-
Question
The shadow questions the policy's coherence, highlighting a potential £1.5 billion tax giveaway to oil and gas producers through new investment incentives. She asks for details on costs of these breaks, confirmation of support disparities between homeowners and low-income families, and queries about alignment with net zero targets.
Minister reply
The Minister responds by defending the timing and fiscal responsibility of the policy, emphasising that it provides more generous support to vulnerable households compared to Labour's proposals. She also points out ongoing investments in green energy initiatives.
-
Question
This MP commends the Chancellor’s package for immediate family pressures and its focus on future investment, asking if the Government agrees that we should look towards future UK energy security needs.
Minister reply
The Minister affirms the importance of long-term planning, highlighting recent initiatives like the Prime Minister's Energy Security Strategy. She notes that the current proposal offers more substantial support to vulnerable households than Labour’s alternative.
-
Question
This MP questions why only energy producers face a windfall tax and expresses concerns about investment incentives potentially encouraging continued carbon-based fuel exploitation rather than decarbonisation. He asks for specifics on the £5 billion revenue and how to ensure that tax reliefs have their intended impact.
Minister reply
The Minister explains that the sector faces extraordinary profits due to global gas prices, not company actions. She mentions ongoing consultations on broadening emissions trading schemes and supports carbon reduction initiatives within oil production.
-
Question
This MP seeks assurance that the levy will not harm ongoing investment in the North sea, which is vital for job creation in emerging low-carbon industries.
Minister reply
The Minister assures that investment continues to be encouraged as part of a transition strategy towards renewables, highlighting the importance of these investments for local communities.
-
Question
The additional tax breaks given to oil and gas firms mean that the Government are handing billions over to the very companies that are driving up people’s bills and fuelling climate change. That is money that could have been used to insulate 2 million homes, saving each household £340 every year. Are these tax breaks for more fossil fuel producers not the very opposite of what is needed to protect the planet, end our reliance on expensive gas and, crucially, invest in insulation that could get bills down?
Minister reply
With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Member misunderstands the policy. What we are introducing is a significant tax on the oil and gas sector that will fund the most vulnerable, so it is the firms handing money over, as he puts it, to us. We have said that we recognise that companies should invest, because it is good for jobs, good for investment, good for our competitive industries and good for our energy security for the future.
-
Question
Just six short months ago, the UK hosted COP26, and it remains its president—not that we would know that from this appalling policy from this Government. The Glasgow climate pact, which the UK signed, commits to the “phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”, so can the Financial Secretary explain on what grounds handing an 80% tax break to the dirty, dangerous and outdated energy of the past could possibly be considered efficient, especially when new fossil fuel production will do nothing to help with energy security or affordability? It will simply be sold at global prices on international markets. How is that climate leadership?
Minister reply
The hon. Lady will know that we need to ensure energy security. At the moment, oil and gas account for 50% of our domestic energy. It is important that we transition, but that we transition safely, as well as securing domestic energy security. The hon. Lady makes a very important point about our leadership at COP. We led the world. We were the first country to introduce net zero targets; many others followed.
-
Question
I welcome the fact that the Government have adopted Labour’s policy and introduced a windfall tax on these profits. They have had to be dragged kicking and screaming—[Interruption.] I am sorry; should I give way to the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change?
Minister reply
The hon. Member will know, because I have said it this afternoon, that according to our estimate we will be receiving £5 billion from the oil and gas sector. Given that he mentioned insulation, he may be interested to learn that the Government have committed £3 billion over this Parliament to installing energy-efficiency measures in up to 500,000 homes, saving low-income households hundreds of pounds a year on their bills.
-
Question
Clearly any additional tax cuts for the oil and gas sector should have been targeted at renewable energy generation rather than further drilling for fossil fuels. The Minister will know that the Government intend to introduce a climate compatibility checkpoint to ensure that all future decisions are in line with our climate change commitments. Can she confirm that if there is an overlap with the ongoing tax break for investment in fossil fuel drilling, it will be checked against the compatibility checkpoint?
Minister reply
As the hon. Gentleman will know, a consultation is ongoing, and the Government will be responding to it in due course. I am sure that he will read the report of our response with some interest.
-
Question
The Institute for Fiscal Studies—which, I am sure, understands the policy—has been critical of it, saying that the windfall tax is too generous and that “It is hard to see why the government should provide such huge tax subsidies and thereby incentivise even economically unviable projects.” Why are the Government providing incentives for projects of that sort rather than raising the money that would help out desperate families, and help them to feed their children?
Minister reply
What we have proposed is a windfall tax that will recover more than what Labour proposes would recover. That money—£5 billion—will support those who are the most vulnerable, which is why we have introduced the measure.
-
Question
This policy confirms that we are seeing more take, take, take from Scotland’s North sea oil and gas. The Government are taking resources and taking money. Norway has the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world, but Westminster squandered all the income from oil and gas from the North sea. At the very least, will the Government reverse their decision and support the Scottish carbon capture and storage cluster and make it a track 1 cluster, and will they consider matching the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition fund?
Minister reply
I think the hon. Member is aware that the Scottish CCS is a reserve. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Member for confirming that he is aware of that.
-
Question
It has been reported that this concession will deliver an additional subsidy of £200 million to Shell for its development of the Jackdaw field, which was going to go ahead anyway. How can that be justified?
Minister reply
The investment relief should not be available for investments that are deadweight. It should be for new investments. However, I am happy to look into the point that the right hon. Member has made.
-
Question
Jeremy Cresswell, the emeritus editor of Energy Voice in the north-east of Scotland, highlighted his concerns that the investment allowances put in place by the UK Government as part of the windfall tax are directly for big oil, as opposed to for big renewables too. Can the Minister clarify an earlier point made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant)? She said that electrification could be part of the programme: surely it must be part of it.
Minister reply
Yes, it could be, and I am sure that HMRC will consider those reliefs when they are made. I hope that it is a should, but the position is that it could. The tax will be paid by the largest companies, to reiterate a point I made previously.