Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(5 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“The skills, infrastructure and experience built by Scotland’s oil and gas sector are vital assets that must be safeguarded and redeployed as we accelerate the transition to clean energy.”
These are not my words, but the words of Scottish Renewables. Why are the Government pursuing a strategy that is decimating that very industry and costing jobs across the country?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is indeed right that the skills of the North sea oil and gas workers are essential for the green transition. We will come forward with our North sea plan shortly. I am sure that he will want to take this opportunity to welcome our clean energy jobs plan, which highlights not only the many thousands of jobs across Scotland that the clean energy industries are creating, but the support that the Government are giving people in those industries to transfer across to new green energy industries.
Andrew Bowie
It is a bit rich for a Minister to come here, on the day that further jobs are being lost as a direct result of the Government’s policies, to talk about their clean jobs plan as if that will somehow mean anything to the workers at Mossmorran, Grangemouth and all the other sites that have lost jobs as a direct result of Government policies over the past few years. I understand why the Minister will not listen to me, but surely the Government must start listening to the renewables sector, the trade unions or their own Great British Energy, and use next week’s Budget to start reversing their damaging anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-Britain tax and ban on North sea oil and gas.
Martin McCluskey
I shall be more than happy to meet the hon. Member, as I am sure will the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), when she returns from COP30.
Andrew Bowie
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the very serious news coming out of the Mossmorran plant this morning, and given that the news broke after Members were able to submit an urgent question, might you inform me, and indeed the rest of the House, how it might be possible for the Government to bring forward a statement on the situation today? Hundreds of workers, the entire community and the wider energy system need to know as soon as possible what the situation is and what the Government are doing to resolve it.
Mr Speaker
A lot of Members obviously have a keen interest in this matter, as it affects their constituencies. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard the request. I am more than happy to support that request if the Government bring it forward.
ExxonMobil: Mossmorran
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(5 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. Since the Government came to power in July 2024, over 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost. Only this Labour Government would recognise that as a success. The Minister says that he is saddened. That is cold comfort to the workers losing their jobs today. Energy-intensive industries are in decline across the United Kingdom. Oil refineries and petrochemicals plants are facing the economic and fiscal realities of choices made by this Labour Government at Ineos in Grangemouth, at Prax Lindsey in Lincolnshire, and now at Mossmorran in Fife, where Exxon has told us that there is no competitive future due to the current economic and policy environment.
The Minister tells us that this was a commercial decision, and that the numbers did not add up. Er, yeah—due to Labour’s decisions. Honestly! He mentions the decline in the ethane supply in the North sea. He almost gets it. The Government’s destructive tax-and-ban policy in the North sea has led to disinvestment, and has undermined the petrochemicals industry and its ability to secure low-cost ethane. That is damaging our energy security, detrimental to our petrochemicals industry, and utterly devastating for Scottish oil and gas workers. The Labour party simply does not get it. Also, the carbon tax—£20 million per annum for the Fife ethylene plant alone—was crippling. We are suffocating industry in this country, and these are political choices.
Industrial emissions are mobile. If we decrease our domestic carbon emissions by crushing British industry, we are simply exporting our climate obligations and increasing reliance on imports of plastics, fuel, ceramics, glass, bricks, concrete and more. We must find a way to decarbonise without decimating our domestic industrial base. Simply forcing industry abroad does nothing to reduce global emissions; in fact, it does the opposite. The high cost of energy and this Government’s war on the North sea are killing industry in this country. We simply cannot afford this Labour Government.
Although the closure will be felt most acutely in Fife, the repercussions will reverberate across this country. For the first time since the UK invented polyethylene, we will not be manufacturing the primary component in this country. That is shameful. Industry has already warned that closures like Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and now Mossmorran risk forcing downstream operators to import resources at higher cost, undermining their competitiveness. We are not just talking about 400 jobs at Mossmorran; the impact of this will cascade down the supply chain. The domino effect is taking place already. Altrad, Bilfinger and KAEFER all announced redundancies at Mossmorran when Grangemouth closed earlier this year. Allowing another major industrial plant to close sends the signal to investors that under this Government, UK plc is closed for business.
We are losing domestic industrial capacity at a terrifying rate. The Minister claims that this is not symptomatic of British industry as a whole, but the drumbeat of job losses and plant closures tells a very different story. He talks of support for jobs, but unemployment has risen every single month since this Labour party took office. The closure will be felt by workers in Fife, but make no mistake: the crisis facing industry is stamped “Made in Whitehall”.
The Government have said in the House that they are ready to provide assistance to workers at Mossmorran, yet we still lack clarity about the support for the future of Grangemouth, and the status of the National Wealth Fund moneys promised by the Prime Minister. Can the Minister update us on the £200 million fund for the future of Grangemouth? We have not seen one penny spent so far. The Prime Minister’s promise looks like empty words yet again. What proposals have been brought forward, and when will workers have certainty about the future of the site?
This Government are taxing jobs, increasing the cost of energy and driving British industry off a cliff edge. Britain cannot afford this Labour Government; frankly, Scotland cannot afford this Labour Government. I feel very sorry for the Scottish Labour MPs who have been whipped in to defend this Government’s position tonight.
This is not a just transition; it is anything but. This is the wilful de-industrialisation of the United Kingdom. The Government are offshoring carbon emissions and driving up reliance on imports, and British workers are paying the price. Will the Minister outline the support that his Department intends to provide for the workers at Mossmorran, and provide an update on the Nation Wealth Fund moneys for Grangemouth? Does he agree that British industry is at a competitive disadvantage, due to the crippling industrial energy costs, the jobs tax and the carbon tax? Will this Government finally see sense, see what everybody else sees, and change their policies on the North sea?
Chris McDonald
I would be very happy to take the opportunity to educate the shadow Secretary on some of these issues.
Chris McDonald
No; it is real. He will realise that soon. I was genuinely upset when the shadow Secretary of State described my words as cold; they were not. They were sincere and heartfelt, because I have been in this position myself. I really wish that the shadow Secretary of State and his colleagues had shown similar vigour when the steel industry in Teesside was collapsing around us, and my colleagues and I were at risk of redundancy. The Conservatives stood by, and left 10 days for a buyer to be found for the most efficient steel plant in the country before it closed.
I take the shadow Secretary of State’s comments about the uncompetitive business environment in the UK with a pinch of salt, because the plant has been significantly loss-making for five years. I wonder why that is. Could it be because of our high energy prices, resulting from the previous Government’s decision to tie us to international gas prices and put us at the mercy of Vladimir Putin?
The shadow Secretary of State talks about a transition. I know what a terrible transition is like, because I lived through one in the coalfield of County Durham. The Government are ensuring, in Scotland and throughout the UK, that the workforce in these industries have the benefit of a proper transition. That is why we have an industrial strategy, and why we have intervened in industry in the areas that I have mentioned.
Now we come to the point of education. Sometimes it is best to get our knowledge of industry, and industry in Scotland, from somewhere other than Twitter, because we do in fact still have ethylene production in the UK, at Grangemouth. I would have thought the shadow Secretary of State would have realised that. Perhaps he did not realise this, but none of the ethylene produced at Mossmorran was used in the UK anyway; 100% of it was exported to the EU. That was why I thanked the workers for their contribution to the UK’s balance of trade over so many decades.
Finally, the shadow Minister can debate the nuances of carbon taxes if he wants to, but this plant exports all its product to the EU. To do that, the plant needs to ensure that the product aligns with the market in which it finds itself, which obviously has the EU emissions trading system. If it received relief in the UK, it would have to pay that tax to the EU. Does the hon. Gentleman prefer that that money comes to the UK Government or that it goes to the EU?
The hon. Gentleman’s comments demonstrate that not only does he not understand this plant, but he does not understand the chemicals industry. I really wonder whether he cares for the workers at Mossmorran at all.
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, which is always sincerely and kindly made. I agree that what will be precisely on the minds of the workforce at Mossmorran right now will be how they will manage in the run-up to Christmas. They will be thinking about whether they will be able to pay an instalment on their holiday in January. The plant is set for closure on 16 February, so there is a bit of time in terms of, as I mentioned, the 40% of the workforce for whom who we will need to find alternative employment.
I mentioned in my statement that the DWP is ready to stand by to help—I appreciate that could sound quite cold, but it does stand ready. Combined with the Scottish Government, the local authority and the support from the UK Government, including the taskforce, that is the support that we will give directly to the employees and their families.
Andrew Bowie
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—I promise I will not make a habit of this. I am a bit worried that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House, because he said that in his earlier conversation with the chairman of ExxonMobil, Paul Greenwood, he had pointed to no policy decisions by this Government as reasons for closing the plant. I and other Members also had the opportunity to speak to Paul Greenwood today, and he did give four reasons for the closure. The first two—the market and the cost of running an old plant—were, he said, not policy decisions, but the third and fourth certainly were. The third was the carbon tax, which is costing that plant £20 million, and the fourth is the sharp decline in ethanol production in the North sea due to the accelerated downturn directly due to Government policy. Will you give me some advice on how the Minister might go about correcting the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Chair is responsible for neither the content of Ministers’ answers, nor the quality—if only the Chair had such power—but the hon. Member has most definitely put his point on the record.
North Sea Oil and Gas Industry
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the future of the North Sea oil and gas industry.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
The North sea will be at the heart of Britain’s energy future. For decades its workers, business and communities have helped to power our country and our world, and they will do so for decades to come. The oil and gas industry has lost around a third of its entire workforce in the last decade as oil and gas production has declined. A plan is now needed. That is why in March we consulted on a framework for building a world-leading offshore clean energy industry in the North sea, alongside managing existing oil and gas fields for their lifespan. We will respond to that consultation in the coming weeks.
Alongside that, we published our clean energy jobs plan, which sets out that over 400,000 more good jobs are to be created across the UK, including 40,000 in Scotland, by the end of the decade. That is facilitated thanks to record investments in clean energy as well as over £50 billion of private investment since July 2024 thanks to the certainty our plans have created.
Turning to today’s news, colleagues will be aware that Petrofac Ltd has for some time been working on a restructure relating to its global portfolio. The restructuring plan failed, following the unexpected termination of a contract by TenneT—a Dutch transmission company. At 7 am today, holding company Petrofac Ltd announced that it will be entering administration. While that is obviously disappointing for the company, it is the product of long-standing issues with its global business.
Contrary to misleading reports today, the UK arm of Petrofac has not entered administration and is continuing to operate as normal—as an in-demand business with a highly skilled workforce and many successful contracts. Indeed, only last month Petrofac’s UK arm extended two significant contracts, demonstrating that the business has a viable future. Today’s announcement covers only the top-level holding company Petrofac Ltd, which has no employees. The Petrofac group has faced long-standing challenges, including a high-profile £77 million financial penalty imposed in 2021 following a Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery.
We understand that there is reason to be optimistic about a commercial resolution that includes the UK arm. The Government have been, and will remain, in close contact with the company. I repeat this to the House: the UK business has not entered administration. It is successful and growing, and it will continue to operate as normal.
Andrew Bowie
Another week and yet another hammer blow to our North sea oil and gas industry, another gut punch to energy workers and another blow to our energy security. Whatever the Minister says today, the blame lies squarely with this Labour Government. [Interruption.] They do not like to hear it, but it is true.
Today, the energy giant Petrofac has entered administration, casting doubt over the future of its 2,000 employees in Scotland—as its global headquarters is in Aberdeen—and the countless more who are supported indirectly through the supply chain. As the Minister said, this company has had issues for many years, but the hostile environment in the UK continental shelf created by the Government has made operating here nigh on impossible for far too many companies.
Our offshore energy industry has seen thousands of redundancies since the 2024 general election. Harbour Energy completed a new round of redundancies just last month and, with depressing regularity, we hear of more job losses in the North sea. Whether at Harbour Energy, Apache, Hunting or Petrofac, each job lost means uncertainty for a family, a mortgage jeopardised, investment fleeing our communities and our world-class supply chains and skilled workforce pushed towards extinction.
How many more will it take for the Secretary of State to change course? These are political choices. This is a manufactured decline. As a direct result of the hostile trading environment, the “closed for business” sign is hanging over the UK continental shelf. From the energy profits levy extension increase to the ban on new licences and the refusal to defend the Government’s decision on Rosebank and Jackdaw, the odds are stacked against the North sea industry, damaging the business environment, threatening investment, harming our economy and undermining our energy security. These are political choices that have resulted in job losses.
What steps are being taken to support Petrofac’s HQ employees in Aberdeen? How many more jobs have to be lost across the industry for the Government to change course? When will the thousands of jobs promised through GB Energy for Aberdeen and around the United Kingdom materialise? Will the Minister personally act and ask his boss—the Secretary of State for Energy—to change course, or is he content to sacrifice Aberdeen, the north-east and our energy industry on this vainglorious campaign to destroy our fossil fuel industry?
Michael Shanks
On Petrofac, the hon. Gentleman should be careful with his tone. To come here and try to undermine efforts to find a buyer for the UK arm and to talk down a business, which, as I just outlined, is a successful and growing business in the North sea, is deeply irresponsible. There have been long-standing issues at the company; he of all people should be well aware of that, given his previous role as a Minister in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. All of us across the House have a responsibility to support the company at the moment, not to undermine it, and to send a positive message to those workers, the suppliers and the customers that the UK arm is continuing to operate as normal. All the signs are that there is a viable long-term future for the company, but that will not happen if we have comments like those made by the hon. Gentleman undermining that business.
On the wider question of the North sea, the hon. Gentleman should know as well as anyone that we lost over a third of the jobs in the North sea during the Conservative party’s time in government. He wants to pretend that the transition arrived in July 2024, but he was in government when those jobs were going, and the Conservatives failed time and again to come up with any credible plan for managing the future of the North sea. We will not do that. We will come up with a plan. That is why we are building the industries of the future on hydrogen, on carbon capture, on offshore wind and on the supply chains—the very investments that he and Conservative Members turn their backs against time and again. They are turning their backs on the future of the energy story in the North sea as they are more interested in exploiting problems than solving them. Time and again, they have learned no lessons from their time in government, when they left these workers without a credible plan. We will not do the same again.
Hydrogen Supply Chains
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is also a pleasure to take part in a debate on energy in which there is such a cross-party consensus. It is very rare in debates on energy these days to get such agreement on the way forward and on what we should invest in. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing the debate and the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) for his very able opening speech. It is also rare that we actually learn something in these debates, but I have learnt quite a lot this morning, which is a surprise.
The hon. Member for Worcester talked about the vitally important part played by gas in our energy system both today and moving forward, as well as blending, which is something we need a resolution to in the very near future, as I have heard in my discussions with National Gas and others. I urge the Government to make their decision on what the future might be as quickly as they can. That would be good for everybody.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) spoke about hydrogen buses. He was followed by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) in talking about Wrightbus and the issues around refuelling hydrogen buses. That is something that my constituents know about only too well. The city of Aberdeen was the first city in the United Kingdom to have a fully hydrogen bus fleet. However, it has been off the road since July 2024 because of issues with the refuelling station and the lack of available alternative supply. Although there are significant issues that need to be resolved, the future could and should be very bright indeed for hydrogen-fuelled buses.
The hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the opportunities across our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are absolutely right: every community, I suspect, has some industry, business or body involved in the development of hydrogen as a technology and energy source of the future. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) raised the important point about ammonia and fertiliser, which is not spoken about enough in these debates. We focus far too often on the energy use of hydrogen and not its added benefits.
I often speak about my own experience of the energy industry. Coming from Aberdeenshire, I have been surrounded by those working directly or indirectly in the oil and gas industry—it is inescapable. Where I am from, the importance of supply chains and economic value to local communities is obvious: everybody knows it, sees it in their high streets and hears about it from their family and friends employed in the sector. However, the oil and gas industry has not succeeded in telling that story beyond the north east of Scotland. In reality, 200,000 jobs across the United Kingdom are reliant on the oil and gas sector and supply chains. The industry touches every constituency in the country.
All that is to say that the conversation around the significance, impact and resilience of supply chains is vital. The future of hydrogen in this country is central to our decarbonisation is central to our decarbonisation ambitions and sustainable future, as well as our industrial future, but it is also shrouded in uncertainty. The commitment and investment in using hydrogen as a solution in hard-to-abate industries, heavy manufacturing, long-distance transport and high-temperature processes began under the last Government.
When we were in government, we kick-started the world-leading hydrogen economy and launched a hydrogen strategy and a 10-point plan. We recognised the significance of hydrogen to decarbonising and the importance to the economy of the supply chain across the country. That supply chain—from utilities to manufacturers, transport, distribution and storage, and from monitoring and control to the fabricators of fuel cell components, end users and decommissioning—plays a vital role in securing a future for hydrogen in the UK and adding value to local economies. We identified attractive opportunities for the UK supply chain on electrolysis package manufacturing, electrical equipment, materials manufacturing and more, with the UK supply chain capable of attaining a market share valued between £4 billion and £5 billion.
If the UK aspires to be a world leader in green technology, as I think we in this House agree we should, we must underpin that aspiration with a strategy to bring down industrial prices. The Government—indeed, any Government—should be ambitious for UK industry, as the Government say they are, in order to make industry in the UK great. This cannot be achieved without cheap energy and energy abundance, which can be secured with hydrogen. British industry cannot be competitive with expensive electricity and with businesses and manufacturers suffering under the burden of levies, as they currently are. We should bring down industrial prices, build new nuclear, eliminate levies on manufacturers and embrace energy abundance. Let us all agree to aspire to manufacture, innovate and export technologies that will drive the world closer to global climate solutions. Hydrogen is at the heart of that.
From steelmaking to shipping, hydrogen’s versatility makes this fuel an exciting prospect and component of our future energy mix. Yet major uncertainty is hanging over the system when it comes to whether hydrogen will be used for home heating. With a decision not due until 2026, the future of hydrogen remains somewhat in limbo. Regardless of the outcome when it comes to hydrogen for domestic heating, the gas grid remains essential. It could be repurposed to transport hydrogen to industrial clusters, power stations and transport hubs. We cannot and must not abandon this vast, valuable national asset. When it comes to distribution, pipelines, road tankers and even ships will be needed to move hydrogen. The existing gas grid could play a transformative role, if it is repurposed effectively.
From production to storage and from distribution to utilisation, hydrogen in the UK heralds a wealth of opportunity. It is incumbent on this Government—and, indeed, on any Government—to create a landscape where the manufacturing industry can thrive and profit and where domestic production capacity can grow. The hydrogen supply chain does not exist in a vacuum; it builds on the legacy of the oil and gas supply chain—the infrastructure, engineering expertise and global logistics that have powered the UK for decades. With the right approach from the Government, it will do so for many decades to come.
Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Grangemouth, the Luton Vauxhall plant and now the Moorcroft pottery in Stoke-on-Trent—every single week, we hear of more job losses in energy-intensive industries and more British companies shutting up shop and laying off workers because of the toxic combination of high energy costs and this Chancellor’s devastating jobs tax. We have the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. Just this week, INEOS told us in no uncertain terms that carbon taxes and high energy costs are killing off manufacturing in the UK.
This Government have been warned by Opposition Members, by the GMB this week and by Unite. This week, they were warned by none other than Tony Blair. What was their response? Advisers in No. 10 Downing Street picked up the phone and begged him to row back on what he said. They asked him to row back on what we all know to be true—what the Minister, Morgan McSweeney, apparently, and an increasing number of the Government’s own Back Benchers know to be true: the current approach to energy and net zero is doomed to fail, and voters are being asked to make financial sacrifices when they know that the impact on global emissions is minimal. That is at the heart of this madness.
This Government are wilfully destroying British industry in oil and gas, ceramics, chemicals and metals when they know that it will not make a difference to global emissions. We will not use any less oil and gas; neither will we use any less steel, cement, bricks or chemicals. We will just import those things from abroad, at greater cost to our economy and the climate and with British job losses added to the bargain. As the Government are led by an ideological zealot, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and by a Prime Minister too weak to rein him in, we will continue down this path, and British workers will pay the price—in Aberdeen, in Grangemouth, in Luton, and today in Stoke.
Energy is not a silo; energy costs underpin growth, prosperity, competitiveness and living standards. Without cheap energy, our industries will not survive—British manufacturers cannot remain competitive—so what will the Minister do to prevent more British jobs being lost in energy-intensive industries in this country? Will she listen to the head of Unite, who says that working-class people are losing their jobs and that this Government have no plan to replace them? Will the Government end their mad ideological plan to shut down North sea operations? What will it take for Labour Back Benchers to wake up and realise that this ideological approach is crippling this country?
Sarah Jones
The Conservative party is hiding behind this new-found scepticism of net zero to conceal its complete failure to support and grow our foundational and manufacturing industries on its watch. On its watch, we lost 70,000 jobs in the North sea and 1,250 jobs in the ceramics sector, chemicals manufacturing fell by 30%, and we produced only 30% of the steel that we use in this country. The Conservative party’s record on this issue is shameful.
This Government have a completely different approach. We are developing the industrial strategy, which will support those foundational industries. We are looking to make sure we can reach net zero by 2030, in order to provide the economic and energy security we need. The last cost of living crisis was caused by our reliance on global gas prices, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) knows, and as he occasionally says in some meetings when he flips and flops on his position on net zero. We will support manufacturing; we are developing our industrial strategy, which will be published in a few weeks’ time, and we are already providing more support to the energy-intensive industries through the energy supercharger than the previous Government did. We will act where the previous Government failed to act.
North Sea Energy
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
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.
Sarah Jones
The shadow Minister quoted trade union representatives, having not met them or supported them in government. That is always rich. [Interruption.] He says that he did; I stand corrected, although I suspect that he did not do it often. He quoted the general secretary of the GMB, so let me quote him back. The general secretary said:
�Tory ideology has left the UK vulnerable and exposed. Our Government stood by and exported the bulk of the jobs, closed gas storage and failed to invest in new nuclear and skills.�
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions, and I will come to them shortly, but I have to say that this is a fairly familiar story from the Conservative party: no acknowledgment of their failed record on the North sea, no acknowledgment of their having presided over the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, and no answers to the future challenges that our country faces. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was his party that lost 70,000 North sea jobs in less than a decade. His Government were content for those workers to have to go around the world to find jobs, but this Government want to keep those talents here in the UK, which is why, unlike the last Government, we have a plan.
In my statement, I said that everyone accepts that the North sea is a declining basin. I do not know whether the shadow Minister understands the basic geology, but this is a super-mature basin, and the harder it becomes to drill for oil and gas, the less likely it is that people will be successful. Only one in 10 of the licences that have been offered and granted in recent years have ultimately led to any work.
The hon. Gentleman needs to establish what his party�s view of this agenda is. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who is sitting next to him, had some very peculiar things to say in Westminster Hall yesterday, and it is unclear exactly what their position is. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) was a Minister for the grid who opposed grid infrastructure, he was a Minister for solar who opposed solar power, and here he is now, the Minister for Aberdeen, campaigning against jobs and investment in his own community.
We are getting on with a plan for the future. First, we will invest in clean power. It is ludicrous that at this time when our bills depend on what Putin chooses to do and we have to respond, the shadow Minister is suggesting that we should do more of that. Even if there were no climate change, even if there were no push to clean power, if we drilled as much oil and gas from the North sea as we possibly could, it would amount to less than 1% of the global market and would have no impact on bills whatsoever.
We will give immediate support to workers�we have explained how we will do that�and we will support Scotland more widely. We will support Great British Energy in Aberdeen. We will support Grangemouth with �200 million from the national wealth fund. Harland and Wolff in Arnish and Methil has been saved from closure. Yesterday, the Port of Cromarty Firth received �55 million through the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme. Twenty per cent. of the contracts in allocation round 6 of the contracts for difference auction are going to Scotland. We have hydrogen investment in Cromarty and Ayrshire. We have the biggest budget for the Scottish Government that we have seen. This is a party that is committed to supporting the people of Scotland, not overseeing managed decline.
Draft Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, for yet another Delegated Legislation Committee; it seems like we spend every Tuesday morning in these Committee Rooms, doing yet another DL. I am pleased to be here. Indeed, the regulations are the result of a consultation that launched by the Conservatives when we were in government back in March. It was encouraging to see the response published in October and to see the regulations brought forward today.
As the Minister has set out, the instrument introduces requirements for new combustion plants and for those being refurbished, including regulatory requirements for a new decarbonisation readiness report as a prerequisite for environmental permitting approval. It also requires new combustion plants be built with regard to how they could be decarbonised in the future—for example, by converting to hydrogen firing or retrofit carbon capture technology, under environmental permitting regulations.
As I said, we are very supportive of the regulations. In fact, I think we are all supportive of the growth of new technologies like carbon capture, usage and storage, and their potential to cut carbon emissions. For combustion plants, where it is economically and technically viable, the implementation of such technology should be considered. I note that no impact assessment has been produced as the regulations are not expected to impose significant costs to businesses. However, it is noted in the explanatory memorandum today that they are expected to have an economic impact on small and micro businesses affected by the change to the 300 MW threshold. We all want a future where small businesses can thrive—the Chancellor herself has said that growth is her No. 1 priority —so will the Minister provide more detail of what support might be made available to the small and micro businesses that feel this new burden on them as they seek to decarbonise along with the rest of the country?
This instrument is a sensible move, although we worry and have some reservations about its impact on small and micro businesses, and would be keen to see more detail about what engagement the Department has had with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. As it says in the explanatory memorandum, this is a devolved area—but decarbonisation is a UK-wide effort.
We have no objection to the regulations, so I will draw my remarks to a close.