Household Energy Debt

Debate between Kenny MacAskill and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered levels of household energy debt.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. It may seem strange to be debating energy debt with summer fast approaching. However, although the weather has largely improved, the energy debt situation most certainly has not. Millions have not bright sunshine, but black clouds hanging over them. Growing numbers in Scotland and across the UK are struggling, and many are drowning, as debts mount but energy needs remain constant. Ofgem has found that energy debt levels now stand at a staggering £3.1 billion—billion, not million—and that the average debt has increased by about 50% over the last 12 months, with the number of households in debt increasing by about 20%.

The situation is worsening. National Energy Action, a fuel poverty charity, estimates that even with new price cap levels, about 6 million households in the UK will be in fuel poverty. The situation in Scotland, with its more northerly latitude and harsher climate, is even more bleak. Energy Action Scotland suggests, based on the Scottish Government’s house condition survey, that fuel poverty afflicted 31% of households in 2022. That is almost one third of people in an energy-rich land that powers the UK economy living in fuel poverty—and that was two years ago. In northern areas and the islands, the figure was almost, or even over, 50%. Those are the parts closest to the oil and gas fields, yet they are denied access to affordable fuel.

The new bounty of renewable energy adds to the perversity. Scotland is providing 124 billion kWh to be cabled south. That is enough to power Scotland’s homes 12 and a half times over, yet many Scots cannot afford to heat their own home. What an absurdity for a country to be energy rich, yet its people fuel poor.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. He is right to highlight fuel poverty. In England, the fuel poverty figure—the proportion of households where more than 10% of wages go to pay for fuel—is about 13%, and he mentioned that in Scotland it is 31%. In Northern Ireland, it stands at 22%. Does he agree that people need help? As he rightly said, just because the summer months are coming and it will get better does not mean that the problem is disappearing. We must take more effective steps right now, and we look to the Minister for the answers.

[Kenny MacAskill]

I fully accept the hon. Member’s intervention. This is an issue across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Climatic matters are worsening the situation in Scotland, but other factors affect other areas. As I will go on to say, the days of the summer months being some protection are long passing.

What does this mean for those in debt? They are real people, not statistics. Citizens Advice Scotland states that the average fuel debt for someone seeking its help is about £2,300. That is just the average—for some, it will be worse—and it is only for fuel; people may have other debts as they juggle their finances trying to manage. During 2023, the disability charity Scope received 7,422 referrals to its disability energy support service. Of those referred, 364 were in debt. Disabled households require an additional £975 per month simply to have the standard of living of a non-disabled household, yet their average debt is more than £1,100.

According to Age Scotland, older people have been massively impacted. Its research highlights that the majority of over-50s in Scotland feel financially squeezed and are cutting back on essentials, yet pensioners in Scotland have the highest rates of fuel poverty, with 36% in fuel poverty according to the most recent data. Worryingly, 24%—more than any other household group—are classified as living in extreme fuel poverty. All those statistics will have worsened as energy prices have risen and the general cost of living increased. The perversity of having to choose between heating and eating is growing, not diminishing. These are not just numbers or statistics; they are human beings, some of them even children.

While spring is usually a season for looking forward with anticipation, this spring has seen the heaviest rainfall ever recorded in many parts of Scotland, and with that rain come damp and cold. The days may be getting longer, but the need to heat homes remains as vital as when the nights were longer. Climate change is making our climate more changeable, but that simply makes it more challenging. As inclement weather straddles even supposedly moderate months, heating is often a year-round requirement, and not just for those who are unwell or housebound. The seasons turn and summer will be followed by autumn and then winter, exacerbating an already difficult situation. The thought of the colder months to come will send a shiver through many—from fear, not cold.

Energy is about access to not just heat but power. It allows the mother to power the washing machine to keep her kids clean and tidy; the parent to power the school laptop, ensuring that those children can achieve their educational potential; and individuals to charge their phones in order to access employment opportunities, benefiting not just themselves but society collectively. Rather than berating and punishing people for not being in work, maybe the Prime Minister would be better advised to assist them in achieving it.

The need for power even applies to those who need life-saving equipment. Ill health not only often keeps people housebound but makes them more susceptible to the cold. Being able to keep warm is essential for recovery. Similarly, dialysis and oxygen are not luxuries to prettify someone’s home; they are essential for their very existence. That is why the debate is urgent. The time to act is now, not when winter is upon us. By then the situation will be even worse for many, and tragically it may even be too late for some.

National Energy Action advised that not only are more people falling into debt but those already in debt are seeing their situation worsen. Only about one third of the overall debt figure of £3.1 billion consists of debt where there is an arrangement to pay. That arrangement may be manageable for many, but for some it might prove too much, as energy and other costs increase. What happens then? Two thirds of that debt—over £2 billion—consists of “arrears”, which is defined as debt without a repayment arrangement. If someone has no plan for how to repay, and is struggling to meet their current bills without even considering meeting arrears that have accrued, how will they get through spring, let alone winter? Many people see no way out of the morass facing them.

Action is needed to address energy debt every bit as much as the continuing crisis of energy costs. Ofgem has called for inputs on debt and affordability, with submissions closing on 13 May. However, Ofgem is a creature of statute; it can only do what it is authorised to do, and the parameters and the final decision remain with Government. That is another reason why this debate is apposite: it is not just that the situation is worsening, but that the decisions must be made now.

Those facing this crisis with the burden weighing them down are not the feckless or ne’er-do-wells who never seek to pay their way, but the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. It is not a “won’t pay” campaign, as I once ran in Scotland against Thatcher’s poll tax, but simply a “can’t pay” situation for those who just do not have the cash or wherewithal.

Another cruelty of our energy market is that those with the least pay the most, hence they face the highest risk of debt, not just difficulty in paying their bills. Energy costs have increased for all, but the proportion paid by the poorest and most vulnerable is greatest. As National Energy Action pointed out, standing charges have almost doubled over the past five years, with households now paying over £300 regardless of payment method. It is an energy poll tax that hits the poorest hardest. The billionaire with his swimming pool pays the same as the widow with her kids in a council flat. Charges vary across the country, with those in colder Scotland paying a higher rate than those here in London.

Tariff prices are also highest for those least able to pay. Standard credit is far more expensive than direct debit, but for some no other method is available. They are left paying more from a smaller budget. Prepayment has seen tariff costs belatedly reduced and is now the cheapest tariff, but it can have other issues for those forced to pay by that means. Let us recall that the moratorium on forced installation of prepayment meters has ended. Warrants are now being obtained to force them on even those who do not want them, for they obviously suit suppliers, who can monitor and even restrict consumption, even if more people will be afflicted by that perverse euphemism, “self-disconnection”—a benign phrase, but a wicked outcome. It is not a voluntary choice, but imposed by financial circumstances. Lacking the funds to buy the card or pay for more credit, people simply go without.

Let us also remember that putting people on to prepayment meters has other significant consequences. As Citizens Advice Scotland points out, it results in debt repayments being added to consumption charges—folk pay more but get less, with debt, not just standing charges, to be met before they even get a flicker—and people may not be able to switch supplier even if lower tariffs are available.

The Government will claim that energy prices have fallen and, of course, over the recent period that is most certainly true; however, the baseline is not last year, but when the energy crisis arose. Prices are far higher than they were then, and the supposed global issue of energy costs, whether due to the war in Ukraine or other international pressures, has seen prices in the UK rise far higher than in other lands. Everyone is suffering as a result—business and domestic customers—but it is the poorest and most vulnerable feeling the most pain.

Moreover, while the energy price guarantee has dropped, let us not forget that there has been sleight of hand. Not only is the guarantee predicated on average costs, hence it takes no account of differing circumstances—climatic issues in northern parts, personal needs such as ill health, and so on—but the average energy consumption used in formulating it was reduced, as it was stated that household insulation had improved. Of course, that is the case for many well-insulated new homes, but in all likelihood it will not apply to someone in an older property, whether they own it or live in a council house, are a housing association tenant or have a private landlord, yet their needs remain the same.

National Energy Action states that if it was calculated on the former assessment, the price cap would be £1,769, not £1,690, for the typical dual fuel household. That is almost an additional £100 for those in the poorest housing stock to find. Prior to the crisis, the price cap for the typical dual fuel household paying by direct debit was £1,138. It is now 56% higher, but costs have risen even more for those in harder-to-heat households or on higher tariff payment methods.

Ofgem acknowledges that there is £3 billion of debt in the energy market. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition calculates that there are allowances in the energy price cap to service that debt amounting to £1.5 billion per annum. That just pays for servicing the debt, not for reducing it. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? If that is happening, how is it being calculated, collected and distributed? Where is the transparency? Are consumers paying for their suppliers’ accrued debt? Surely we are entitled to know what we are paying for and what the big corporates are getting from us.

We know that there is a crisis at the moment and that the winter to come could be harsh and cruel, so what is to be done? First, a social tariff, once alluded to by Ministers and standard in many lands—even those without the exorbitant prices we face—should be introduced. That would provide solace for the poorest and most vulnerable. Secondly, we should restore the moratorium on the forced installation of prepayment meters, which is iniquitous and cruel.

Thirdly, the warm home discount scheme needs to be reviewed and enhanced. Rather than being issued arbitrarily to second home owners—never mind to those not requiring them, as was once done—payments should be centred on those most in need, addressing hardship and mitigating existing and even increasing debt. The current support of £150 is simply inadequate and too many are missing out entirely, even though they are entitled and in need. The payment was £140 before the energy crisis arose and prices rocketed; it badly needs to be increased to reflect that. The Social Market Foundation has made proposals that the Government would do well to adopt.

Finally, we need a debt write-off scheme, as suggested by National Energy Action. The amount owed and the number in debt are such that many can never make full repayment. The only way to achieve much reduction is to provide support through matching payments. The details of the scheme can be discussed, but the principle should be non-negotiable. It need not be a blank cheque for others simply to cease paying; it could be time limited to debt incurred during the fuel crisis, and other criteria could be applied. Banks were bailed out. Wastage of personal protective equipment, if not fraud, has been written off. It seems that there are unlimited funds for weapons of war, but not for a war on poverty. If assistance can be given to the few, similar support should be provided for the many.

Energy debt levels are rising and, with winter looming, fears for access to warmth and power, as well as for people’s ability simply to keep body and soul together, are increasing. Those are basic human needs and should be human rights. Action needs to be taken to ease the cost of energy and reduce the burden of debt for the poorest and most vulnerable. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of National Energy Action to discuss the crisis? Even more importantly, will she address the perversity of fuel poverty in an energy-rich land?

Grangemouth Oil Refinery: Energy Security

Debate between Kenny MacAskill and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

“Bathgate no more, Linwood no more, Methil no more, Irvine no more” sang the Proclaimers as they detailed the devastation caused by industrial closures and the hardship and emigration that followed. That was in the 1980s as Thatcher mercilessly shut the pits, decimating Scottish industry. Not just the many individuals who lost their jobs, but entire communities and the whole country suffered as de-industrialisation took root. The country has recovered but much has still been lost and for some it is irrecoverable, irreplaceable, or both. Scars remain and pain runs deep. The devastation will neither be forgotten nor forgiven. But is there now to be a new line of “Grangemouth no more”?

Scotland’s oil refinery stands threatened. Its closure would result in the perversity of an oil-producing nation lacking refinery capacity. I asked the House of Commons Library for research on oil-producing nations and refinery capacity. There are few nations which are oil producers yet lack refinery capacity. Norway has two refineries, and of those nations which lack a refinery capacity none are in the top 25 oil producers, as Scotland is. Instead, they are countries which neither produce as much oil as Scotland nor even have a developed economy. They are largely developing nations such as the Congo or Trinidad and Tobago, not a developed and industrial land like Scotland, which now faces the absurdity of being a major oil producer yet lacking refinery capacity.

If closure proceeds, Scotland will be getting treated like a developing nation: its raw product taken for a song and then sold back as a refined product, but at a premium to people and nation. Exploitation is what it is called. The Rosebank field and the North sea are to be the saviours of the UK economy, yet Scotland is to lose its refinery and face social and economic hardship as a result. Exploitation is what it is. That is what we will inherit if action is not taken.

Oil was first discovered in the 1960s and it would have made Scotland one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, but it was deliberately hidden from the Scottish people. That was to downplay expectations and diminish ambitions. Norway across the North sea has been transformed socially and economically by its oil resource, with a standard of living that Scots can only look at with envy and a sovereign wealth fund that Scotland can only dream of. Yet Scots have continually been told that the resource would soon be gone, and in 2014 at the referendum it was not just running out but even an impediment, a drain on an independent Scotland. Yet now it is at the heart of the UK’s economic recovery.

Although it has been rediscovered, what is in it for Scotland? As has been said, some nations discovered oil and made the desert bloom, but Scotland discovered oil and is seeing an industrial desert created in so many of its communities, and one could well now be Grangemouth. It is not just absurd but perverse that an oil-producing nation should have no oil refinery capacity. It is more than an economic argument; it is vital for economic security. War in Ukraine and conflicts in the middle east have shown the consequences. In the world in which we live, energy is essential and securing all aspects of the supply chain is common sense.

Let us look at the economic arguments and consequences of any closure. The loss and hardship would be significant for thousands, not just hundreds, sending shockwaves through industrial Scotland. The plant’s workforce is 500 but there are also some 2,000 contractors attached to it. Moreover, they are skilled jobs and their loss, as with past industry closures, will impact on future generations. Not only have current and past generations benefited from working there, but numerous apprentices were trained there, even if ultimately plying their trade elsewhere. We already have a skills gap; this would worsen it considerably.

Job losses would be significantly higher than those simply at the site. Closure would reverberate across industries clustered nearby because of the refinery. If it closes, many of them will also be lost. They are in a variety of sectors, whether chemicals, plastics or other fields. That is without even considering the huge number of individuals who depend on the site whether for their corner shop, as drivers or in other trades, both locally and from more distant parts. There is always a multiplier effect in any redundancy but, given the pivotal nature of the industry to the country’s economy and its impact across a swathe of sectors, it would be huge. Both the town of Grangemouth and all of Scotland would suffer. The knock-on effect would echo across the entire country as industrial closures did decades ago, whether the pits or car plants.

Grangemouth’s refinery is a national asset upon which our energy security and industrial economy depends. That is why it must be retained. There has been a refinery there for a century. It currently provides 70% of Scottish filling stations, as well as many in northern England. It is also the primary supplier of aviation fuel for Scotland’s airports—not an insignificant issue for an island nation with many remote island communities. As I have stated, energy security demands it.

We are seeking to transition from a carbon economy, but it must be a just transition and at a pace allowing our economy and society to adapt. The cumulative impact of closure might not be the 4% loss of GDP suggested by Petroineos, but even the 0.25% or 0.3% loss of GDP suggested by the Fraser of Allander Institute would be damaging enough. Where is the outrage and anger? Where is the ministerial statement here at Westminster or the call to action at Holyrood? Instead, there has been silence or sanguinity, hope that it just might not happen or, even more disgracefully, quiet resignation to its fate.

Thankfully, Unite the Union and the workforce are strenuously making the case, and I am grateful for their assistance and input. Closure is still only potential rather than actual, but the threat is real, and there has to be a balance between causing unnecessary alarm and taking urgent action. Unless action is taken now, disaster will befall Grangemouth refinery and the impact will be grave upon all—workers, the wider community and the entire nation.

What needs done? Ownership has changed over the years, and profitability has been affected by under-investment. No blame can be attached to the current or past workforce. Responsibility may also rest with previous owners other than PetroChina and INEOS, currently in charge. Steps can and must be taken to address the current profitability and buy time so that a transition can take place both at the site and across our economy. Moreover, there are also actions that will increase capacity and thus profitability and productivity. That means linking Scotland’s oil refinery with Scotland’s oil production. Finally, there is the just transition and the need to prepare for the new world. That can and must be done at this site.

Let us examine those three aspects that must be done. First, there is the need to fix the hydrocracker at the refinery. Its current inoperability is impacting on profitability. Restarting it would increase profitability threefold. That is significant, and would allow an extension of life at the plant, even without any additional steps being taken. It is estimated that it would cost between £60 million to £80 million to do so, but it must be done. The money must be found, whether from Westminster, Holyrood or the existing business. Surely, from all three, finance can be found. It is a small cost for such a huge asset that is essential to not just our economy but our society. After all, there is a moral as well as a financial economy. The price must not be paid by the individuals and communities who would suffer from its loss.

As well as restarting the hydrocracker, there should be an increase in capacity and in what is refined. It will surprise many that North sea oil is not refined at the Grangemouth refinery, despite the pipeline for the Forties field coming ashore at Cruden bay and being pipelined on to Grangemouth. Almost all the product refined at the plant is brought in on tankers from elsewhere. It comes in on ships and goes away in trucks. Meanwhile, North sea oil is transported to other refineries, whether in the UK or abroad. That must end. It has always been absurd, but now it is criminal. Oil from the Forties field pipeline, which last year moved approximately 40% of the UK’s oil from the North sea, must be refined at Grangemouth. It requires technological and engineering changes, but they must be made. As Rosebank comes on stream, and as the Forties continues to flow, refining must be at Grangemouth. Scotland is entitled to expect no less from its resource.

The Prime Minister has trumpeted the necessity of continuing to exploit North sea oil, and while I can take issue with the extent and pace of it, I agree with the logic. It is absurd to import oil when we have our own resource. Not only is it economic self-harm, but it is environmentally daft to transport it across the seas when it is off our shores. Why spew out the significant fumes of a supertanker by the hundreds of thousands when we can pipe the oil ashore? To achieve that requires ensuring that the oil is refined here, which it currently is not.

The hypocrisy of the Prime Minister’s position has been exposed by those who oppose development. Their arguments have legitimacy unless steps are taken to ensure that the resource is refined here, rather than having the environmental double whammy of transporting our product far away for refining and then having those ships cross with others importing refined product from elsewhere. The Forties field oil supply must be refined at the site, and the technical and engineering work to achieve that must be done. It is bad enough that ownership of the Rosebank field lies with the Norwegian state energy company, but to have that product refined abroad compounds the agony and the absurdity.

Finally, there needs to be preparation for the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Steps must be taken to prepare the site for biofuels, which will be required in the future. The sites to refine them need to be established. It makes sense to secure the short-term future of the site by restarting the hydrocracker. Similarly, extending the refinery’s capacity by ensuring that North sea oil is processed there is essential. Steps need to be taken towards that transition, which humanity is required to make for the sake of life itself, not just the planet. But it must be more than just warm words and empty rhetoric; it requires preparation and action. Making Grangemouth a future site for biofuels refining must be part of that.

In summary, securing the refinery is essential for Scotland, not just Grangemouth. The arguments for it are social, economic and environmental, and the case is overwhelming. It is simply perverse that an oil-producing nation should have no refinery capacity, or that an industrial desert be created where a natural bounty should see a country and its communities bloom. It is for those reasons that I ask the Minister to meet me and workers’ representatives from the site. Additionally, and most essentially, will he ensure that these three steps are taken? First, will he ensure that funds are found to restart the hydrocracker? Secondly, will he ensure that oil from the Forties field that is piped to Grangemouth is refined there, and that oil from new developments such as Rosebank will also be refined there, negating the environmental harm of the trans-shipment inward and outward of oil?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. Does he agree that the East Lothian oil refinery at Grangemouth is a necessity not only for Scotland, but for all the United Kingdom? It must stay open not in opposition to renewable targets, but in partnership with them.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Yes, I agree with that.

My final point is that as we transition, we must ensure that actions are taken at the site for that new future by ensuring a biofuels capacity there. We simply cannot have the absurdity of an oil-producing nation lacking a refinery capacity, never mind the perversity of the oil it produces being shipped across the seas for refining.

Energy Costs and Charges

Debate between Kenny MacAskill and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is making a compelling case for Scotland. May I suggest to the Minister that there is also a compelling case for Northern Ireland? We have not had the opportunity to advance to the same level as Scotland, but we wish to do so. Does the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) agree that if we are to move forward, there has to be a joint strategy for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because we can and must all play our part? I envy what Scotland has done. We in Northern Ireland want to do the same.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Well, I prefer an independent strategy, similar to what Norway and Denmark are doing, but I concede that Northern Ireland is frequently ignored because so much of the gas grid is pan-Great Britain, rather than across the Irish sea.

Let us look at how Scotland’s resource is pooled and shared. I have detailed the 35 TWh rising to 124 TWh, but I have not explained that no payment is received for that resource. The energy is sent south, but there is no financial return to Scotland. Besides nothing being paid for it, there are now efforts to take it directly south with neither a bawbee nor a pretty please being given for it. Off south it is to go, and for no payment.

The Eastern HVDC—high voltage direct current sub-sea—transmission cables, also referred to as the Eastern Green Link projects, are the longest HVDC cables to be laid in the UK and will run from Peterhead to Redcar and from Torness to Drax. It is estimated that those links will take 5 TWh, or 5 billion kWh, of Scotland’s renewable energy source south, again with no payment. Additionally, the proposed Berwick Bank offshore wind farm in the firth of Forth will alone produce sufficient energy to supply more households than Scotland possesses, but a cable is proposed to be laid to take 40% of its energy directly south, again with no payment.

What about the sharing? Where is the benefit from the supposed broad shoulders of the Union? Where is the return for what we contribute? A recent question to the now Department for Energy Security and Net Zero asked whether consideration would be given to crediting domestic energy users in the localities where energy is produced and landed. After all, it is being produced onshore or offshore in Scotland, so we might have thought that some credit or benefit would accrue to Scotland, and it might even be cheaper there. But no—the answer was simply that it is a matter for Ofgem, which we know is a creature of statute and can act only within its set powers or as directed by Ministers. No such rules exist and no direction has been given. The energy is not only to go south for no payment, but no benefit is to accrue to Scotland from it.

There is talk of payments to those facing having pylons placed near them, but what about those who live in the land where the energy is being produced? Winter will soon be upon us. The weather is changing and the temperature is falling. The cold is being felt and the need to heat homes is increasing, but it is not simply heat but power that is required. Energy, and especially electricity, is needed not just to keep the cold at bay. It is required by the mother to wash her children’s clothes, keep them clean and uphold the standards she seeks to maintain. It is required by the parent seeking to power up an iPad or laptop to help their child’s education and advance their life chances. It is required by the worker charging their phone to allow them to find employment or do the additional hours that the Government want, or simply to keep body and soul together. More shamefully, it is also required by the sick, including those on dialysis and those recovering from cancer, whose immune systems are weakened and for whom warmth and power are a necessity for life, not a luxury for living.

Despite the fact that Scotland is energy rich, our people are fuel poor. Already more than a third of Scots have been assessed as being in fuel poverty. Even more shamefully, almost a quarter are in extreme fuel poverty.

Offshore Wind: Public Ownership

Debate between Kenny MacAskill and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the level of public ownership in the offshore wind sector.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. When a natural bounty is discovered, it is only right that a nation and its people should benefit from it, not simply corporations and investors. The fruits of land and sea should benefit all, not just the few. Scotland has been fortunate, blessed first with North sea oil and now renewable energy, in particular offshore wind, a further natural resource offering great opportunities and at such an extent that it should be transformative. A recent Prime Minister even used the phrase, the “Saudi Arabia of wind”.

Other nations have shown what can and should be done. Scotland discovered oil at the same time as Norway, but now Scots can look only with envy, not just at the standard of living of their Nordic counterparts but at the Norwegian oil fund. Now valued at $1.4 trillion, it is suggested that it owns, on average, 1.5% of every listed company in the world. The British National Oil Corporation was sold off, while Equinor, owned by the Norwegian state, goes from strength to strength. Funds that should have seen Scotland bloom were instead used by Thatcher to smash organised labour and by New Labour to wage illegal wars. That must not happen with offshore wind. The people of Scotland must benefit, not just multinationals.

Norway has shown what should be done with oil and gas. Denmark is showing what can be done with offshore wind by taking a 20% stake in every new offshore wind development—this is not North Korea, but a European democracy. It has not seen investors flee. This also shows that public ownership does not have to be just a state energy company operating sites, desirable as that is, but can include actions such as this, which ensure that people and their nation gain from their natural resources—benefits for the many, not exploitation by the few.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. The private sector will invest some £60.8 billion across the UK over the next five years in developing and operating offshore wind projects. Does the hon. Member agree—from the way he is talking, I think he does—that whether investment is public or private, all devolved nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must benefit from any potential funding and that that would ensure a boost in jobs and increased sustainability for the renewable energy sector?

[Kenny MacAskill]

Of course; this should benefit our people. As I said, it is not just down to state energy companies, desirable though that is. This has to be done through the private sector, but as Denmark and Norway have shown, the state can take a share and state companies can be involved. That should be happening here, but the UK Government remain wedded to a privatisation route that has created a dysfunctional energy sector that we are all now paying for.

A Scottish energy company was promised by the Scottish National party and then shamefully abandoned. It must be delivered. Publicly owned and state companies are operating in the UK and the Scottish offshore wind sector. The absurdity is that they are neither Scottish nor from the UK. They are foreign state firms operating in Scottish and UK waters, delivering profits not for Governments in Edinburgh or London, but furth of these shores and with the wealth benefiting lands far from here.

Let me narrate the situation at the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm. Despite the Gaelic name, it is located in the firth of Forth, between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey). Pillars and turbines are now visible, and the energy is coming ashore at Innerwick, just along from where I reside in Dunbar. That is all good, we might think, but who owns it? It is operated by two state-owned companies. One is EDF Energy, the French state-owned energy company that also happens to own Torness nuclear power station just along the road and adjacent to where the energy comes ashore. State ownership is not opposed, it seems, so long as it is someone else’s.

The other organisation is the Electricity Supply Board, or ESB, which is the majority publicly owned energy company of the Republic of Ireland. The Irish consul general in Edinburgh tells me that ESB’s investment in the firth of Forth is that state company’s largest ever investment outwith Ireland. We have the perversity that the wealth and profits that are generated will not come to Edinburgh or London and will not benefit Scottish or UK citizens. Instead, they will flow to Paris and Dublin, and the citizens of Ireland and France will reap the benefit that nature bestowed upon us.

Of course, big energy multinationals are also involved: SSE, Scottish Power, which in fact is owned by Iberdrola from Spain, and BP, among many others. However, state-owned firms from other lands are also there and many of them are significantly bigger than the Irish Electricity Supply Board—I do not intend to denigrate ESB—which has done well to provide for Ireland’s people. It is a lesson that Scotland must learn. As in so many other aspects, our Irish cousins, although blessed with less, have delivered so much more.

Neart na Gaoithe is not alone in this charade, where a Government opposed to state-owned energy companies allows foreign state-owned energy companies to profit and perhaps even plunder with abandon. It is a dereliction of duty and the price is paid not just in the loss of profits, but in the scandalously high prices paid by struggling families who are trying to power their homes. Many of them live in places where they can see the turbines off their shores or where they are in the lea of those turbines that operate on the land—energy-rich Scotland, fuel-poor Scots, indeed.

It is not only France and Ireland that receive a warm welcome, despite the Government’s political antipathy towards a nationalised energy sector. Research by the House of Commons Library has disclosed that in UK offshore waters, the state-controlled Danish company Ørsted and the Norwegian state operator Equinor own the largest shares of UK offshore wind, at 20.4% and 9.2% respectively. UK public entities own 0.03%.

Offshore Wind Farms: Health and Safety

Debate between Kenny MacAskill and Jim Shannon

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

A just transition was proclaimed when COP26 was held in Glasgow in 2021. While that global jamboree may have underwhelmed in so many respects, it was at the forefront in one aspect, for as we transition from fossil fuels to renewables, not just countries but businesses, communities and workers were to be supported. Entire industries require to be run down or forsaken and decent jobs given up, even lifelong careers; however, financial support was to be given to assist nations in that journey. As for workers, assurances were made that in the transition to net zero, they would be protected and long-held rights would be assured—justice for workers, as well as for our planet.

Those assurances were echoed outwith the global gathering, endorsed by the UK Government—they have since been championed by them in the green jobs taskforce—and chorused by the Scottish Government in their just transition commission. The rhetoric has been fairness and equity for those whose work would require to change. In Scotland and in the UK as a whole, the sector most affected is in the North sea. Though extraction of oil and gas is still required, we are on a journey to decarbonise and to transition to renewables; it is a transition, but it must be a just one. That sector has provided huge wealth and benefit to our society, and many who worked hard in those difficult and often dangerous conditions are now moving into renewables. Where once it was oil and gas, it is now becoming wind, wave and tidal—let us not forget that we recently had a Prime Minister who championed the UK as the Saudi Arabia of wind. It is a move that matters for our nations and will create wealth, as well as provide hope for our planet.

However, recent events in the North sea have revealed that while there is a transition in the economy, there is no just transition for those working in that new and growing sector—primarily in the maritime sector, where minimum wage law does not apply consistently and immigration law is used as a crude instrument to profit from seafarer exploitation. That, though, is a debate for another day. Tonight, I want to raise the issue of employment rights, especially the effectiveness of health and safety legislation that is too easily avoided. The lack of consistent and effective offshore safety legislation has been brought to light by a recent tragedy. We must hope that from that sorrow there will come some solace, with the existing legislative gap being remedied.

That legislative gap affects hundreds if not thousands of workers in the offshore energy supply chain, sailing out of not just existing offshore hubs such as Aberdeen or Dundee but Eyemouth, Montrose, Fraserburgh, Wick, Buckie, and other Scottish ports involved in delivering a successful offshore wind industry. It also affects those in England servicing energy installations in the North sea from Humberside, Tyneside, Teesside or East Anglia, along with those who will be embarking from Holyhead, Milford Haven, Mostyn and other ports in Wales. At present, the framework of statutory employment and seafarer rights on which that workforce will depend for their health and safety is not fit for purpose. A just transition was promised, and a just transition there must be for our maritime and offshore workers, as well as our planet.

Let me detail the tragedy which brought those failures to light. On Sunday 22 January, a man went missing from Valaris 121, a mobile offshore drilling unit being towed to Dundee and located some 98 miles from Aberdeen. Police Scotland investigated and while satisfied that no criminal investigation was required, had concerns regarding wider health and safety issues, which they referred to the Health and Safety Executive. This is something that the HSE would not normally investigate. That it did so here is perhaps indicative of the concerns that the police had raised, for it is not the same as an industrial accident on land. Neither is it similar to that on an oil or gas rig on the UK continental shelf, or even on a fixed or floating wind turbine in the UK exclusive economic zone.

HSE legislation has rightly been extended to cover workers’ rights, but it is incomplete and, as a result, workers are at greater risk. Mobile drilling units such as Valaris 121 are classified as a ship or a vessel when towed, meaning that they fall outwith HSE jurisdiction and within that of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Accordingly, while the HSE could and very likely would have carried out a full investigation had this incident been on land, a rig or even a turbine, it is restricted in what it can do in this instance. Likewise, a report that may have seen a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland or a coroner’s court hearing in England and Wales will not happen. Why is that? It is because it is not classified as a health and safety issue, giving the HSE authority. Instead, it is considered a maritime safety matter, and the MCA has authority and leads these investigations through the marine accident investigation branch.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. When it comes to health and safety, we are all concerned. Given the fact that the offshore energy created comes on land in Scotland and England, is there some role for the Health and Safety Executive, even though, as he has clearly outlined, the MCA takes precedence? If the energy is coming here and the workers work out of Scotland and England, is there not a responsibility?

[Kenny MacAskill]

As I will come on to say, the HSE does a good job onshore, on oil and gas and on turbines, but we require that its powers be extended. It is the agency. The MCA and the MAIB do a wonderful job in preserving life and ensuring wider maritime safety, but they are not qualified in industrial accidents; neither are employment laws within their remit. Fundamentally, and worsening that handicap in expertise, the MCA does not even have responsibility for the investigation, or jurisdiction over this incident. That is because it occurred outwith UK territorial waters, which extend to 12 miles. Beyond that distance, even when within the UK exclusive economic zone of 200 miles and on the UK continental shelf, incidents are subject to international maritime regulations, which prescribe that the investigating agency is to be from the vessel’s flag state. That is the country where the ship is registered.

Valaris 121 is registered in Liberia, a flag state managed in Virginia, USA. Accordingly, we have the absurdity of responsibility for an investigation and jurisdiction in enforcement for an incident leading to the death of a UK worker resting not with police or Crown, HSE or MCA, or even with an organisation based in Edinburgh or London, but in the flag state of Liberia, a country located on another continent. That country is one of the world’s largest shipping registers and is categorised by the International Transport Workers Federation as a flag of convenience. That means that employment and safety standards are at the international minimum and ship owners pay no tax to the Liberian state. That alone is a concern, as questions are sometimes raised regarding registration, let alone supervision.

Despite my asking numerous questions, the Government are unable to tell me how many vessels operating in the UK sector are foreign flagged. That should be a concern, as anecdotally it would seem that the vast majority are not registered under the red ensign, despite the Government’s obsession with wrapping things in the Union Jack.

The Lord Advocate advised that a multi-agency meeting took place to discuss the incident; it involved representatives of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Republic of Liberia. They discussed who would have primacy in the various investigations. I do not know this, but I assume that it was a virtual meeting; likewise, I do not know who the representative from Liberia was, or what level of seniority they had. The Lord Advocate explained further that Police Scotland remains in charge of the missing person enquiry, though, sadly, the body may never be recovered.

The Lord Advocate confirmed that the HSE remained the lead agency for the investigation in Scotland and the UK—but doing what, and enforcing which laws? Is that because there is no one here from Liberia to do it, and because the only folk nearby are from the HSE? Will we simply see a report filed and no further action taken? More importantly, how does this address the failure to extend health and safety legislation for the oil and gas sector to the new world of offshore wind, other renewable energies and nascent green technologies such as hydrogen, carbon capture and storage and liquefied natural gas?

Leaving aside the good intentions of the Lord Advocate and the diligent work by the HSE, let us recall where jurisdiction and enforcement lie: with the flag state, Liberia. Let me again set out why that is—all this has been confirmed through repeated parliamentary answers from several Government Departments.

Health and safety legislation applies to workers on land and operating in UK territorial waters, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned; those territorial waters extend for 12 miles. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 2013 applies to oil and gas, and even turbines, but that is insufficient for the new sector, as I shall detail. Valaris 121 is classified as a vessel or ship, which means that it is not subject to that legislation. As the tragedy happened outwith UK territorial waters, it is classified as a maritime incident—hence the involvement of the flag state, and the absurdity of Liberian jurisdiction. The issue of the absence of health and safety rights goes far wider than this incident or this vessel. It goes to the very heart of how the new sector to which we are transitioning operates.

As disclosed in parliamentary answer 139284 from the Department for Work and Pensions, under the 2013 order, health and safety protection applies to those operating in the offshore wind sector when on a “structure or machine”; the provisions apply to

“structures for the production of energy from wind”,

and to

“the operation of a cable for transmitting electricity from an energy structure.”

All well, one might think, but no; the legislation goes on to specifically state:

“Ships are not defined as energy structures for the purposes of this legislation.”

Therein lies the injustice of this North sea tragedy. It also shows that current provisions are incapable of providing the protections required for workers in this new sector. There are two clear reasons for that. First, few people work on a turbine; it is accessing, maintaining and supporting turbines that matters. Workers do not live on them, as they do on oil and gas rigs—or at least not yet, and if that changed, living accommodation would likely be confined to flotels, special operation vessels and other entirely separate solutions. If protection is provided only when people are physically working on the turbine, that totally ignores the nature of both the job and the sector.

Secondly, Valaris is classified as a vessel or ship, but she is not what most imagine a vessel or ship to be, as she is designed as a working platform. Some workers will be drilling, and others will be working while attached to a turbine. If they are physically attached to the turbine, then they are covered, but when they are travelling to the turbine or back, or even if they are proximate to it but not physically attached to it—that will likely be the bulk of the work—they are not.

The current legislation fails to take account of the operation of and working practices in offshore wind. It is an expanding and developing sector, which means that people are being denied cover in aspects of the work that lack protections. The danger is that this tragedy might be replicated, and oft times more, given the expansion of the sector. Health and safety protections that apply for oil and gas must be available for offshore wind and other renewables.

I have had discussions with Offshore Energies UK, which takes safety extremely seriously, as the House would expect, and it has indicated an acceptance of the gap and a willingness to assist in resolving the situation. To address it, the definition of energy structures under the 2013 order needs to be extended, and legislation to protect seafarers operating in the offshore wind sector needs to be enacted, but so far the DWP has failed to show any interest. Will the Minister agree to meet me and worker representatives to discuss this? There must be a just transition for our planet, but there must also be a just transition for workers, and this most certainly is not a just transition in the offshore wind sector.

Eastern Link Undersea Cable Electricity Generation

Debate between Kenny MacAskill and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

The Eastern High-Voltage Direct Current Link is a multibillion-pound project, taking up to 4 GW of clean power from Scotland to England via HVDC subsea cables. That is enough to power 2.8 million homes. In cost and scale, it is the largest electricity transmission investment in the UK’s recent history.

Two undersea cables will run—one from Peterhead to Selby, and another from Torness, in East Lothian, to Hawthorn Point, County Durham. Preparatory work can already be seen on and offshore in my constituency, as a transmission station is constructed and soundings are taken for subsea cabling. What can possibly be wrong with that? Of course, it makes sense. Scotland has a surfeit of electricity and power. Scotland has been bestowed with a great natural bounty. Already, almost 97% of Scotland’s domestic electricity supply comes from renewable energy. In the north of Scotland, it has been 100% on many days.

For all its history, Scotland’s geography has been an impediment—distant from markets and with a climate that Scots have more often cursed than blessed. The four seasons in one day is sometimes the reality, not just Billy Connolly’s humour. Now, though, location and climate are of great advantage. Scotland has 60% of Britain’s onshore wind capacity and 25% of Europe’s potential offshore wind. Talk about the “Saudi Arabia of wind” largely refers to Scotland or Scottish waters. Those wind assets are in addition to existing hydro schemes, along with tidal and wave projects that are still largely to be commercialised. But as with floating offshore wind, concept will become reality.

One offshore site alone—Berwick Bank, at the mouth of the Firth of Forth, between East Lothian and Fife—will provide enough power for almost 3 million households. Scotland only has 2.4 million households. That field alone could provide for all of Scotland’s needs, and there are many more.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Ever mindful of the surplus that the hon. Gentleman has referred to, and given that Northern Ireland cannot generate its own electricity, we fully understand the value of sharing and maintaining good connections across the United Kingdom for electricity use. Does he agree that there must be good connectivity across the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that that merits UK-wide investment? We in Northern Ireland deserve equal choice as well.

[Kenny MacAskill]

I am sure that the Minister will probably concur. We are not just in a UK market, but in a European market, as I will set out.

Transmitting the surplus energy south is sensible and would provide the supply required there from the surplus produced in Scotland, while also allowing access to the European network—and no doubt to Northern Ireland as well. Energy supply, as we have been finding from the Ukraine war, is transnational. Accessing European markets is an economic opportunity for Scotland and a necessity for other lands, as Putin switches off Russian gas. It also provides for the transition that all nations require to make, as global warming threatens our planet.

However, there is a problem, and that is grid capacity. Scotland’s renewable resource cannot get to market, as the transmission system cannot cope with the volume produced. As offshore comes on stream, that will only worsen, and it has resulted in the absurdity of 17.6% of turbines being switched off on an annual basis, the majority in Scotland. Turbines are curtailed not due to a lack of wind, but due to a lack of grid capacity. That absurdity is compounded by the perversity of paying energy suppliers more to switch off than to provide power, and the highest rates are paid in winter. As the House of Commons Library has confirmed, the figure has approached £1 billion over the last five years.

Debates on the debacle of privatising national infrastructure and the urgent need to provide for battery storage, along with those on the opportunities from green hydrogen, are for another day, but these are locally-based solutions that must be progressed urgently. Simply cabling 40% of the Berwick Bank energy directly south is another. Doing so without any compensatory payment to Scotland is theft of a nation’s natural resource —but that, too, is a debate for another day.