Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for SNP Government to lift ban and move Scotland into 21st century?

Can the Trade Unionists for Safe Nuclear Energy expect Department support for their petition to First Minister lifting nuclear development ban?

Andrew Bowie criticised the Labour government's policies as detrimental to the economy in Scotland, noting increased taxes, high unemployment rates, and inflation. He questioned why the Scottish Conservatives would not oppose the SNP’s budget before reviewing it fully, suggesting they are not good at either governing or opposition. He asked if the Secretary of State agrees that after 19 years of SNP governance, only the Scottish Conservative party has a plan to cut taxes, reduce the benefit bill, support businesses, and grow the economy.

Pleas from farmers to the Minister and the Secretary of State are being ignored, just as other pleas from other sectors that are key to driving growth in Scotland have been ignored. Scotland has the worst of both worlds: two socialist and economically illiterate Governments, and a Scotland Office that turns a deaf ear to the pleas of the sectors that could drive growth in our country. It is no surprise that the Scottish people are about to reject Labour in May’s election yet again. After today’s Budget, who does the Secretary of State think will feel most abandoned—Scottish famers, Scottish distillers, Scottish family businesses, Scottish oil and gas workers, or poor Anas Sarwar and the Scottish Labour party?

A key driver of growth in Scotland is the agricultural sector, but Scottish farmers feel utterly ignored and totally abandoned by this Labour Government. I have received a copy of a letter that was delivered to all Scottish Labour MPs urging them to call on their own Government to reconsider the family farm tax. Will the Minister tell the House if those pleas have fallen on deaf ears?

Given the very serious news coming out of the Mossmorran plant this morning, might you inform me how it might be possible for the Government to bring forward a statement on the situation today?

“The skills, infrastructure and experience built by Scotland’s oil and gas sector are vital assets that must be safeguarded and redeployed as we accelerate the transition to clean energy.” These are not my words, but the words of Scottish Renewables. Why are the Government pursuing a strategy that is decimating that very industry and costing jobs across the country?

The Secretary of State for Energy is not the messiah. Week after week, I come to this Chamber to ask Energy Ministers and Scotland Office Ministers why they are content to sacrifice one of this country’s greatest national assets and allow highly skilled workers to go on the scrap heap or go overseas. As Scotland’s man at the Cabinet table, the Secretary of State knows that his job is to speak up for those people who are losing their jobs today, not to defend the Secretary of State for Energy.

How many jobs have to be sacrificed on the altar of this Secretary of State’s vainglorious eco-zealotry before the Government acknowledge the utter destruction of the UK’s industrial base that is being wreaked by policies driven by an out-of-touch green lobby?

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

On the 37th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House when the industrial strategy will replace the tens of thousands of jobs that are set to be lost in the North sea on his watch? Many jobs have already been lost due to industry transition.

We welcome new jobs when they are created, but will the Minister acknowledge the destructive impact her Government’s policies have on jobs in oil and gas in the North Sea? In my constituency of Westhill, I met workers terrified for their future due to job losses from the supply chain. Robert Gordon University estimates 400 job losses every two weeks; Offshore Energies UK predicts up to 42,000 job losses by July 2024 unless there is significant policy change. The Just Transition Commission warns of 120,000 potential job losses by 2030.

In the dim and distant past, in 2023, the Secretary of State described the Rosebank oilfield as “a colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism”. Does he still agree with that?

For years, there has been under-investment in Scotland’s roads. The A9, A96, A77 and A75 are all in dire need of upgrading or dualling; work on all of them has been delayed or even cancelled by the SNP. In the spirit of improving economic co-operation between the nations of the UK, and specifically between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and given how vital the A77 and A75 are to individuals, businesses and hauliers, will the Minister seek the ringfencing of the Barnett consequentials that will arise as a result of this morning’s announcement by the Chancellor, so that the SNP must spend that money on improving roads in Scotland?

When GB Energy was first proposed, we were told it would employ 1,000 people and create 650,000 jobs. Fast-forward to February this year and that number has been revised down to 200 to 300, with a vague commitment to 1,000 at some point in the next 20 years. As the general secretary of the GMB said yesterday, “they are going to open a shiny new office…on a high street full of charity shops because they are closing” the city of Aberdeen down. GB Energy is a white elephant. If the GMB can see it, why cannot the Minister? Surely he agrees that the way to deliver jobs, growth and energy security and to protect communities such as Aberdeen is to lift the ban on licences, replace the energy profits levy as soon as possible and declare the North sea open for business.

The shadow Minister questions the effectiveness of the Government's approach, suggesting that it is inadequate and unworkable. He cites a report from the Tony Blair Institute which states that the strategy is ‘doomed to fail’. The Secretary of State agrees with parts of the report but not its overall conclusion.

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?

It was refreshing yesterday to have some clarity on Great British Energy’s plans, not from the Secretary of State or from Ministers—that would be asking far too much—but from the Manchester-based chairman of the Aberdeen-based company, Juergen Maier. He stated that cutting energy bills is a “very long-term project”—not £300 by the next election, then—and that the Aberdeen headquarters, if we can call it that, will employ only 200 to 300 people, far from the 1,000 initially promised, although that may come in 20 years’ time. On behalf of the tens of thousands of energy workers worried for their future, and indeed the millions watching their energy bills rise yet again, can I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the now very interim chairman?

It was us in government who bought the Wylfa and Oldbury sites from Hitachi, giving much-needed certainty to the workforce and local communities on both sites. Is it still the Government's intention to reach 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050? Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that this is impossible without another gigawatt-scale reactor?

In the clean power 2030 document, no date is specified for the final investment decision on Sizewell, no date is specified for completion of the down-selection SMR process. Is it any wonder that the nuclear industry suspects this Government are not serious about nuclear?

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.

From which sector does he think this mythical growth will come?

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 was halving air passenger duty (APD), which led to cheaper flights and increased routes across the UK. With airlines already cutting back on routes due to this government's decision to increase APD, people living outside London face higher fares and fewer travel options. How can the Government support better transport connectivity in these areas?

Whether he plans to support the development of fusion power plants connected to the grid.

Having confirmed that 2040 is still the ambition, which does the Minister think will come first: fusion on the grid or the final investment decision on Sizewell C?

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure me, and them, that they will be protected and that those who served our country with distinction and valour over so many years will never be at the mercy of those seeking to distort their service or to damage their lives and reputations?

When can we expect a final investment decision on Sizewell C? Will it still be this year?