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 9 of 12.
“Last month, with surprisingly little fanfare from the Department or the Secretary of State, the Climate Change Committee published carbon budget 7. Among the more eyewatering recommendations was the figure put on the cost of meeting the obligations: £319 billion over the next 15 years. Frontloading that will be a net cost to industry every year until 2050. Is that exorbitant cost the reason that he cancelled his Department’s review, commissioned by his predecessor, into the whole-systems cost of net zero?”
“The right hon. Gentleman might be content with signing our energy sovereignty over to the People’s Republic of China, and he might be happy with his Government’s arbitrary targets and bans, pushing bills up and leaving us more reliant on importing and costing jobs, but we think it is time for a new approach, as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, focused on security and cost to the consumer, not pie-in-the-sky targets with no plan to reach them. Will he recommission the review into the whole-systems cost? If not, what is he trying to hide?”
“Will the industry receive an answer on the uncertainty surrounding the calculation of scope 3 emissions and environmental impact assessments? Given the announcement of £200 million to support the 400 workers affected by the closure of Grangemouth, how much does the Minister think the Treasury might need to find to support the 200,000 workers currently supported by the oil and gas industry? Does she agree with the Climate Change Committee that we will need oil and gas until at least 2050, and has she accounted for the higher carbon emissions associated with importing liquefied natural gas instead? Finally, let me ask whether she still sees the Department as a sponsor and a champion for the industry—because the industry certainly does not trust that to be the case.”
“This Government are a complete joke, overseeing the wilful deindustrialisation of our nation. If the Minister will not take my word for it, perhaps she will take the word of the GMB leader, who said: “In the new geopolitical reality—it’s madness. If the North Sea is being prematurely closed down and we are increasing import dependence—that’s bad for jobs, economic growth and national security.” Or perhaps she will take the word of the general secretary of Unite, who said: “we need to resist any calls that amount to offshoring our carbon responsibilities for the sake of virtue signalling.” May I ask the Minister whether she has personally met any oil and gas workers since taking office, in order to understand what her Government’s policy means for them and their families, and whether the Secretary of State has done so?”
“It may be “Drill, baby, drill” in the United States, but it is “Dole, baby, dole” under Labour in the United Kingdom. The Government’s decisions will cost our economy some £12 billion in lost tax revenue to the Treasury, on top of the £12 billion in lost capital investment. This makes a complete mockery of their claim to be anything like pro-growth. It is insanity to be doing all this to our own industry while becoming increasingly reliant on imports from abroad and causing more carbon to be released into the atmosphere: more imports of liquefied natural gas, fracked in the USA, frozen and then shipped across the Atlantic on diesel-chugging ships; or more imports from Norway, a net exporter, which is drilling from the very same sea from which we could drill ourselves. It is completely nonsensical.”
“People are leaving in their droves for other countries, such as the USA, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Norway, where the industry does have a future. She says we owe it to the North sea’s workers and communities to come up with a proper plan for their future, but this Government’s plan for the North sea is simply to shut it down. This Government’s plan is a betrayal of those workers. This Government’s plan will devastate the communities of the north-east of Scotland. It is said that in every oil-producing country in the world you will find an Aberdonian. It turns out that the only country in which you will not find an Aberdonian working in oil in the near future is Scotland, driven by this mad rush to clean power 2030 and the Government’s obsession with renewables at the expense of everything and everyone else.”
“The consultation, announced yesterday, was trumpeted by Government spinners as the beginning of the end of the energy profits levy and a brave new dawn for the North sea. It is complete and utter rubbish. It is a total joke. The energy profits levy is higher now than it was before, because of the decisions of this Labour Government. The investment allowances have almost all been scrapped by this Labour Government. Crucially, the windfall tax is now in place for far longer—until 2030—because of this Labour Government. That is five years away, but the oil and gas industry does not have five years. Investment is drying up, and work is being put on pause. Companies are literally shutting up shop. The truth is that the high-paid, good, long-term jobs that the Minister speaks of do not yet exist in renewables in the north-east of Scotland.”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Another day, another demonstration of this Government’s total ignorance of our oil and gas industry and the north-east of Scotland, their incompetence on the economy and their disregard for the hundreds of thousands of workers in our North sea, as well as their dangerous ineptitude when it comes to our energy security. No other country in the world, especially at a time of heightened global instability and volatility, would actively choose to aggressively and at pace shut down its domestic oil and gas industry, but that is exactly what this Government and in particular this Department, led by the eco-warrior in chief, are doing.”
“As a direct result of the eco-zealotry emanating from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the increase in the energy profits levy, the ban on new licences and the refusal even to defend the issuing of licences to Rosebank and Jackdaw, there will be a reduction in the total economic value of the oil and gas sector of £13 billion over the next four years, with 35,000 direct jobs at risk. Can the Secretary of State tell the House, as Scotland’s man in the Cabinet—the man on whom we all rely to make Scotland’s case and to act in Scotland’s interests—whether he has made any overtures to his beleaguered colleague at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, or indeed to the Treasury, to stop this madness?”
“I add my congratulations to those of many others on the birth of the Secretary of State’s child recently. I read with some interest that the leader of the Scottish Labour party is considering publishing a league table to rank the performance of his Scottish Labour MPs. I will not ask the Secretary of State to say where he thinks he may sit in that table, but I will ask about jobs and the economy, specifically in relation to the energy industry.”
“As my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) says, there is nothing wrong with Sunday leagues. Just as the Secretary of State and Scottish Labour were silent on gender recognition, and just as he and Scottish Labour are silent on taxing family businesses and farms out of existence, he and Scottish Labour are silent on the loss of an entire industry and its workforce, which will decimate the north-east of Scotland and impact the entire UK economy. If he and his Scottish Labour colleagues are not standing up for Scotland’s interests, Scottish workers and Scottish industry, can he tell me just what is the point of Scottish Labour?”
“The Secretary of State said that the questions just asked were similar. Well, we did not get an answer on either of our two attempts, so I might try on farming. Scotland’s beef sector is at the heart of Scottish agriculture, with 80% of the country’s agricultural land grazing land, yet domestic beef production levels are set to reduce by 5%, with a 12% increase in imports expected to meet our forecasted demand. It is clear that this Government’s tax changes could not come at a worse time for Scotland’s farmers. Will the Minister please stand up for Scotland’s farmers and make the case to stop this madness?”
“It only remains for me, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, to wish the new Lord High Commissioner well in her role; to thank the outgoing Moderator of the Church, Dr Shaw Paterson, for his service over this year; to wish the Moderator Designate, Rev. Rosemary Frew, well as she takes up the role; and to wish all those attending the upcoming General Assembly wisdom and patience as they deliberate on matters that mean so much to the national life of Scotland.”
“What we are doing today will baffle most of those watching our proceedings, not least those who do not know that there are two established Churches in the United Kingdom, but it is important, and it has the official Opposition’s full support. It is a significant gesture of good will and unity between two of Scotland’s largest Churches, and builds on the St Margaret declaration of friendship between the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland in 2022. It is yet another display of fantastic British pragmatism, and the sensibleness that has underpinned how Churches and the state have interacted over centuries.”
“That was followed by it officially approving those marriages, and it allowed ministers to conduct them in 2022. Whether it is through traditional church services, outreach in communities across Scotland and Europe, the Guild, CrossReach, or missionary work across the world, the Church of Scotland continues to touch and guide our national life in many ways. Religion in Britain is a funny thing. On the one hand, we famously “don’t do God.” On the other, we have prayers before every meeting of our national Parliament. On the one hand, unlike other countries, we treat our religion as private. On the other, bishops of one of our established Churches sit in one of our legislatures, and our Head of State is the supreme governor of one of our two established Churches.”
“The decline in numbers entering the ministry and the reduction in footfall in church buildings across the country have led to difficult—at times, heartbreaking—decisions being taken to sell buildings and reduce the Church estate. Yet there are huge positives as well. In recent decades, we have seen the Kirk move with the people of Scotland and modernise. It allowed women to be ordained back in 1968, some 24 years before the Church of England did likewise, and that led to huge growth in the number of women in leadership roles in the Church. The Church has had multiple female Moderators of the General Assembly, the first being Alison Elliot in 2004. In 2015, the Church allowed congregations to appoint ministers who were in same-sex marriages or civil partnerships.”
“So many people had so much interaction with the Church, but Scotland has changed, and in many ways for the better. In many ways, however, the changes in Scotland have presented challenges for the Church. Church membership, which was just shy of 1 million when I was born, sits now at just over 200,000. The General Assembly, which for many years sat as the one national forum in Scotland at which issues of importance to people across Scotland could be aired in public and debated, was covered as a sitting of a Parliament would be. Since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, it has not engaged the same media interest as it did in the years preceding 1999.”
“The songs still sung at certain football grounds between fans of certain rival teams speak to a more difficult time in the history of Scotland and indeed the Churches in Scotland—one that, sadly, has not totally been consigned to the history books. Scottish public life was until incredibly recently dominated by the Kirk. Its General Assembly was covered in the same way as the sitting of a Scottish Parliament—at that point not in existence—would have been. Its membership when I was born in the mid-1980s sat at around 1 million people, and its presence touched the lives of a great many more. It had daily five-minute slots on Scottish television, with “Late Call” being parodied so well by the late great Rikki Fulton, as well as the Boys’ Brigade and the Women’s Guild.”
“I wonder if the Scotland of my grandfathers’ time—both of whom were born in Glasgow in the 1920s and both of whom went on to be Kirk elders—would have been as relaxed about such an appointment. Bear in mind that the Church of Scotland was formed out of the blood and fire of the Scottish reformation, with John Knox in his revolutionary zeal creating the only truly national Calvinist church. It dominated public life for centuries: for better, especially in the realm of public education; and for worse, given that for too long it excluded all other forms of Christianity and adherence to anything but the Kirk’s form of Christianity from most positions of influence in public life in Scotland.”
“When we think about it, however, it remains quite incredible that a practising Roman Catholic will represent our Protestant monarch, whose very first act as King, in accordance with the Act of Succession, was to take an oath to “inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled ‘An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government’”. Rightly, no questions will be asked about her appointment. There may in fact be some who question the appointment, but I think it speaks well to us as a nation—our two nations—that we are so relaxed about such an appointment today. It speaks to just how much Scotland has changed.”
“However, I think we would all agree that it was carried out with ease by the late Queen Elizabeth, who demonstrated her commitment to, interest in and knowledge of both Churches throughout her reign—an interest, passion and dedication now matched by our King. Today, we see another brilliant piece of British pragmatism in what we are about to legislate for. To many in the outside world, the appointment of the brilliant Dame Elish Angiolini to one of the most significant roles in Scottish public life will rightly be seen as a well-deserved honour for one as successful as she has been in her field and in Scottish and British public life.”
“This makes today an even more significant moment in the history of the Church and the nation, so infrequently are matters of the Kirk discussed on the Floor of either of Scotland’s two Parliaments. Our relationship between Church and state in the United Kingdom is a brilliantly fashioned piece of British pragmatism—or possibly a fudge, as some might describe it. Only in Great Britain could we have a Head of state who, while being Supreme Governor of one established Church, the Anglican Church of England, is also an ordinary member of a completely separate Presbyterian Church, the Church of Scotland. But we do, and no questions are asked. It is a piece of ecclesiastical deftness that would be inconceivable in any other country.”
“Given that it relates to one of the two established Churches of our United Kingdom, that is on the one hand surprising, especially when compared with the hours we spend debating governance and issues pertaining to the Anglican Church. But then, its privileged status as the established Church in Scotland—underpinned by the Acts of Union and the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707—means that since 1921, when the Articles Declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland formed part of the Church of Scotland Act 1921, it has not required any UK or Scottish parliamentary oversight regarding church worship, governance, constitution, membership or office bearers.”
“It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. In fact, it is a genuine pleasure to be speaking, as a member of the Church of Scotland, on an historically significant piece of legislation. It could be argued that this is the latest piece of the work that was begun with the passing of the very legislation that it seeks in part to repeal—the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829—to ensure full equality for Catholics in our public realm. I grew up not quite a son of the manse—it was three doors down—but very much in and around the kirk, and in eight years as a Member of this place, this is the first debate on any issue regarding the governance or affairs of the Church of Scotland that I can remember.”
“I, too, will not detain the Committee for long, having already expressed the full support of His Majesty’s official Opposition for the Bill, and it will come as no surprise that we are not proposing any amendments in Committee. I do, however, have two questions for the Minister. When does he expect the Bill to go to the House of Lords, and can he assure the Committee and, indeed, the Church of Scotland that everything possible will be done to secure its swift passage to Royal Assent so that it is passed in time for the upcoming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland?”
“I would like to record the thanks of the Opposition to those who have made possible this Bill, which will hopefully soon become an Act, and to Members from across the House for their contributions. I am grateful for the engagement with the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church and Lady Elish herself. I think we can all agree that the Bill is a positive step and speaks well to the type of country that Scotland is today, which was certainly not the case 100 years ago. I express yet again my best wishes to the new Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly, and to all those attending its deliberations in its upcoming meeting in May. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.”
“I note that the draft order will need to be reviewed should there be changes to the Scottish adult disability living allowance or the reserved legislation. Can the Minister outline what circumstances would bring this about? On a broader point, the devolution of welfare is not straightforward. It may well become much more complex over time as the systems diverge. Why we devolved welfare in the first place remains a complete mystery to me, but I would appreciate answers to my substantive questions.”
“Likewise, in relation to Northern Ireland, article 5(3) may be quite complicated to administer. What work has the Minister undertaken with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure a properly joined-up system across these islands? Although there has not been a formal consultation on the changes made by this draft order, will she update the Committee on whether she has consulted informally? Is she working with the Scottish Government on an information campaign to ensure that those affected are aware of the changes? Finally, it is possible that the Scottish and UK rates could diverge over time, with one becoming higher or lower than the other. Has the Minister assessed what this would mean for broader eligibility for UK Government benefits or, indeed, for people living on either side of the border?”
“If the answer is no, the answer must be no. I have some practical questions for the Minister about the implementation. Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions will need a very sophisticated operating system to ensure that the provisions of this draft order become a reality. Is the Minister confident that the systems are in place to accurately determine who is in scope and to avoid the duplication that this SI seeks to avoid? Given the cost and delays to Social Security Scotland—the IT systems have already cost more than £220 million—does the Minister have any indication of the cost of ensuring that the system is able to cope? On the other side of the coin, will the system be sufficiently agile to ensure that complex situations do not result in people being denied the payments to which they are entitled?”
“Just as many Labour members believed in 1997 that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, too many UK politicians of all parties—my own included—believe that giving ever more to the Scottish Government will appease the SNP’s desire to break away. Far too often, far too little thought has been given to the impact of devolution on the specific policies or functions on which people rely. Is the complex, expensive, duplicative and bureaucratic quagmire of Social Security Scotland after the 2016 Act really to the benefit of those in receipt of benefits? We must ensure that we do not have devolution for devolution’s sake. What must be decided is whether the devolution of a certain power or powers to the Scottish Parliament will or will not have a beneficial impact on the lives of the people and businesses of Scotland.”
“We have created additional barriers, burdens and borders where there were none before, and we have added no benefit whatsoever for those receiving benefit payments either north or south of the border. It has cost more than £650 million to establish Social Security Scotland, which is years late, has resulted in duplication and has added cost and complexity to the process. The Smith commission, the Scotland Act 2016 and Social Security Scotland were all established, convened, reported and legislated for before any of us on this Committee were elected to this place. They are now a fact, but a lesson must be learned by the Labour Government.”
“The explanatory notes set out plainly that we are also legislating to ensure that those receiving Scottish adult disability living allowance retain access to the same treatment as those on disability living allowance: “while Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance operates in a broadly similar way to Disability Living Allowance, it should interact with reserved social security benefits in the same way as Disability Living Allowance.” Of course, it should. But that statement never needed to be made, that explanation was not required and this legislation was not needed before the creation of an entirely separate operation to deliver what is, in effect, the exact same benefit.”
“With hindsight, I wonder whether this was a positive move for Scotland and, indeed, the UK. Broadly speaking, this is a sensible and technical statutory instrument that has our support. Clearly, those who are entitled to Scottish adult disability living allowance should not also be entitled to the UK Government’s disability living allowance, attendance allowance or personal independence payment. The fact we have to take the time and effort to legislate to make sure that is the case is plainly absurd.”
“On income tax, for example, although I passionately believe that it is not in the interests of the Scottish people, businesses or the wider economy to have more tax bands and higher tax rates than the rest of the UK, it is an eminently sensible and, indeed, Conservative belief that those responsible for spending public money should also be responsible for raising it. I just wish that Scotland would blaze a trail by being the lowest taxed part of the United Kingdom—I think of the investment and the economic benefits that would be reaped. We are gathered here this afternoon to discuss the devolution of certain elements of social security, and thereby the increased complexity of how these benefits are delivered to the people of Scotland and how they interact with other benefits and other delivery bodies across the UK.”
“Thank you, Ms Hobhouse—today’s SI has a pithy title. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. Today should serve as a salutary lesson for the new Government about the law of unintended consequences. In 2014, following the referendum on separation, the Smith commission was convened by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, resulting in a host of recommendations to increase the power and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. One of the powers devolved through that process was the ability to deliver elements of social security in Scotland. The devolution of certain powers by the Scotland Act 2016 was eminently sensible.”
“Will she confirm by how much she expects levies to increase over the next five years? Will she commission a full system cost analysis of what the 2030 target will do to people’s energy bills? Will she confirm by how much bills will rise before we see the £300 off, which we were all promised?”
“The Labour party was not honest about its promise during the election to cut bills by £300, it was not honest about its plan to take the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners living in poverty, and now it is not being honest with the British people about what its plans will do to our energy bills. If we have learned anything over the past few years, it is that the cost of energy is absolutely critical to any modern economy. We cannot go on following ideology over evidence and putting political targets ahead of what will cut the cost of energy in this country. However, this Government are in denial, which is why they scrapped the full system cost analysis commissioned when the Conservatives were in office. Will the Minister say when proposals for a debt relief scheme will be published?”
“Their obsession with going further and faster than any country in the world to meet their own self-imposed 2030 target is going to increase people’s bills even further. The renewables industry has warned that their rush to build record renewables in the next five years will push up prices and “consumers will lose out”. The Government’s rush to build twice as much grid in the next five years as was built in the last decade will increase the network costs on people’s bills. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the environmental levies will increase to £14 billion in 2030, largely driven by the hidden cost of renewables, all of which will end up on people’s energy bills.”
“He called for an urgent freeze on energy bills and cited a lack of leadership. Now that he is in government, the only thing he is able to freeze is vulnerable pensioners by taking away their winter fuel allowance with no notice. Does the Minister think that shows leadership? I know that my constituents, and presumably hers too, will be concerned about their bills rising, concerned about inflation creeping back up—hitting 3% in January, despite the hard work done last year to bring it under control—and angry that Labour’s promise to cut bills by £300 is being broken. The worst part of all of this is that this Government, led by ideological zealotry from the Secretary of State, are doubling down.”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Today, the Government have announced an expansion of the warm home discount, with a change to the criteria that will see more low-income households receive a £150 payment to heat their homes, but for many this payment will be immediately eaten up by the increase in the energy price cap. We must be clear that the best protection for vulnerable households is to prioritise cheap energy. The announcement today is, frankly, a sticking-plaster approach to rising energy bills. This Government fail to grasp the core issue: energy costs in this country are far too high for businesses, industry and, of course, bill payers. When the energy price cap rose in 2022, the now Secretary of State called it a “national emergency”.”
“If such assurances are not forthcoming, will she revisit this decision and put a halt to the madness of allowing the People’s Republic of China to have such a significant stake in our energy system?”
“In the current international climate, it is unthinkable to disregard the security implications of this decision. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have scrapped the GIGA—green industries growth accelerator —scheme that we launched to build British supply chains in energy technologies? What discussions has she had with the Ministry of Defence about its concerns over our ability to ensure the security of our energy system? What safeguards will be in place to prevent Chinese maintenance ships accessing the turbines for repairs? What guarantees has she had, if any, from our defence and security agencies that this investment will pose no threat to our national security?”
“Can she explain how using wind turbines made by Mingyang reduces our reliance on foreign states? Just last week I, along with many MPs in the Minister’s party, was briefed by the Royal Navy on the vulnerability of our subsea communications and energy infrastructure. We have seen a pervasive rise in sabotage attacks on subsea cables in the Baltic, affecting our Scandinavian allies. If Chinese-manufactured turbines are installed, security experts have warned that sensors could spy on British seas, defence submarine programmes and the layout of our energy infrastructure. We would be reliant on Chinese equipment and software, and on Chinese suppliers for updates and maintenance, handing Beijing significant opportunity for interference.”
“The indication that Mingyang will get the green light from the Treasury to supply wind turbine technology to the Green Volt wind farm in the North sea is concerning. Indeed, alarm bells have been sounded by officials in the Minister’s Department and in the Ministry of Defence. This green revolution will come with a “made in China” label. The Government, in collusion with the Scottish National party in Holyrood, are determined to see Chinese companies reap the economic reward. The Minister’s party says again and again that the transition to renewable energy will reduce our reliance on hostile regimes. Chinese-controlled technology embedded in our critical energy infrastructure is evidently a threat to our security. Can the Minister assure us that she is taking this threat seriously?”
“(Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the ruling on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields as unlawful.”
“Will the Government back growth and back British workers when the decision reaches his Department, and who does he think will win this argument outright: the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?”
“Does the Minister appreciate that the self-harm inflicted on the North sea is damaging investment in other offshore renewables industries, too? That could be wrecking our path forward. The Government are utterly confused. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State are completely out of touch with the public, obviously, but apparently also with each other. It is no surprise that the Secretary of State is prepared to sacrifice growth and investment in energy security for his ideological obsession, so may I ask the Minister for clarity? This is a very important point. Will the Department treat the applications, if they are resubmitted, as existing applications or new applications, given that it has a ban on all new licences moving forward?”
“The Department seems to ignore the fact that we will simply rely on more imports instead. If those imports are liquified natural gas, they will come with four times the production emissions, and if we import from Norway, we will be shipping in gas from underneath the very same North sea. Sacrificing our domestic industry, only to rely on foreign imports and compound global carbon emissions, is utter madness for our economy and for the climate. It makes a mockery of our prospects for growth, and it will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue. To put that figure into perspective, it is equivalent to eight and a half years’ worth of winter fuel payments. Last week the developer of Rosebank, Equinor, announced that it is slashing its offshore wind investment.”
“In August, this Government withdrew lawyers from the case defending the legal challenge to the issuing of licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea. Given this Government’s decision to revoke any defence, the Court’s quashing of approval was all but inevitable. It is deeply disappointing and yet unsurprising that this Government, driven by their zealotry, are happy to put billions of pounds of investment, and thousands of jobs, at risk just because something does not align with Just Stop Oil’s vision of the future. It demonstrates that this Government are not willing to stand up for businesses or workers. The Labour party seems to misunderstand this simple point: if we shut down our oil and gas industry, we will not use any less oil and gas—even the Climate Change Committee knows that.”
“Will the Minister confirm whether his Department has produced any analysis of what a system without BECCS would cost? Will he rule out keeping this racket going indefinitely, with people’s energy bills rising to pay for BECCS? Will the Government set a date for the burning of the last tree in a British biomass power station? This Government have been promising us clean, cheap, home-grown energy, but burning trees at Drax is not clean or cheap, and the trees are certainly not home-grown. If the widespread burning of forests is part of the solution to climate change, we have to ask ourselves if that is the problem we are trying to solve.”