Budget Resolutions

Debate between Paul Holmes and Harriet Cross

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Harriet Cross]

No, I do not agree, because that is factually untrue. Investment in green technologies, including carbon capture, EV charging point roll-outs, wind and solar, is being driven by our oil and gas companies. They will stop investing in green technologies and our domestic supply if we tax them into the ground, and that is exactly what the EPL is doing.

The Labour Government have kept the EPL, which means that our oil and gas companies are being taxed at 78%, which is more than is faced by any other mature basin in the world. They also removed investment allowances, ensuring that our oil and gas companies are the most uncompetitive when they are trying to invest in the North sea. As a result, the companies and the skills that we need for the transition are moving abroad. Across the UK, we are losing tens of thousands of North sea jobs. That impacts every constituency. Do not think it is just north-east Scotland that is impacted; every single hon. Member in this House has oil and gas worker constituents—energy workers—who are losing their jobs today because of the Chancellor’s choice last week to keep the EPL. That impacts everybody.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right. My constituency on the south coast has Oil Spill Response Ltd, which tackles oil spills. At a recent event, the vice-president of a very big oil company said that it was essentially closing up its operations in the UK and moving 50 miles up the road to Norway. Has she found the same in her constituency?

[Harriet Cross]

Yes, absolutely. Many flights that take off from Aberdeen are full of workers who are leaving north-east Scotland for Norway, taking their skills and taxable income with them. Norway welcomes the opportunity for investment in its energy sources. Norway drilled more than 30 new exploration wells in its North sea this year. We drilled zero. That is not because the North sea is different on either side of the boundary line, but because of the United Kingdom’s fiscal and regulatory regime. We are banning ourselves from our own resources.

We are making it so financially unviable to get at our own resources that we are becoming more and more reliant on other countries for our energy security. That does not make sense. Even if we come at the issue from a green angle and pretend that we are helping the climate, imports are more carbon intensive. We are bringing more carbon-intensive energy, which we need, into the UK. The Government love telling us that we will need oil and gas for years to come. We will, but we will not be using UK oil and gas for years to come. We will be using oil and gas from Norway, Qatar, Mexico or America, and we will import it at a huge carbon cost, and at a huge cost to the Treasury through loss of tax, other revenue and investment.

Offshore Energies UK states that £50 billion of investment will be lost because of the EPL being kept in place. That £50 billion could go to a huge number of schools, roads or NHS projects, or it could fill any deficit that we have, but no, it is being left, because the ideology of this Government is to run down our domestic oil and gas sector.

When I am out having constituency meetings in north-east Scotland, I spend most of my time listening to people who are worried about their jobs. They are worried about when—not if—their job will be lost, and where they will get another one. There are no new jobs in the oil and gas sector. They are not being created. When a job is lost in north-east Scotland, or in any other constituency with oil and gas jobs, there are no replacement jobs. Our skilled workers are moving abroad. That expertise and those skills—the ones that will drive the transition and keep our communities together—are moving away.

One of the most cynical things that the Government did on Wednesday last week, when they chose to keep the EPL, was to release their consultation results for the future of the North sea. They thought that the people of north-east Scotland were so dim, so stupid, that they would not realise that keeping the EPL in place was going to have a destructive impact. They thought that they could wave a little flag with “North sea future plan consultation” written on it, and it would distract us, but guess what? We are not distracted. We know that it does not matter how many tie-backs are allowed, or whether we rename a licence as a certificate; that will not make any difference when it comes to how long the North sea lasts, because we do not have the fiscal regime to make it viable.

I met representatives of a large oil and gas producer on Friday—I am sure that no Government Members did, because they do not actually engage with the sector or listen to it.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Paul Holmes and Harriet Cross

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is correct. My constituency has a number of small football organisations, some of which are subject to legislation that is currently going through the Lords more slowly than we would necessarily expect a piece of legislation to progress. The income of small football groups will be the focus of that Bill. However, my hon. Friend is right: not only does this Bill cover small football venues and football clubs, but it covers all sorts of organisations, some of which I have mentioned.

There are small community theatres, for example, which are the backbone of many small communities. People want to go to them with their family and watch amateur dramatics. The plays are sometimes better than in the west end—I have seen them—and the scale of some venues means that they will be in the lower tier under the Bill, but they have very small incomes. There are also charities with very small incomes that have been affected by fiscal decisions in the Budget. I assure the Minister that I am not being political, but as the impact assessment shows, and as the constituents I have spoken to have said, many charities will be affected by increased costs through their national insurance contributions and the different taxation that will come in.

From what I have read, the average cost for smaller venues will be £330 a year and the cost for larger organisations will be £5,000 a year. Those are the latest figures that I can find, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that additional cost of £330 a year for smaller venues, because to many organisations, that will place a big burden on them. I met representatives of small theatres recently who were concerned that they have not been invited to a roundtable with the Minister to discuss the implications for the sector. I would be grateful if he outlined whether the Government intend to meet them, based on their concerns about the Bill.

I will bring my comments within the scope of new clause 1. Given the issues that I have outlined, I think the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford to have a review process for the SIA is perfectly sensible. When we set up a new organisation that has some kind of independence, regulatory enforcement capacity or management capacity, it seems purely sensible that after the period set in the new clause, we look to see whether its action has been proportionate, whether there has been overreach and whether it is doing its job properly. Has it taken the full responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Members may not think that it is overworking; it might be that it is underworking and we need to give it more responsibilities in the long run.

It seems perfectly sensible for the Government and the Minister to come to the Floor of the House. They should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. Opposition Front Benchers, me and all my colleagues want the Bill to succeed, but we want it to be proportionate. When we set up an organisation with such responsibilities and an organisational jurisdiction, we want to ensure that it is reviewed, that it is conducting itself and taking its responsibilities seriously, and that the system is working.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is not about a presumption of finding fault, but about ensuring that the proposals work correctly? It is so important that the regulator and the regulatory role work perfectly so that the Bill can be implemented in the way that is expected.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is reasonable and a very good colleague in the way she carries out her duties in this House, so it will come as no surprise to hear that I absolutely agree with her. I do say that about some Government Members, so I am not being partisan—[Interruption.] Most of the time. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point.

That is why the Minister should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. We do not want to disrupt the passage of the Bill. We do not want to disrupt the good intentions and the outcomes that everybody, on both sides of the House, wants. As a Conservative, I naturally think that the state should not be big or oversized. When we set up organisations such as this, it is natural that the House and Members will want scrutiny functions to make sure that the organisation acts within the spirit of the law and within its jurisdiction and responsibilities. I think that is perfectly reasonable.