across the highlands and islands: the vital need for a highland energy rebate. I first pay tribute to my predecessor, Drew Hendry, who played a leading role in the campaign, and my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), who has been involved in the campaign since its inception. Our region’s unique energy challenges would be met by a highland energy rebate—a solution that is as equitable as it is necessary. First, let us acknowledge the glaring inequity and downright discrimination in our energy landscape. The highlands and islands contribute disproportionately to the UK’s renewable energy supply, yet we bear the highest energy costs. That is particularly unjust considering that our region generates about 5.5% of the UK’s total renewable energy, while our population constitutes only 0.4% of the UK total. Despite the fact that we power homes across the UK, our residents face some of the highest fuel poverty rates in the UK. That regional discrimination has been compounded by the removal of the winter fuel payment from so many vulnerable people in some of the coldest parts of the UK, in communities such as Aviemore, Kingussie, Newtonmore, Grantown-on-Spey and Tomintoul in the Cairngorms in my constituency, and many others across the entirety of the highlands and islands and Moray. For decades, these communities have paid far more than most for the basic human need to stay warm. People living in the north of Scotland quite literally have energy generated within sight of their homes, but it is transmitted hundreds of miles away so that other consumers can pay significantly less to heat their homes. This situation is simply a legacy of long-standing structural failures in the energy regulation system, and a lack of action by successive UK Governments and the regulator, Ofgem. In a previous debate, the Minister mentioned giving Ofgem more teeth to deal with energy suppliers, but who deals with Ofgem’s failings? We need to tackle that. As a result of the situation, our residents, especially those not connected to the gas grid—representing the vast majority—rely almost exclusively on electricity for heating. That electricity comes with elevated standing charges and higher unit rates compared with the rest of the UK. What are the consequences? The impact on the quality of life and economic wellbeing of our communities is severe. Recent data from the Highlands and Islands housing associations’ affordable warmth group reveals that households in our region pay about 40% more than the UK average for energy. To highlight the disparity further, daily standing charges for electricity in northern Scotland stand at 61.98p, compared with 41.59p in London. That, coupled with higher per-unit rates, translates to energy bills that burden our residents and, for many, make basic heating a struggle to afford.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  The theme of today’s debate is fixing the NHS and reforming public services. To do that, the Government require a strong will to drive reform and financial support for public services that were hammered for far too long by 14 years of Tory austerity. As a former council leader who dealt with tightening public sector budgets against a backdrop of changing demographics, which increased pressure on the NHS, care services and early services, I am well aware of the impact of austerity on our communities in Scotland and, indeed, throughout the UK. I welcome the substantial increase in investment in public services in the Budget, but the Government could generate more to support the NHS and public service reform. I am referring to the flawed increase in spirits duty, which follows the brutal increase in spirits duty introduced by the Tories last year. I am proud to represent Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, which is home to 48 distilleries, including some of the best known brands in the world—brands that can be found in pretty much every major airport and high-end department store. The industry has a GVA—gross value added—of more than £7 billion, and exports more than 40 bottles of whisky every second. The whisky sector has been investing heavily in sustainable operations and decarbonising its production, which has led to incredible innovations in hydrogen for energy, waste treatment and waste heat transfer, shortening the supply chain and much more. Those innovations are then used in other sectors, including the public sector, to drive sustainable reform in how services are delivered. Despite independent studies showing that the Treasury lost £300 million because the Tory duty increase went too far, the incoming Labour Government have pushed that even further—a move likely to cost the Treasury even more in lost revenue, when a duty cut would have driven sales of a high-quality product and generated increased revenue, supporting jobs and investment. In the election campaign the Prime Minster stated that he would “back Scotch producers to the hilt” The Scotch Whisky Association described that commitment as “broken”, with its chief executive, Mark Kent, stating: “This is more than a broken promise, to many it will smack of a betrayal. Scotland’s national drink, and the associated investment and jobs, has been actively undermined and discriminated against.” Those are strong words, and the Government should take heed of them. Instead of penalising this incredibly successful and innovative jewel in the crown of our food and drink sector, the Government must cut the duty on spirits to generate more sales and more tax revenue to support public services—revenue that could be used to protect GP practices, like the rest of our NHS, from changes to employer’s national insurance. It could also go some way to avoiding the outrageous cut to winter fuel payments—a cut that has a particularly difficult impact in my constituency, which has some of the highest altitude and coldest communities in the UK. I hope that the Government will listen and act on those concerns.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for securing the debate. The greatest community benefit for people across the north of Scotland, in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, would be paying less for their energy, along with the investment in jobs that comes with renewable energy. People are reliant on cars, are off grid, are on lower wages and have inefficient housing—that is a fact across the highlands and islands of Scotland. The impact on them of high energy prices is significant: for many, it is a choice whether to heat and eat. We hear that frequently, but it is a fact. This winter, many communities in my constituency will experience temperatures in negative double figures for many days, which is quite normal. Communities such as Aviemore and Newtonmore are right up in the Cairngorms, where thousands of people live with those temperatures every single year. They understand what it is like to live in a cold, harsh winter climate. I agree with many points that have been made today. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) mentioned community ownership; we have examples of that being progressed in my constituency, which provides huge benefit. I have a question for the Minister about transmission charges, which have a huge impact on the investment pipeline of these projects. If we do not get investment in these projects, we will miss out on significant community investment and significant community benefit. It cannot be right that people pay more for their energy when it is being bought hundreds of miles away at a cheaper price than they can buy it. That is unacceptable and discriminatory. The rug has also been pulled out from under those communities with the removal of the winter fuel payment for so many people.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, I will cover some of the maiden speeches that have been made by various new Members. I had the pleasure of doing mine in the King’s Speech debate, and I think we have had nine so far this evening—well done to everyone. I found it quite nerve-racking, and it is a bit easier speaking a second time. I will not mention all the names of Members’ constituencies—other people have done that—but the issues covered struck a chord with me. We heard from a former council leader, and I am a former council leader. National parks were mentioned, and I have a national park in my constituency. New stations were also mentioned, and I have one of them as well. Many things were covered in the maiden speeches—Bob Dylan and Knebworth particularly took my fancy, as I am a bit of a rocker. To return to the subject at hand, two of the maiden speeches mentioned water quality. With a nationalised water company in Scotland, we have some of the best water quality in the UK and among the lowest number of leaks. It is also one of the lowest-cost water companies in the UK, which ties in neatly with rail nationalisation. I am sure that those on the Government Benches will be pleased to hear the SNP supports that, as we are proud of introducing it in Scotland two years ago. I am pleased to see a Government in place who want to go down that route, which is very positive. In the past two years, we have seen punctuality and reliability improve. ScotRail is now fourth out of the 24 franchises on performance, with a significant reduction in serious delays and cancellations. I do not really understand the argument that has been given by some of those on the Conservative Benches, who say that nationalisation—as opposed to privatisation and private profits—is not the answer and might not deliver lower prices. One big benefit as a result of nationalisation is that we have been able to run a pilot on removing all peak fares across Scotland, which has been so successful that it has now been extended. I hope that we will be in a position to make that a permanent feature. It has been very well received and is a demonstration of how we can drive down fares in a public ownership model. As I have said, I certainly welcome Labour’s following suit. My understanding from colleagues in the Scottish Government is that there has been really good communication between the two Governments, which is very welcome. I cannot imagine that the experience would have been perfect for colleagues in the Scottish Government—it had not been done before—but I hope that sharing what happened two years ago and in the interim will be helpful and that we can find common ground. I hope that other proposed legislation will address one area that I have concerns about. At the moment, the Bill applies only to train operating companies, but the most profitable part of the system is the rolling stock leasing companies, which a couple of Members mentioned. They generate hundreds of millions of pounds of profit for the private sector and lead to soaring leasing costs, private investment and high prices. The rewards have been privatised but the risks have been put on the public purse. Some £1 billion was paid out in dividends during covid, with the bulk going to jurisdictions such as Luxembourg and Jersey. That brings me to the point that the Chancellor made about tax avoidance and trying to increase the amount taken by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I have given an example of companies taking huge amounts of money out of the private sector and paying out those dividends in other jurisdictions. I would like to see that tackled, and I hope that the Minister will cover that in summing up. I will say a final thing about public investment. We have managed to open up three new lines in Scotland: the Borders railway, the Levenmouth railway and the Alloa railway. We have opened numerous new stations and there is a huge amount of enthusiasm, as many Members will know. Few bodies are as enthusiastic as those involved in rail. I have two historic railways in my constituency. Many historic railways offer public services and would like to continue—or grow into—doing so in future. There is an opportunity to harness that enthusiasm and energy, but we need to shift the dial on capital investment in public infrastructure. I hope that is something the Government will tackle rapidly, because we need capital to make progress.