Andrew Bowie MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. We would back our world-class oil and gas industry by scrapping the ban on exporting technologies and welcoming the £5 billion of exports that that would create.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all the speakers and contributors to this afternoon’s debate. I especially thank and welcome the contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes); my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam); and the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan). He is not in his place just yet, but he mentioned the Dungeness nuclear power plant. I agree with him that the potential at that plant is huge for new nuclear, especially small modular reactors, and I can very much recommend the fish and chips—or fission chips—they sell at the Pilot Inn just outside the gates of that power plant, if anybody is looking to visit. I also pay tribute and welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who seemed to suggest that we are all here because of a lack of positive votes for any of us individually. I am not quite sure how that will go down at the next parliamentary Liberal Democrat party meeting, given that is what he thinks of his colleagues, but it was a very enjoyable contribution none the less. Across this House, we all recognise that we live in a turbulent world and that our energy security is being tested at every turn. Russia seeks to exploit vulnerabilities in our subsea infrastructure, Iran is weaponising the supply of oil and gas from the Gulf, and China is seeking to access our critical national infrastructure. It was therefore incredibly welcome to see that a Bill will be introduced to strengthen the United Kingdom’s energy security: an energy independence Bill. Finally, we thought, they get it. Finally, they have listened to the academics, the trade unions, Scottish Renewables, Tony Blair and Jürgen Maier. Finally, the Government are going to take the action necessary to secure our energy future, secure jobs and deliver much-needed revenue to His Majesty’s Treasury. Or so we thought. Sadly and predictably, the Government have not listened. They have not acted. In fact, they are doubling down: doubling down on making this country poorer, on making this country weaker, and on callously abandoning the high-skilled workers and people of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman, who represents a party that for the best part of 10 years had a presumption against oil and gas, for now seeking to be a champion for that industry. There was a global oil price crash in 2014. What did we do? We implemented a policy of maximum economic recovery. We cut taxes and stemmed job losses—the exact opposite of what this Labour Government are doing in the North sea, where they are accelerating the decline, making thousands of people redundant. It is frankly offensive to call the Bill that will be introduced the energy independence Bill. It is an energy dependence Bill, which will make us more dependent on foreign imports, more dependent on China and more dependent for gas on Norway, which drills it from the very same sea that this Government are banning Britain from exploiting. That is insanity. Once again, the Secretary of State has put his ideological fantasies before doing what is right for the people of this country. The only people who will be cheering this on are those in Moscow, Tehran and Beijing who, to be fair, will probably themselves be incredulous—unbelieving of their luck—that they have such useful idiots in the form of this Labour Government, cheered on by the SNP, with their decade-long presumption against oil and gas, and the Liberal Democrats, who have a different position depending on which part of the country they happen to be in at the time. All are choosing to make the UK poorer, colder and more vulnerable to outside influence. Let us be absolutely clear: the position of this Labour Government on oil and gas is downright dangerous. By proposing to legislate for a ban on all new licences, they might as well be hanging a “closed for business” sign over the North sea. I—and it is not just me—do not understand the logic of these actions. The Secretary of State, his Ministers and the current occupant of No. 10 repeatedly tell us that oil and gas will have a role in the UK for years to come. They are right: roughly 85% of homes in the UK rely on gas for heating and more than 90% of vehicles in the UK rely on fossil fuels, so this will not end overnight. All that this legislation will achieve is our increasing reliance on shipments from abroad, at higher cost, with higher emissions and with fewer jobs here in Britain. I—as well as the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), and others—come to this House time and again to highlight the damage that this Government’s approach is causing to communities in and around Aberdeen and north-east Scotland.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I could run through the list of what we achieved in office on nuclear, as the Minister has heard me do many times, but let me remind the hon. Member that the Labour party has never opened one nuclear power plant in all the years it has been in office —a record that will probably continue over the next three years. This act of national self-harm has to come to an end. There is only one party that has a plan to cut bills, support industry, protect jobs, and make Britain energy secure. Energy costs are stalling growth, deindustrialising the country and weighing down on families and businesses.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend puts it better than I ever could. She is absolutely right; it is completely nonsensical. In Aberdeen there will be a referendum on this Government’s approach to the North sea in just a few short weeks. On 18 June, the people of what was until recently the oil capital of Europe will have their say on how they feel this Government have treated them and the industry of which they are so proud. It is not just the production of oil and gas that is being driven to extinction by this Government’s policies. Nor is it just Aberdeen that is being affected by the Government’s anti-growth, anti-business policies: Lindsey, Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Denby, Pembrokeshire, glassworks and metalworks, potteries, refineries and chemical plants—heavy industry is being crushed by the cost of energy. Yet rather than trying to prevent that, this Labour Government are interested only in accelerating the industry’s decline. The Government’s headlong rush to renewables may be well intentioned, but it is utterly bereft of common sense. This Labour Government are rushing towards a power system that depends on the weather rather than firm, reliable baseloads, exposing us to blackouts, just like the one we saw on the Iberian peninsula last year. Avoiding such blackouts and providing that energy baseload is exactly why the roll-out of new nuclear is an absolute priority. I am pleased that there is consensus on this and that the Government recognise the important role of nuclear in our future energy mix. That said, and as I have said before in this House, sadly this Government’s ambition for nuclear pales in comparison to that of ours when we were in government. This Government’s failure to commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor in Ynys Môn is a huge disappointment, not just for us on the Conservative Benches but for industry and the people in Ynys Môn too. The roll-out of small modular reactors is good, yes, but it curtails the possibility of gigawatt-scale power at Ynys Môn. A cynic might suggest that the decision was made to rush out the announcement in some desperate and hasty attempt to salvage the Welsh Labour party. Well, it is safe to say that that failed. Back to ambition, the decommissioning of the UK’s stockpile of petroleum, the selection of only one small modular technology, and the refusal to follow our ambition of 24 GW of new nuclear is just not good enough.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. That is why Britain needs a serious plan to cut bills. With the Conservatives’ cheap power plan, that is exactly what Britain would get: a £200 cut to energy bills. It could be delivered right now if this Government prioritised the people of this country rather than wacky, unrealistic ideology. But we would not stop there; we would go much further and much faster. To make this country energy-secure, to protect British jobs, grow tax revenue and welcome billions of pounds of investment, we would tell the world that the North sea is open for business. Our “Get Britain Drilling” Bill would end Labour’s ban on new licences to unlock the gargantuan supply of opportunity that lies beneath our seas.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, I will not. The North Sea Transition Authority would be rechristened the North Sea Authority and tasked with one noble mission: to maximise North sea oil and gas drilling and raise billions of pounds more in tax cuts for the British people. The Conservatives would scrap the energy profits levy—the anvil around the neck of the industry—which Labour extended and increased as one of their first acts in government. A profitable, attractive and investible North sea would strengthen public services and our energy security and grow our economy, making Britain a stronger country. If hon. Members agree with that, if they agree with us that a brighter, more secure and more prosperous future is possible if we fight for it, I urge them to vote for our amendment tonight.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are exporting emissions and exporting jobs, and that is having a detrimental impact on our economy and communities up and down this United Kingdom, not least in north-east Scotland. I see that every time I go home. One thousand jobs will be lost every month under this Labour Government, and we will lose out on £50 billion of investment. Pubs, restaurants and shops are closing up in the granite city under this Labour Government. The impact is being felt across the country—it is true—but it is in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland that the pain is most acute.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Energy Prices · Hansard source

  More

  The Conservatives are clear that we need to get Britain drilling and unlock the potential of the North sea, cutting bills, saving Scottish jobs and making us more energy secure. Apparently, the Secretary of State for Scotland is running the election campaign for the leader of the Scottish Labour party, so he presumably agrees with the leader, who said, “The balanced approach that we need to take is supporting our oil and gas sector.” That also presumably means that the Secretary of State disagrees with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Prime Minister. Who is right: the Prime Minister or the leader of the Scottish Labour party? It cannot be both.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  In a long litany of failures, surely the most egregious of all that the Scottish National party has inflicted on Scotland is the lack of any discernible growth whatsoever. Indeed, had Scotland’s economy grown at the same rate as the rest of the UK’s from 2010, Scotland could be up to £10 billion a year richer. At the same time, its benefits bill is set to soar to £9 billion by 2030. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that Scotland needs change?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more, but change will not come from a weak and feeble Labour party that over the last five years has nodded through and supported every single one of the SNP’s mad-cap schemes, including, though Labour Members will not admit it now, the dangerous gender recognition reforms stopped by us. The SNP has failed Scotland and Scotland now has the worst of both worlds: two economically illiterate socialist Governments engaged in a staggeringly depressing game of Top Trumps in a desperate race to the bottom. National insurance, the family farm tax, the North sea, business rates—Labour and the SNP are strangling economic growth in Scotland.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Middle East Conflict: Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  This is extraordinary—mad, even. No other country on Earth would deprive itself of the vast natural resource we are lucky enough to have at our disposal underneath the North sea. The Jackdaw field alone could provide 250 million barrels of oil equivalent in natural gas to the UK, and it could be up and running by Christmas, but because of the Secretary of State it is stuck in limbo. It is utter insanity. His inaction is an act of national economic self-harm. When will he make a decision and act in the national interest?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Middle East Conflict: Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. “In the face of further geopolitical turmoil, now is the time to alter our approach to energy… Drilling in the North Sea and scrapping carbon taxes on British manufacturing would kickstart economic growth, tackle unemployment…as well as prevent further deindustrialisation.” Does the Secretary of State agree with those comments from the Labour Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell)?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I am equally a fan of the hon. Member’s work, but I would like to make this very clear: it is not that we would have joined the war ongoing in the middle east; it is that we would not have left British bases and British assets undefended in the way that this Government shamefully did by removing assets from the region when we knew very well what was coming round the corner. One thousand high-skilled, high-paid jobs are being lost every single month, and this is personal. I have the immense privilege of living in and representing the north-east of Scotland. To me, these jobs are not figures on a spreadsheet, as they are to Labour MPs. They are my constituents, neighbours, friends and family. The callousness and disregard with which the Labour party is treating that region and these people at the minute will not be forgotten. The Labour party refuses to acknowledge it, but it is real and it is happening—and at frightening speed. People are, right now, having to make a terrible choice: either they hang around in the north-east of Scotland awaiting the long-promised yet never-delivered renewable jobs boom, which always seems to be just around the corner and which pays far less, or they leave their homes, communities and families and move overseas. Many, indeed most, are choosing the latter. They are leaving the country altogether, taking their families and, crucially, their skills out of the United Kingdom to countries that have Governments who are awake to the reality and who support their domestic oil and gas industries—to places like Houston, Riyadh, Calgary or Stavanger. In Stavanger they are drilling right now in the very same sea that we could be drilling in, only to sell it back to us. It is utterly perverse. Workers in Aberdeen are going to any country with an oil and gas industry in which the eco-extremism that the Secretary of State is so enthralled by is not found in government. That, by the way, is every other country in the world where there is a domestic oil and gas industry. It used to be said that in every country in the world where there is oil and gas, you can find an Aberdonian accent. It turns out that soon, the only place where you will not be able to find an Aberdonian oil worker is, in fact, Aberdeen. There has been a steady beat of job losses every single month since Labour entered government—from BP, Hunting, Harbour Energy, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, and Ithaca Energy. Labour MPs talk about what we did in government, but during the 2014-15 energy price shock, when jobs were sadly lost in the north-east of Scotland, we commissioned Ian Wood to produce a review into the future of the North sea. We implemented a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea. We reduced taxes on our domestic oil and gas industry, and we stabilised the workforce in our last six years. During our time in government, we made the North sea the most investable basin in the world. What are the Labour Government doing? The exact opposite. They are seeing job losses and investment turn away. They are surrendering this country to the whims of dictators overseas. I could go on about the job losses. All the companies I mentioned have had operations in this country for many years, and when they are not cutting jobs they are consolidating their operations. I therefore welcome the recent intervention from the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) in calling for an end to the Government’s war on the North sea. We can add his name to the ever growing list of people and organisations calling on the Government to change course: the GMB, Unite, Tony Blair, Octopus’s Greg Jackson, Great British Energy’s own Juergen Maier, who was appointed by the Secretary of State, and RenewableUK. Why are all those people wrong and only the Secretary of State right?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  There is some confusion about current SNP policy on oil and gas. Is it, or is it not, still SNP policy to be against new oil and gas in the North sea?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I will not because of time. Notably, that list does not include one Scottish Labour MP. Indeed, some Scottish Labour MPs are actively campaigning to stop any production at all, with two of their number signing a letter asking the Secretary of State to block the Rosebank oilfield. For a moment, let us entertain the idea that clean power 2030 is not ridiculous and utterly undeliverable. Who does the Minister think will deliver it? The people with the skills needed for floating offshore wind are leaving in their thousands, and the assets to deploy those new technologies are moving overseas. Who does the Minister think will invest in the transition? The Port of Aberdeen has recently invested in a new harbour to accommodate the long-promised boom in floating offshore wind, but there are no new turbines going out to sea today, the quayside has no blades waiting and the port is laying off staff because 60% of its revenue still comes from oil and gas; only 1% comes from renewables. We could change course. I hope that Labour Members who represent Scottish constituents have paid close attention, and I hope they have thought about whose side they are on. Labour MPs have an opportunity to join us in the voting Lobby and demonstrate clearly whose side they are on. Are they on the side of British workers, our industry, our security and our economic success, or are they on the side of an increasingly isolated Secretary of State? The Government could decide to vote to end the ban on new licences and unlock the 2.9 billion barrels of opportunity that lie below the sea. They could vote to scrap the energy profits levy and vote to approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields immediately, but it is clear that they will not. As ever, there is only one party with a plan to get Britain drilling again, to make Britain secure, to cut bills and to deliver a stronger economy and a stronger country. That is, and always will be, the Conservative and Unionist party.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  We welcomed investment from around the world, but, obviously, we divested ourselves of any Russian investment in the North sea as soon as we could after Putin’s actions in Ukraine, as I am sure the hon. Member would have expected us to do as a responsible Government. On days like this we have to wonder whose side this Government are on, because unlike the Conservative Government, who acted in the national interest, they are not on the side of Britain or of the British people. We have witnessed for four years now how Putin’s armies have weaponised energy not only to starve the people of Ukraine, but to weaken our continent. The Energy Secretary, if he were here, would tell us that that proves why we should double down on his plans to ditch oil and gas, except even under his ridiculously ambitious and unrealistic plans, Great Britain would still need gas to meet around 50% of its energy demand. The National Energy System Operator has highlighted that gas will be the UK’s energy of last resort for the next 10 to 20 years, and that we will require a diverse and resilient supply. But Labour MPs—the enablers of this absurdity—would rather see us reliant on others for gas, such as Qatar or Norway, than on our own British industry. They would rather we get gas from other countries at a higher cost and with 15 times the emissions of our own supply, leaving us more exposed to price spikes. To be absolutely clear, 100% of all British North sea gas goes directly into the British gas grid. I do wonder if Labour Members understand this, so let me explain: by choosing to use less from British waters, we have to import more and we become more insecure as a country. The real human tragedy at the centre of this blatant disregard for our national interest is playing out on rigs, in offices and in homes across the north-east of Scotland right now, and it is happening thanks to the Labour party, enabled by the Liberal Democrats. While we are talking about the Liberal Democrats, we heard today from their spokeswoman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), that they do not support any new oil and gas licences. I think she might want to explain that to their candidate for the upcoming parliamentary election in Shetland, who warned of the impact if the Clair oilfield was not expanded, or their candidate for North East Scotland who said: “We are going to need oil and gas for the foreseeable future and it is better to support production here than rely on imports of LNG from abroad which are more polluting.” Which is it? What is the Liberal Democrats’ plan, and why do they always say one thing in this place and another thing everywhere else? Once again, we cannot trust a word that the Liberal Democrats say, but they are enabling the Labour party and choosing to see 1,000 jobs lost in the North sea every single month.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Let me start by agreeing with fellow Aberdonian the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) in paying tribute to all the energy workers, who, over decades, have worked in incredibly dangerous conditions. Some gave their lives to ensuring that the lights stayed on and industry continued to function in this country. Many of them came from my constituency. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for his outstanding contribution. He brought to the House’s attention the dependence of so many industries in this country to gas, and the de-industrialisation that we are seeing across so many aspects of our industry right now. With war raging in the middle east and in Europe, Labour is a party being held captive by extremists who refuse to act in our national interest, who are content to see jobs lost in their thousands and who will not take advantage of our greatest asset lying untapped and unexplored under our own waters.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Draft Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely right.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Draft Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The regulations set out provisions for the continuation of the warm home discount scheme—fine. Last winter, 10 million British pensioners lost out on their winter fuel allowance as a direct result of decisions taken by this Labour Government. The only reason that number is not higher is that, as is now customary for this Government, they U-turned. The Government did so after pressure from the Conservative party and the general public, who made it clear in no uncertain terms that they were furious with the original decision to strip the payment from millions more. However, that U-turn came too late for many as over winter 2024-25 many pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating. The original decision was not only unnecessary but not mentioned once by the Labour party during the general election campaign—and Labour Members have the gall to say that they worry about the cost of heating. However, let us not forget the promise that was made during the general election—to reduce household energy bills by £300 per year. As it stands, those bills are £73 higher than when the Secretary of State took office after that election. The Labour party and the Government were warned multiple times by industry, academia, trade unions and us that the course they were charting would deliver not cheaper but dearer energy bills for British families and businesses. Energy generation in Great Britain is already some of the cleanest but, crucially, it is also the most expensive in the western world. The problem is that instead of taking unnecessary cost out of the system and making electricity cheap at source, the Government continue to pile cost after cost on to people’s bills, largely to pay for the Secretary of State’s net zero targets and his drive towards clean power 2030. Then they raise tax on everyone to cover the cost. That is exactly what the regulations do. The warm home discount is not paid for by energy suppliers or with free money; it is paid by everyone—all our constituents—through an extra tax on their energy bills. Rather than cutting bills for everyone, as our cheap power plan would do, the Government are raising bills for everyone through higher taxes only to give a small proportion of households on benefits a discount. Our cheap power plan would cut everyone’s electricity bills by 20% immediately. We will not seek to divide the Committee, and will not stand in the way of the regulations moving forward, but we believe that the Government must take the steps necessary to meaningfully bring bills down, and not push them up further.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement, although I really have to take issue with the Prime Minister’s earlier comments, taking credit for Ofgem’s decision to lower the energy price cap. That decision was taken not by the Government, but by Ofgem using a Conservative mechanism, and it was in fact taken weeks before the current crisis began. But why let the facts get in the way of this Government’s spin? I am glad to see that the Government have today taken steps to support those households across Great Britain and Northern Ireland that rely on heating oil—steps that those of us on this side of the House called for when prices began to rise weeks ago. Those households are, as the Minister has highlighted, acutely exposed to price shocks, and the stories we have heard from consumers across the country are very concerning indeed. Just this morning, I heard from a constituent who faces a lump sum bill of over £1,000. These consumers are often served by a single local supplier, meaning that there is no realistic competition. Let us be under no illusions: this announcement has come about only after the pressure put on the Government by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) called for these actions almost two weeks ago. Like everything with this Government, they end up doing the right thing only after weeks of dither, delay and inaction—but today’s announcement will be welcome news for rural households, and nowhere is that more apparent than in Northern Ireland, where over 60% of homes rely on oil for heat. Although I welcome the announcement, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarification. First, can he explain what, if any, support will be made available to those who heat their homes with liquid petroleum gas? Furthermore, it appears that the allocation of funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is to go directly to the devolved Administrations and not directly to local authorities. Considering that the Minister represents a Scottish constituency, he understands just as well as I that handing over a cheque to the Scottish Government does not guarantee that money will be spent where it was intended to be spent. Can he therefore outline how this Government will ensure that those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get the support they need, and that this funding is not siphoned off for other priorities determined by devolved Ministers? Why was this money not awarded directly to local authorities in those nations as it is being delivered across England? It is also my understanding that this funding is inclusive of Barnett consequentials. Could the Minister confirm whether that is the case? If it is, will he confirm that Scotland is being short-changed due to the higher proportion of households on heating oil than the Barnett formula would account for? The Government could go further and heed our calls to deliver a 20% cut to everyone’s energy bills—and I mean everyone’s—through the Conservative’s cheap power plan by axing the carbon tax and the rip-off wind subsidies now. That cut would be worth around £165 to the average family. The Government should also bring about another one of their famed U-turns and cancel their planned fuel duty rise later this year—a rise that will add £156 to struggling families’ bills, because Labour’s plans always lead to more costs for families and businesses. Let us take today’s announcement as an example. We cannot ignore that this support will be funded through Labour’s tax rises on working people. Why? Because this Government have made a choice—a political choice—to shut down the North sea and forgo £25 billion of tax receipts that an attractive, investable and successful North sea oil and gas industry would, and still could, provide. Backing the UK’s oil and gas industry is about driving the economic growth that we so desperately need, which in turn would deliver greater tax receipts than the current regime. It is about becoming more energy secure. One hundred per cent of all the gas produced in the British North sea is used in the British gas grid. The less we use from British waters, the more we have to import—at a higher cost and with a bigger carbon footprint—from Qatar, the USA and Norway, which continue to explore in the same sea in which we are prevented from exploring. Backing the UK’s oil and gas industry would support a vitally important skilled workforce—a workforce that right now is packing up and going overseas. What will it take for this Government to change course—revenue, investment, job security? What is it that this Government do not get? Just today, the CEO of RenewableUK joined the chorus of voices calling for an overhaul of this disastrous act of economic self-harm being inflicted by this Labour Government. We read in The Times at the weekend that we are currently led by the “least intellectually curious” Prime Minister of all time, so it is no surprise that the Secretary of State has been given free rein to inflict his myopic vision of a future— [ Interruption. ] Those are not my words; they are the words of people in the Cabinet today! Surely at this time of such global instability, the case for a thriving oil and gas industry is clearer than ever. We welcome the action announced today on heating oil, but there are serious questions—not just from me but from the industry, the renewables sector, the trade unions, and, frankly, everyone other than those sitting on the Labour Benches—over wider Government energy policy that need to be answered, and answered soon.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  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?