Andrew Bowie MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jul 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the closure of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Green Industries: Supply Chain Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  The British oil and gas industry is a resilient sector—it has had to be, given this Government’s actions over the past year—and it takes a lot to shock it, but shocked it was when, on 2 July, sadly the Energy Minister claimed to the Scottish Affairs Committee that there was no “material difference” between oil and gas imports and production from the North sea. Might the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise and clarify those remarks, because thousands of workers in the energy industry supply chain in Aberdeen and across the UK are very worried that the Department has such scant regard for them, their work and this world-leading industry?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Green Industries: Supply Chain Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will not apologise. That is absolutely fine. The industry already knows that this is a Government who want nothing to do with it, and who take every opportunity to talk it down and make every effort to shut it down. In that same session last week, the Minister who is sitting to the Secretary of State’s left also claimed that “much of the gas that is extracted from the North sea is exported”. That is simply not true: 100% of all the gas extracted from the North sea is used in Britain. The Secretary of State knows that, so why is he so determined to talk down this industry, spout falsehoods and myths, drive investment out of the UK, rely more on imports and, crucially, cost people’s jobs and drive the skills we need out of this country? That is exactly what he and his colleagues are doing.

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  It is a rare pleasure to see the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today, given that he turned down the opportunity to defend his plan for clean power by 2030 or the report from the National Energy System Operator that was published earlier in the year. Perhaps that is why we are being given a slightly longer statement than usual, making up for missed opportunities. However, we welcome the Met Office’s report, which makes for interesting reading. I think we can all attest to the fact that Britain today is warmer than it was before. We all agree that the challenge of the changing climate is vast, and it is one of many challenges facing the United Kingdom today, but I must tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that ridiculous statements such as that made this morning by the Environment Secretary, labelling opponents of net zero “unpatriotic”, is as offensive as it is risible, and does nothing to advance the cause. I must also express my growing sense of unease, and that of many others, about the language emanating from those surrounding this Secretary of State, accusing anyone who dares to question the policies or plans being worked on by his Department of being “deniers” or being supportive of an “end to our British way of life”. We need to bring back a sense of rationality, or proportion, to this debate, because out there, language such as this is alienating more and more people from the important cause of ensuring that the planet we pass on to our children and their children is in a better state than the one we have inherited. The Secretary of State calls this “radical truth telling”, but I am afraid that he is not being honest with the British people about the impact of the Government’s plans on the climate, bills and jobs, or about the sacrifices it demands. The Leader of the Opposition has been very clear: chasing “Net Zero by 2050” is unachievable without making the country worse off. That is the truth. Global warming is a global issue, which we cannot face alone. The global climate challenge will not be solved by the UK alone, and it cannot be solved on the backs of British workers or British bill payers.

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree, Mr Speaker, and I apologise if I insinuated the opposite in any way. The UK accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. That is also the truth. In fact, now that I come to think of it, it is rather shameful that the Secretary of State should be using this report from the Met Office as cover, while ratcheting up the language and increasing the shrill criticism of all who question the Department and its policies, all to distract from the fact that the plans mean that Britain will be poorer and that no one looking at how we are decarbonising could ever claim that this is a model to follow. We are proud to have been a world leader—

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  Members do not give way when making or responding to a statement. We are proud to have been a world leader, but it is not a race if no one else is running. If we are leading the way, we need to make sure that it is a path that others will follow. We must decarbonise in a way that creates energy security and prosperity, rather than forcing industry abroad and impoverishing British people. Why is that so hard for the Labour party to understand? We see in the Met Office’s report that the demand for cooling has approximately doubled—a strong case for introducing more air conditioning into homes, which would improve comfort and reduce the burden on the health system during heatwaves. Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to expand the boiler upgrade scheme to include air-to-air heat pumps, which, as he says, offer cooling as well as heating, may I urge him to speak to the Mayor of London and get the ridiculous restrictions on air conditioning units in newbuilds in London removed? We must move away from this poverty mindset on reducing energy usage. Paying for solar panels to be switched off, while refusing to absorb the excess demand to cool homes, is truly ridiculous. It is time to take the global scale and nature of this challenge seriously. Offshoring manufacturing, like ceramics, does not solve global warming, but it does make Britain poorer and Brits unemployed. To build this Government’s 1.5 million new homes, we will use more bricks that at any time since the second world war, but thanks to this Government, fewer than ever before will be made here in Britain. While the Secretary of State admired the fast-paced build out of new renewable generation, new nuclear and low-carbon energy on an unseen scale on his recent visit to the People’s Republic of China, perhaps he was able to reflect on the factors enabling that: the opening of two new coal-fired power stations every week, and the cost of industrial energy in China being less than a third of our domestic cost. We cannot innovate, manufacture, and create growth and prosperity while our energy costs are killing manufacturing. I am afraid that this Government’s plans will drive up the underlying cost of energy for industry, and Britain will pay the price. Only a year ago, Labour candidates were trotting out lines on how they would cut bills by £300. Since then, network charges, which account for 22% of an energy bill, have risen by over £100 as a result of the rush to build out the grid for new renewables. Cornwall Insights, an independent energy analyst, has called for the Secretary of State to be “transparent about what the money is being spent on”. Its principal consultant has urged the Secretary of State to be honest with the public about the impact of net zero policy costs on bills. Of course, a clean, secure and reliable power source exists in the form of nuclear. We welcome the announcements of the commitment to Sizewell C and the small modular reactor programme, but the lack of ambition, the refusal to commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor—preferably on Anglesey—the decision to decommission the UK’s stockpile of plutonium, the selection of only one small modular reactor technology, and the refusal to repeat the 24 GW ambition that we set out for the nuclear industry are frustrating. We could do so much more. Will the Secretary of State commit to protecting Wylfa for a new gigawatt-scale reactor in the future? It is indeed time for a policy of radical honesty. Global warming is a global challenge, and I am afraid the Secretary of State’s plans will have a negligible, or even negative, impact on global emissions. Sadly, he is driven by ideology, not by the practicalities of facing this challenge while growing the economy. We are telling the difficult truths; the Government are running from reality.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to be in the august company of the double award-winning Minister—the Scottish MP of the year, as of yesterday evening. The competition was very stiff. The capacity market scheme was introduced in 2014 as part of the electricity market reforms to ensure security of electricity supply by providing payments for reliable sources of dispatchable generation or, in some cases, demand reduction. As we saw in January, a renewables-dominated system increases the need for capacity market generation. The system, which is designed to insure the market during periods of electricity system shortage and stress, is increasingly significant and increasingly costly as intermittency increases. These regulations will allow unabated gas generators to exit their capacity market obligations without penalty for the purpose of retrofitting carbon capture, usage and storage and transferring to a dispatchable power agreement outside of the capacity market. The rationale for this is to allow generators to convert unabated gas to power with CCUS in order to decarbonise the UK’s electricity generation. So far, so good. We support that ambition in principle, as we believe in a cleaner energy system. However, we also believe in delivering an energy system that is secure and affordable, on which we have some concerns. Namely, how will this impact energy bills? The regulations intend to allow unabated gas generators to transfer from existing capacity market agreements to a contract for difference mechanism to power CCUS, thereby entering a dispatchable power agreement. If dispatchable power agreement contracts are more expensive than the average cost of electricity, higher prices will be locked in, and the cost of this mechanism will necessarily filter through to billpayers. Energy bills are composed of wholesale costs, network charges, contracts for difference subsidies, balancing costs such as curtailment payments, and capacity market payments. Under the Government’s clean power 2030 plan, those costs are all set to rise. Bills will go up. This week, Ofgem announced a £24 billion investment in the electricity and gas grid, including a 2,700-mile pylon expansion, necessitated by, in Ofgem’s words, the need to “handle the flow of electricity from new renewable sources.” Onshore wind and solar panels need an expensive expansion of our infrastructure due to their dispersed locations, costing billpayers money. This is not cheap, and it will not bring bills down. Contracts for difference payments are set to rise, while developers still await news of the administrative strike price for the next allocation round. We know that a high reserve price will drive up consumer bills. With increasing onshore and offshore wind bringing higher levels of intermittency into our systems, curtailment payments are set to increase, at least in the medium term. Last year, billpayers spent £1 billion balancing the grid by turning wind turbines off at times of over-generation, and now we have these capacity market changes. The increase in intermittent renewables on stream in the UK must be shored up by increasing capacity market payments. Unfortunately, this Government continually prioritise climate targets over secure and affordable energy, and billpayers are paying the price. Can the Minister please tell us what impact the Government’s clean power 2030 payments will have on capacity market payments? Are the Government still committed to reducing energy bills by £300, and will the Minister reiterate that commitment? There is no costing associated with these regulations or with clean power 2030 overall, as that would prove that the Secretary of State’s commitment to the unachievable targets he has set himself is pushing bills up. I do not wish to stand in the way of these regulations. However, I must put on record our deep concerns about the impact of clean power 2030 and all these changes on consumer bills and the UK’s overall energy resilience.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Supporting Scottish Agriculture · Hansard source

  More

  This weekend, I was at the Fettercairn show in my constituency, and I note that the Secretary of State was at the royal highland show in Edinburgh two weeks ago. With new research showing that more than 16,000 jobs are expected to be lost as a direct result of Labour’s family farm tax, what message did the Secretary of State and the Minister have for the farmers they met at the royal highland show about the Government’s plans to kill family farms in Scotland? Judging by the comments made to me this weekend, the fear, anger and disgust at how this Government have treated the agricultural sector and rural Scotland very much remain.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Industrial Strategy: Impact on Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Last Sunday, 6 July, marked 37 years since the Piper Alpha disaster, an incident that claimed the lives of 165 men and affected many more, particularly in and around the north-east of Scotland. We remember them, their families and friends, and indeed all those who continue to do the dangerous work offshore in our oil and gas industry, ensuring that the lights stay on in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House when the industrial strategy will replace the tens of thousands of jobs that are set to be lost in the North sea on his watch?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Industrial Strategy: Impact on Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  We are very proud of our record on supporting the oil and gas industry. Talk about the Government having their heads in the sand: 400 jobs will be lost in the North sea every two weeks on the Secretary of State’s watch. That is a Grangemouth-sized event every two weeks. The only strategy that this Government have is a deindustrialisation strategy. There is an industry with a skilled workforce that is ready and willing to generate energy, revenue and jobs in Scotland, so come on, Secretary of State, let us have a real industrialisation strategy. Remove the energy profits levy, overturn the ban on licences, and let us return to a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Not being one to break consensus often, I am delighted to remind hon. Members of the value and importance of our oil and gas industry to communities in north-east Scotland such as my own, to the Exchequer, and to the United Kingdom’s energy security. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on so eloquently outlining the case for the petition, and the 110,000 people who signed it on enabling it to be debated this afternoon. They make a very strong case for changing the advertising regulations as they pertain to fossil fuel companies, due to the impact of burning fossil fuels on climate change. The reasons they give are twofold: because oil and gas are damaging for the environment, and to set an example to the rest of the world. We know that burning fossil fuels emits carbon, which is leading to global warming. That is not up for debate, but if people think that shutting down the UK’s oil and gas industry or stopping it from advertising what it is doing will mean less carbon in the atmosphere, I am afraid they are sorely mistaken. First, we will need oil and gas for decades to come. Even the Climate Change Committee knows that oil and gas will remain integral to the United Kingdom’s energy mix, with fossil fuels predicted still to account for 23% of energy demand by 2050, and that is assuming we meet our climate obligations. Secondly, more carbon is emitted if liquefied natural gas is shipped in from abroad, as is happening increasingly, having been drilled or fracked in Venezuela, the USA or even Norway. Although we all accept that the use of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming, shutting down our domestic production to resolve that, or stopping companies from advertising and telling the world what they are doing, is clearly illogical, as is taxing our domestic industry into extinction, refusing new exploration licences and damaging competitiveness through advertising bans. In fact, all those things would increase global emissions. I turn to the argument about setting an example. The rhetoric of leading by example, being world leaders and winning the race on climate change is commonplace, and we are setting the pace. We slashed emissions by more than 50% compared with our 1992 levels, and we did so while the Conservatives were in government and faster than any other G7 nation, but we must look at what is happening now. The deindustrialisation of massive areas of the United Kingdom—Grangemouth, for example—has resulted in a hostile environment and sky-high green levies. The message is quite clear: do not follow where we tread. Other countries will look to the UK as an obvious example of how not to do it, because we have in no way demonstrated how to develop a sustainable energy future without undermining our industrial base or economy. That is making Britain poorer. A ban on fossil fuel advertising would be counter-productive, because unlike previous bans on tobacco or junk food advertising referenced this afternoon, banning fossil fuel advertising will not reduce demand. The UK will continue to rely on oil and gas over the coming decades. Our oil and gas industry is not antithetical to our climate commitments; it underpins them. Without gas for energy, the lights in this country would go off and industry in this country would shut up shop. Without refined oil, we would have no medicines, bike tyres, phones, plastics, wind turbines, oil to lubricate the wind turbines, solar panels or batteries for the electric cars that the Government are urging people to buy.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Lady is patient, I will come to that—I seem to have some two and a half hours to make my remarks. I will get to the point on advertising, but my point stands: without fossil fuels, we would have none of the above. Let us look at China. It is often condemned for opening a new coal-fired power station every two weeks, but in the very next breath it is applauded for record investment in green technologies. The two are inextricably linked. Cheap, abundant energy is the only way to achieve innovation, a strong domestic manufacturing base, and industrial competitiveness. If we want the UK to drive the clean technologies of the future, we must bring down the cost of energy in the short term. The technologies and the skilled workers in the supply chain are the very technologies and the very people in the very companies—working in oil and gas right now—that are developing the cleaner energy future that we all want. Even if we drive the industry out of the UK entirely or prevent it from advertising in the UK, it will still do so. It will just do it from the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Australia, south-east Asia, South America, Mexico, the USA, Canada, Norway—in fact, anywhere that is still investing in its domestic oil and gas industry. We rely on the oil and gas industry every single day, so a ban on fossil fuel advertisements would not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Instead it would simply be a further signal that the UK’s energy industry is closed for business. This is personal to me, to my constituents and to the region that I have had the privilege to represent in this place for the last eight years. I saw when I was growing up, and I still see today, the immense contribution that the energy sector makes to communities and to economies. I see the value added by those high wage jobs that support families and communities. I know the individuals who make a positive contribution to the lives of their families, their home towns and our nation every day. Without them and their hard work, the lights would literally go out in this country. That is especially important as yesterday we marked 37 years since the Piper Alpha disaster, when 165 men lost their lives in the North sea while ensuring that energy still flowed into our nation. We remember the sacrifice that these individuals still make for us. The Government’s harmful policies regarding the oil and gas sector, including the ban on new licences, are already causing the contraction of businesses. The Just Transition Commission has forecast that up to 120,000 jobs in the energy sector could be lost by 2030. We absolutely need to continue developing the cleaner energy mix of the future by investing in new nuclear, carbon capture and storage, and the rest. Renowned oil and gas companies have siphoned millions of pounds of investment into offshore wind and clean power generation, and we should allow them to tell the world about that. If we are serious about reducing our carbon emissions, we must be serious about supporting the very companies with the expertise, infrastructure and capital to deliver that. The energy transition will be achieved not by demonising the oil and gas sector, but by working with it. These companies are not just part of the problem; they are essential to the solution. Equinor, Ørsted and Vattenfall are leading examples of how legacy fossil fuel firms can pivot towards clean energy—

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  No, obviously that would not be fair, but as has already been pointed out, the Advertising Standards Authority has demonstrated that it possesses both the mandate and the mechanisms to hold companies to account for misleading environmental claims, and as yet it has found none to be in breach. It is important that those companies, which require the underlying profit from their traditional exploration and drilling work to support their investment in the clean technologies of the future, are allowed to tell the country and the world about that. We should be immensely proud that we have not only a world-leading oil and gas sector—the cleanest basin from which to extract oil and gas in the world right now—but one that spends billions on developing the clean technologies of the future and attracts international companies to the United Kingdom to do the same. If the issue is the accuracy of advertising, we should have confidence in the existing regulatory framework, which has proven capable of intervening where necessary. A blanket ban is neither proportionate nor necessary when robust oversight is already in place. I am afraid that the ban advocated by the petition may be purely ideological. It would damage investor confidence and be counterproductive in reducing carbon emissions. I am proud that BP, Shell, Total, Equinor and the rest invest in music, art, culture, education and sport across the UK—and let us look at what happens when they do not. Baillie Gifford, a global investment management firm that invests in some of Scotland and the UK’s biggest companies, which just happen to be oil and gas companies, was sadly forced, under pressure from environmental activists, to withdraw support for the Edinburgh international book festival. Who has had to step up at the last minute to plug the gap? It is the Scottish Government—the taxpayer—to the tune of £300,000 this year alone, at a time of tightening budgets, fiscal constraints and a difficult financial outlook for the country. When there was money already available, that is utter madness. The oil and gas industry, which is based in and around Aberdeen but has a presence across our entire island nation, is a national asset. We should be championing it and the people who work in it, not demonising them. We should be proud when we see the names of successful British companies supporting British artists, musicians and sportspeople, and when we see them investing in communities, schools and our country. We should absolutely allow them to tell the world of the globally significant investment that they are making in the clean technologies of the future, and we should not have any truck with this petition.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely will. In fact, Mr Twigg, you have pre-empted exactly where I was going in my speech. Such investments are not token gestures— [Interruption.] Exactly. They are strategic investments that will shape the future of energy. Domestic supply chains, from engineering specialists to subsea infrastructure manufacturers, and from power cable component suppliers to logistics and offshore support companies, will support the transition. Again, we should allow them to tell people in this country about their work.