Oil Refining Sector

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I commend the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important debate. I also acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who spoke with his usual passion, but today I believe with a degree of anger as well, and rightly so.

A just transition supports and protects existing oil and gas sector workers through—I emphasise “through”—the transition to a world-class renewables workforce, a transition in which Scotland is well placed to lead the world. I want to share the following quote:

“‘just transition’ has now become meaningless for so many people and that’s a failure… People should feel like that’s not something done to them, but something they’re part of shaping.”

That was said by the Minister for Energy in a recent interview with the Holyrood magazine. Sadly, for thousands of workers in North sea upstream, midstream and—in the case of refining—downstream jobs, a just transition is far removed from the reality that they face.

The workers now made redundant are angry at the UK Government’s failure to support their transition. Their families and communities are also angry, as are we, their representatives. We know that the just transition is doomed to fail because of three things: first, the failure to press forward with renewable energy schemes in north-east Scotland at the urgent pace that is required; secondly, the failure to allow new exploration licences while persisting with the crippling energy profits levy on the oil and gas sector; and thirdly, the failure to protect refinery jobs at Grangemouth and Mossmorran. Today I learned that 7,000 business leaders, workers and companies have signed a letter to the Prime Minister in which they demand change to the EPL to avoid the projected 1,000 job losses per month.

Looking specifically at the situation in Grangemouth in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, said that a Labour UK Government would

“step in to save the jobs at the refinery and to invest in that transition…and we would put hundreds of millions of pounds behind it to make it a reality.”

No doubt the Minister will cite the £200 million promised to support Grangemouth, and reference has been made to the Scottish Government’s contribution. Of course, today brings good news in that regard, with MiAlgae’s welcome investment announcement on top of the Celtic Renewables project. The Scottish Government are an active partner in funding those projects, and we welcome the investment. However, the funding announced today amounts to only £7.73 million in total, and the 280 jobs —perhaps more—will not be fully realised for five years, if ever. Where is the rest of the promised £200 million? Where is fulfilment of the promise made by the leader of the Labour party in Scotland? Where is the intervention that occurred for Scunthorpe? People need work now. Families need certainty, but all they face this Christmas is uncertainty. In the meantime, the refinery workforce has been largely cast aside.

Looking further afield in Scotland, including Prax Lindsey, the UK has lost a third of its oil refineries just this year, on this Government’s watch. Furthermore, it is an uncomfortable truth for the Government that the UK’s uniquely high energy costs—the highest in the G7—are one of the main factors harming the refining sector and industry more generally.

I acknowledge that the North sea basin is in decline, but the importance of sovereign capability in national security is often repeated from the Government Front Bench. It is particularly true in defence, but how can defence capability be even remotely claimed if the vital fuel needed to operate tanks, ships and aircraft is acquired in the quantities needed through imports from abroad? Those imports can hardly be described as secure in this currently very dangerous world. Refining sites, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, have great potential for such things as sustainable aviation fuel production, but this remains a jam tomorrow promise. This is not remotely a positive trend for our economy, our environment, or, vitally, our national security.

I must press the Minister to address these questions. How can she tell the thousands of directly employed and supply chain workers at Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and the many other sites and companies that are shedding workforce in the oil and gas sector that they are part of shaping the just transition? What assurance can she give those workers that the future is bright, especially when the Acorn project in my constituency faces growing uncertainty, for example? I urge her to address those questions in her speech. The destruction of the refinery jobs is a repetition of the Thatcherite coal mine closures and the steel plant shutdowns, with no plan for the workers, their families and the communities affected. We have long memories in Scotland. Only with the full powers of independence in areas such as energy policy will the workforce at Grangemouth and elsewhere in Scotland’s oil and gas sector get the priority and the just transition to the future that they so richly deserve.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this important debate, and I agree with his comments regarding the strategic importance of oil refineries for their communities—if only colleagues who were previously in government had grasped that before the decision by Petroineos to close Grangemouth in November 2023 was announced.

As has been remarked by colleagues, 2026 will mark the first year since, I believe, 1850 that Scotland does not have an oil refinery. This year marked 101 years since the start of oil refining in Grangemouth, and the date that refining ceased in April 2025 was a devastating time for the community I represent, the community of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom. I remember sitting in the Falkirk council chamber when the announcement was made. The implications were obvious immediately: the loss of many of the highest-paying jobs in the Falkirk area, and the loss of a substantial tax base for Falkirk council and the Scottish and UK Governments. The announcement was completely unexpected for those of us in opposition parties, who were not in the know.

The failure of Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) has articulated on behalf of the Scottish Affairs Committee, to prepare our community or have a plan in place for a no job loss transition at Grangemouth refinery has become symbolic of a similar story happening across industrial communities for decades. It was infuriating to find out from the Scottish Affairs Committee report that, through late 2023 and 2024, when it would have mattered, many of the decision makers failed to act to prevent the unjust transition at Grangemouth.

Petroineos confirmed to the Committee in April 2025 that, in the years prior to the announcement in November 2023, the then UK and Scottish Governments had requested information from the company, and subsequently chosen not to make an investment decision that would have saved the refinery. It was engaged for years with Government and no one lifted a finger to stop the path to the closure of refinery operations. Although I wish we had grasped the reality of the situation far more clearly in the transition from opposition to entering government, I welcome the determination of Ministers to get investment into Grangemouth quickly so that we can deliver that new industry to the community.

Today—two weeks after the Chancellor allocated further Government funding to Grangemouth to speed up investment decisions—marks an exceptionally positive announcement for the area. Up to 310 jobs are coming to Grangemouth to support the construction and operation of MiAlgae, a Scottish biotech success story. That does not, however, diminish the fact that many high-paid, high-skilled jobs have been lost, and the constant worry that they and the industry will never come back is justifiably the primary emotion that still grips my community.

We have an obligation not to repeat the mistakes of the past. We do not want the workers at Grangemouth, many of whom have not found employment since the closure in April, to be lost to the middle east, America or Norway. There is still a future for high-skilled refining workers at Grangemouth. That is why I welcome the Skills Transition Centre, announced back in February, funded out of the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, which this Labour Government enhanced by £10 million when we came to power. However, the college that contains the skills centre is facing an existential financial crisis. One of the three campuses that constitutes Forth Valley college—the Alloa campus, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth —is directly jeopardised by the 20% real-terms cut inflicted on colleges since 2021 by the SNP Government.

The pathways for local kids to grasp the new industrial opportunities coming to our community will be actively barred if Government settlements for our further education sector are insufficient. Any consolidation that followed the closure of the Alloa campus would affect the courses available for thousands of young people in Falkirk, Stirling and especially Clackmannanshire. Kenny MacInnes, the principal of Forth Valley college, rightly reminded a conference recently that the college will be an instrumental part of whatever comes next at Grangemouth. The Scottish Government must bear that and Colleges Scotland’s recently published report in mind when they set their budget next year if they ever want to speak credibly about rebuilding opportunities in my community.

[Seamus Logan]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but is he concerned about his own Government’s commitment to this important debate, given the row upon row of empty seats on the Government Benches?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

We would expect this Labour Government to do a little bit more for these communities. Back in the ’80s, Labour was attacking the Tories for doing exactly the same thing: closing the vital industries. As I say, once the industry has gone, it is gone, and the skills that one generation passes on to another are gone as well. It is all well and good saying to somebody, “It’s okay, you can make windmills or solar panels,” or, “We’ll retrain you in green energy,” but they do not want that. This lot do not understand that there are still men and women in this country who want to get up in the morning and go do a proper day’s graft. They want to set the alarm clock at 10 o’clock at night, get up at half four or five o’clock in the morning and go do a proper day’s graft where they get their hands dirty. It is dangerous, dirty work, and they contribute towards their society by earning decent wages—good wages—and it keeps their communities going. If we lose that, we lose it for ever.

In the last year alone, we have lost a third of refineries, following the closure of Grangemouth, and now Lindsey is obviously doomed as well. That leaves just four refineries in the country. Why is Lindsey closing? Because it is being hit again and again with costs just to stay compliant with the UK emissions trading scheme. We know that to be compliant, refineries are required to submit verified emission reports to the UK ETS authority and to surrender sufficient allowances to meet the total emissions generated. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) said, those costs account for the highest expenditure in a refinery’s operating budget. Just let that sink in: the biggest cost to a refinery is one that has been inflicted upon it for the sole purpose of meeting net zero. In other words, it has been inflicted by this Government and the Energy Secretary.

[Seamus Logan]

I hear what the hon. Member says about oil refineries, and I share many of his concerns—you will have heard what I said—but I have also heard him and his party colleagues talking about “net stupid zero”. Does he actually believe that we should cancel all the wind farm projects and all the grid infrastructure rebuilding? Is that what he firmly believes we should do?

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that when they say “you” they are speaking to me.

Budget Resolutions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I will confine my remarks to the north-east of Scotland. Whether it is farmers, oil and gas workers, the fishing industry, local pubs and hotels, businesses, or families who are just about managing this festive season, no one—not one person—has approached me to say what a great Budget this was. People are angry and worried, and they are right to be. We are still in a cost of living crisis, and there was no change to the energy profits levy in the Budget, nor to the family farm tax. There was more punishment for Scotch whisky and no mention of the WASPI women. There was no review of the coastal growth fund to boost the local fishing industry and, worst of all, there was sleight of hand on the cost of living for so many families. When I recently led an Adjournment debate in this place on the Nolan principles, I voiced my fears that people are losing faith in politics. It now seems that that is not only because of Johnson or Truss, although they did not help; it is largely due to this Government.

Households in the north-east are facing harsher and colder winters than other parts of the country, and will continue to struggle as energy costs rise. That is even more unfair given the north-east’s contribution to energy production as the UK’s renewables powerhouse and, crucially, via our oil and gas sector, which is being hammered like a tent peg by this Labour Government. They are apparently hellbent on taxing our energy sector out of existence. Keeping the EPL in place until 2030 will mean haemorrhaging job losses in the tens of thousands. It will risk our energy security, incur eye-wateringly expensive carbon-heavy imports, scupper supply chain growth, and severely hamper our future renewables potential.

Just today, there have been a further 100 job losses at Harbour Energy in Aberdeen. People I know in my constituency are going abroad to get contracts because they lost their jobs in Scotland. Ninety thousand oil and gas workers in the north-east are bitterly disappointed. Why? This Budget was a chance to secure their jobs and to secure £50 billion of potential investment supported by the renewables sector, which needs the skills base of our workers. The hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) talked about banking. The four big banks made a £44 billion profit last year, and there is not a word about a windfall tax on them. This is the politics of madness. Forget investment in a just transition; this is industrial damage on a grand scale.

Talking of industrial damage, why have the Government got it in for Scotland’s world-class Scotch whisky sector? Once more it has been treated as a Treasury cash cow, with duty rising again in line with inflation, although I—as well as many others, including numerous industry sources—warned the Treasury that an increase in duty would reduce the income to the Treasury. Who does not understand the maths? Furthermore, with the family farm tax still in place, generational family farms across my constituency face ruin by Treasury spreadsheet, with the Chancellor balancing the books on the back of our domestic food security. Finally, where are the WASPIs in this Budget? There is no mention of the Government’s plan to review their decision on compensating those 1950s-born women.

The truth is that Scotland cannot afford to be dragged back into Labour’s black hole, or whatever fiscal fiction they care to conjure up to justify their economic choices. We are expected to believe that the same people who told us that removing the two-child cap was deeply unwise now say that it is the centrepiece of the Government’s achievements. This begs the question, “What does Labour stand for?” It certainly does not stand for working people, families or businesses. We have, instead, a chaotic “cost of Labour” Budget, caught in a perpetual doom loop, while the north-east of Scotland pays a high price for the Government’s economic mismanagement. Brexit Britain is broken, trust is broken, and the north-east is bearing the brunt. Scotland wants out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank McNally]

I absolutely agree. Let me also say, in response to some of our colleagues across the House, that the SNP Government could have eradicated the two-child cap eight years ago, but refused to do so. They chose to play politics with the cap; this Government have acted after 18 months to remove it. The two-child cap is the savage reality of austerity. It is the embodiment of cruelty, and it pushed children into the depths of poverty.

[Seamus Logan]

If the hon. Member feels so strongly about the two-child cap, why did he vote to keep it last year?

[Frank McNally]

I am more than happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. This Government made it clear that when we had the economic ability to remove the cap, we would do so. It is the prudence of the Chancellor that has allowed it to be removed in full, and that has been done within 18 months. The hon. Gentleman’s Government could have done it eight years ago, and refused to do so. This decision will lift 2,000 children in my community, 95,000 across Scotland and 450,000 across the UK out of poverty. As Gordon Brown observed last week, the Chancellor has done more in this Budget to transform the lives of children in poverty and their families than any of the seven previous Tory Chancellors. This action, combined with significant uplifts in the national minimum wage by 8.5% and the national living wage by more than 4%, will help to tackle the scourge of poverty—and that represents a pay rise for more than 200,000 Scots.

This is a fair Budget, which builds on the Government’s efforts to grow the economy, tackle the cost of living crisis and fight poverty. It puts more money in our constituents’ pockets, and I am proud to support it.

Remote Coastal Communities

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is something I will talk about in a moment. There is a particular pressure in Cornwall, but there is also pressure in other remote coastal areas relating to second home ownership and Airbnbs—sorry, I should say short-term lets. According to 2024 data from Lighthouse, Cornwall had the largest supply of short-term lets in the country. The figure was around 24,000 properties, which is up by 30% since 2019. I have long supported a compulsory registration scheme for short-term lets—one that includes fire safety regulations—and I look forward to the Government’s forthcoming housing strategy.

Cornwall suffers from a chronic lack of affordable homes—I appreciate that it shares that problem with other remote coastal locations. With the second highest housing target in the country and over 23,000 people on the housing waiting list, the scale of need is clear, but our remote geography, infrastructure limitations and construction skills shortages make conventional housing delivery extremely challenging.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for securing this important debate. He is focusing on tourism and housing, but in my coastal constituency, there are many businesses—particularly in the fishing industry—that could benefit from investment to deliver economic growth. In May, the Government launched the fishing and coastal growth fund, worth £360 million over 12 years. Does the hon. Member agree that in her response to this debate, the Minister should update the House on the progress of that funding, and that those funds should be allocated proportionately to reflect the size of Scotland’s fishing industry?

[Perran Moon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am sure that in the fullness of time, we will receive more details on that funding, which will be very important for the fishing industry—we are certainly very keen to ensure we see the benefit of it within Cornwall. It has to be practical, and it has to be applied where it is most appropriate.

The issue of homes is an important one. When homes become investments rather than homes for local people, communities lose their heart and young people lose their future. As such, the next pressure I want to highlight is educational isolation and the lack of opportunity facing young people in remote coastal locations, which has been mentioned. Research from Plymouth Marjon University shows that schools in such locations struggle in vital areas, including school staff recruitment and retention, support and external investment. Poor transport links, rural roads and seasonal traffic make travel difficult, limiting opportunities for both pupils and teachers and deterring potential recruits.

Our young people are presented with Hobson’s choice: move inland to find work opportunities, or face an uncertain future with limited prospects of a home of their own. That migration reinforces geographic inequality. In a recent report on the issue, the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted:

“Reducing economic disparities…requires bringing opportunity to people—not just raising skills, but building places where skills are rewarded.”

Its report specifically highlights that coastal areas tend to lose out, with migration reducing average earnings by over 5% in parts of Cornwall. Young people face the “half-compass effect”, with the sea on one side, poor transport on the other, and limited access to employers.

A direct consequence of that lack of youth opportunity can be seen in the age profile of remote coastal communities. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median age in coastal built-up areas is 42—three years older than in non-coastal areas—and 25% of residents over 16 are retired, compared with 20.6% inland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

The answer is that we are not. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the reality is that the North sea has been a basin in decline and that 70,000 jobs were lost under the previous Government. The question is: do we create the jobs of the future as well as maintaining existing fields for their lifetime? This Government are committed to doing so. If he wants to see those jobs, he should support our plans.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Tempted as I am to wax lyrical about the beauties of Aberdeenshire, I will instead ask the Secretary of State a very simple question. By this time next year, how many jobs will GB Energy have created in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire?

[Ed Miliband]

GB Energy will create thousands of jobs across the country, including in Aberdeen. Here is why GB Energy really matters: we have chosen to put its headquarters in Aberdeen, as we recognise that Aberdeen is the clean energy capital of our country—not just for oil and gas, which is important, but for the future. SNP Members are chuntering on the Front Bench, but they never did anything to create that future for people in Aberdeen.

State of Climate and Nature

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend, who speaks with such expertise on these matters, is 100% right. The biggest enemy of investment is uncertainty. That is why I appeal to all parties to stick to what we have legislated for in this country, in order to give that certainty.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I rise not to call the Secretary of State an eco-warrior, as Members of this House are so keen on doing from time to time; in fact, I agree with him on the scale of the climate and nature emergency. I do not want to spoil the cross-party support here, but the fact is that when the Labour party was in opposition, it promised an investment of £28 billion in the just and green transition. Will he apologise to the people of Scotland—no, to the voters in Scotland—for reneging on that promise?

[Ed Miliband]

What I will say to the people of Scotland is that the Acorn carbon capture and storage project has been talked about for years, and it is happening because of a Labour Government. We have a publicly owned energy company, Great British Energy, and we have our clean industry bonus. This is a Government who are actually delivering for the people of Scotland, and those across the UK.

Electricity Market Review

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important question. The impact on Scotland is an important dimension here, because Scotland has really exciting plans to drive forward renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. It can be a massive job creator for the future, and it is something we are really focused on. One other issue with zonal pricing is that I fear it would have had quite an adverse effect on the Scottish green economy, which was a point powerfully made by lots of different stakeholders. I can definitely say to my hon. Friend that we are 100% committed. We think that Scotland has a rightful place as an energy capital and an energy powerhouse, and offshore wind is a crucial part of that.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Thank you for allowing my question, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must apologise to the House and the Front Bench for being a little late.

I appreciate the high-wire nature of the act that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team are trying to deliver, but there are two litmus tests in Scotland that are absolutely crucial. First, private investment is essential to make the journey to net zero happen. Secondly, Scotland is such an energy-rich country, as he referenced, and yet we are paying the highest prices for tariffs and standing charges. Will his statement make it easier for private investment to come in and deliver us towards that journey to net zero, and does he foresee lower energy costs for consumers in Scotland?

[Ed Miliband]

The answer to both those questions is yes. The first point the hon. Member raises is important and goes to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), which was on the fears that lots of people had that it would dry up the renewables industry in Scotland if we went down the route of zonal pricing. That is why we have opted for the reformed national pricing system that we have talked about. To elaborate on the second point, building this clean power system that can lower wholesale prices, which is the absolute prize here, is the route to lowering energy costs for people in Scotland and across the UK.

Future of the Gas Grid

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing this important debate and for his excellent and very well-informed contribution. I wish him not only a happy birthday but success with his new heat pump.

The future of the gas grid will impact all these islands. Gas is a critical component for more than half a million businesses across the country and all the workers that they employ. Research by Robert Gordon University suggests that if Scotland is successful in delivering its 2030 energy ambitions, the workforce—currently about 80,000—will increase by 25%. However, if it is unsuccessful, the workforce could fall by about 40%, with the loss of key skills, capabilities and associated supply chains.

A green future offers the possibility of new jobs by creating certainty for industry and investors. According to the UK Government’s 2021 hydrogen strategy, transitioning to green gases could create 12,000 jobs by 2030 and 100,000 by 2050. That would contribute to a thriving UK economy, increased production, improved public services and global leadership on the climate agenda.

New jobs and the associated economic growth will also complement electrification. Many workers in the gas industry have the very skills needed to secure a net zero future, and that future will be built in, and with, communities with a rich energy heritage, especially those in Scotland, as former fossil fuel jobs are replaced with green jobs.

Low-carbon hydrogen is required for all net zero scenarios. The UK needs to act fast and at scale to ensure energy security and independence to meet decarbonisation targets and achieve its legally binding net zero 2050 commitments. I appreciate that the Minister fully understands these matters.

Existing gas infrastructure can be adapted to deliver low-cost and low-impact net zero solutions. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned, renewable biomethane gas can play a significantly larger role in the transition to net zero, reducing the overall cost of the transition and benefiting energy customers. Many of our European counterparts are already making very significant progress in these areas, and we need to catch up.

The Scottish gas network is already fuelling 10% of households in Scotland on their network with biomethane, and there are plans to grow that to 1 million homes by 2031. The prize on offer is not only a green gas that can sustainably decarbonise energy-intensive industries and retain jobs, but the growth of a new sector that will add up to 12,000 jobs by 2030 and £13 billion in gross value added.

A word about Peterhead power station in my constituency: commissioned in 1982, the power station continues to play a critical role in our energy supply, and also has the potential to play a major role in our future systems. The Peterhead carbon capture power station is a joint venture with Equinor, and the plan is to build a new 900 MW power station that will use technology to capture a minimum of 90% of carbon emissions. As I say, that is a minimum: SSE tells me that it could be as much as 95%.

The station would connect to a shared infrastructure being developed by the Scottish cluster, meaning that CO₂ captured from the power station will be safely transported and stored offshore at the Acorn storage site. The existing station directly supports 80 full- time employees, three graduates, 13 apprentices and 30 contractors, but with the new development we could be talking about 1,000 new jobs during construction and 240 new jobs on an ongoing basis. I will come back to the issue of sustainability, because construction is one thing but sustaining jobs into the future is quite another.

I want to acknowledge the role of SSE Thermal in my local constituency in supporting local community projects. They are very important to local communities, particularly young people, schools, and businesses, as well as the environment.

Lastly, I will turn to Acorn. As the Minister knows, £200 million was announced last week to support the Acorn carbon capture and underground storage project in my constituency. I am sure that others have heard in the Chamber that it has the potential to capture and store the amount of carbon gas emitted since before the industrial revolution—that is the scale of the project.

The £200 million represented a start, but it is small compared with the £9.4 billion earmarked in the spending review for carbon capture, usage and storage before 2029. The investment is very welcome, especially in the context of the previous Government’s needless delays, but I also want to mention in connection with Acorn how important the connectivity with Grangemouth will be. Some of my colleagues asked me how many pipes there are between Acorn and Grangemouth. There are five, so there is no problem with the infrastructure. We do not need to spend billions of pounds building this thing; it is already there. That is really important to understand.

Given what is at stake for the north-east—jobs, supply chain opportunities and our green industrial transformation as part of climate action and economic growth—Scotland must be given our fair share. Two hundred million pounds is a start, but we want to see that figure climb very quickly, once the final investment decision is made, to the scale of the £22 billion already invested in England. As this debate has shown, the future of the gas grid is about working in tandem with projects such as Acorn, so the availability and implementation of funding is something that we should all push for.

I want to make one final point, from the workers’ perspective. I have spoken about the massive construction opportunities that will come with these projects. However, if we take a project such as the Viking project in the far north of Scotland, in Shetland, we are talking about 2,000 jobs during construction and a very small number—perhaps 200—afterwards, so it is fine to construct the projects, but we need to have solutions that work for people in the longer term. We need sustainability; we need regulation, so that workers are not taken advantage of; and we need to implement the Labour Government’s vision for better contractual terms and conditions.

I look forward to a very bright future for the north-east of Scotland, playing its role in our transition to a new future for the gas grid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue. Yesterday, in the hydrogen aviation debate, we talked about how costly energy is at the moment. In the past, we had the tidal wave and sea project in the Narrows in Portaferry in my constituency. The pilot scheme was successful in showing that it could be done, but it did not provide a cheaper price. Today, however, it could. I am quite confident that with a better understanding, and better offers for the supply of gas grid in Northern Ireland, we could ensure that prices would drop—I am confident that they will.

The operators pointed to research by the Centre for Advanced Sustainable Energy Research, which shows that biomethane has the potential to supply 6,000 GWh a year, equal to about 80% of the current gas distribution network demands. That shows the potential, and that it can be done. It would reduce Northern Ireland’s CO₂ emissions by some 845,000 tonnes per annum, a fantastic contribution to net zero targets. That shows how Northern Ireland and the UK can work better together and contribute to net zero targets collectively, with advantages for us all. What is done here in England helps us in Northern Ireland, and vice versa.

Yesterday, I spoke in Westminster Hall on the potential benefits of hydrogen in aviation, as I referred to earlier. There are numerous sectors in which hydrogen could play a key role in the transition. The UK Government aim to establish up to 100 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030. The national gas grid is leading efforts to develop a hydrogen transmission backbone that will repurpose existing gas pipelines to transport hydrogen. Those visionary projects, which can deliver much for us all, are well in hand, but there is a lot more to do.

I look forward to hearing and witnessing how those developments play out in the future. There is so much that the devolved Administrations and institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can do to play a role in the transition to net zero, and this is one of those ways. I ask the Minister very kindly to engage, as I know he does, with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment back home to ensure that we can be leaders in our green and net zero plans together. Within this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can do that. Even our friends in Scotland can benefit and help us to benefit. That is the goal I try to achieve in this place.

[Seamus Logan]

I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with these continual references to Scotland. Of course, whatever the future constitutional arrangements—they are in some doubt—the gas network on this side supplies not only Ireland but, as I understand it, Belgium and part of the Netherlands. There is already a shared international context in how the grid operates.

[Jim Shannon]

Of course there is. The hon. Gentleman is a product of Northern Ireland, as his accent shows—although he is now very much a Scottish nationalist—and I believe he recognises the importance of working together. Whether that is within the United Kingdom or further afield is not the issue. I never want to see Scotland moving away from us, because he is my Gaelic cousin, and together with many others, we have the same history and culture; we just have a different idea about the constitution. The people of Scotland, of course, have already spoken on the constitution and, although I know that is a different debate, I say very clearly that we are always better together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

1. What progress his Department has made on advancing the Track-2 Acorn cluster.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. We have always been clear that we support the Acorn project. My colleagues and I have had many discussions with the industry, and we know what an important proposal it is. As we have said, the decision is a matter for the spending review, but we are close to having those decisions. I thank the hon. Member for speaking up on behalf of the Acorn project, as many hon. Members across the House have done.

[Seamus Logan]

Many happy returns, Mr Speaker. Proposals for carbon capture and storage near Peterhead in my constituency have been kicked into the long grass by successive UK Governments. Last week, a report by Professor Paul de Leeuw of Robert Gordon University warned of the need for urgent action to protect the energy supply chain and accelerate the just transition; he warned that thousands upon thousands of jobs were at risk. While I know the Secretary of State recognises that the Acorn project is a strategic cornerstone of the transition to a low-carbon future and economic growth in the north-east of Scotland and the nation. will the Government finally commit the funding necessary for the project to proceed?

[Sarah Jones]

We know how important carbon capture, usage and storage is—the Climate Change Committee said there is no route to net zero that does not include carbon capture—with, of course, up to 50,000 good, well-paid jobs across the UK. The Government have already shown their commitment to carbon capture with a £21.7 billion investment. I am afraid that the hon. Member will have to wait until the spending review for the final decisions, but I hope he agrees that we are putting in place ambitious, substantial carbon capture plans that will drive growth across the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)]

My hon. Friend is a real champion for his constituency, and for the benefits that the development of fusion will bring. We continue to invest and to have discussions with international counterparts. There is a very bright future for fusion, and for his constituents as a result.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The Minister will be aware of the switch-on of Moray West offshore wind farm at Buckie, in my constituency, last week, creating jobs, delivering clean energy and helping our nation to achieve net zero. Does the Minister accept that the current transmission charging regime poses significant and immediate threats to investment in offshore wind in Scotland? Will he meet me and industry representatives to explore that matter further?

[Michael Shanks]

We were delighted to switch on the wind farm; the Secretary of State for Scotland was there to push the button last week. It is a fantastic example of the potential of offshore wind. Of course, I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I have already met him, and had a very enjoyable conversation, and I am very happy to talk about the issue. The review of the electricity market arrangements that we are going through will look at the issue of transmission charges. It is an important conversation to have, and I am happy to speak to him on the subject.

North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this important debate and for her thoughtful and passionate speech introducing it. Many colleagues have made excellent speeches, and I will not repeat their points.

The just transition must be both just and fair, so that sectors and communities are not left on the industrial scrapheap as they were during the Thatcher years. If the just transition means anything, it must mean something for the north-east of Scotland. It cannot be left to the market alone to sort those things out. To give one small example, I have recently been lobbied by the plumbing industry. A crisis is coming in a few years’ time because the financial problems facing the training and education sector mean that it cannot possibly meet its demands. One thing the Minister could do is nudge the private sector to invest in apprenticeships in those areas, so that we are preparing alternatives for young people as North sea basin declines.

The Scottish Government set up their Just Transition Commission in 2018 to provide scrutiny and advice on delivery. Northern Ireland is currently consulting on setting up its own commission; Wales established its commission in 2013. Where is the UK-wide just transition commission? The UK Government launched their North sea consultation in March as

“a dialogue with North Sea communities”

to develop a plan for making the best of this transition. I trust that in his closing remarks the Minister will tell us how that is going.

The chairman of GB Energy—perhaps the flagship project of this Government, with its headquarters in Aberdeen—described its work as “a very long-term project,” with the much-promised 1,000 new jobs taking perhaps 20 years to realise. Even then, it will be a mere drop in the North sea when it comes to replacing the jobs that will be lost in the years ahead. Unite’s Scottish secretary Derek Thomson recently said:

“If you look at how many jobs are going to go in the north-east, if GB Energy does not pick up the pace and start to move workers in there and start to create proper green jobs, then I’m afraid we could be looking at a desolation of the north-east.”

“Speeding ahead” is an interesting choice of words for the Secretary of State in this context, given that any decision on funding the Acorn project at St Fergus is now in a most uncertain position in the June spending review.

I have been asking about this since I was elected. The UK Government were able to find £22 billion for carbon capture schemes in Merseyside and Teesside last autumn, but they could not dig deep enough into their pockets for Scotland, which has much of the infrastructure already. I await June’s announcement with trepidation as speed and commitment to North sea communities in the north-east of Scotland have been thin on the ground so far from the UK Government. Will the Minister please give us a clue about the Government’s plans?

The Acorn project, the new power station at Peterhead and the investments in key strategic ports at Peterhead and Fraserburgh are key components of the just transition. A Robert Gordon University review of UK offshore energy workforce skills transferability showed that 90% of the oil and gas workforce have transferable skills to work in adjacent energy sectors. The just transition needs buy-in from the UK Government. It cannot be left to market forces, which are even more unpredictable in the current political climate, thanks to Trump and the ongoing energy crisis, and of course Putin too.

Households are facing a third rise in energy costs since Labour came to power. Indeed, the vast majority of the UK’s offshore wind capacity is owned by companies outside the UK. The typical North sea turbine contains more than three times as much material from abroad as it does from domestic manufacturers. The wider context is an energy market that is, paradoxically, working against both the interests of the consumer and the companies and investors who want to realise the green energy industrial revolution. If Members do not believe me, they should take a deep dive into zonal pricing.

The clean industry bonus, an extra revenue support in contracts for difference rounds, has the potential to bring quality jobs to the UK and in particular Scotland and the north-east of Scotland, but there is an absence of detail on whether specifics such as job quality will be a requirement for investors to receive financial support from the Government. Does the Minister acknowledge that private investment does not necessarily guarantee good, secure jobs? How will he ensure that the clean industry bonus delivers good-quality jobs in Scotland and supports workers currently reliant on the North sea oil and gas industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that it is a declining basin—everybody is aware of that—but we must be careful about the language we use about it. We should point out the positives that can be achieved through further investment and recognise the profits being realised by energy companies engaged primarily in the extraction and exploitation of oil and gas underneath the North sea. They will be investing in those new technologies, and they need to convince shareholders—who are deciding whether to invest in the middle east, south-east Asia, the United States of America or elsewhere in the globe—that the North sea is still an attractive place to invest.

The language that we use about that basin and the industry in the United Kingdom is incredibly important, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage with the industry and speak to individuals—as I have; I know that the Minister, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and others do too—because that is exactly what they tell us. They want to contribute to the transition—indeed, they lead it—but they want the negative atmosphere overshadowing the North sea to change. That means changing some of the rhetoric and language used to describe the industry, which is so important to the economy of the north-east of Scotland.

[Seamus Logan]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point about the choice of language, but will he confirm whether he and his party still believe in net zero and the drive towards achieving our climate targets?

[Andrew Bowie]

Yes, of course we believe in net zero, but not in setting arbitrary targets and dates that are unachievable without making this country poorer or more reliant on foreign imports for our energy supply. The fact is that imports of LNG have doubled just to keep the lights on as we actively accelerate the decline in our own North sea oil and gas industry. That is nonsensical—it is madness. It is an act of national self-harm. We should revert to our policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea while doing all we can to ensure that the companies involved invest in new technologies.