Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The truth is there is no just transition. Everybody can see that except for the Government Front Bench. I spoke to a woman in Aberdeen just yesterday, born and raised in that city and raising her family there. She had worked in oil and gas and, actually, was proud to be playing her part in developing the energy technologies of the future. She was a lifelong Labour voter—no longer, because she has now been made redundant. Like so many others in that city, she is now looking overseas because of this Government. What does the Minister have to say to Aberdonians like her?
Chris McDonald
Clearly, on a personal level, I say to the hon. Member’s constituent that I fully understand the position she is in, having lived through such transitions myself. But the difference with this Government is that we are taking care to ensure that communities are supported—1.1 million jobs now in net zero, £105 billion of gross value added and £90 billion invested in clean energy industries since this Government came to power. We are building the British industry of the future and attracting investment to do that. We are creating the jobs of the future, while the Conservatives sat and oversaw a decline.
Andrew Bowie
We have been over this before: BP, Hunting, Harbour, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, Ithaca Energy and, just this morning, Xodus Group are all laying people off. Xodus specifically blamed the slowdown in the roll-out of renewables due to the decline in oil and gas in the North sea. The former Health Secretary the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), Tony Blair, academics, Scottish Renewables, the chair of GB Energy and apparently quite a number of the Cabinet agree with us on the Opposition side of the House and with the public that we must keep drilling in the North sea while we have a demand and while it is there. When will the Government listen to everyone else, end this ideological obsession, overturn this and get Britain drilling?
Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Alec. The regulations, as already mentioned, extend the period for the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy to exercise existing powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022 from 26 months to six years. In itself, that is not controversial; no new powers are created through this instrument and we do not intend to obstruct its passing today. The Minister has explained the reasoning for the extension: to empower the Northern Ireland Executive to parallel the British Government’s autumn Budget commitments.
The Minister referred to the transfer of 75% of the renewables obligation scheme costs attributable to domestic energy supply, which will instead be funded through general taxation. As a result of that transfer, from April, only 25% of the renewables obligation cost is being recovered from consumers—but moving costs from energy bills to tax bills is a sleight of hand.
Let us also not forget the recipients of this taxpayer money: those extraordinary subsidies now flowing from households are giving wind farm owners three times the market price for their electrons. The Secretary of State’s auction process has locked this country, including Northern Ireland, into paying extortionate prices for wind power for the next 20 years—an extraordinary cost—and it is taxpayers who are now footing that bill.
The Minister espouses a commitment to lowering household energy bills, as per the Government’s manifesto pledge to reduce bills by £300, yet we have seen bills go up since they took office. A month ago, the Government adopted our policy to remove one of the carbon taxes on electricity generation—the carbon price support. While the Labour Government transfer renewables subsidies on to taxation, the Conservative party has set out our cheap power plan to reduce the cost of energy and bring down bills by £200.
Before moving to my questions on that point, I want to follow up on the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. Why is it that, as laid out in the explanatory notes:
“Schedule 5 to the EPA sets out the time periods in which certain powers under that Act are exercisable”
and that these powers will
“cease to be exercisable after a period of 26 months during which both the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland held office (currently 3 April 2026)”?
I have never seen such a measure in an amendment or a Bill before the House in the nine years that I have been here. It seems a remarkable paragraph. It is very strange to time limit the measures to the time in office of those two individuals. If the Minister could explain why that is the case, I would be very grateful—it is a genuine question on my part.
If the Minister is keen to see households relieved of the burden imposed by the renewables obligation, will the Government adopt our cheap power plan and scrap the subsidy altogether? And might I ask the Minister when we will see the elusive £300 off all our bills?
Energy Security
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
The SNP has had more positions on this than the Kama Sutra, so it is genuinely hard to keep up. We have a very simple position: we want to keep existing oil and gas fields open for their lifetime. One of the things that the energy independence Bill will do is introduce transitional energy certificates—so-called tiebacks—which is what industry has called for. We are not in favour of a “turning off the taps” position, but I will be honest with the House: nor are we in favour of a “drilling every last drop” position.
Ed Miliband
Because if we did that, we would end up in climate disaster. That is the truth.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank all the speakers and contributors to this afternoon’s debate. I especially thank and welcome the contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes); my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam); and the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan). He is not in his place just yet, but he mentioned the Dungeness nuclear power plant. I agree with him that the potential at that plant is huge for new nuclear, especially small modular reactors, and I can very much recommend the fish and chips—or fission chips—they sell at the Pilot Inn just outside the gates of that power plant, if anybody is looking to visit.
I also pay tribute and welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who seemed to suggest that we are all here because of a lack of positive votes for any of us individually. I am not quite sure how that will go down at the next parliamentary Liberal Democrat party meeting, given that is what he thinks of his colleagues, but it was a very enjoyable contribution none the less.
Across this House, we all recognise that we live in a turbulent world and that our energy security is being tested at every turn. Russia seeks to exploit vulnerabilities in our subsea infrastructure, Iran is weaponising the supply of oil and gas from the Gulf, and China is seeking to access our critical national infrastructure. It was therefore incredibly welcome to see that a Bill will be introduced to strengthen the United Kingdom’s energy security: an energy independence Bill. Finally, we thought, they get it. Finally, they have listened to the academics, the trade unions, Scottish Renewables, Tony Blair and Jürgen Maier. Finally, the Government are going to take the action necessary to secure our energy future, secure jobs and deliver much-needed revenue to His Majesty’s Treasury.
Or so we thought. Sadly and predictably, the Government have not listened. They have not acted. In fact, they are doubling down: doubling down on making this country poorer, on making this country weaker, and on callously abandoning the high-skilled workers and people of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland.
Dave Doogan
I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, of being a rank, rotten revisionist, but the problem is that in the last 10 years of his Government, oil and gas jobs in north-east Scotland went down by 100,000, and just in the two years that he was a Minister, including in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, they went down a further 10%. Why is he now manifesting as some sort of caped crusader for oil and gas workers? It is difficult for many of us in north-east Scotland to believe.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who represents a party that for the best part of 10 years had a presumption against oil and gas, for now seeking to be a champion for that industry. There was a global oil price crash in 2014. What did we do? We implemented a policy of maximum economic recovery. We cut taxes and stemmed job losses—the exact opposite of what this Labour Government are doing in the North sea, where they are accelerating the decline, making thousands of people redundant.
It is frankly offensive to call the Bill that will be introduced the energy independence Bill. It is an energy dependence Bill, which will make us more dependent on foreign imports, more dependent on China and more dependent for gas on Norway, which drills it from the very same sea that this Government are banning Britain from exploiting. That is insanity. Once again, the Secretary of State has put his ideological fantasies before doing what is right for the people of this country.
The only people who will be cheering this on are those in Moscow, Tehran and Beijing who, to be fair, will probably themselves be incredulous—unbelieving of their luck—that they have such useful idiots in the form of this Labour Government, cheered on by the SNP, with their decade-long presumption against oil and gas, and the Liberal Democrats, who have a different position depending on which part of the country they happen to be in at the time. All are choosing to make the UK poorer, colder and more vulnerable to outside influence.
Let us be absolutely clear: the position of this Labour Government on oil and gas is downright dangerous. By proposing to legislate for a ban on all new licences, they might as well be hanging a “closed for business” sign over the North sea. I—and it is not just me—do not understand the logic of these actions. The Secretary of State, his Ministers and the current occupant of No. 10 repeatedly tell us that oil and gas will have a role in the UK for years to come. They are right: roughly 85% of homes in the UK rely on gas for heating and more than 90% of vehicles in the UK rely on fossil fuels, so this will not end overnight. All that this legislation will achieve is our increasing reliance on shipments from abroad, at higher cost, with higher emissions and with fewer jobs here in Britain. I—as well as the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), and others—come to this House time and again to highlight the damage that this Government’s approach is causing to communities in and around Aberdeen and north-east Scotland.
Sir Edward Leigh
The Secretary of State claims that he is leading a moral crusade, but he is simply exporting emissions. It is like saying, “Lord, I will not sin, but I am quite happy for people to sin on my behalf.”
Andrew Bowie
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are exporting emissions and exporting jobs, and that is having a detrimental impact on our economy and communities up and down this United Kingdom, not least in north-east Scotland. I see that every time I go home. One thousand jobs will be lost every month under this Labour Government, and we will lose out on £50 billion of investment. Pubs, restaurants and shops are closing up in the granite city under this Labour Government. The impact is being felt across the country—it is true—but it is in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland that the pain is most acute.
Harriet Cross
I wonder whether my hon. Friend could help me, because I do not understand why the Labour Government think that there is a need to ban new licences. They keep telling us that there is nothing left in the North sea, but if they thought that there was nothing there, why would we be banning ourselves from looking for anything?
Andrew Bowie
My hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could. She is absolutely right; it is completely nonsensical.
In Aberdeen there will be a referendum on this Government’s approach to the North sea in just a few short weeks. On 18 June, the people of what was until recently the oil capital of Europe will have their say on how they feel this Government have treated them and the industry of which they are so proud.
It is not just the production of oil and gas that is being driven to extinction by this Government’s policies. Nor is it just Aberdeen that is being affected by the Government’s anti-growth, anti-business policies: Lindsey, Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Denby, Pembrokeshire, glassworks and metalworks, potteries, refineries and chemical plants—heavy industry is being crushed by the cost of energy. Yet rather than trying to prevent that, this Labour Government are interested only in accelerating the industry’s decline.
The Government’s headlong rush to renewables may be well intentioned, but it is utterly bereft of common sense. This Labour Government are rushing towards a power system that depends on the weather rather than firm, reliable baseloads, exposing us to blackouts, just like the one we saw on the Iberian peninsula last year. Avoiding such blackouts and providing that energy baseload is exactly why the roll-out of new nuclear is an absolute priority. I am pleased that there is consensus on this and that the Government recognise the important role of nuclear in our future energy mix. That said, and as I have said before in this House, sadly this Government’s ambition for nuclear pales in comparison to that of ours when we were in government.
This Government’s failure to commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor in Ynys Môn is a huge disappointment, not just for us on the Conservative Benches but for industry and the people in Ynys Môn too. The roll-out of small modular reactors is good, yes, but it curtails the possibility of gigawatt-scale power at Ynys Môn. A cynic might suggest that the decision was made to rush out the announcement in some desperate and hasty attempt to salvage the Welsh Labour party. Well, it is safe to say that that failed.
Back to ambition, the decommissioning of the UK’s stockpile of petroleum, the selection of only one small modular technology, and the refusal to follow our ambition of 24 GW of new nuclear is just not good enough.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The shadow Minister talked about his party’s ambition for new nuclear in this country, but can he remind the House how many new nuclear plants his party opened during their tenure in charge?
Andrew Bowie
I could run through the list of what we achieved in office on nuclear, as the Minister has heard me do many times, but let me remind the hon. Member that the Labour party has never opened one nuclear power plant in all the years it has been in office —a record that will probably continue over the next three years.
This act of national self-harm has to come to an end. There is only one party that has a plan to cut bills, support industry, protect jobs, and make Britain energy secure. Energy costs are stalling growth, deindustrialising the country and weighing down on families and businesses.
Andrew Bowie
No, I will not.
That is why Britain needs a serious plan to cut bills. With the Conservatives’ cheap power plan, that is exactly what Britain would get: a £200 cut to energy bills. It could be delivered right now if this Government prioritised the people of this country rather than wacky, unrealistic ideology. But we would not stop there; we would go much further and much faster. To make this country energy-secure, to protect British jobs, grow tax revenue and welcome billions of pounds of investment, we would tell the world that the North sea is open for business. Our “Get Britain Drilling” Bill would end Labour’s ban on new licences to unlock the gargantuan supply of opportunity that lies beneath our seas.
Andrew Bowie
I will not.
We would back our world-class oil and gas industry by scrapping the ban on exporting technologies and welcoming the £5 billion of exports that that would create.
Andrew Bowie
I am sorry, I will not.
The North Sea Transition Authority would be rechristened the North Sea Authority and tasked with one noble mission: to maximise North sea oil and gas drilling and raise billions of pounds more in tax cuts for the British people. The Conservatives would scrap the energy profits levy—the anvil around the neck of the industry—which Labour extended and increased as one of their first acts in government.
A profitable, attractive and investible North sea would strengthen public services and our energy security and grow our economy, making Britain a stronger country. If hon. Members agree with that, if they agree with us that a brighter, more secure and more prosperous future is possible if we fight for it, I urge them to vote for our amendment tonight.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks 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.
“In the face of further geopolitical turmoil, now is the time to alter our approach to energy… Drilling in the North Sea and scrapping carbon taxes on British manufacturing would kickstart economic growth, tackle unemployment…as well as prevent further deindustrialisation.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with those comments from the Labour Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell)?
Ed Miliband
This party and this Government are taking a pragmatic approach to these issues. We are using existing oil and gas fields for their lifetime, including with tiebacks, which is welcomed by industry, but we are not going to fly in the face of the evidence. The answer to a fossil fuels crisis is not to double down on fossil fuels, but to double down on clean home-grown power that we control. The Conservatives used to believe that, before they jumped on another bandwagon.
Andrew Bowie
This is extraordinary—mad, even. No other country on Earth would deprive itself of the vast natural resource we are lucky enough to have at our disposal underneath the North sea. The Jackdaw field alone could provide 250 million barrels of oil equivalent in natural gas to the UK, and it could be up and running by Christmas, but because of the Secretary of State it is stuck in limbo. It is utter insanity. His inaction is an act of national economic self-harm. When will he make a decision and act in the national interest?
Ed Miliband
Before the hon. Gentleman self-combusts, let me tell him that, as a result of the court decision, those projects are proceeding at risk. I will tell him the way we will make a decision. I am not going to comment on a live planning issue, but I will say in general that we will make a decision that is legally watertight. The last Government made a series of decisions that were found—[Interruption.] Conservative Members say “No, no”, but they do not care about the rule of law. We saw that when they said that we should rush headlong into a war with no regard for the impacts on our constituents.
Oil and Gas
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
There is some confusion about current SNP policy on oil and gas. Is it, or is it not, still SNP policy to be against new oil and gas in the North sea?
Graham Leadbitter
Current SNP policy on oil and gas is that there should be a proper assessment of each individual application. That is the normal licensing process. I would think most Members of the House would recognise that if a process is put in place, it should be applied rigorously and consistently.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Let me start by agreeing with fellow Aberdonian the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) in paying tribute to all the energy workers, who, over decades, have worked in incredibly dangerous conditions. Some gave their lives to ensuring that the lights stayed on and industry continued to function in this country. Many of them came from my constituency.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for his outstanding contribution. He brought to the House’s attention the dependence of so many industries in this country to gas, and the de-industrialisation that we are seeing across so many aspects of our industry right now.
With war raging in the middle east and in Europe, Labour is a party being held captive by extremists who refuse to act in our national interest, who are content to see jobs lost in their thousands and who will not take advantage of our greatest asset lying untapped and unexplored under our own waters.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Member talks of the national interest, but does he agree that it was disgraceful that Gazprom was allowed to acquire an interest in the North sea in the years after 2011, without a word of protest from his party when it was in government?
Andrew Bowie
We welcomed investment from around the world, but, obviously, we divested ourselves of any Russian investment in the North sea as soon as we could after Putin’s actions in Ukraine, as I am sure the hon. Member would have expected us to do as a responsible Government. On days like this we have to wonder whose side this Government are on, because unlike the Conservative Government, who acted in the national interest, they are not on the side of Britain or of the British people.
We have witnessed for four years now how Putin’s armies have weaponised energy not only to starve the people of Ukraine, but to weaken our continent. The Energy Secretary, if he were here, would tell us that that proves why we should double down on his plans to ditch oil and gas, except even under his ridiculously ambitious and unrealistic plans, Great Britain would still need gas to meet around 50% of its energy demand. The National Energy System Operator has highlighted that gas will be the UK’s energy of last resort for the next 10 to 20 years, and that we will require a diverse and resilient supply.
But Labour MPs—the enablers of this absurdity—would rather see us reliant on others for gas, such as Qatar or Norway, than on our own British industry. They would rather we get gas from other countries at a higher cost and with 15 times the emissions of our own supply, leaving us more exposed to price spikes.
To be absolutely clear, 100% of all British North sea gas goes directly into the British gas grid. I do wonder if Labour Members understand this, so let me explain: by choosing to use less from British waters, we have to import more and we become more insecure as a country. The real human tragedy at the centre of this blatant disregard for our national interest is playing out on rigs, in offices and in homes across the north-east of Scotland right now, and it is happening thanks to the Labour party, enabled by the Liberal Democrats.
While we are talking about the Liberal Democrats, we heard today from their spokeswoman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), that they do not support any new oil and gas licences. I think she might want to explain that to their candidate for the upcoming parliamentary election in Shetland, who warned of the impact if the Clair oilfield was not expanded, or their candidate for North East Scotland who said:
“We are going to need oil and gas for the foreseeable future and it is better to support production here than rely on imports of LNG from abroad which are more polluting.”
Which is it? What is the Liberal Democrats’ plan, and why do they always say one thing in this place and another thing everywhere else? Once again, we cannot trust a word that the Liberal Democrats say, but they are enabling the Labour party and choosing to see 1,000 jobs lost in the North sea every single month.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I am a fan of his work, but I do have to ask this question. The Conservatives and Reform would have joined the American-led war of choice without any questioning of the reasons for it, and the Conservatives and Reform want to leave the UK reliant on fossil fuels and overly exposed to energy price shocks. Can he please tell me what the difference is between the Conservatives and Reform?
Andrew Bowie
I am equally a fan of the hon. Member’s work, but I would like to make this very clear: it is not that we would have joined the war ongoing in the middle east; it is that we would not have left British bases and British assets undefended in the way that this Government shamefully did by removing assets from the region when we knew very well what was coming round the corner.
One thousand high-skilled, high-paid jobs are being lost every single month, and this is personal. I have the immense privilege of living in and representing the north-east of Scotland. To me, these jobs are not figures on a spreadsheet, as they are to Labour MPs. They are my constituents, neighbours, friends and family. The callousness and disregard with which the Labour party is treating that region and these people at the minute will not be forgotten.
The Labour party refuses to acknowledge it, but it is real and it is happening—and at frightening speed. People are, right now, having to make a terrible choice: either they hang around in the north-east of Scotland awaiting the long-promised yet never-delivered renewable jobs boom, which always seems to be just around the corner and which pays far less, or they leave their homes, communities and families and move overseas. Many, indeed most, are choosing the latter. They are leaving the country altogether, taking their families and, crucially, their skills out of the United Kingdom to countries that have Governments who are awake to the reality and who support their domestic oil and gas industries—to places like Houston, Riyadh, Calgary or Stavanger.
In Stavanger they are drilling right now in the very same sea that we could be drilling in, only to sell it back to us. It is utterly perverse. Workers in Aberdeen are going to any country with an oil and gas industry in which the eco-extremism that the Secretary of State is so enthralled by is not found in government. That, by the way, is every other country in the world where there is a domestic oil and gas industry.
It used to be said that in every country in the world where there is oil and gas, you can find an Aberdonian accent. It turns out that soon, the only place where you will not be able to find an Aberdonian oil worker is, in fact, Aberdeen. There has been a steady beat of job losses every single month since Labour entered government—from BP, Hunting, Harbour Energy, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, and Ithaca Energy.
Labour MPs talk about what we did in government, but during the 2014-15 energy price shock, when jobs were sadly lost in the north-east of Scotland, we commissioned Ian Wood to produce a review into the future of the North sea. We implemented a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea. We reduced taxes on our domestic oil and gas industry, and we stabilised the workforce in our last six years. During our time in government, we made the North sea the most investable basin in the world. What are the Labour Government doing? The exact opposite. They are seeing job losses and investment turn away. They are surrendering this country to the whims of dictators overseas.
I could go on about the job losses. All the companies I mentioned have had operations in this country for many years, and when they are not cutting jobs they are consolidating their operations. I therefore welcome the recent intervention from the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) in calling for an end to the Government’s war on the North sea. We can add his name to the ever growing list of people and organisations calling on the Government to change course: the GMB, Unite, Tony Blair, Octopus’s Greg Jackson, Great British Energy’s own Juergen Maier, who was appointed by the Secretary of State, and RenewableUK. Why are all those people wrong and only the Secretary of State right?
Andrew Bowie
I will not because of time.
Notably, that list does not include one Scottish Labour MP. Indeed, some Scottish Labour MPs are actively campaigning to stop any production at all, with two of their number signing a letter asking the Secretary of State to block the Rosebank oilfield. For a moment, let us entertain the idea that clean power 2030 is not ridiculous and utterly undeliverable. Who does the Minister think will deliver it? The people with the skills needed for floating offshore wind are leaving in their thousands, and the assets to deploy those new technologies are moving overseas. Who does the Minister think will invest in the transition?
The Port of Aberdeen has recently invested in a new harbour to accommodate the long-promised boom in floating offshore wind, but there are no new turbines going out to sea today, the quayside has no blades waiting and the port is laying off staff because 60% of its revenue still comes from oil and gas; only 1% comes from renewables.
We could change course. I hope that Labour Members who represent Scottish constituents have paid close attention, and I hope they have thought about whose side they are on. Labour MPs have an opportunity to join us in the voting Lobby and demonstrate clearly whose side they are on. Are they on the side of British workers, our industry, our security and our economic success, or are they on the side of an increasingly isolated Secretary of State?
The Government could decide to vote to end the ban on new licences and unlock the 2.9 billion barrels of opportunity that lie below the sea. They could vote to scrap the energy profits levy and vote to approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields immediately, but it is clear that they will not. As ever, there is only one party with a plan to get Britain drilling again, to make Britain secure, to cut bills and to deliver a stronger economy and a stronger country. That is, and always will be, the Conservative and Unionist party.
Draft Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The regulations set out provisions for the continuation of the warm home discount scheme—fine. Last winter, 10 million British pensioners lost out on their winter fuel allowance as a direct result of decisions taken by this Labour Government. The only reason that number is not higher is that, as is now customary for this Government, they U-turned. The Government did so after pressure from the Conservative party and the general public, who made it clear in no uncertain terms that they were furious with the original decision to strip the payment from millions more. However, that U-turn came too late for many as over winter 2024-25 many pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating. The original decision was not only unnecessary but not mentioned once by the Labour party during the general election campaign—and Labour Members have the gall to say that they worry about the cost of heating.
However, let us not forget the promise that was made during the general election—to reduce household energy bills by £300 per year. As it stands, those bills are £73 higher than when the Secretary of State took office after that election. The Labour party and the Government were warned multiple times by industry, academia, trade unions and us that the course they were charting would deliver not cheaper but dearer energy bills for British families and businesses. Energy generation in Great Britain is already some of the cleanest but, crucially, it is also the most expensive in the western world. The problem is that instead of taking unnecessary cost out of the system and making electricity cheap at source, the Government continue to pile cost after cost on to people’s bills, largely to pay for the Secretary of State’s net zero targets and his drive towards clean power 2030. Then they raise tax on everyone to cover the cost. That is exactly what the regulations do. The warm home discount is not paid for by energy suppliers or with free money; it is paid by everyone—all our constituents—through an extra tax on their energy bills.
Rather than cutting bills for everyone, as our cheap power plan would do, the Government are raising bills for everyone through higher taxes only to give a small proportion of households on benefits a discount. Our cheap power plan would cut everyone’s electricity bills by 20% immediately. We will not seek to divide the Committee, and will not stand in the way of the regulations moving forward, but we believe that the Government must take the steps necessary to meaningfully bring bills down, and not push them up further.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
If the Minister issued new oil and gas licences for the North sea we could produce more of our oil and gas here at home. That would mitigate some of the problems that he has just raised about being over-reliant on oil states.
Heating Oil Support
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(2 months, 3 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 giving me advance sight of the statement, although I really have to take issue with the Prime Minister’s earlier comments, taking credit for Ofgem’s decision to lower the energy price cap. That decision was taken not by the Government, but by Ofgem using a Conservative mechanism, and it was in fact taken weeks before the current crisis began. But why let the facts get in the way of this Government’s spin?
I am glad to see that the Government have today taken steps to support those households across Great Britain and Northern Ireland that rely on heating oil—steps that those of us on this side of the House called for when prices began to rise weeks ago. Those households are, as the Minister has highlighted, acutely exposed to price shocks, and the stories we have heard from consumers across the country are very concerning indeed. Just this morning, I heard from a constituent who faces a lump sum bill of over £1,000. These consumers are often served by a single local supplier, meaning that there is no realistic competition.
Let us be under no illusions: this announcement has come about only after the pressure put on the Government by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) called for these actions almost two weeks ago. Like everything with this Government, they end up doing the right thing only after weeks of dither, delay and inaction—but today’s announcement will be welcome news for rural households, and nowhere is that more apparent than in Northern Ireland, where over 60% of homes rely on oil for heat.
Although I welcome the announcement, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarification. First, can he explain what, if any, support will be made available to those who heat their homes with liquid petroleum gas? Furthermore, it appears that the allocation of funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is to go directly to the devolved Administrations and not directly to local authorities. Considering that the Minister represents a Scottish constituency, he understands just as well as I that handing over a cheque to the Scottish Government does not guarantee that money will be spent where it was intended to be spent. Can he therefore outline how this Government will ensure that those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get the support they need, and that this funding is not siphoned off for other priorities determined by devolved Ministers? Why was this money not awarded directly to local authorities in those nations as it is being delivered across England?
It is also my understanding that this funding is inclusive of Barnett consequentials. Could the Minister confirm whether that is the case? If it is, will he confirm that Scotland is being short-changed due to the higher proportion of households on heating oil than the Barnett formula would account for?
The Government could go further and heed our calls to deliver a 20% cut to everyone’s energy bills—and I mean everyone’s—through the Conservative’s cheap power plan by axing the carbon tax and the rip-off wind subsidies now. That cut would be worth around £165 to the average family. The Government should also bring about another one of their famed U-turns and cancel their planned fuel duty rise later this year—a rise that will add £156 to struggling families’ bills, because Labour’s plans always lead to more costs for families and businesses.
Let us take today’s announcement as an example. We cannot ignore that this support will be funded through Labour’s tax rises on working people. Why? Because this Government have made a choice—a political choice—to shut down the North sea and forgo £25 billion of tax receipts that an attractive, investable and successful North sea oil and gas industry would, and still could, provide. Backing the UK’s oil and gas industry is about driving the economic growth that we so desperately need, which in turn would deliver greater tax receipts than the current regime. It is about becoming more energy secure. One hundred per cent of all the gas produced in the British North sea is used in the British gas grid. The less we use from British waters, the more we have to import—at a higher cost and with a bigger carbon footprint—from Qatar, the USA and Norway, which continue to explore in the same sea in which we are prevented from exploring.
Backing the UK’s oil and gas industry would support a vitally important skilled workforce—a workforce that right now is packing up and going overseas. What will it take for this Government to change course—revenue, investment, job security? What is it that this Government do not get? Just today, the CEO of RenewableUK joined the chorus of voices calling for an overhaul of this disastrous act of economic self-harm being inflicted by this Labour Government. We read in The Times at the weekend that we are currently led by the “least intellectually curious” Prime Minister of all time, so it is no surprise that the Secretary of State has been given free rein to inflict his myopic vision of a future—[Interruption.] Those are not my words; they are the words of people in the Cabinet today! Surely at this time of such global instability, the case for a thriving oil and gas industry is clearer than ever.
We welcome the action announced today on heating oil, but there are serious questions—not just from me but from the industry, the renewables sector, the trade unions, and, frankly, everyone other than those sitting on the Labour Benches—over wider Government energy policy that need to be answered, and answered soon.
Martin McCluskey
Dear, oh dear! Where to begin? I will do my best to wade through the many points that hon. Gentleman raised.
First, the energy price cap is reducing on 1 April because of actions that this Government took to take £150 out of energy costs. That will see every bill in this country reduced. People listening should hear that their bill will go down in April, and that is protected to the end of June. The hon. Gentleman appears to be criticising us for a lack of speed. If he would like to volunteer how many days it took for the last Conservative Government to provide support for people on heating oil, I am all ears. How long did it take his party in government? It took them nearly 200 days. We are around three weeks into this conflict in the middle east, and we have come forward with support today.
LPG will be eligible in so far as the English schemes that we have funded additionally today through these actions, and we are making that clear to local authorities in a letter that has been sent from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers today. It will be for the devolved Administrations—Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—to determine how they distribute the funds. I hope that they will work at the same speed as this Government to ensure that they are available on 1 April, but all nations already have crisis funds available that they could be deploying for this purpose, just as we will be deploying them for this purpose in England from today; if there are people in crisis now applying to the existing household support fund, they will be eligible for support from today, and the additional funding will come after 1 April.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the funds being Barnettised, but the funds are not being Barnettised; Scotland is not being, in his words, short-changed. The funds are being allocated based on census data on how many heating oil-fuelled households there are in each individual nation. That is why Northern Ireland comes out with £17 million, Scotland with £4.6 million and Wales with less. It is not a Barnett share; it is based on the number of households that use heating oil.
Finally, I do wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop coming to this Chamber and talking down the UK’s oil and gas sector. [Interruption.] No, I do wish that he would stop talking it down. He has implied from his Dispatch Box that the taps are being turned off in the North sea; they are not. The North sea is working today at full capacity and has been for some time. On Thursday, I was in Aberdeen, speaking to workers in that sector and to workers in floating offshore wind, who will benefit from our decision to invest in clean energy. If we take our eyes off the opportunities that will be available in future, it is a road to ruin. The hon. Gentleman will also know that more extraction from the North sea will not reduce the price of energy. We are a price taker, not a price maker. That is not our road to cheaper energy for households.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is unusual—indeed, unheard of, in recent months anyway—for the Secretary of State and I to agree on anything on energy policy, but it is probably not the first time this week that he secretly agrees with a Scottish politician. I know he agrees that new nuclear, particularly SMRs, offer huge potential for the UK and for Scotland. This week, Trade Unionists for Safe Nuclear Energy launched a petition addressed to the First Minister of Scotland, calling on him to lift the ban on new nuclear development in Scotland. Can that group expect the Department’s support?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman is right about this. Let me put it this way: given the scale of the climate change challenge, only those who are dug in dogmatically can oppose new nuclear. Given the scale of the challenge we face, we need all the tools at our disposal. It provides good jobs and energy security, so it is only for dogmatic reasons that the SNP Government oppose it. There is one difference between him and me, and that is that he promised SMRs, but we are delivering them.
Andrew Bowie
The difference is that this Secretary of State’s ambition for nuclear pales in comparison with our ambition when we were in government.
When I served as the Minister for nuclear, it was a source of the greatest frustration that, despite the many countless—indeed, huge—strides we took to kick-start the new nuclear age in the UK, none of the investment or the jobs would be seen north of the border. The Scottish National party is most at home refighting the battles of the past—they tend to be the battles of the 14th century—but in this age of nuclear revolution across the world, the aversion to nuclear is inexplicable. It is a luddite approach. The SNP is anti-science, anti-progress and anti-jobs. There can and should be a future for nuclear in Scotland. Does the Secretary State not agree that this is the time for the SNP Government to drag themselves into, and to move Scotland into, the 20th century—let alone the 21st century—change course and lift this ridiculous ban?
Warm Homes Plan
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(4 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 Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement.
Today’s announcement is long overdue—overdue by an entire year, to be exact. During the general election, the Labour party claimed that it would cut household bills. This announcement should be part of that, but in that time, since the general election and on this Secretary of State’s watch, energy bills have not fallen; they have gone in the opposite direction. Energy bills are up by £200 since the election, partly as a result of the Secretary of State’s own political choices.
We believe that there is a greater role in our energy system for home batteries, we support a more technology-agnostic approach to air-to-air heat pumps, and, of course, we believe that rooftop solar is much better than carpeting the countryside in huge solar farms, but the Secretary of State is ignoring the core problem. We are in an electricity price crisis of his own making. Even if we are as charitable as possible and accept that the Government will reach the 5 million households who they say will benefit from this plan, it will do nothing to cut bills for 83% of the country. However, all those households will pay much higher taxes because of Labour’s Budget, including taxes to fund the Secretary of State’s £15 billion plan, and they are struggling with their energy bills now because of the choices of the Secretary of State.
Let me now turn to the specific measures in the plan. The Department’s own figures show that the public are becoming more sceptical about heat pumps. Between winter 2024 and spring 2025, the proportion of people saying that they were unlikely to install an air source heat pump increased from 38% to 45%, and if you ask anyone why they do not want a heat pump, they will say it is because of the high up-front costs. [Interruption.] Yes, they will—but it is also because of the high ongoing running costs, which often make heat pumps more expensive to run than gas boilers.
There is a serious risk that the Government’s legally binding targets are forcing them to push people into buying heat pumps, but all those families will be locked into sky-high running costs, because the Government have a political target that is pushing up electricity bills at the same time. This plan does nothing to address those high ongoing running costs. Indeed, last week the Government announced that they were locking the country into higher energy prices for decades through their botched wind auction. Just imagine that there was a plan on the table to cut the cost of running a heat pump by 20% instantly: a cheap power plan that would not involve raising taxes on working people to fund handouts; a plan that would axe the carbon tax, and scrap the Secretary of State’s rip-off wind subsidies to cut bills for every family in the country. Would that not be a far better approach to making make heat pumps much more attractive?
What steps will the Department take to ensure that low-interest loans will provide good value for money? How many homes will benefit from the low-interest and zero-interest loans scheme, and how will it be determined who gets a low-interest loan or a zero-interest loan?
As for the changes to the minimum energy efficiency standards for rented homes, the Secretary of State will know that the previous Government did more than any other to improve energy efficiency standards, with half of all homes having an energy performance certificate rating of C or above when we left office, compared to 14% when the Secretary of State left office in 2010. Has his Department carried out any impact assessment of what the 2030 deadline will cost landlords, and how much of the cost will be passed on to renters? His own Government’s data shows that it will cost more than £12,000 to upgrade a home from EPC E to C—£12,000 that will then be passed on to families in increased rents. We cannot ignore all the costs that this Government are imposing on the housing sector, and the impact that they will have on the cost of living for families.
The Government are going to set up a new quango, the warm homes agency, to administer these schemes. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much this quango will cost the taxpayer, how it will be held accountable, and why he decided to spend money on setting up a new quango rather than those functions being delivered by his own Department, which he controls?
The Secretary of State has already been forced, by this House, to ban Great British Energy from spending taxpayers’ money on solar panels when there is evidence of forced labour in the supply chain, and of course we welcome that, but can he assure the House that he will apply that same ban on slave labour to solar panel installations funded by the warm homes plan? When will he publish details of how that mechanism will work, so that it can be scrutinised by the House?
The Government are ignoring the fact that the affordability crisis that the Secretary State talks about is a crisis of his own making. They are ignoring the fact that they are locking the country into paying higher bills for far longer. If they truly want to encourage people to adopt green technology, like heat pumps or electric vehicles, they need to make electricity cheap. They could adopt the Conservatives’ cheap power plan to cut everyone’s electricity bills by 20% and scrap the reckless clean power 2030 target, which is locking everyone into paying higher bills for far longer.
Ed Miliband
It is always a pleasure to be opposite the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). Let me make a few points to him, in the gentlest way I can. Let me deal first with his point about the cost of electricity. In her Budget, the Chancellor did more in one decision—namely, to transfer 75% of the renewables obligation to public spending to cut electricity costs—than the last Government did in 14 years in power.
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman is shouting about bills. Let me tell him that the average bill in 2025 was lower in real terms than in 2024, and so was the price cap, as he will know from the figures. I am incredibly proud that this Government, unlike the last Government, are taking £150 of costs off bills thanks to the Chancellor’s decision, funded by taxes on the wealthy—and the Conservatives oppose all those tax measures.
The hon. Gentleman talked about renters. I think that, basically, what I heard—and perhaps it should not surprise me—was that he is actually against the higher standards for renters. He would leave private renters languishing in cold, damp homes, which is what the Conservatives did during their 14 years in power. We are proud of the decision that we are making. Thanks to the brilliant work of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), we actually have a supportive quote from the landlords. Even the landlords want more action than the Conservative party when it comes to the renters! To amuse the House briefly, I will read out that quote. Ben Beadle, chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association, said:
“a clear roadmap for the reform of PRS MEES is welcome.”
Even the landlords are more on the side of renters than the Conservative party.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we were setting up the warm homes agency. I will tell him why. He said, “Wouldn’t it be better to do this within Government?” The Conservatives presided over a scandalous and shocking disaster in the ECO scheme, a mess that we are having to clear up. We are going to reform the system so that we have a proper agency with proper technical expertise to ensure that nothing like what they visited on thousands of families across the country ever happens again.
I like the hon. Gentleman, and I feel a bit of sympathy for him because he has nothing to say about this issue. Let us just be honest about this: the Conservatives failed over 14 years, and we are delivering.
Draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(6 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 genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Alec. Congratulations on your appointment to the Panel of Chairs.
This statutory instrument amends The Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations, building on the commitments made in part 8 of the Energy Act 2023—what an Act that was. Heat networks are largely unregulated, leaving consumers vulnerable to expensive heat network contracts with little to no control, since the decentralised heat and water networks are not governed by the same regulation as other utilities. The remaining components of those regulations come into force in January 2026, and along with the Energy Act 2023—with which I am incredibly familiar, having spent hours, weeks and months of my life as the Bill Minister for that legislation—they create the foundation of a regulatory framework.
The statutory instrument establishes a special administration regime for protected heat network companies, designed to maintain essential heating services to ensure continuity of service if a heat network operator becomes insolvent. It mirrors similar arrangements in other regulated sectors, such as electricity and gas. As the Minister said, the statutory instrument also gives Ofgem the powers to investigate disproportionate pricing on heat networks. What guarantee can the Minister give that that will adequately protect the 500,000 homes across the country, including some in my own constituency, that have very little power over the price they pay to be connected to a specific heat network?
The lack of regulation for heat networks has created challenges for consumers. The Energy Act addressed that by introducing a comprehensive regulatory framework for heat networks. Under that Act, Ofgem will become the statutory regulator for heat networks from January 2026. The Act also provided for the appointment of consumer advocacy bodies and ombudsman services, which began earlier this year, and it sets out a staged implementation timeline. From 27 January 2026, the full authorisation regime and special administration permissions will come into effect, marking a significant step towards a regulated market—something that we very much welcome.
Although the statutory instrument is a necessary step towards the regulation of heat networks as set out in the Energy Act, I take this opportunity to reiterate the genuinely desperate situations some of our constituents find themselves in as a result of unregulated decentralised heating, paying extortionate fees with no way out. There have been well-documented cases of consumers facing high cost and limited options under existing arrangements.
With the new framework live at the end of January, it is essential that Ofgem and the Government are fully prepared to deliver effective protections for consumers. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed what steps are being taken to ensure that the special administration regime will effectively protect consumers, and that the amendments introduced by this statutory instrument are sufficient to ensure fairness. We do not, of course, intend to oppose the regulations, but I emphasise the need for robust implementation to ensure that heat network consumers receive the protections promised under the Energy Act.