Offshore Wind
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(6 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I have a long-standing promise, which I will fulfil—[Interruption.] Everyone seems to know about that promise to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to see what GE Vernova is doing. She makes an important point about ensuring that procurement, in which I know GE Vernova has a particular interest, should as much as possible be from the UK. My Department is working on that through not just the clean industry bonus, but many other things that we are doing.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Although the news on Berwick Bank and Pentland is hugely welcome, it risks masking serious jeopardy for Scotland’s offshore wind sector. There is great worry that today’s news represents a longer-term shift in the renewables industry from north to south, due to the unfair and disproportionate transmission charges regime. If Scotland’s offshore wind sector is to have a future, we need to see reform of transmission charges before auction round 8—will we?
Ed Miliband
Even by the standards of the UK all-comers record for SNP miserabilism, that question takes some beating. I think the hon. Member gets the award. This is a great news story for Scotland, and not just in terms of Berwick Bank but in relation to floating wind. We want to carry on with that progress in AR8.
Factored Energy Arrangements: Pricing
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(6 days, 4 hours 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
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy pricing for consumers with factored energy arrangements.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am pleased to have secured this debate on a systemic regulatory failure that is quietly draining the bank accounts of residents across Scotland and the wider UK. We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, yet large numbers of domestic residents are being charged inflated business electricity tariffs for the essential communal services that keep their buildings safe and functional.
In a nutshell, the issue is that in many residential developments, services such as stairwell lighting, fire alarms, lifts and door entry systems are powered via shared electricity meters. Despite that electricity being used entirely for domestic living, residents are routinely charged business energy rates. It is not a niche issue; it is a systemic failure driven by outdated rules and weak enforcement.
The financial harm to our constituents is stark. A typical communal supply, using around 1,000 kWh per year, would cost roughly £380 on a fixed domestic tariff. Under the frequently used standard variable business tariffs, that same usage can rise to around £1,465, an excess cost of approximately £1,100 per meter every year. Across a modest development of 75 flats, it can add around £12,000 annually to residents’ collective bills.
What makes that particularly galling is that many residents are entirely unaware of how their communal electricity is billed. They may not know whether it is on a separate meter, how many accounts are involved, or whether it is charged at domestic or business rates. The costs are simply absorbed into factoring charges, leaving consumers unaware of both the issue and their rights—unaware when they are being roundly fleeced for someone else’s failure to either act properly or correctly inform them. The root cause of the issue is simple: it is a regulatory mismatch. The problem sits at the intersection of Ofgem regulation, supplier interpretation and third party management structures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He and I spoke beforehand, but he might not be aware that consumers with factored arrangements in Northern Ireland were historically vulnerable to high, unregulated prices, similar to consumers in GB, but the Northern Ireland Assembly moved to correct that vulnerability. Does he agree that, UK-wide, those in communal schemes must have protection from gouging and be able to access better priced energy?
Graham Leadbitter
That is absolutely the case. To take Scotland as an example, consumers have a route to address complaints about this issue through the regulation of factors, but it is complex and cumbersome. There should be a simpler way to do it through the energy regulator, as I will touch on later in my speech.
Many communal meters are correctly classed as profile class 01, a domestic designation based on usage. However, where a property factor, managing agent or company holds the contract, suppliers often automatically apply the business tariff.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Business owner Gary Helliar, from Yeovil, signed an energy contract through a broker who convinced him that energy prices were going to rise to 35p per kilowatt and that the 15p kilowatt was a great deal. Energy prices have fallen below that, but Gary has been stuck in that contract and is facing bills of about £390,000. Does the hon. Member agree that we need greater oversight of energy brokers, so that local businesses are not pushed into rip-off contracts?
Graham Leadbitter
I certainly agree on that point. It is not entirely the purpose of my debate to address that issue today, but it one that I recognise. I think there has to be a route for people to challenge the advice they are given and to take to task those who have given incorrect advice, and that has to be reasonably simple. In many cases currently, it is not.
Ofgem’s guidance on domestic communal supplies, which suppliers ought to follow, is very clear: where the non-commercial collective purchase of energy is for mainly domestic use, that should be treated as a domestic supply, provided that the arrangement is not commercial in nature. That guidance makes it clear that classification should be based on how the energy is used, not on the legal entity holding the contract, yet in practice it is inconsistently applied and weakly enforced.
Inconsistent supplier behaviour has created staggering inconsistency across the energy market. Some suppliers, including Ecotricity, Octopus and OVO, correctly apply domestic rates based on usage and do not override domestic classifications simply because a factor is involved. However, others, including EDF, British Gas, E.ON and SSE, often default to business rates, based solely on the identity of the contract holder. Indeed, in research carried out by my office, representatives of EDF have explicitly stated that they
“override the domestic classification if the usage is for a communal area managed by a business entity”.
That is in clear contradiction to Ofgem’s advice. The result is a supplier lottery. Two identical buildings on the same street can pay vastly different amounts for the same stairwell lighting, purely because of which supplier the managing agent selected.
The lack of regulatory oversight is deeply frustrating for our constituents. No meaningful reform has followed the 2023 call for evidence and multiple parliamentary questions. The current Government have carried out some further consultation, but have not yet moved things on, either. When I come to my conclusion, I will have specific asks for the Minister in that regard.
In April 2024, the Minister’s Department suggested that, due to physical set-ups, these consumers would continue to receive energy via non-domestic contracts. I have additionally met Ofgem on this issue. It recognises the problem, but consistent standards have not been enforced. Residents who do not choose their supplier are excluded from key domestic protections, including price cap coverage and Energy Ombudsman access. They are effectively trapped. More worryingly, when debts arise, suppliers may pursue residents directly as the “end users”, despite residents having no control over the contract. It is a Catch-22, where responsibility exists without authority, leaving residents unable to discuss the debts they are being chased for, because they do not hold the contract. If residents wish to complain, they often find the ombudsman route unavailable to them because the contract is held by a third party, leaving courts or tribunals as the only effective route for redress.
I therefore have six targeted and practical policy asks of the Minister. No. 1 is to reform standard licence condition 6 in order to prioritise actual usage over contract structure. No. 2 is to mandate a standardised appeal process for tariff classification across suppliers. No. 3 is to enforce profile class integrity, so that domestic or PC 01 meters are not billed at business rates. No. 4 is to strengthen Ofgem’s enforcement powers, so that protections are enforceable and not just advisory. No. 5 is to reopen the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero call for evidence and commit to legislative change. No. 6 is to ensure that residents under third party communal contracts can access the Energy Ombudsman.
The current system is a failure of logic and protection and a further cost of living blow to the people who can least afford it. We are effectively telling residents that, because they live in a flat with a shared hallway, rather than in a semi-detached house, they must pay business prices to power their light bulbs and fire alarms. To put it simply, the current situation is like someone being charged a commercial freight rate for a first-class stamp simply because the person posting the letter for them happens to be a professional administrator. It is time that the Government and Ofgem ensured that domestic use always equals a domestic price, and that residents are made fully aware of their rights when communal energy arrangements are put in place.
Budget Resolutions
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I will focus on particular measures in the Budget that will have a massive impact on my constituents in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, and more widely across the north and north-east of Scotland.
First, one of the bigger contributors to the cost of living crisis is the cost of energy. To recap where we are at present, the Labour party promised a £300 reduction in energy bills in their manifesto, but since the 2024 election, consumer and business energy bills have risen substantially. It is estimated that by April, energy bills will be up to £560 higher than the Labour party promised. Taking into account the measures in the Budget, they will still be more than £400 higher than promised. The Resolution Foundation estimates that by 2029-30, energy bills will be £60 lower than current prices, making them about £430 higher than at the time when the Labour party made their manifesto commitment.
The Labour party’s latest swindle on energy bills is already falling apart. To compound matters, my constituents and businesses in the north of Scotland already pay the second highest level of electricity prices in the UK, second only to north Wales and Merseyside, despite vast amounts of energy being produced on their doorstep. That basically means that those consumers are paying for a regulatory system that was created when Battersea power station sold energy rather than Rolexes—a system that successive Governments have manifestly failed to deal with. It is shocking energy price discrimination, with price increase misery heaped on top.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that his constituents would have benefited if Nicola Sturgeon had delivered the promise that she made eight years ago to the people of Scotland to deliver a publicly owned energy company for our country? I think it would have made a difference, but unfortunately it never happened.
Graham Leadbitter
I agree that we need a publicly owned energy company, and I would fully support that. The problem is that we do not have the full powers of an independent country, which are just the normal powers that we would need to do that. I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises that problem. We are nearly 18 months into this Government and their energy price promises have fallen apart, alongside the collapse in trust in the Chancellor.
Secondly, let me come to the Chancellor’s treatment of the North sea. Today, Harbour Energy announced a further 100 job losses, on top of the 350 it announced earlier in the year. Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Aberdeen port and many other sites and companies associated with the North sea energy sector are closing, reducing the workforce or focusing elsewhere in the world, as the sector grapples with a fiscal regime that not only acts as a barrier to investment but is accelerating decline. The latest announcement of job losses is pinned squarely on the Government’s failure to reform the energy profits levy. The decision by the Government to do nothing is akin to Thatcher’s treatment of miners and their communities and the steelworkers at Ravenscraig.
Graham Leadbitter
I would be happy to debate that when it is brought before the House by the Chancellor, if that ever happens.
To accelerate the demise of an industry without ensuring that the right and appropriate time is available for the transition is frankly criminal. I have heard many times Labour Members railing against the impact of Thatcherism in the 1980s—and they are right to do so—yet now they are defending their record of doing the same thing to our oil and gas sector. It is utterly shameful.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member accept that 75,000 jobs were lost from the oil and gas sector between 2016 and 2024, under the previous Conservative Government? Does he welcome the North sea jobs service, which this Government will bring in next year?
Graham Leadbitter
On both those points, I absolutely do. The previous Government introduced the climate change targets, and they have now withdrawn from those. That is the last thing that the energy sector needs; we need investment in renewables.
On the jobs and skills side of things, there is investment from both the UK Government and the Scottish Government. I welcome their partnership on that, but compared with the impact of the energy profits levy, it is frankly small beer. It will not have an impact unless there is an underpinning fiscal regime that actually supports those jobs until we have a renewables sector ready to take those jobs on. That is simply not there at the moment, and unless the fiscal regime changes substantially, those jobs will not be there and people will simply be on the scrapheap.
The worst cost of living crisis for any family is when a family member loses their job. Some 1,000 jobs are going every single month in the energy sector, and the transition plan—if the Government actually have one—is doing little to nothing to support those workers, their families, or the communities they live in. The Government must take urgent action on the EPL, or we will have another industrial jobs disaster, such as Ravenscraig, that will reverberate in communities for generations.
Let me turn to the plight of WASPI women, who continue tirelessly to campaign against the wrong done to them. A year ago, almost to the day, I asked the Prime Minister when they would be compensated—he flannelled his answer and refused to commit. In the space of that year, around 3,500 WASPI women have died without compensation. The Chancellor made no mention of WASPI women in the Budget statement, despite the Government having to rethink things following recent court proceedings. Action must be taken urgently to give compensation to WASPI women, who have been left without the pensions they deserve because successive Governments communicated with them so badly.
Dr Arthur
I think there is support for this issue across the House. I do not know any MP who does not think that the WASPI women should not be compensated, because their fight is a just fight, but there is uncertainty about how it would be funded. How would the hon. Gentleman fund it?
Graham Leadbitter
We have made the point repeatedly that there can be additional funding from banks, which I know hon. Members from the Liberal Democrats agree with, and funding could certainly be made available through a wealth tax, which we have supported for a long time.
The one thing I can welcome from the UK Government in this Budget is the removal of the two-child benefit cap, but I have questions for Labour Members. A principled few Members voted in support of the SNP’s amendment to the King’s Speech nearly 18 months ago, including the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I agreed with pretty much everything he said earlier. That could have happened then, but Labour Members chose not to support it. I am glad and grateful that they do now.
Several hon. Members rose—
COP30
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I agree 100%. For all that the Opposition say, according to the Confederation of British Industry the net zero economy is growing three times faster than the economy as a whole. There is a reason why China, India and all those other countries are driving into clean energy: they see it as a massive economic opportunity. The Opposition would say, “Let’s just rip up that economic opportunity.” Frankly, that would be a betrayal of not just young people, who will look at them and think, “What about our future?” but people today who want those good jobs.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Right across the world, people’s day-to-day lives are being destroyed by the impacts of climate change and associated industrial activity, from the indigenous tribes of the Amazon seeing their rainforest home destroyed around them, to island peoples in the Pacific, whose nations will literally cease to exist as water levels rise. To many people looking at COP30, it feels like developed nations are taking a somewhat protectionist view at the expense of millions of people. In years to come, when the Secretary of State looks back at this COP, will he be able to say that he did absolutely everything he could for those people? From here, it does not look good for so many people who are on the brink.
Ed Miliband
That is an absolutely fair question; it is one I ask myself a lot. Are we doing everything we can despite the global pressures and how difficult it is? I will tell the House this: as it looked like we were going to end up with no deal, I thought a lot about what signal that would send. At the same time, though, we wanted to have as robust an agreement as possible. My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s very legitimate question is yes; we are trying to do absolutely everything we can, but it is hard because 190-something countries are all wrestling with their own dilemmas and constraints. However, he is right to push us to do as much as we can, because we are the generation that both knows the scale of the crisis that confronts us and has the chance to do something about it. Future generations will have less opportunity to do anything about it because the pathway will be more set. He is absolutely right to push us.
Energy
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is vital that we challenge the bankrupt energy record of the UK Government—a record of failure that continues to punish Scottish workers, strip our national wealth and plunge families into fuel poverty.
The current policy being prosecuted from Westminster is not a sustainable plan. It is quite simply ripping jobs from the north-east of Scotland with nothing to replace them. Scotland is an energy-rich nation, abundant in both oil and gas, with world-leading renewable potential.
Perran Moon
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 90% of the jobs in the oil and gas sector are easily transferable to the renewables sector?
Graham Leadbitter
Yes, the jobs are transferable, but the work they can be transferred to needs to exist. It does not exist at the current time. The downturn in the North sea from a crippling fiscal regime is absolutely destroying those jobs and the skills that we need to get to that clean energy potential.
The SNP is clear in its support for a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector, recognising the maturity of the North sea basin and aligning with our climate change commitments. However, we must be absolutely clear that a just transition does not mean simply stopping all future oil and gas activity overnight, as that approach threatens energy security and destroys the very skills we need to transfer to net zero.
We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to approach decisions for North sea oil and gas projects on a rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. Instead, we have seen a fiscal and licensing regime that is actively destroying the highly skilled jobs required to deliver clean energy security.
The energy profits levy is a crippling tax on Scotland’s energy and we must see its end in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the consequences laid bare: Harbour Energy confirms a cumulative headcount reduction of approximately 600 roles since the EPL was introduced in 2022, blaming the “punitive domestic fiscal regime”. Meanwhile, a landmark report found that one in four north-east firms has slashed jobs due to the tax. The decline in North sea oil and gas jobs currently outstrips the number of jobs created by the scale-up of the clean energy industry.
The loss of highly skilled offshore workers with transferable skills without the jobs to transfer to makes a mockery of the just transition. The Chancellor has the opportunity to fix this in two weeks. The question is: will she?
Furthermore, where is the support for the alternative? Labour promised that its flagship GB Energy project would bring down bills and create 1,000 new jobs in the north-east of Scotland, yet only 13 out of 69 employees at GB Energy are based in Aberdeen, while 31 are employed in London. Now we have heard the astonishing admission that creating 1,000 jobs was never the intention.
Let us turn to the soaring cost of living and the broken promises made to Scottish households. The Labour party promised to cut energy bills by £300 before the election, but the reality is that since the Government took office, bills have soared. Independent analysis shows that average energy bills could rise by £287 on their watch. To meet their original pledge, the Labour Government would need to cut bills by nearly £600. The situation facing Scots is completely absurd: we are an energy-rich country where bills are going up while energy jobs are going down. We produce enormous amounts of electricity, yet Scots pay among the highest energy bills anywhere in Europe.
Finally, we must address the UK Government’s ideological obsession with nuclear energy, which threatens Scotland’s transition to renewables. Scotland already has an abundance of clean, renewable energy—enough to power our country several times over. We do not need expensive nuclear power, yet Scots are being forced to pay for a nuclear power station they do not want and will not benefit from—and at great risk to our economy. I am speaking, of course, about the nuclear tax being imposed on Scottish households to fund the construction of Sizewell C in Suffolk. The plant is not expected to generate electricity until the mid-2030s at the earliest.
Furthermore, the long-term legacy of nuclear power is routinely ignored by Ministers. The true cost of the geological disposal facility for nuclear waste is now estimated to be up to £69 billion at current prices. The body responsible for the GDF project has described it as “unachievable”. This is an eye-wateringly large amount of money.
Whether it is the reckless fiscal regime destroying jobs in the North sea, the broken promises leaving families facing sky-high bills, or the imposition of a toxic nuclear tax to fund white elephants in England, Westminster’s energy policy—dictated to us by both Labour and the Tories—has been a complete failure. It is no wonder that more and more Scots are concluding that the only way to escape this repeated mismanagement and the only route to cheaper bills is through a fresh start with independence. It is time to put Scotland’s energy in Scotland’s hands.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
The Energy Minister says that he went on a profile-raising visit to the programme two weeks ago, so many more people now know about it, thanks to that. Indeed, even more—thousands, millions—will know about it as a result of watching this question time. The hon. Lady makes an important point about how GB Energy can roll this out across the country, and floating solar has real potential as well.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Over a year ago, the UK Government promised that there would be hundreds of jobs for GB Energy in Aberdeen. A year on, the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen is haemorrhaging thousands of jobs and we are barely into double figures for GB Energy jobs. When will that promise be kept?
Ed Miliband
I have to say that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the work that GB Energy is doing. When I talk to industry representatives, they say that GB Energy now plays a crucial role. There is investment coming into the supply chain—a supply chain fund of £1 billion, thanks to the spending review, which the Conservatives would abolish because they do not seem to want jobs in Britain. There is £1 billion in the supply chain and GB Energy is rolling out community energy projects in schools and hospitals in England, as well as the ones in Scotland that I have talked about. GB Energy is partnering with the private sector. This is all part of the clean energy workforce plan, which we will publish soon, for 400,000 extra jobs as a result of our clean energy mission.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important issue about her constituency and the steel industry, and I would say two things. One is that what this Government have done, which I am afraid was not done previously, is set up a dedicated fund for steel so that we are able to make the green transition. We talked about this in opposition, and we are now delivering billions of pounds to help the steel industry transition. The other is that I will take up the specific pensions issue she raised with my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The workers of Grangemouth deserved far better than they got from the Labour Government. To add insult to injury, they have had to watch them pull out all the stops for Scunthorpe and Prax Lindsey. In a written answer to me, the Energy Minister refused to confirm how much money the UK Government had spent to continue operations at Lindsey. Will the Secretary of State now come clean and tell us what price they are willing to pay to save jobs in England, which they were not willing to pay to save Grangemouth in Scotland?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman is so wide of the mark it is unbelievable. The Grangemouth closure was foreshadowed before this Government came to power. We have worked hand in glove with his colleagues in the Scottish Government—all the way along, Gillian Martin and I have been working on it—and for him to try to make party politics out of the issue is, frankly, a disgrace.
Heathrow Substation Outage: NESO Review
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The report by NESO has clearly uncovered serious structural failings at National Grid, but let us not forget that the Government’s response to the outage was severely wanting as well. On the Monday following the outage, the Transport Secretary confirmed that she was relying on the contents of a three-day-old conversation with Heathrow, with no assessment from the Government and no conversations with National Grid. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that sufficient lessons are being learned in Government to ensure that, when the power supply to critical national infrastructure is affected in the future, the Government are not left without answers again? Additionally, Members will understand the phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, meaning “Who guards the guards?” Why did it take such a serious outage for the National Grid to be audited like this? Surely better oversight may have identified the shockingly poor risk management.
Michael Shanks
Since I did not realise in my statement earlier this week that the hon. Gentleman is now the SNP’s energy spokesperson, I welcome him to his place—I hope he will bring the same customary sunshine that his predecessor in the role did to our deliberations in this place.
On the incident itself, clearly there are lessons to be learned from the way the energy infrastructure worked on 20 and 21 March, and for Heathrow on the configuration of its internal network and how that worked. The incident itself is clearly one we want to avoid at all costs, but actually the process was carried out safely, passengers were informed and the disruption was kept to an absolute minimum, but if an airport such as Heathrow closes, there will be disruption. I am not sure that I take the hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the handling of the incident. He is right on the broader point about how we ensure we are regularly auditing the processes of maintenance work going forward. The three transmission owners in the UK have a responsibility for doing that, and that is regulated by Ofgem, which regularly checks on this. The second part of Ofgem’s review announced today will look specifically at whether those maintenance backlogs and any other long-standing issues have been resolved, and look at the lessons we can learn on ensuring that those processes actually happen and that we do not just have things sitting on a list but not actually delivered.
Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the work that the Government are doing following our £200 million commitment to support the future of Grangemouth through the national wealth fund. There have been 84 serious and credible inquiries about projects there, and I have been meeting those involved in some of those projects to discuss what more the Government can do to ensure that they are delivered. We will say more about that in due course, but we are working collaboratively with the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise to bring the projects forward. As we have said since day one, we are determined to deliver a sustainable, viable industrial future for Grangemouth. The difference between Grangemouth and the Prax Lindsey refinery—I want to separate the two slightly—is that while we may have issues with the owners of various sites across the country, an 18-month redundancy package was put in place at Grangemouth and that is not the case in this instance, which is why the Government are particularly calling on the owners of this refinery to do the right thing for the workers there.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Westminster’s mismanagement of the energy sector is clearly being felt across these islands, and the Government were right to arrange a statement today to address the possible closure of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery. However, that is not a courtesy that the Labour Government have ever extended to Grangemouth in Scotland: they have not once come to the Chamber to make a statement about it. We have seen Labour pull out all the stops for Scunthorpe and now begin that process for Lindsey. Will they think again and do the same for Grangemouth?
The Shetland gas plant is also owned by Prax, and is also a significant employer. What steps are the Government taking to secure the future of this site, and why did the plant not feature in the statement, if only for the purpose of an assurance?
Michael Shanks
Let me deal with that on two fronts. First, we have come to the House repeatedly to talk about Grangemouth. I have had meetings with a number of Members over the past year to discuss Grangemouth, probably more than I have had to discuss any other issue, and I have weekly meetings with Scottish Government Ministers, businesses or others to discuss Grangemouth’s future. No one wanted the outcome that we got from Grangemouth, but we have done everything in our power to turn that around and deliver a viable economic future for the site, so I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s criticism, which I think is misplaced.
Secondly, I apologise to the House for being unable to give explicit details about every part of the business, but one of the problems is that we have not been able to obtain clarity from the company about all the interdependencies within its own business group. We will discuss more of this in the coming days as we engage with the official receiver. It is important to separate the issue of insolvency for the refinery—the specific issue that we are discussing today—from the wider group issues, but I have no doubt that we will return to some of those in due course.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that speech—[Interruption.] I mean, for that beautiful short question. I welcome the jobs that are coming to the port of Mostyn. This Labour Government are driving investment in our communities from carbon capture, hydrogen, nuclear, wind and solar energy. Opposition Members have to explain to the British people why they want to leave them colder, poorer, in the pockets of dictators and with less good jobs.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I hear that it is your birthday, Mr Speaker. Congratulations! The UK Government have announced £14 billion for new, extremely expensive nuclear energy projects, while crucial shovel-ready green developments in Scotland are receiving nothing at all. Both Cruachan 2 and the Acorn project are awaiting the Minister’s approval to create new green jobs in Scotland. When will that money be made available?