Draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(4 days, 2 hours 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 evening, Ms McVey. As the Minister has eloquently set out, the draft regulations seek to increase the fees associated with a number of assessment requirements for the licensing of offshore activity, such as conservation of habitats assessments and offshore safety directives, and they are eminently sensible.
Andrew Bowie
There is a first time for everything. I do not seek to stand in the way of these regulations, but I will raise the inherent irony illustrated here of a Government who have made clear their intention not to issue new licences for exploration yet are seeking to increase the costs associated with environmental impact assessments and other regulatory requirements. I hope it indicates the beginning of a change of course for the Government, but I fear that will not be the case. We can but hope.
This Government have decided time and again to move against our domestic energy industry, choosing to run down our North sea ecosystem rather than nurture the skills base and support the industry. Two weeks ago, the Aberdeen South by-election—a referendum on our oil and gas industry that I will not stop talking about—saw the north-east of Scotland return a decisive verdict. Will the Government listen?
North Sea Oil and Gas
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 week, 2 days 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
The hon. Member probably needs to keep up a bit because that position has already been scrapped. That was articulated by the First Minister.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Given the bombshell news the hon. Gentleman has just delivered to the Chamber—that we have a new energy strategy from the Scottish Government—when will that be published?
Graham Leadbitter
I think that the hon. Gentleman is not keeping up with the current debate because the question was about the SNP’s policy. The strategy will be published in due course.
Those who believe that we should drill, drill, drill with little to no investment in the renewables transition are simply pushing the cliff edge further away without dealing with the cliff edge itself. That would also be unforgivable. The industry is clear that it needs the Government to protect oil and gas jobs while building up the renewables sector to transfer those jobs to—a focus not on one or the other, but on a transition from one to the other. It is abundantly clear that neither the Tories nor Labour has a serious focus on that transition.
A new report out from the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University—a highly respected Aberdeen institute—makes for stark reading. The report predicts a further 18,000 job losses in the north-east of Scotland by 2035—1,600 jobs every single year. Crucially, the report then points to the huge benefits that can be achieved from a strong transition to renewables. The report’s author states:
“That is not a marginal advantage. It is a structural head start that few other regions in the UK or Europe can match.”
He goes on to say:
“The priority must be to prevent these losses in the first place, not simply to manage the consequences after the fact.”
What this needs now is the investment, policy, alignment and co-ordination to match. That is really simple. Scotland has enormous opportunity to reindustrialise with renewable energy technologies, but to do so requires existing North sea jobs to be protected, or the loss of those vital skills will stall that transition to renewables. There is a so-called “Goldilocks zone”, where growth in renewable jobs more than matches reductions in oil and gas jobs, but crucially, only if the transition is embraced and the oil and gas sector is protected through that transition.
Other scenarios have devastating consequences for jobs and the people and communities of north-east Scotland. Pragmatism and pace must be the watchwords on energy policy if we are to make the most of this enormous renewables opportunity in front of us and ensure a future for the workers of the north-east. It is abundantly clear that mass job losses under the Tories and the undermining of those vital jobs by Labour are leading to economic and social pain across the north-east of Scotland.
The people best placed to support the transition in Scotland and protect jobs and communities are the people who live and work in Scotland. That is why Scotland must have the full powers and control of energy policy that come with independence.
Uma Kumaran
The oil industry and fossil fuel lobbyists want us to believe that we need to take them on the journey with us. The case for renewables is there. At the moment, however, the voices for the renewables industry and more sustainable energy sources are being drowned out by those who want us to preserve the system that we already have.
Uma Kumaran
I will not give way; I will continue.
I am making the case for growing clean industries, ensuring that British workers are at the heart of the cutting-edge change that every country is now facing, for the jobs of today and the future.
Workers need a credible transition plan, which means proactive planning, serious investment and putting their voices first. That is exactly what this Government are doing. This is about ensuring workers’ jobs and livelihoods so that they can pay their bills, rents and mortgages. These are the challenges that people are facing now. We are not talking about hypotheticals; people have bills to pay now, this month and next month. This is not a hypothetical scenario or an abstract discussion; we must take workers with us.
We cannot allow the pipe dreams peddled by those with vested interests in fossil fuels to blind us to the realities in front of us. This is an industry already in decline. We know what a botched industrial transition looks like.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—sorry, I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas)—for securing this important and timely debate, although I think his call for personal ambition to be left aside at this time is a faint hope. Given what is happening on the Government Benches, this is surely a time for personal ambition to come to the fore, and I am sure we will see a lot more of it in the next few weeks.
In that regard, I take this opportunity to welcome the newest Conservative party Member of Parliament to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) secured an incredible majority in his constituency last week, in a referendum on the future of our oil and gas industry that was won by those of us who support its continuance, by those of us who support the jobs being maintained in this country, that city and that region, and by a real champion for that part of the world. I am sure that his voice, heard already in this Chamber this morning, will be heard loud and clear over the next few months and years as he continues to champion that great city and that great industry.
I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), and the hon. Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for adding their voices to this debate. It was interesting that three of the four Labour Members spoke in favour of a change of policy on oil and gas.
Although I have a lot of time and respect for the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow—indeed, I like her—I disagree considerably with her. She is a passionate advocate for what she believes, and she is right to stand up in this House and make those arguments about the UK contributing to the battle against climate change, but when she describes those of us who care passionately about the existing oil and gas industry as climate deniers, she is somewhat insulting the thousands of people in my constituency, and constituencies across the country, who rely on that industry for their income and have the very skills that will be relied upon by those developing the technologies of the future. It is supply chain industries based in Westhill, Portlethen, Banchory and Blackburn in my constituency, and in places around the country, including the north-east of England, that will develop the offshore wind or floating solar technologies of the future, or whatever it might be. It is people in Na h-Eileanan an Iar and across the United Kingdom that the hon. Lady will need and want to build more quickly.
Uma Kumaran
The hon. Gentleman is making his case very eloquently, but let me correct him on what I said. I am not in any way accusing his wonderful constituents of being climate deniers; I am simply pointing out the case made by some of his colleagues. I absolutely agree that we need to bring communities with us, and I am sure the whole House shares that aim.
Andrew Bowie
Absolutely—I could not agree more. We do need to bring communities with us.
While I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for securing the debate, I find it increasingly frustrating that we have to return to this House and platforms across the UK to make the same arguments. One of my constituents said just the other week, “It is like banging your head against a brick wall.” None of us understands what this Government need to see or hear from experts, trade unions, former leaders of the Labour party, leaders of Scottish Renewables and RenewableUK or the chairman of Great British Energy, which this Government established less than two years ago, who are all clamouring for a change of position on the UK’s oil and gas sector.
My constituents, and people across Scotland and the United Kingdom, just do not understand why the Government, at this time of constraint on our economy, are voluntarily giving up a potential £13 billion of additional revenue over the next decade. They do not understand why the Government insist—and, indeed, are about to legislate—on a ban on new licences in the North sea while increasing imports from Norway, which has just issued more licences in its sector of the North sea, adding to the burden on climate change and undermining our economy, with British jobs lost in the process.
People do not get why the Government say on one hand that they are passionately committed to tackling global climate change and want to be global leaders in ensuring that this world is a safer place for our children, and yet on the other hand are seemingly blind to the increased emissions produced by importing more of the oil and gas that we will need over the next 30 to 40 years from places such as Qatar and the USA. They do not get why the Government are seemingly treating workers in Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland, Fife, the Northern Isles, Na h-Eileanan an Iar and the north-east of England—everywhere that has been mentioned—with callous disregard, given that there is no transition evident.
There is a slow-down in the deployment of renewables, which is being driven by the accelerated decline in the oil and gas industry. The Port of Aberdeen, which invested millions of pounds in developing South harbour to take advantage of what it expected to be the boom in floating offshore wind less than 10 years ago, is laying off workers because the boom has not arrived. Some 63% of the harbour’s profit is generated from the oil and gas sector, and less than 2% from renewables. The decline in oil and gas is being driven too fast, and the uptick in renewables is not there.
It is a cruel irony that we are having this debate at the very moment that Swire House, a multimillion-pound global energy headquarters building, which opened a decade ago to great fanfare in the city of Aberdeen, is being demolished. That is symbolic of this Government’s approach to our energy industry, oil and gas industry, the city of Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland and those who worked proudly in the North sea, but are now looking overseas.
As much as the Government like to say that they will increase funding and expand the transition fund, those workers are skilled workers; some of them have spent decades honing their skills in a specific, global industry, an industry that, in every country bar this one, is booming. Those skills are in high demand in the middle east, Australia, the Gulf of America—or Gulf of Mexico; take your pick—South America and Canada; basically, in every country with an oil and gas industry that does not have the current UK Energy Secretary in charge of energy policy.
That is why those workers are taking the difficult decision to uproot their families, leave the communities where they have lived all their lives and go overseas, taking with them those vital skills needed by the technologies of the future and leaving the economy of the north-east of Scotland and the United Kingdom weaker as a result. We need to see a change of policy; surely the result last week in Aberdeen South demonstrated that.
People are fed up and want change. Yes, they agree they want to get to net zero—overwhelmingly, people believe that we must tackle climate change—but this Government’s callous disregard for the industry and its workers speaks volumes about where their priorities lie. If last week did not demonstrate that, I do not know what will. I say to the Minister, “Please, please scrap the energy profits levy. Do not legislate to ban licences. Give the people of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland, and all who work in the oil and gas industry, hope for the future that the Government understand, are listening, recognise and will invest in that industry.”
Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to make a statement regarding the Government’s decision to issue general trade licences for sanctioned processed oil products prohibited under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Putin must never be allowed victory in Ukraine and we will do everything we can as a Government and a country to debilitate and degrade the Russian war machine. That is precisely what our sanctions regime is designed to do. We have sanctioned more than 3,300 individuals and organisations and hundreds of shadow fleet tankers. It is as tough a sanctions regime as any in the world, and we are proud of it.
I want to make it absolutely clear that our sanctions regime today is tougher than it was yesterday or last week. In fact, thanks to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 statutory instrument, we will from today for the first time—for the first time—ban the import not only of uranium but of Russian oil products processed in a third country. We are not lifting any existing sanctions at all. We are, like other countries, phasing in these sanctions, which is why, in the light of the situation in the middle east, we have issued a targeted temporary licence to allow the continued import of diesel and jet fuel. These licences are temporary and targeted. We will review them regularly and repeatedly, and will suspend them as soon as we possibly can.
As a result of all the measures that we have taken, there will be less Russian oil on the market, not more, Russia will be poorer, not richer, and Putin will be weaker, not stronger.
Andrew Bowie
In their 18th packet of sanctions in January this year, His Majesty’s Government prohibited the import of Russian petroleum products produced in third countries from Russian oil, obliging importers to provide proof of the origin of oil used in petroleum product production. Yet yesterday evening at 7 pm, while we in this very Chamber were debating the future of our own North sea oil and gas industry and Labour MPs were being whipped to vote against new oil and gas licences in the North sea, the Government slipped out an announcement that the general trade licence for sanctioned processed oil products now permits certain activities prohibited under the Russian sanctions regulations 2019, such as the import of diesel and jet fuel to the UK. At the exact same time that this Government have rolled back on their commitments to Ukraine and given the green light to purchase Russian oil from third countries, they were whipping their MPs to vote to shut down our own oil and gas production. It is an absolute disgrace. They should all be utterly ashamed of themselves.
What message does this send to the international community, to the people of Ukraine, and to workers in our North sea oil and gas industry, which is being crushed by the misguided eco-zealotry of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero? We are not only rewarding the thuggish and criminal behaviour of the Russian state, but punishing ourselves and the skilled workforce in the United Kingdom.
Who loses out while we signal to Russia that we are willing once again to buy its oil? It is the British people. We are seeing 1,000 job losses in oil and gas in the UK every single month, and losing out on £25 billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years, which we could be investing in our public services. Just yesterday I pointed out that Moscow would be celebrating the useful idiots opposite and today the Government have proved my point.
According to the Government website, where the announcement was made yesterday, the Secretary of State has
“the power to vary, revoke or suspend this licence at any time”,
so will he reconsider the decision? Why does the Minister believe that increased reliance on foreign imports improves British energy security? What alternatives did the Government consider? And who on earth is in charge of our energy security? Is it the Energy Secretary, the Prime Minister, or Vladimir Putin?
Chris Bryant
First, I think the hon. Member must have missed the fact that a statutory instrument that, for the first time, implements a ban on refined Russian crude oil products processed in a third country is coming into force today. It did not come into force earlier in the year. Incidentally, it did not come into force when he was in government, because when the Conservatives were in government, they allowed such oil products to come into the UK, and he personally did absolutely nothing about it.
The truth is that both sides of the House agree and, in fact, I think all parties in the House agree—well, we have not heard from Reform yet—that we need to make sure that Putin does not prosper. One of the key ways of doing that is making sure that we tackle the shadow fleet, which we have been doing very successfully. More than 500 tankers have been disrupted, and $1.6 billion less oil will be transported this year than last year because of those sanctions.
To be precise on the hon. Member’s question of whether we will review the licences, I have already said we will review the licences. They are there for a very simple reason, which is that, just as the previous Government nearly always introduced sanctions in a phased way when he was a Minister, that is precisely what we are doing with these sanctions on oil products processed in a third country. We are doing the right thing, and I would have thought that he would want to praise us. Unfortunately, I think he has tried to find a political headline rather than look into the facts.
Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this important debate and for setting out, with his inimitable style and élan, a persuasive argument about how we balance energy generation with the protection of the countryside and the benefits of floating solar, which is a subject close to his heart and about which he is incredibly passionate.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) on speaking or intervening in the debate. I was, however, going to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) of inadvertently misleading the House when he suggested that the jokes of our hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne were getting better every time he heard them.
This debate is not about whether solar should be built in the UK. His Majesty’s official Opposition are absolutely clear that solar does have a role to play. The question is where solar belongs and whether the Government are making sensible choices about how much to rely on that method of electricity generation. Under this Government, we are seeing a rapid expansion of large-scale ground-mounted solar developments on productive agricultural land. Tens of thousands of acres are being removed from food production, often with limited local benefit and little regard for the impact on land use and food security, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire set out so eloquently.
Good agricultural land is a finite national asset, and the foundation of our food security and rural economy. Once it is taken out of use and industrialised, it is rarely, if ever, returned to productive farming. At a time of global uncertainty and rising food costs, it is profoundly short-sighted to undermine domestic food production and the livelihoods it supports in pursuit of energy targets that could be achieved in less damaging, more efficient ways, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who is more knowledgeable about issues pertaining to agriculture than I could ever be, set out.
The push to install solar panels on farmland is yet another blow to farmers and rural communities. Labour’s promises to protect rural life have proven empty, with new measures making it harder for family farms to survive and plan for the future. The result is a weakening of our rural economy, and a threat to the future of British farming and our food security.
Rural businesses and communities are raising serious objections, not because they oppose clean energy but because they are being asked to carry a disproportionate burden on their shoulders. In one of her last actions in government, the now shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), changed planning guidance to make sure that the cumulative effects of lots of applications in one rural area were considered together, not just waved through the planning system, and that food security held as much importance as energy security when it came to those decisions. Since coming into government, however, Labour has been approving every single application wherever it can, no matter the impact on local communities, and it has watered down the community benefit scheme that we put in place to make sure that communities are rewarded for hosting this energy infrastructure.
There are also serious questions about efficiency and value for money. Just this week, the National Energy System Operator—NESO—has warned that solar panels could produce more electricity in the summer months than the public could consume. To combat that, one of NESO’s suggestions is for consumers to increase their electricity use, with NESO even rewarding them for doing so through a demand flexibility service. Our electricity system should suit the needs of the people, not require consumers to change their behaviour to suit the energy system.
This situation exposes the limitations of relying too heavily on intermittent sources of energy such as solar and wind. Those technologies can play a limited supporting role, but true energy security requires a balanced portfolio that includes sources that deliver reliable, year-round baseload power. NESO has rightly advised that we need a flexible system that matches supply to demand and protects against volatility.
Sarah Bool
I want to make a point about volatility. With the unpredictable way in which solar is adopted, there is a danger that we will end up making compensation payments. When the sun is not shining, we may have to turn off panels and give huge amounts in compensation. That is another dynamic that we have to think about: it is an unreliable and unpredictable source of energy.
Andrew Bowie
As ever, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point.
Britain is an island nation with more than 40,000 lakes, lochs and reservoirs. We have led the world in offshore energy for decades, be that oil and gas or offshore wind. Floating solar, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne suggests, should be explored to see how it might contribute to a future system without displacing food production or industrialising the great British countryside.
Despite the potential of such exciting technologies, the Government are going hell for leather towards onshore wind at the expense of all else, and greenfield solar is being waved through planning systems with alarming speed against the wishes of local communities across the country. The Conservative party continues to support solar on people’s rooftops and on top of warehouses, car parks, brownfield sites and other common-sense locations that do not harm our countryside, food production or rural livelihoods. What we oppose is the Government’s apparent willingness to sacrifice productive farmland.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Before the Minister starts his speech, I remind him to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the Member in charge to wind up.
Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(3 months, 2 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 chairship, Ms Jardine. The primary purpose of the statutory instrument appears to be twofold: to extend the scheme to onshore wind and to put ringfenced spending on a statutory footing for nascent technologies such as floating offshore wind. We also see some technical adjustments in the extension of the sunset clause and the altering of timeframes, alongside amendments to the Electricity Market Reform (General) Regulations 2014 to uphold financial minimum standards as a prerequisite for the release of payment.
The clean industry bonus scheme was introduced by the current Government in 2024 to promote investment in domestic supply chains, although it of course follows the excellent work of the previous Government to reduce our reliance on foreign supply chains. However, there is irony here on multiple accounts. First, it was only following immense pressure from the Conservative party official Opposition—and from the other place—that the Government were persuaded to amend their flagship legislation introducing Great British Energy, in order to prevent investment in supply chains with proven links to slave labour. I am immensely pleased that the Government U-turned on that, as taxpayers’ money absolutely ought not to be spent on importing solar panels from China manufactured in horrendous conditions in regions where slave labour is proven to be commonplace.
We should be promoting domestic supply chains, building domestic capacity and seeing investment to benefit British workers and British communities. Nowhere is that more evident than in the north-east of Scotland, home to a world-leading energy industry and supply chain. The irony there is the Labour Government’s reckless disregard for our home-grown supply chains in the north-east of Scotland. They are the very same offshore logistics specialists, subsea cabling manufacturers and workforce that the Government claim to need more of, yet the Government have shown them nothing but disdain since getting into office. At a time of maximum geopolitical uncertainty, our domestic oil and gas sector deserves support. If the Government wish to support domestic energy supply chains, I suggest that the Minister starts there.
The statutory instrument broadens the scope for allocation to technologies other than offshore wind, facilitating the inclusion of onshore wind in allocation round 9. If the Government were as interested in securing domestic supply chains they would have been much better doubling down on nuclear, which has the most secure supply chain of any power generation technology. Yet the Government cancelled the third large-scale nuclear power plant that we signed off at Wylfa. After all the effort it took to get Hinkley and Sizewell’s development consent order across the line, we find ourselves with no pipeline for large-scale nuclear projects in this country. We should be under no illusion that this scheme represents yet another subsidy for wind developers, on top of the subsidies that the Secretary of State already handed to them through the renewables obligation scheme—which we have committed to scrapping in its entirety—and on top of the subsidies that they received through their CfDs.
This instrument also puts on a statutory footing the protected allocation of funding for certain technologies, such as floating offshore wind. The Department’s explanatory memorandum explains that that is
“to safeguard some investment in a newer technology with higher costs in its exploratory phase and to support investment in the supply chain”.
Although I do not wish to stand in the way of the statutory instrument today, I reiterate the fundamental irony in the Government’s attempt to invest in domestic supply chains while accelerating the decline of industry across the country, particularly in the North sea, and refusing to double down on large-scale nuclear, all while the Secretary of State signs secret deals with China.
Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(4 months 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, Sir Alec. It has been too long since I have had the pleasure of responding to the Minister in a Committee Room.
As the Minister outlined, the regulations update the mandatory levies that electricity suppliers must pay to support the operation of the CfD scheme, the capacity market and the nuclear RAB model. These are technical changes, and the Conservatives will not oppose them.
However, while I have the Minister’s attention, I have some questions to put to him. The Government came into office pledging to cut energy bills by £300, but, some 18 months later, we have seen no evidence of that promise being fulfilled. The sleight of hand in pushing costs on to tax bills has not had the desired effect. Does the Minister think that the Government will actually deliver a £300 energy bill cut?
The Government’s press release said that the Department’s “internal analysis” proved that CfD allocation round 7 would cut bills, but the Department refused to let us see that analysis when we submitted a written question asking to see it. Why is the Minister’s Department refusing to publish that analysis? What is it trying to hide? Will it finally commit to publishing a full systems-cost analysis of the new energy system, which was commissioned by the previous Secretary of State, so that we can have an open and honest debate about the cost of the new system?
Finally, will the Minister commit to implementing the recommendations of the Fingleton review in full to make nuclear power much cheaper, quicker and easier to build in this country?
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(5 months 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 Jeremy. The draft order affects the implementation of the UK emissions trading scheme, which replaced our participation in the EU ETS from 2021. As the Minister set out, the scheme was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020.
In the draft order, the Department seeks to expand the scope of the UK ETS in line with the Secretary of State’s net zero agenda. We saw just last week an instrument brought with the effect of reducing the free allowances under the scheme, increasing the carbon tax on industry from 2027 onward. The increasing cost on industry per tonne of greenhouse gas emitted is a burden that weighs on the UK’s industrial competitiveness. Food manufacturers, oil refineries, power stations and more are all subject to this framework. As the levy on emissions increases, naturally prices paid by end consumers are also driven up. That is why we have said that when we are re-elected to Government in three years’ time, we will repeal the ETS framework and begin to undo the great damage to Britain’s industrial base being done by the actions of this Government. We only hope that it will not be too late.
The draft order requires maritime operators to participate in the scheme, enacting a requirement on ship operators to produce an emissions monitoring plan. The nominal purpose of this extension is to encourage decarbonisation in the maritime sector, which is a laudable aim—not that it will have any impact on global maritime emissions, given the fact that the USA, China, India and others have no plans to curb their emissions in the maritime sector. As a result, this mechanism will actually function purely as a carbon tax. To pretend otherwise would be this Government at their absolute abject worst. This is not a mechanism to decarbonise; it is a pernicious tax being levied on one of our most successful industries.
Access to alternative fuels is not sufficient to decarbonise at the level required by the scheme. The infrastructure that the UK maritime industry requires to transition to low carbon simply does not exist at the scale that will be required. Worse, the industry is expected to comply in three months’ time, while still awaiting guidance to be published on how they can implement it. Even for this Government, that is either incompetence of the highest order, a deliberate attempt to squeeze a hard-pressed industry even more to make up for the shortfall in Treasury receipts as businesses and individuals up sticks and get out of the United Kingdom.
The Department’s own impact assessment quotes an £85 million cost to British business as a result of this mechanism and we have not even turned to the burden that this mechanism is going to place on operators. This emissions monitoring plan represents a ridiculously onerous administrative burden on maritime businesses. Article 18 of the order details the facts to be logged on each voyage for ships completing fewer than 300 voyages per year, including:
“(a) port of departure;
(b) date and hour of departure;
(c) port of arrival;
(d) date and hour of arrival;
(e) total amount of each type of fuel consumed;
(f) emission factor for each type of fuel consumed;
(g) amount of each greenhouse gas emitted.”
The burden then falls on the maritime operator to produce a risk assessment to identify potential sources of error in data flows. I recite that content only to illustrate the extent of the burden that this regulation imposes on the sector.
This instrument extends the ETS burden to the UK shipping industry to the tune of £175 million in administrative costs alone. That is utterly absurd. This is without doubt one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen come before us in three Parliaments and nine years on Government Front and Back Benches and now in opposition. For every £1 spent on decarbonisation as a result of the framework, £8 will be spent on bureaucracy. That is insane. That does not support businesses or growth. The only thing growing here is the burden of red tape—the Government’s favourite colour—on UK industry.
I take this opportunity to put on record my support for the specific exemptions made for fishing vessels and ferry services providing essential connectivity for Scottish islands. It is vital that they are exempt from the burden of the restrictions, albeit it is to be for only one year. One questions why the Isles of Wight and Man and the Scilly Isles are not afforded the same level of concern. 1 would argue, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East will argue, that the connections to those islands are just as vital as connections to the Scottish isles.
Believe it or not, Sir Jeremy, it gets worse. Although the extension is a major blow to the maritime industry and UK shipping competitiveness overall, it is another death knell for the oil and gas industry, which is yet again being totally shafted by this Government. This instrument includes in its definition of offshore vessels those that support the oil and gas industry, which are not protected by the 5,000 GT threshold. The Government estimate that more than 145 oil and gas support vessels will be impacted by this instrument, but we know they do not care, because most of the vessels sail out of the port of Aberdeen, which is already suffering job losses as a direct result of the Government’s policies on oil and gas. Aberdeen city and shire have no Labour MPs or MSPs, so we know the party does not care about the fate of that city, its industry, economy or people. Those of us who live there feel that every day.
What impact does the Minister think the extension will have on the north-east of Scotland and the UK oil and gas sector—a sector already suffering blow after blow from the Labour Government? What impact will that have on energy security? May I also ask the Minister what assessment he has made of the risk of carbon leakage in the maritime sector and whether he believes the safeguards under this instrument are sufficient? We do not simply oppose this instrument; we will vote against it. We oppose the UK ETS and carbon taxes that are crippling UK manufacturing and businesses and deindustrialising Britain at a criminal rate. On behalf of all those who this Government are harming by their reckless actions, we ultimately oppose this Government.
Jim Allister
No votes—probably. That is probably the same answer in respect of the whole of Northern Ireland. When the Minister gets a chance to listen, I say to him: I do not accept lesser service for my constituents than he obtains for his or any other Member of this House. If we are a United Kingdom, then we need to be a United Kingdom of equals, not with those who are taxed while others are not, and not with consumers who pay more while others do not—but that is the product of what this Government are doing to Northern Ireland and the Rathlin islanders as well.
It is not enough for the impact assessment to recognise that consumers in Northern Ireland are more exposed—but if they are, what will the Government do about it? The impact assessment recognises that Northern Ireland consumers are more exposed, but the Government turn their face away and will not do anything about it. That is neither tenable nor tolerable.
Furthermore, the Government say, “You must do this in six months.” What planet of unreality are they living on? They like to ape so much of what the EU does, but even the EU with its ETS has a three-year transition. Indeed, the EU is also reviewing what it is doing. Impossibly, however, we are saying to the maritime sector in the United Kingdom, “You have five months to get this sorted out, and then your consumers start to pay for our indulgence and for our self-congratulation that we are dealing with carbon emissions.” That is not an acceptable way to go. Because there is no investment and no transition, it is inescapable that this is but a tax, a carbon tax on my constituents, on the people of Northern Ireland, on the people of Rathlin island and on all those who have not been given the equality of treatment of exemption that has been accorded to others.
Chris McDonald
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I hope to be able to respond to them.
We heard, from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, the Opposition’s clear objections to the emissions trading scheme. We also heard them last week, in a statutory instrument debate about the emissions trading scheme and the future introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism. This is clearly a significant change in policy from the Opposition, as they line themselves up with the climate deniers in the hope that they might scrounge some votes back from Reform, but—[Interruption.] It absolutely is a desperate measure.
The shadow Minister talks about protection for industry. We discussed that extensively in this Committee Room last week. Of course, the carbon border adjustment mechanism is precisely there to protect British industry from unfair competition from imports from more polluting industries in countries without such regulations. The Opposition’s objections to the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which we heard in this room last week, actually put British industry on the block. I do wonder whether they have fully thought through their policy, because when the statutory instrument went to the Lords, their spokesperson was not clear about whether the Opposition opposed the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Perhaps the shadow Minister might want to say whether that is Opposition policy.
Chris McDonald
No, the shadow Minister does not. Well, perhaps he needs to think about it a bit longer.
The shadow Minister talked about the administrative burden placed on maritime companies, which is of course something of which the Government are very conscious. He mentioned some of the information that would need to be recorded, such as port of departure, fuel use and so on. I do not know when he last spoke to somebody who actually operates a vessel, but a lot of this information is routinely recorded. Perhaps his ignorance of maritime operations is second only to his ignorance of the United Kingdom.
Andrew Bowie
As somebody who served in the Royal Navy for four years after I left school, I have full awareness of maritime operations and of the importance of our United Kingdom. I was talking about the gross unfairness of this legislation and the impact it is having on some communities around this kingdom, whether on the Isle of Wight or in Northern Ireland. The Minister has the audacity to claim that CBAM is protecting British industry, when his Government’s policies are doing more to undermine British industry than any policy of any Government in recent history. The deindustrialisation we are seeing in this country is something of which his party, which still laughably calls itself the Labour party, should be utterly ashamed. I ask him to withdraw his remark about the ignorance of maritime affairs.
Chris McDonald
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his service in the Royal Navy, and I am happy to withdraw that remark. Perhaps there was an oversight on his part in relation to that particular issue. I absolutely do withdraw that remark.
On the shadow Minister’s comment about the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man is a Crown dependency, as I am sure he knows, so it is not covered by the scheme. He mentioned the Isles of Scilly. The vessels to the Isles of Scilly are not covered by the scheme either, because they are below 5,000 gross tonnage.
The shadow Minister also mentioned the Isle of Wight, and I want to respond to the comments from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. I looked very carefully at the issues around the Isle of Wight before we tabled this statutory instrument, because those were a significant concern for me as well, and I am happy to offer some additional information now. I am grateful to my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), who requested a meeting with me before this statutory instrument was laid. I was happy to have that conversation with him, and I offer that courtesy to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East as well, if he would like to have such a meeting after this debate.
Perhaps I can in some way put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. First, regarding the situation on the Isle of Wight versus the ferry operators in Scotland, one of the key considerations for us was that the population on the islands in Scotland is considerably lower than that of the Isle of Wight. There is also no competition generally between the ferry operators, but there are there are a number of routes operating to the Isle of Wight, as the hon. Gentleman will know very well. The scheme will affect only two vessels, from one operator, on the Isle of Wight: one is a diesel vessel and one is a hybrid vessel. Clearly, the impact of the scheme will be felt more on the diesel vessel than the hybrid vessel, and that is because of the 5,000 gross tonnage limit. I am sure that I am not telling the hon. Gentleman anything that he does not know, but I want to be clear that we have thought very carefully about this.
The hon. Gentleman and a number of Members mentioned the opportunity for decarbonisation. In my opening remarks, I mentioned a number of ways that that could be done, including more fuel-efficient operating practices and various other things. We have set aside £448 million of Government funding to support that, which was announced previously. If the hon. Gentleman would like to meet with me to go through more of that in detail and represent the views of his constituents, I would be happy to do that.
INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. The steps announced today by the Government to secure the ethylene plant at Grangemouth are welcome news, especially for the workers at the site who can now look forward to the new year, assured that their jobs will remain at the strategically vital site—and Grangemouth is vital, as the UK’s last plant producing ethylene, a key ingredient in plastics used in advanced manufacturing and the automotive and aerospace sectors. To have lost domestic production capacity for such a core product would have been unconscionable.
However, this move, welcome as it is, demonstrates just how exposed sites such as Grangemouth have become under this Government. This Government’s policies are leading to the deindustrialisation of this country, with unemployment rates soaring and the economy shrinking as a result. From potteries in Stoke to the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire and, most obviously and glaringly, our oil and gas industry in the North sea, this Government are not just overseeing but engineering the decline of energy-intensive industries in this country.
Of course, I am genuinely glad that 500 jobs at Grangemouth will be protected, but that will be cold comfort for the thousands of workers in and around the wider oil and gas industry who have already lost their jobs, or those who will spend Christmas next week not knowing whether they will have a job next year because of Labour party policy. Last week it was Harbour Energy, and before that it was the Port of Aberdeen, Apache and Petrofac. TotalEnergies has had to merge with NEO NEXT Energy to operate, while Shell has merged with Equinor.
Those businesses all say the same thing: the exorbitant taxation regime, increased and extended until 2030, is driving away investment. Couple that with the utterly astronomical cost of energy here in the UK, pushed ever higher by unnecessary green levies and carbon taxes, and it is no surprise that, in his response to today’s announcement, Sir Jim Ratcliffe said that
“high energy costs and punitive carbon”
taxes were
“driving industry out of the UK at an alarming rate. If politicians want jobs, investment and energy security, then they must create a competitive environment.”
Week after week, more jobs in the sector are lost and critical national assets shut up shop as a direct consequence of policy decisions made by this Government. Since Labour stepped into office, more than 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost—that is the scale of the crisis we are dealing with.
Great Britain has a proud manufacturing legacy, but current Government policy towards energy is squandering that legacy, damaging Scottish jobs, and damaging an important national asset.
“There are 200,000 jobs in the UK associated with oil and gas, and they are all at risk unless the government changes course.”
Those are not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but those of the chairman of Ineos at Grangemouth.
Today’s announcement is timely, however, as tomorrow I will be visiting Mossmorran to meet the team following the news that the polyethylene plant there will be closing. ExxonMobil’s chairman there has explained that he does not have two of the keys needed for success because of Government policy. He said:
“We’ve had windfall taxes, we’ve had a ban on production licences—I need cheap sources of abundant ethane, and I do not have them, because the North Sea—because of Government policy—is declining rapidly…we paid £20 million last year in CO2 taxes, that will double in the next four or five years.”
What is shocking, though, is that for some inexplicable reason the Secretary of State for Scotland chose today to attack ExxonMobil when explaining why it was not receiving the same support as Grangemouth, saying that the management
“weren’t able to give us a pathway to profitability.”
Of course they cannot do that—at every turn this Government are putting up hurdles, shutting down the North sea and taxing these businesses until they burst. Honestly, this Government just do not get it. They are not listening.
Today’s announcement does not even scratch the surface when it comes to rectifying the damage and pain that this Government have inflicted on industry in this country. Given that this is the second time this Government have launched an unprovoked attack on a leading investor in the United Kingdom, does the Minister want me to pass on an apology from the Government when I visit Mossmorran tomorrow?
Today’s announcement is welcome, but this Government could do so much more. We should scrap the energy profits levy and remove the punitive carbon taxes—we are not getting an exemption to the EU emissions trading scheme anyway, according to the EU Commission. We should incentivise, not punish. A Conservative Government will do all this and more when we return to office in three years’ time—unfortunately, those are three years I do not think British industry has.
Chris McDonald
I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman sincerely for welcoming the support for Grangemouth—it really must be the season of good will. On this occasion, I can assure him that he is correct: this is the last ethylene plant, so we can agree on that this time.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the business environment for the chemicals industry. I thought I had set that out reasonably well in my statement, but perhaps not. I shall just say a bit more. On energy costs, we already have the energy-intensive industries scheme and, as I mentioned, we have increased the level of the supercharger. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will come in in 2027 with an additional 25% reduction. He may be interested to know that our electricity costs are already more competitive than many countries in Europe, but not France and Germany, which are the benchmark for me. That is why we are introducing the British industrial competitiveness scheme. On gas, after policy costs we are already competitive. These businesses trade internationally, and our success in striking international trade deals with the EU, the US and India, and with Korea just this week, means that there are more market opportunities all the time.
The shadow Secretary of State made the contrast with ExxonMobil. I reiterate the point that this Government —the Government would always do this, as I am sure he would expect—are investing in a business with a viable and sustainable future where there is a viable business plan, primarily because the owner of the business has invested in the business over time. As I said a few weeks ago in my statement on Mossmorran, ExxonMobil had failed to invest in that plant, and that is why it said that there was a £1 billion investment gap.
On jobs, in the clean energy sector we are creating 40,000 new jobs in Scotland alone and 800,000 jobs across the whole of the country. This is a transition that the Government are actively engaging in and managing. The shadow Secretary of State says that a Conservative Government would do something different from what they did last time, but they did not do anything last time. When Ineos announced in November 2023 that it was going to close its refinery, the Conservative Prime Minister at the time said, “That’s a commercial decision.” They did nothing about it—nothing at all.
Investment in this area is very important, so I refer the shadow Secretary of State to an article that was published this morning by my noble Friend Lord Stockwood, the Minister for Investment. He talked very carefully about the international investment environment and the performance of the UK economy and lamented the fact that so many people in this country—so many Cassandras, such as the shadow Secretary of State—are constantly talking the economy down and frightening investors away. I think it is about time he recognised the success of our clean energy industries and the success of this Government’s industrial strategy and stopped talking Britain down.
Draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(6 months, 2 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 chairship this morning, Ms Barker. The draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) Regulations will make some key amendments to the regulations pertaining to the CCUS and oil and gas sectors with regard to the publication of data connected to the wells in which they are operating, as the Minister has set out. That information, which includes geological assessments, rock and liquid samples and drilling data, is collected by the NSTA—or the OGA, as it remains in law for now—for publication to support research activities, wider industry and future licence applications.
The changes made in the draft regulations set out, for CCUS, how long such data must remain confidential after being collected, and specifically when different data is published, in order to protect the commercial interests of sector operators. This brings CCUS in line with existing regulations in the oil and gas industry. There are changes for the oil and gas sector, too, in particular in respect of how petroleum well information is disclosed. At present, the two-year confidentiality period takes effect once the NSTA receives the information; under the draft regulations, the clock will start from the reporting deadline. All of that was ably set out by the Minister.
Although the changes will bring consistency across the sector, questions remain. Will the Minister provide further details on enforcement when reporting deadlines are missed? Are we to expect a form of sanctions to be imposed? If so, when will details of those sanctions be released? There is also the question of how any operators will be affected whose reporting deadline for wells has already passed. Will they be given a new one and expected to comply by the new deadline? We recognise that the face of the North sea oil and gas industry is changing, with a significant amount of decommissioning work taking place now and over the coming years. Does the Minister think that the introduction of hard deadlines will add further administrative burden to operations? Have the Government made any assessment of the impact on decommissioning?
The North sea energy industry is already facing a multitude of challenges emanating from Government policy, which is having a knock-on effect on wider investment in the sector. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on whether any assessment has been made of how these changes might affect investor confidence in the sector, and what discussions about them have been had with industry representatives.
I echo the Minister’s comments about the NSTA, and particularly its chief executive officer Stuart Payne. They are doing an incredibly important job in managing the North sea basin. Notwithstanding the differences in how we think the North sea should be managed, the work of people in the NSTA should be recognised more than it is. They are undertaking vital work, and as a result of these changes the burden on them will be greater still.
Notwithstanding my questions, to which of course we would like answers, the Opposition think that the draft regulations are a very sensible move, coming as they do from that almighty and indeed seminal piece of work, the Energy Act 2023. I therefore see no reason why we should object to them or stand in their way. I do not intend to detain the Committee any longer.
Michael Shanks
It is always a pleasure to end the year on a high with the shadow Minister agreeing with the Government. I wish it happened more often.
Michael Shanks
I think the shadow Minister was actually congratulating his own work when he was in my role several years ago, but it is a treat nevertheless. I thank him for his support and echo his comments about the NSTA; its primary role is that of a regulator, but it also does a phenomenal amount of work to bring the industry together to look at how it improves on its practices. I also echo his thanks to Stuart Payne and the team for their work.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s questions. First, our purpose is not just to bring both sets of regulations into alignment; it is also important to recognise that a lot of the decommissioning work is moving further and further to the right. It will be a huge economic opportunity for us if we can ensure that that work happens. This is partly about making sure that the regulations are aligned, but it is also about ensuring that action can be taken against those who are not meeting the deadlines. Beyond the draft regulations, wider work is going on to ensure that we are enforcing our expectation of decommissioning work being concluded, not least because the public will end up on the hook for many of the costs if that work is not done.
On the question about the administrative burden, we look at these issues in the round, but there were consultations with the industry in 2023 and 2024 and no objections were raised by industry bodies. I think we had 11 responses, including three from industry representative bodies and five from individual companies, and overall the consultation received a positive response, so our sense is that the draft regulations will be warmly welcomed.
On the specific question of enforcement, one of the issues that we addressed in the North sea plan was how we will look at the enforcement powers of the NSTA. We will say more about that when we introduce legislation in due course.
I welcome the support for these measures, and indeed the work of the previous Government on setting up the landscape for carbon capture and storage. It is a huge opportunity for our country, and we look forward to moving it forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“The skills, infrastructure and experience built by Scotland’s oil and gas sector are vital assets that must be safeguarded and redeployed as we accelerate the transition to clean energy.”
These are not my words, but the words of Scottish Renewables. Why are the Government pursuing a strategy that is decimating that very industry and costing jobs across the country?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is indeed right that the skills of the North sea oil and gas workers are essential for the green transition. We will come forward with our North sea plan shortly. I am sure that he will want to take this opportunity to welcome our clean energy jobs plan, which highlights not only the many thousands of jobs across Scotland that the clean energy industries are creating, but the support that the Government are giving people in those industries to transfer across to new green energy industries.
Andrew Bowie
It is a bit rich for a Minister to come here, on the day that further jobs are being lost as a direct result of the Government’s policies, to talk about their clean jobs plan as if that will somehow mean anything to the workers at Mossmorran, Grangemouth and all the other sites that have lost jobs as a direct result of Government policies over the past few years. I understand why the Minister will not listen to me, but surely the Government must start listening to the renewables sector, the trade unions or their own Great British Energy, and use next week’s Budget to start reversing their damaging anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-Britain tax and ban on North sea oil and gas.
Martin McCluskey
I shall be more than happy to meet the hon. Member, as I am sure will the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), when she returns from COP30.
Andrew Bowie
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the very serious news coming out of the Mossmorran plant this morning, and given that the news broke after Members were able to submit an urgent question, might you inform me, and indeed the rest of the House, how it might be possible for the Government to bring forward a statement on the situation today? Hundreds of workers, the entire community and the wider energy system need to know as soon as possible what the situation is and what the Government are doing to resolve it.
Mr Speaker
A lot of Members obviously have a keen interest in this matter, as it affects their constituencies. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard the request. I am more than happy to support that request if the Government bring it forward.