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 12 of 12.
“I had not got around to criticising the Labour Government—if hon. Members give me time, I will get there—but I gently point out that this concocted mess that the Labour party likes to trot out is as nothing compared with the economic situation that we had to deal with when we came into government, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, in 2010, which led to so many of the tough decisions that we took between 2010 and 2015. It is as a direct result of decisions taken in the recent Budget that we have seen growth falling, confidence slipping, investment drying up and, today, gilt yields rising to their highest level in more than 20 years. That is on the Labour party’s watch and has nothing to do with the Conservatives. We left it with the highest growth in the G7, inflation down to 2% and investment at record levels.”
“Connections from Scotland to England, and indeed across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, are integral to making the economic progress that we need, and that is the responsibility of the British Labour Government. Now is the time for action, not words. Scotland’s economy and communities desperately need that.”
“Of course we would welcome a reduction in accidents, but I have yet to see any evidence that that is a direct result of blanket 20 mph limits. Actually, by the way, I do not think the Labour party in Wales is still in favour of those; I believe that the new First Minister abandoned the blanket 20 mph policy. It is certainly something that would be greatly worrying were it rolled out across Scotland. Good connectivity and good transport connections are essential. The responsibility for connecting communities and creating opportunities within Scotland lies with the SNP. Our internal market is vital to the economic success of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom.”
“As the Secretary of State charges toward grid decarbonisation, it is imperative that we retain our capacity for gas generation and maintain the capacity market scheme to facilitate that, but due to the decisions made by the current Government it will be more expensive —one of the many pitfalls of their “renewables at any cost” approach. I am sure we will soon debate this at greater length and in greater detail; it is not for today’s Committee. We have no problem with the specific provisions of the draft regulations before us.”
“As the NESO report states: “Around 35 GW of unabated gas (broadly consistent with the size of the existing fleet) will need to remain on standby for security of supply. This requirement for gas capacity will remain throughout the early 2030s until larger levels of low carbon dispatchable power and other flexible sources are able to replace it.” Indeed, its “Clean Power 2030” plan sets out the intention to reform current market mechanisms such as the capacity market to “help enable the continued operation of unabated gas for security of supply.” This will, however, be more expensive due to the sporadic use of gas as a result of the dominance of renewables. The capacity market will provide income to combined cycle gas turbine plants, which will produce only 5% of overall generation, requiring much higher capacity prices.”
“In 2013, the Government identified that while introducing renewable energy sources into the energy mix, “The amount of gas capacity we will need to call on at times of peak demand will remain high, with potentially significant amounts of new gas generating capacity required by 2030.” That prediction rings true, and truer still when we acknowledge the intermittent nature of weather-dependent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. That is why in a speech made at Chatham House in March, the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), called for new unabated gas power plants, to make sure that we can keep the lights on when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Good morning and happy new year. It is good to be back in this Committee dealing with yet another piece of delegated legislation. The draft regulations make changes necessary for the operation of the capacity market outwith the EU and sensibly revokes the 10-year approval requirement. On that basis, I do not oppose it and we will not stand in the way of business today. The capacity market scheme was introduced in 2014, as part of the electricity market reform, to ensure security of electricity supply by providing payments for reliable sources of electricity generation capacity, or in some cases for reduced demand.”
“With the biggest ever tax increases in one Budget hitting Scotland—already the highest-taxed part of the UK—even harder, Labour’s tax-raising Budget is straight out of the SNP playbook, and sadly will hammer hard-working Scots. Let us take some of the decisions in turn. There was the decision to raise employer national insurance contributions, which, by the way, was a flagrant breach of the manifesto commitment not to do so. NICs have been raised by £25 billion, lowering the point at which contributions start. This Labour Government are hammering the worst off, those in part-time work and those starting out by hampering their ability to get or hold a job. Labour’s jobs tax will cost nearly £900 for the average Scottish job.”
“Member for Livingston has given us the opportunity to express the worry and the concern felt across Scotland as a result of the frankly disastrous Budget that the Labour party unveiled at the end of October, which has already seen business confidence plummet, inflation tick up and hard-fought-for growth stall—quite a feat. Members do not need to take it from me, though; they can take it from Scottish business organisations. The Scottish Hospitality Group called the Budget a “blow to businesses across the country.” The Scotch Whisky Association called it a “hammer blow” to the industry, Offshore Energies UK called it a “difficult day” for the oil and gas sector, and the National Farmers Union of Scotland said it will cause “huge difficulties” for family farms, all while the OBR forecasts lower growth for the UK as a whole.”
“It is a genuine pleasure, again, to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on bringing forward this debate, although, rather like the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), I was a little surprised that it was a Labour MP bringing forward a debate on the impact of the Budget on Scotland. As much as I would like to spend my time attacking the incompetence of the Scottish Government and their record, this is a debate on the UK Budget brought forward by the UK Government, so that is what I will focus on. I am grateful that the hon.”
“For family businesses such as Walker’s Shortbread, William Grant, Tunnock’s or GAP Group, the situation is compounded by the changes to business property relief brought in by the Government. In GAP’s case, that will mean that a company that employs 2,100 people and that already pays more than £50 million in taxes annually will have an additional tax bill of between £50 million and £100 million, simply for wanting to move the business to the next generation. As Douglas Anderson of GAP said to The Times yesterday, this is “a state penalty on family businesses.” It is simply unfair.”
“There are businesses across Scotland that are now seeking to lay people off, not employ new staff. In Aberdeenshire in the north-east, energy companies are seeking to lay off staff as a direct result of decisions taken by this Government. In fact, the negative impact of the Budget on growth and investment in Scotland will actually have a detrimental effect on all people in the workplace. So no, I do not agree that any of the decisions taken in the Budget will be to the benefit of hard-working Scots. In fact, I believe directly the opposite. This jobs tax—the increase in national insurance contributions —is an attack on our working people, our small businesses and our economy by this economically illiterate, as proven so far, Labour Government.”
“I read that a couple of seconds before I stood up to speak, and of course it is extremely worrying. The trajectory of the UK economy under this Labour Government should give us all cause for concern, which is why it is right that we are having this debate today. I am just surprised that it was secured by a Labour MP.”
“They are also intent on destroying one of our most successful industries, one which is integral to the economic success of north-east Scotland and on which so many thousands of jobs and indeed our energy security depend—our oil and gas sector. The decision to extend and increase the energy profits levy, to remove most of the investment allowances and to ban all further exploration is driving away investment and leaving us far more reliant on foreign imports. The evidence is there. Apache has already said that it is pulling out of the North sea and there were others to follow. Labour’s changes to the windfall tax will cost up to 35,000 jobs and £13 billion in economic value, and all so that it could splurge on eye-watering public sector pay rises to buy off its union paymasters, who supported Labour into Government.”
“The industry is already suffering from a decision to raise duty by 10% last year, which some of us protested about from within Government at the time, and which led to a reduction by £300 million in revenue for Treasury. The move by Labour increases the tax discrimination on spirits and undermines any claim that this Government can make about supporting brand Scotland. If this is how the Government treat Scotland’s national export, we really have some big questions to ask. This Labour Government are taxing entrepreneurship and penalising success. However, they are not content with hammering small businesses, our workers and our most successful food and drink export.”
“These socks were a Christmas present from my mother; I promised her that I would wear them at work and that is what I am doing today. They are very good socks, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the Chamber’s attention to them. As I was saying, that was Labour’s workers tax—their state penalty on family businesses—and its first attack on business. Let us turn to its second attack on successful Scottish industries, specifically the Scotch whisky industry. The week after Burns night, which is in a couple of weeks’ time, tax on spirits such as whisky will rise, and will continue to rise by a percentage higher than the consumer prices index.”
“I wish my friends in the Labour party well in trying to sell this Budget to the people of Scotland, who seem mightily unimpressed with the Government’s performance thus far.”
“The impact of Budget 2024 on Scotland is, in one word, disastrous. Our small and medium-sized businesses have been hammered by additional taxes; our family firms and family farms fear for their future; our whisky industry is punished yet again for its success; our oil and gas industry, and its workers, have been sacrificed on the altar of the eco-mania, or possibly the egomania, of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; our agricultural sector has been ignored; and our Union, frankly, has been undermined. Growth is falling, confidence is collapsing, uncertainty is rising and people in business are worse off. That is the impact of Budget 2024 in Scotland.”
“The vast majority of those farms are family-owned, but due to the changes in the agriculture and business property reliefs that I outlined when I described the situation facing family businesses, their future is incredibly uncertain. Many farmers have already come into my office and claimed that it is now simply too expensive and too difficult to countenance passing their farm on to the next generation. This Labour Government are overseeing the destruction of our family farms. Even worse than that, however, is that their naivety or their incompetence, or possibly a terrifying combination of both, has seen the Labour Government announce that the agricultural funding to Scotland will no longer be ringfenced, despite the specific and pointed ask of the NFUS during the election and in the run-up to the Budget.”
“The hon. Lady should tell that to the hard-working Scots who are being laid off in Aberdeen in north-east Scotland as a direct result of the decisions of this Labour Government, including their decision to extend the energy profits levy, ban new investment in the North sea and preclude new exploration. She should tell that to those hard-working Scots who are worried about what the decisions by this Government will mean for them and their families, and whether they will have a job in Aberdeen in north-east Scotland in the next few years. Those hard-working Scots look with terror at what this Government are bringing down the line. I have not even turned to farming yet. I am incredibly proud to represent some of the best farms producing the best berries, beef, lamb and crops in Scotland.”
“In the clean power 2030 document published last week, the Government state that they are “progressing the post-2030 generation interventions, with final decisions on Sizewell C and the Great British Nuclear-led Small Modular Reactor programme”, but no date is specified for the final investment decision on Sizewell, no date is specified for completion of the down-selection SMR process, there is no indication of a route to market for advanced modular or other technologies, and there is no mention of Wylfa at all. So is it any wonder that the nuclear industry holds a suspicion that this Government are not serious about nuclear, that the damascene conversion to nuclear power professed by the Secretary of State is a false one and that, for the Government, it is renewables at any cost and the exclusion of everything else?”
“It was us in government who bought the Wylfa and Oldbury sites from Hitachi last year, giving much-needed certainty to the workforce and local communities on both sites. It was on 22 May that we announced that Wylfa was our preferred location for a third gigawatt-scale reactor, again giving a boost to that community and the wider industry. I have three questions. Is it still the Government’s intention to reach 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050? Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that that is impossible without another gigawatt-scale reactor? If a third gigawatt-scale reaction is planned, will it be built at Wylfa and, if not, what is the future for the Wylfa site?”
“As it says in the explanatory memorandum, this is a devolved area—but decarbonisation is a UK-wide effort. We have no objection to the regulations, so I will draw my remarks to a close.”
“However, it is noted in the explanatory memorandum today that they are expected to have an economic impact on small and micro businesses affected by the change to the 300 MW threshold. We all want a future where small businesses can thrive—the Chancellor herself has said that growth is her No. 1 priority —so will the Minister provide more detail of what support might be made available to the small and micro businesses that feel this new burden on them as they seek to decarbonise along with the rest of the country? This instrument is a sensible move, although we worry and have some reservations about its impact on small and micro businesses, and would be keen to see more detail about what engagement the Department has had with the Scottish and Welsh Governments.”
“It also requires new combustion plants be built with regard to how they could be decarbonised in the future—for example, by converting to hydrogen firing or retrofit carbon capture technology, under environmental permitting regulations. As I said, we are very supportive of the regulations. In fact, I think we are all supportive of the growth of new technologies like carbon capture, usage and storage, and their potential to cut carbon emissions. For combustion plants, where it is economically and technically viable, the implementation of such technology should be considered. I note that no impact assessment has been produced as the regulations are not expected to impose significant costs to businesses.”
“It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, for yet another Delegated Legislation Committee; it seems like we spend every Tuesday morning in these Committee Rooms, doing yet another DL. I am pleased to be here. Indeed, the regulations are the result of a consultation that launched by the Conservatives when we were in government back in March. It was encouraging to see the response published in October and to see the regulations brought forward today. As the Minister has set out, the instrument introduces requirements for new combustion plants and for those being refurbished, including regulatory requirements for a new decarbonisation readiness report as a prerequisite for environmental permitting approval.”
“Given those responses, if not from retail, oil and gas, hospitality, food and drink or financial services, from which sector does he think this mythical growth will come?”
“The Secretary of State has said before and he has said again today that one of his top priorities for the Scotland Office is growth. To grow, the Government need confidence from business. Let us see how that is going: the verdict from Scottish business to his Government’s Budget is in. Offshore Energies UK said that “this is a difficult day for the sector.” The Scottish Hospitality Group has said: “Today’s announcements are a blow to businesses across the country”. The Scotch Whisky Association said that the increase in spirits duty is a “hammer blow”. The National Farmers Union Scotland has said that the decisions will cause “huge difficulties” and act as a barrier to those wanting to get into farming.”
“I would take the right hon. Gentleman’s responses more seriously if we did not all see, and indeed have just heard, how damaging his Government’s actions are for the Scottish economy—national insurance increases and punitive tax rises on our most successful industries, putting at risk the future of family farms and the rural economy. As Secretary of State, he would rather make performative gestures such as refusing to cross a picket line outside his Department than meet Scotland’s business leaders. As people, local authorities and businesses await the Scottish Government’s budget later today, does he agree that when it comes to economic incompetence, Scotland really does have, in his Government and in the proven ineptitude of the SNP, the very worst of all worlds?”
“May I echo the Minister’s words about her predecessor—and indeed my own predecessor as shadow Secretary of State—and the work that he has done? One of the last Government’s decisions of which I am most proud was the halving of air passenger duty, which led to cheaper flights and increased routes across the UK. However, with airlines already cutting back on routes as a result of this Government’s decision to hike APD, people who do not live within a few hours of London on the train, such as those in Aberdeen, face higher fares and fewer options for travel. How can the Government credibly claim to support better transport connectivity across the United Kingdom when those living outside the central belt—I know that Labour Members need to be reminded that it exists—are being punished?”
“It is clear that this rush for electricity decarbonisation by 2030 will see bills going up and up; the industry admits that. The signal to the market from the Secretary of State is “renewables at any price”—they will pay exorbitant amounts to create the capacity to achieve a hugely ambitious political target. We cannot be naive about the economic implications of that political choice. We do support the amendments. However, I would like to put on record our concern about the implication of the Government’s politically motivated rush to the 2030 target, which it seems the Secretary of State will pursue at any cost.”
“In the past, reasonable strike price mechanisms have enabled competition while encouraging new projects by providing certainty. However the new, ferociously ambitious targets will require a strike price which outstrips the reference price, meaning that the consumer is exposed to more of the burden. Industry knows that. The head of offshore development at RWE told a business conference that the “consumer risks losing out” under these plans. We must take very seriously his concerns that the rush to deliver by 2030 would “create short-term resource constraints, spikes in prices”, and that consumers will be the ones to bear the brunt. It is no wonder, therefore, that the Government have backed down from claims of saving households £300 on their energy bills.”
“However, we have concerns about the direction of travel of the new Secretary of State for Energy and indeed that of the new Government. Their target for CfDs requires an almost hell-for-leather approach for which we worry that consumers and billpayers will shoulder the burden. In the Secretary of State’s attempts to rush to 60 GW of offshore wind capacity, he would need to secure 28 GW in the next two allocation rounds. That is more than in the last six rounds combined. That will inevitably require ditching the competitive element of the allocation rounds entirely. We worry that that will push up the strike price. Even The Guardian does not think the Secretary of State’s plans are realistic, claiming that his target of having 60 GW of installed offshore wind capacity by 2030 is “still a long way from being credible”.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I welcome the amendments that this statutory instrument brings to contracts for difference regulations, extending the existing CfD to offshore wind and permitting repowering projects to apply for CfDs. Contracts for difference is a scheme that the official Opposition are immensely proud of—delivering 29.4 GW of power in six rounds of allocation since 2014. Indeed, it was the Conservative Government under Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton that introduced the scheme, to combine the power of competition with certainty for investors for the strike price, to keep prices low while driving forward low-carbon energy projects. We are also proud of the consistency and certainty brought by annual licensing rounds, which we approved last year.”
“They are not doing it because they are being anti-net zero, or because they do not agree the grid needs to be upgraded. They just know, due to their experience working in the industry, that there are other ways forward. It is for this reason, and the overwhelming desire on the Conservative side of the House to exhaust all the options in our pursuit to find the best technology at the best cost that would deliver our decarbonised grid—and not, as the National Energy System Operator report suggested, that we favour pace over perfection—and to do so in a way that does not blight so many communities and our great British countryside, that we committed in our manifesto to take a different approach.”
“In my West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine constituency, the energy industry is omnipresent. It is home to the subsea capital of Europe and on the edge of the oil and gas capital of Europe. Many of my constituents work, or have worked, in the energy industry. Many are involved in the design, construction or installation of underground or offshore pipelines for oil, gas or electric cables. If someone digs deep enough in my constituency, they will find national gas pipelines buried underground. The only indication of them being there are the little yellow marker signs on the surface warning people to beware and not to dig anywhere close. I say that because I stress that my constituents and so many others around the country who are raising this issue are not doing so because they are being needlessly obstructive.”
“I did not agree with all of them, but they were all very thought through. I know that everybody in this room, whatever their perspective on how we achieve a cleaner future, agrees that upgrading the grid is important. How we go about that is the issue concerning us today. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex eloquently highlighted the strength of feeling among communities across the country being asked to take on the burden of what is being proposed. I mentioned that we shared notes, and that is because my constituency, like that of my hon. Friend, faces the threat of huge energy infrastructure bills over the next few years. Communities fear the genuine threat of industrialisation sweeping rural landscapes and the impact on communities as a result.”
“I completely understand the unique complexities of decarbonising in a Northern Irish environment, and he is absolutely right that when the Government take decisions on UK-wide infrastructure projects, they should be cognisant of Northern Ireland’s unique situation, being in an all-Ireland grid and having so many off-grid properties. That should never be far from our minds. I thank the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer), the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), as ever, and the hon. Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) and for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for their contributions.”
“The hon. Gentleman knows well, I hope, that my commitment to our entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is just as firm as his, and when I speak about the UK, I reference Strangford and Northern Ireland more widely. The situation in Northern Ireland is unique in that the number of homes that are off-grid far outweighs the number of off-grid homes in mainland GB. That brings its own complexities with regard to decarbonisation, moving away from gas or oil, and boilers for heating and other such purposes.”
“If we get this right, work together, get to a solution where communities feel they have a stake in the energy transition, deliver the clean future and become energy independent, as I used to say when I was the Minister, that is a win, win, win—but we are a long way from that just yet. I mentioned community benefits briefly. In June 2023, I visited East Anglia to begin the consultation process on the community benefits package. On 7 December 2023, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined the framework of that package. I wonder whether the Minister present might be able to give us an update as to where the process is and where the Government have reached on community benefits—”
“I could not agree more. Indeed, I long for a day when we are much more energy independent. That is why I take such issue with Labour’s position on the North sea and the wilful destruction of our oil and gas industry, leaving us open to further outside influence and reliant on hostile states. That is one of the reasons why I think that we need to increase our energy security, and why I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to improve it. This is not about whether we do that; it is about how we go about it and about taking decisions now in the best long-term interests of people and of the energy security of this country. I do not believe that the way that the Government are proceeding at the minute is in the best long-term interests of the communities of this country.”
“Quite. Regardless of the technologies that are selected, of whether the pylons and associated infrastructure are built and of any right hon. or hon. Member’s view, communities out there want to know what the community benefits package and the trade-offs will be, and what they will receive as a result of having to host infrastructure in the national interest. An update on that would be delightful.”
“Whether we like it or not, a decision will be taken by the Government about the best way forward, which is why I asked about community benefits. The consultation that I mentioned a minute ago was focused specifically on the community benefits package, and I asked whether we might see more detail on it in the near future, and whether it might be statutory— I know that that was something being looked at by the Department, but it has been looking at it for some time.”
“I respect the hon. Lady’s position and welcome her intervention, but it would be reprehensible if hon. Members elected to this House to represent their communities did not do so. For her, it might just be a small number of people complaining about this, but for many Members of this House and representatives in other legislatures across the United Kingdom, huge numbers of people in communities that they represent are very concerned about the impacts that the plans will have on their landscape, their land, their house prices and so on. It is incumbent on us, as the elected representatives of those people, to bring those concerns to the House to debate and discuss, and for a decision then to be taken by the Government.”
“Please remember those people, consider other options, and listen to those communities. We can then bring the country together, and everybody can contribute to this transition, which we all agree needs to happen in the national interest.”
“No, I do not agree. Before I conclude, I will say this. Noticeable today and in discussions on this subject in the recent past, is a certain tone that is being adopted by some Labour Members. While we might disagree about the ways to reach net zero and to best upgrade the grid, there are people out there who are genuinely worried about what these plans might mean for them and their communities. I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to please engage in this debate with an element of respect for the views expressed on behalf of those people and communities up and down the country. I know that the Minister recognises this. Indeed, he has always engaged in this debate with due respect for those communities. There are people out there concerned about the way forward and the pace at which this change is coming.”
“But there is no proper detail about what would happen in the case of a divergence of views, or if the Scottish Government pursue an approach that is out of step with that preferred by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, following on from that point, we are yet to see a convincing plan that demonstrates how this extra layer will avoid added complexity in an area of planning and consenting that is already incredibly complicated and diverges hugely across the nations of the United Kingdom. For those reasons—and those reasons alone—and despite the overriding principle of devolving powers from the EU to the Scottish Government, we will abstain on this order.”
“First, on pylons and overhead lines, we are very concerned by the Energy Secretary’s approach to building pylons across the United Kingdom. I can certainly say that in my constituency and across rural Scotland there is anxiety that pylons will spoil the countryside, restrict agricultural land use and leave homeowners unable to move or secure a mortgage for houses beside planned infrastructure build. As we set out in our manifesto, our clear preference is for undergrounding, where it is cost competitive. We worry that this Government—and the Scottish Government—have an ingrained disposition against undergrounding. Secondly, under the plan set out in the order, Scottish Ministers would have to consult the Secretary of State before exercising the powers.”
“We will not oppose this measure on the basis that it is our longstanding position to support the giving of powers that existed prior to our departure from the EU, and we recognise that Scottish Ministers are not currently able to amend or replace the processes in the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, which underpin the regime for environmental assessments for electricity works, and which are devolved to the Scottish Government. The Minister rightly points out that this work was begun under the previous Government, but times change and it is with regret that we cannot actively support this draft order because we have real concerns about the direction of travel of the key underlying policy areas under the new Labour Government.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am not surprised in the least to see the level of attention this order has drawn from across the House—a full house to debate an incredibly important issue. As the Minister set out in his speech, the nub of this particular draft order is a plan to enable the exercise of concurrent powers in relation to assessing the environmental impact of and granting consent, or otherwise, for generating stations and overhead lines in Scotland, essentially devolving powers to make environmental outcomes report regulations in these areas to the Scottish Government.”