Andrew Bowie
MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The ongoing events in the middle east have rightly brought the state of Britain’s energy security back to the forefront. We are witnessing growing geopolitical instability, and it is having, and will continue to have, a direct impact on our energy security, supplies and, of course, bills.”
“We do not know when the pipeline will once again be operational, and as we have already heard, Saudi oil stocks for export could be depleted within days. With the safety of navigation through the strait of Hormuz remaining uncertain, the continued squeeze on energy supplies will only become tighter.”
“We are talking today about national security, and the Government are putting party before country. Great Britain has become increasingly and dangerously over-reliant on supplies of oil from overseas.”
“I do not think the Conservative party will take any lectures from Labour on records in the north-east of Scotland, given the result in Aberdeen South only a few months ago, but I would like to thank the Minister for warmly welcoming me to my new position.”
“I have a simple question for the Minister: will the Government finally approve Rosebank and Jackdaw—something we already did in government—or will they continue the previous Secretary of State’s campaign against Britain’s North sea oil and gas industry?”
“Where does the Minister want the energy that we need to come from if the Government do not get on and approve Rosebank and Jackdaw? The question today is a simple one, but the answer could be transformative—for the North sea industry, for the north-east of Scotland and for the United Kingdom’s economic and energy security.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Andrew Bowie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“I welcome the Secretary of State’s reassurance on the constitution. The people of Scotland do not want another divisive, distracting and damaging referendum on ripping our country apart. That said, this Labour Government do have a bit of a habit of changing position on certain issues, with 25 U-turns in only two years. So can I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that, whatever else changes and whoever holds the keys to Dover House this time next week—and even if it is the one and only thing they stick to—there will be no referendum and no consideration of one? Will the Government dismiss out of hand immediately any move towards breaking up of our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?”
“Famously, we have not heard very much from the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) on his plans for government, although we do know that he seems to be a fan of devolution and its job-creating opportunities—for him. Well, I can tell colleagues from experience: devolution ain’t everything it’s cracked up to be. In Scotland, we have had 20 years of SNP mismanagement, and a pervasive and deeply damaging devolve-and-forget mentality in London. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Labour will not be devolving any more power to Edinburgh?”
“We have demonstrated that we are unafraid to step in and act when decisions taken by the Scottish Government are to the detriment of Scots and Scotland—for example, in the case of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill a few years ago. Will the Secretary of State commit today to urging the new Prime Minister to think long and hard about how devolution in the hands of the SNP is failing Scotland and Scotland’s economy, and examine how, on this Government’s watch, SNP Ministers have been able to jet around the world on taxpayer jollies, allow British civil servants to draw up plans to tear Britain apart, and spend countless hundreds of thousands pursuing a narrow, divisive agenda that is focused on pulling Scotland apart rather than growing it together?”
“Will the Minister reconsider the attitude to new nuclear and signify to the industry that Great Britain is ambitious when it comes to gigawatt-scale generation? Will he commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor on the completion of Sizewell C later in the next decade?”
“Given the importance of nuclear power to our energy security and stability, we absolutely welcome those limited measures to keep reliable power on the grid, but the Minister will have noted our serious concerns about the contracts for difference scheme—a fixed price, long-term, inflation-linked mechanism that locks consumers into higher prices for longer. We have already seen that in the eyewatering prices offered to offshore wind, in particular in allocation round 7. This amendment to the eligibility criteria facilitates future awards to nuclear generators, which is fine, but it does not oblige a CfD to be awarded to an individual plant. How can the Minister assure us that steps will be taken to keep costs as low as possible, and that we will not be locked into high prices just to keep these plants online?”
“Our ambition was to generate 25% of British electricity, 24 GW, from nuclear by 2050, but that has been overshadowed by the current Department’s obsession with renewables over everything else. The Government know that nuclear generation is the right thing to do. I know the Minister knows this too, so why will they not give a commitment to new, large-scale nuclear in this country? The Conservatives have set out a clear plan for cheap energy in which new nuclear is a vital component. We would make it easier and cheaper to build new nuclear, removing habitat regulations and prohibitive environmental impact assessments. What is Labour’s ambition for nuclear?”
“That is welcome, but as our nuclear fleet ages, it will be necessary to extend the lifespan of existing nuclear power by considerably more. The stable baseload and clean power are essential to our energy mix, and we support extensions to keep this reliable generation on our system. The Department’s note on this instrument acknowledges that the existing nuclear fleet provides “a significant proportion of firm, low-carbon electricity generation, contributing to energy security and system resilience”. I could not agree more, which is why as the nuclear Minister in the last Conservative Government, I announced our intention to build a new nuclear power station at Wylfa—a project which this Government have effectively cancelled; in addition, their lack of commitment to new gigawatt-scale nuclear is disappointing.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart, and not for the first time. It brings me back to those happy, heady days of the Scottish Affairs Committee 2021-22, when it was a joy to serve under your chairmanship. Using the powers designated under the Energy Act 2013 to amend the contracts for difference regulations, as the Minister eloquently set out, this instrument brings lifespan extension for nuclear power generators into scope for contracts for difference. Last year, France approved extending the lifespan of 20 nuclear reactors to 50 years. The UK, by contrast, extended the lifespans of advanced gas-cooled reactors Heysham 1 and Hartlepool until 2028, and Heysham 2 and Torness to 2030.”
“Thirty-eight years ago yesterday, 167 men lost their lives off the coast of Aberdeen on board the Piper Alpha rig. The friends and families of those men still mourn their loss, many of them in my constituency. That is a reminder of the danger in which so many still put themselves to ensure that energy flows to our homes and businesses around the UK. This may be a first, but I welcome the Department’s work in exploring the possibility of new nuclear in Scotland. The majority of Scots support it, but because of the Luddite SNP’s ideological opposition to new jobs and investment, they will not benefit from it. What is the Department doing to ensure that no part of Great Britain is left behind as the rest of the UK leads the world into this new golden age of nuclear?”
“So for once we agree—and, by the way, my colleagues and I also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Fingleton review. However, it is sad that Labour’s ambition pales in comparison to ours when we were in government and committed ourselves to building a new gigawatt-scale reactor at Wylfa and generating 25% of British electricity from nuclear. From Labour, we have a third large-scale plant cancelled and no ambition for a quarter of our electricity to come from nuclear power. Will the Minister update us on the progress of delivering on Fingleton, and will he now revive our commitment to an ambitious British nuclear future?”
“It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Ms McVey. As the Minister has eloquently set out, the draft regulations seek to increase the fees associated with a number of assessment requirements for the licensing of offshore activity, such as conservation of habitats assessments and offshore safety directives, and they are eminently sensible.”
“Two weeks ago, the Aberdeen South by-election—a referendum on our oil and gas industry that I will not stop talking about—saw the north-east of Scotland return a decisive verdict. Will the Government listen?”
“There is a first time for everything. I do not seek to stand in the way of these regulations, but I will raise the inherent irony illustrated here of a Government who have made clear their intention not to issue new licences for exploration yet are seeking to increase the costs associated with environmental impact assessments and other regulatory requirements. I hope it indicates the beginning of a change of course for the Government, but I fear that will not be the case. We can but hope. This Government have decided time and again to move against our domestic energy industry, choosing to run down our North sea ecosystem rather than nurture the skills base and support the industry.”
“Given the bombshell news the hon. Gentleman has just delivered to the Chamber—that we have a new energy strategy from the Scottish Government—when will that be published?”
“It is people in Na h-Eileanan an Iar and across the United Kingdom that the hon. Lady will need and want to build more quickly.”
“She is a passionate advocate for what she believes, and she is right to stand up in this House and make those arguments about the UK contributing to the battle against climate change, but when she describes those of us who care passionately about the existing oil and gas industry as climate deniers, she is somewhat insulting the thousands of people in my constituency, and constituencies across the country, who rely on that industry for their income and have the very skills that will be relied upon by those developing the technologies of the future. It is supply chain industries based in Westhill, Portlethen, Banchory and Blackburn in my constituency, and in places around the country, including the north-east of England, that will develop the offshore wind or floating solar technologies of the future, or whatever it might be.”
“Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for adding their voices to this debate. It was interesting that three of the four Labour Members spoke in favour of a change of policy on oil and gas. Although I have a lot of time and respect for the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow—indeed, I like her—I disagree considerably with her.”
“Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) secured an incredible majority in his constituency last week, in a referendum on the future of our oil and gas industry that was won by those of us who support its continuance, by those of us who support the jobs being maintained in this country, that city and that region, and by a real champion for that part of the world. I am sure that his voice, heard already in this Chamber this morning, will be heard loud and clear over the next few months and years as he continues to champion that great city and that great industry. I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), and the hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—sorry, I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas)—for securing this important and timely debate, although I think his call for personal ambition to be left aside at this time is a faint hope. Given what is happening on the Government Benches, this is surely a time for personal ambition to come to the fore, and I am sure we will see a lot more of it in the next few weeks. In that regard, I take this opportunity to welcome the newest Conservative party Member of Parliament to this House. My hon.”
“Do not legislate to ban licences. Give the people of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland, and all who work in the oil and gas industry, hope for the future that the Government understand, are listening, recognise and will invest in that industry.””
“That is why those workers are taking the difficult decision to uproot their families, leave the communities where they have lived all their lives and go overseas, taking with them those vital skills needed by the technologies of the future and leaving the economy of the north-east of Scotland and the United Kingdom weaker as a result. We need to see a change of policy; surely the result last week in Aberdeen South demonstrated that. People are fed up and want change. Yes, they agree they want to get to net zero—overwhelmingly, people believe that we must tackle climate change—but this Government’s callous disregard for the industry and its workers speaks volumes about where their priorities lie. If last week did not demonstrate that, I do not know what will. I say to the Minister, “Please, please scrap the energy profits levy.”
“That is symbolic of this Government’s approach to our energy industry, oil and gas industry, the city of Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland and those who worked proudly in the North sea, but are now looking overseas. As much as the Government like to say that they will increase funding and expand the transition fund, those workers are skilled workers; some of them have spent decades honing their skills in a specific, global industry, an industry that, in every country bar this one, is booming. Those skills are in high demand in the middle east, Australia, the Gulf of America—or Gulf of Mexico; take your pick—South America and Canada; basically, in every country with an oil and gas industry that does not have the current UK Energy Secretary in charge of energy policy.”
“The Port of Aberdeen, which invested millions of pounds in developing South harbour to take advantage of what it expected to be the boom in floating offshore wind less than 10 years ago, is laying off workers because the boom has not arrived. Some 63% of the harbour’s profit is generated from the oil and gas sector, and less than 2% from renewables. The decline in oil and gas is being driven too fast, and the uptick in renewables is not there. It is a cruel irony that we are having this debate at the very moment that Swire House, a multimillion-pound global energy headquarters building, which opened a decade ago to great fanfare in the city of Aberdeen, is being demolished.”
“People do not get why the Government say on one hand that they are passionately committed to tackling global climate change and want to be global leaders in ensuring that this world is a safer place for our children, and yet on the other hand are seemingly blind to the increased emissions produced by importing more of the oil and gas that we will need over the next 30 to 40 years from places such as Qatar and the USA. They do not get why the Government are seemingly treating workers in Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland, Fife, the Northern Isles, Na h-Eileanan an Iar and the north-east of England—everywhere that has been mentioned—with callous disregard, given that there is no transition evident. There is a slow-down in the deployment of renewables, which is being driven by the accelerated decline in the oil and gas industry.”
“My constituents, and people across Scotland and the United Kingdom, just do not understand why the Government, at this time of constraint on our economy, are voluntarily giving up a potential £13 billion of additional revenue over the next decade. They do not understand why the Government insist—and, indeed, are about to legislate—on a ban on new licences in the North sea while increasing imports from Norway, which has just issued more licences in its sector of the North sea, adding to the burden on climate change and undermining our economy, with British jobs lost in the process.”
“Absolutely—I could not agree more. We do need to bring communities with us. While I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove for securing the debate, I find it increasingly frustrating that we have to return to this House and platforms across the UK to make the same arguments. One of my constituents said just the other week, “It is like banging your head against a brick wall.” None of us understands what this Government need to see or hear from experts, trade unions, former leaders of the Labour party, leaders of Scottish Renewables and RenewableUK or the chairman of Great British Energy, which this Government established less than two years ago, who are all clamouring for a change of position on the UK’s oil and gas sector.”
“I join the Secretary State in wishing Steve Clarke and the Scotland team all the best in the upcoming world cup. I look forward to them bringing football home to Scotland on 19 July. It might be obvious to most why the SNP might want to distract people from the news at the minute, but it does not excuse it wasting more of Scottish taxpayers’ money pushing its divisive separation agenda, which the majority of Scots do not want. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will recognise the wishes of the majority of Scots and say no to another needless referendum, and does he agree that the SNP should get on with the day job?”
“The list grows longer every week: BP, Hunting, Harbour, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, Ithaca, Xodus and EnerMech have all announced redundancies in Scotland’s oil and gas industry. For some unfathomable reason, this Labour Government seem to think that everything is fine, but is it not the truth that they are carrying out the wilful destruction of this country’s domestic oil and gas industry, sacrificing thousands of jobs and making the country poorer and less secure?”
“It is clear that Labour Members just do not get it—or worse, they just do not care. A week tomorrow, there will be a referendum on our oil and gas industry in Aberdeen, and the choice could not be clearer. Only one party is standing up for the granite city, for Scotland’s energy industry and for Britain’s energy security, and that is the Conservative and Unionist Party. The Secretary of State must agree that in Aberdeen next week the choice will be clear: vote to get Britain drilling with the Conservatives, or vote for decline and job losses with Labour or the SNP.”
“I have never seen such a measure in an amendment or a Bill before the House in the nine years that I have been here. It seems a remarkable paragraph. It is very strange to time limit the measures to the time in office of those two individuals. If the Minister could explain why that is the case, I would be very grateful—it is a genuine question on my part. If the Minister is keen to see households relieved of the burden imposed by the renewables obligation, will the Government adopt our cheap power plan and scrap the subsidy altogether? And might I ask the Minister when we will see the elusive £300 off all our bills?”
“A month ago, the Government adopted our policy to remove one of the carbon taxes on electricity generation—the carbon price support. While the Labour Government transfer renewables subsidies on to taxation, the Conservative party has set out our cheap power plan to reduce the cost of energy and bring down bills by £200. Before moving to my questions on that point, I want to follow up on the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. Why is it that, as laid out in the explanatory notes: “Schedule 5 to the EPA sets out the time periods in which certain powers under that Act are exercisable” and that these powers will “cease to be exercisable after a period of 26 months during which both the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland held office (currently 3 April 2026)”?”
“As a result of that transfer, from April, only 25% of the renewables obligation cost is being recovered from consumers—but moving costs from energy bills to tax bills is a sleight of hand. Let us also not forget the recipients of this taxpayer money: those extraordinary subsidies now flowing from households are giving wind farm owners three times the market price for their electrons. The Secretary of State’s auction process has locked this country, including Northern Ireland, into paying extortionate prices for wind power for the next 20 years—an extraordinary cost—and it is taxpayers who are now footing that bill. The Minister espouses a commitment to lowering household energy bills, as per the Government’s manifesto pledge to reduce bills by £300, yet we have seen bills go up since they took office.”
“It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Alec. The regulations, as already mentioned, extend the period for the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy to exercise existing powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022 from 26 months to six years. In itself, that is not controversial; no new powers are created through this instrument and we do not intend to obstruct its passing today. The Minister has explained the reasoning for the extension: to empower the Northern Ireland Executive to parallel the British Government’s autumn Budget commitments. The Minister referred to the transfer of 75% of the renewables obligation scheme costs attributable to domestic energy supply, which will instead be funded through general taxation.”
“The truth is there is no just transition. Everybody can see that except for the Government Front Bench. I spoke to a woman in Aberdeen just yesterday, born and raised in that city and raising her family there. She had worked in oil and gas and, actually, was proud to be playing her part in developing the energy technologies of the future. She was a lifelong Labour voter—no longer, because she has now been made redundant. Like so many others in that city, she is now looking overseas because of this Government. What does the Minister have to say to Aberdonians like her?”
“We have been over this before: BP, Hunting, Harbour, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, Ithaca Energy and, just this morning, Xodus Group are all laying people off. Xodus specifically blamed the slowdown in the roll-out of renewables due to the decline in oil and gas in the North sea. The former Health Secretary the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), Tony Blair, academics, Scottish Renewables, the chair of GB Energy and apparently quite a number of the Cabinet agree with us on the Opposition side of the House and with the public that we must keep drilling in the North sea while we have a demand and while it is there. When will the Government listen to everyone else, end this ideological obsession, overturn this and get Britain drilling?”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to make a statement regarding the Government’s decision to issue general trade licences for sanctioned processed oil products prohibited under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.”
“We are seeing 1,000 job losses in oil and gas in the UK every single month, and losing out on £25 billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years, which we could be investing in our public services. Just yesterday I pointed out that Moscow would be celebrating the useful idiots opposite and today the Government have proved my point. According to the Government website, where the announcement was made yesterday, the Secretary of State has “the power to vary, revoke or suspend this licence at any time”, so will he reconsider the decision? Why does the Minister believe that increased reliance on foreign imports improves British energy security? What alternatives did the Government consider? And who on earth is in charge of our energy security? Is it the Energy Secretary, the Prime Minister, or Vladimir Putin?”
“At the exact same time that this Government have rolled back on their commitments to Ukraine and given the green light to purchase Russian oil from third countries, they were whipping their MPs to vote to shut down our own oil and gas production. It is an absolute disgrace. They should all be utterly ashamed of themselves. What message does this send to the international community, to the people of Ukraine, and to workers in our North sea oil and gas industry, which is being crushed by the misguided eco-zealotry of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero? We are not only rewarding the thuggish and criminal behaviour of the Russian state, but punishing ourselves and the skilled workforce in the United Kingdom. Who loses out while we signal to Russia that we are willing once again to buy its oil? It is the British people.”
“In their 18th packet of sanctions in January this year, His Majesty’s Government prohibited the import of Russian petroleum products produced in third countries from Russian oil, obliging importers to provide proof of the origin of oil used in petroleum product production. Yet yesterday evening at 7 pm, while we in this very Chamber were debating the future of our own North sea oil and gas industry and Labour MPs were being whipped to vote against new oil and gas licences in the North sea, the Government slipped out an announcement that the general trade licence for sanctioned processed oil products now permits certain activities prohibited under the Russian sanctions regulations 2019, such as the import of diesel and jet fuel to the UK.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”