Stephen Flynn MP: Climate Timeline

• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Stephen Flynn's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Stephen Flynn

• 08 Nov 2024: Tweet

  This will not surprise anyone. But what it must do is finally focus minds in London that their choices could create a cliff edge. A cliff edge will hit investment, energy security, workers and our ability to meet Net Zero. A just energy transition can’t just be warm words. https://twitter.com/bbcnortheast/status/1854641186830504156 [Source]

• 15 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  Last week, we all spoke at length about the massive opportunities in the renewable energy sector in the UK and particularly in Scotland. From fixed-bottom and floating offshore wind to green hydrogen, blue hydrogen, tidal and wave, pumped storage hydro, onshore wind and so forth, Scotland has a plethora of resources. I believe it was the chief executive officer of the Confederation of British Industry who said last week that Scotland’s renewables sector could unlock economic growth for the UK—imagine what it could do for Scotland’s economy.

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and to be back debating Great British Energy. Given that Margaret Thatcher has already been referenced this morning, we should appreciate that her legacy is the very reason we are standing here today, because she was the first world leader, at the 1989 UN General Assembly, to raise the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, ocean and Earth itself from climate change. Had it not been for her global leadership in so many areas, we would not be debating the issues we are today, nor would the United Kingdom be the world leader in combating climate change we claim it to be.

  Full debate: Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting)

• 12 Sep 2024: Tweet

  Labour’s concurrent tax changes and rollback on green investment pose a threat to a ‘just’ transition. Just as they pose a threat to delivering Net Zero. The demise of the Grangemouth refinery should act as the belated wake-up call that they, and so many others, badly need. [Source]

• 12 Sep 2024: Tweet

  And let’s not be blind to the glimpse this provides of an energy transition where warm words meet fiscal reality. To deliver a ‘just’ transition you protect your assets and the skilled workforce at their beating heart, whilst at the same time investing at pace in Net Zero tech. [Source]

• 17 Jul 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  Although I would welcome GB Energy’s placement in Aberdeen, I also want to see much more detail about what it will deliver. If I have read correctly, a cumulative £8.3 billion will go towards GB Energy over the next five years—£1.6 billion each and every year—but one hydro pump storage project in Scotland would almost blow that entire budget apart. We know that GB Energy will not sell energy, we know that it will not distribute energy, and it appears that it will not generate energy. It has been suggested that it will be an investment vehicle for projects to go forward, but if it is capped at £1.6 billion a year, I must question the Government’s ambition. How does that deliver the change that is required? The change that they previously agreed to requires some £28 billion each and every year. What a contrast with the ambitions that they once had. Of course, net zero will be absolutely crucial to our economic future—to the growth and prosperity that we all want—but ultimately that growth can come about only through productivity.

  Of course, our economy is not just about net zero, productivity or migration; it is also intrinsically linked to our relationship with the European Union. I look forward to seeing what the Government come forward with in respect of their proposed new relationship with our friends and allies in Europe. We should be seeking to rejoin the European single market; we should be seeking to rejoin the European customs union. It makes sense to all of us. The politicians in this House are afraid of doing so, but they will come to realise that the only way to achieve the aims that they want to achieve is to do just that.

  Full debate: Debate on the Address

• 11 Jul 2024: Tweet

  We’re only talking about tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs, the ability to deliver net zero, the economy and energy security. A bit of clarity from Labour wouldn’t go amiss, particularly given the promises that there wouldn’t be a cliff-edge. https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1811369531580838055 [Source]

• 28 May 2024: Tweet

  Labour’s energy proposals put at risk 100,000 jobs, economic growth and our Net Zero potential. Scotland’s energy past has been squandered by Westminster, we can’t let the future be too. Only the SNP will put Scotland’s interests first. ???? BBC Broadcasting House, Aberdeen https://twitter.com/StephenFlynnSNP/status/1795362915286958551/photo/1 [Source]

• 27 May 2024: Tweet

  If you create a cliff-edge you lose the investment, the workforce and the ability to hit Net Zero. Labour’s energy plans put at risk 100,000 jobs. They know this, yet are ploughing on regardless. Scotland’s economy will be the collateral damage. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/apocalyptic-outlook-uk-energy-sector-political-turmoil-qtd0r0tlk https://twitter.com/StephenFlynnSNP/status/1795188044342980691/photo/1 [Source]

• 7 Nov 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  Another strand to achieve economic growth, if colleagues were so willing, would be to double down on investment in net zero—to do as the Americans are doing, and to follow the lead of Joe Biden with the Inflation Reduction Act. It makes sense. It makes sense to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, so that we are not left behind and can compete for the decades to come. Net zero is not a hindrance; it is a growth opportunity.

  It is just seven days since the Government announced 27 licences for offshore oil and gas, and now they have come forward with a proposal to do so on an annual basis. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman chuntering from a sedentary position like a wee dafty. If he chooses to listen, I will get to my point. What he knows I believe is that there must be an evidence-based approach to oil and gas extraction—an evidence-based approach which is anathema to this Government. We need to be considering our energy security and our commitment to net zero, to jobs and opportunities and, of course, to our investment in renewables. What I would like to see the Government do—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me in this regard—is to ensure that in regard to the pre-existing licences for the likes of offshore wind, where the Government have failed, we see improvements to ensure that this actually happens.

  Full debate: Debate on the Address

• 19 Oct 2022: Vote

  Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 18 Oct 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  I thank the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for bringing forward this incredibly important debate. I will start in a slightly unusual fashion, by referring to something that happened 10 years ago. In April 2012, there was a Scottish parliamentary inquiry into renewable energy. An Aberdeenshire hotelier put forward a submission, both in writing and in person. He said that offshore wind was unreliable and an expensive form of power. Much like many things that Donald Trump has said, that has been proven to be completely untrue. As we know, offshore wind is six to nine times cheaper than its gas equivalent, and it is very reliable. He was referring to the Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group, a joint venture with Vattenfall, which sits off the coast of Aberdeen. It has been providing clean, green, sustainable electricity—enough to power all the homes in Aberdeen—since it came onstream. I was fortunate to visit it recently with the team from Vattenfall.

  Full debate: Floating Offshore Wind Projects

• 11 Jul 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  We are of course talking about the wider picture at the present time and I reflected earlier on the UK Government’s desire to cut taxes, but we have not heard about climate change from any single Tory leadership candidate; what are their views on climate change? It is disappointing that there is no talk in relation to this Bill about the journey to net zero or the climate compatibility checks that I think we all across this Chamber, and indeed in industry, agree with.

  Full debate: Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill

• 14 Jun 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  A key question that has perhaps not been touched on in enough detail in the debate is that of blue or green hydrogen. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) made the excellent point about CCUS—or the lack of it—in the north-east of Scotland. He is absolutely right: the Government’s completely illogical decision not to progress with the Acorn project causes us a great deal of consternation, given the potential of CCUS. Key to the Acorn project is the production of blue hydrogen, but as we move forward, that discussion changes. Will it still be possible to have a blue hydrogen economy in the same way when the green hydrogen economy is building up at such a pace? In Scotland, the capacity for 25 GW of offshore wind is being built, so the potential for green hydrogen is enormous.

  Full debate: Future Hydrogen Economy

• 7 Jun 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course when we are talking about renewables, it is important in this Chamber to reflect upon the fact that Scotland boasts 25% of Europe’s offshore wind capacity and of its tidal capacity. Now that the UK Treasury is going to be coining in some £13 billion from Scotland’s North sea oil and gas sector this year alone, will it give a little bit back and match fund the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition fund?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 20 Apr 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  Of course as we urgently seek to combat climate change it is vital that we do so in a just and fair way, particularly for communities in the north-east of Scotland. Bearing that in mind, does the Minister agree that his Government should do three things: fund the Acorn carbon capture and underground storage project; match fund the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition fund; and finally, eventually, reform the TNUoS—the transmission network use of system—charging scandal that is happening at this moment in time?

  Full debate: Tackling Climate Change

• 16 Mar 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  You have to admire the brass neck of the Secretary of State, because it is his Government who have failed to deliver carbon capture and underground storage in Scotland, it is his Government who have failed to match fund the Scottish Government’s just transition fund, and it is his Government who oversee Scotland paying the highest electricity transmission charges in the entirety of Europe. When will he stop doffing his cap to Westminster and stand up for Scotland’s renewable future?

  Full debate: Transition to Net Zero

• 16 Mar 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention and he is absolutely right. The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change is present and I am sure he will address those remarks if he comes to the Dispatch Box later, as I see that he will.

  It is interesting to hear that we are short of gas when I regularly hear the opposite from the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change. That is the important point: Government Members can try to disagree with their own Government on these matters, but in real terms we are self-sufficient. Scotland is self-sufficient when it comes to oil and gas, but we can and must go so much further on renewables. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to hang around, he will hear me speak about that in due course.

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for generously giving way again. Is it not the case that Scotland, which is a net exporter of energy—I think we produce around 153% of our needs over the course of a year—would have been able to do much, much more had this Government not stood in the face of more cheap, reliable and green renewable energy by standing for many years against allowing solar and onshore wind power when it came to the contracts for difference? We could have been much further ahead. Is it not now this Government’s responsibility to help people with the cost of living crisis, which they and the energy price increase have caused?

  Full debate: Cost of Living Increases

• 9 Mar 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  As I said earlier, solar panels are not necessarily the panacea for the UK or Scotland. I touched earlier on some of the other renewable energy sources we have in Scotland. At this moment, in the midst of this energy security situation, which is of concern to us all, we are blessed in Scotland to have the capacity to provide 98% of our electricity from renewable sources alone. That is quite a remarkable feat, considering that we have not even started on the 25 GW that has been approved through the ScotWind round.

  Full debate: Large Solar Farms

• 22 Feb 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  I am afraid the Secretary of State does his reputation no good whatsoever by propagating such unfounded garbage. If he wants to talk about records, let us talk about records, because despite energy being reserved to this place, it is the Scottish Government who have delivered the £62 million energy transition fund; it is the Scottish Government who have just delivered £30 million to Aberdeen South harbour; it is the Scottish Government who have just delivered £15 million to the Aberdeen hydrogen hub; and of course it is the Scottish Government who have just delivered a £500 million just transition fund for the entire north-east of Scotland. After taking out some £375 billion from Scotland’s natural resources, when are the Tories going to give back?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 1 Feb 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  The shadow Secretary of State rightly, as he sees it, challenged the notion that the money that oil and gas companies are receiving is going directly into investment in renewable technologies and the pathway to net zero. He made that argument with a great deal of passion, but he failed to recognise that the last time the UK Government implemented a windfall tax, 10 years or so ago, investment in the North sea oil and gas sector plummeted. It fell off a cliff; in fact, it has never got back to where it was.

  Is the hon. Gentleman not making an excellent case for a just transition, where taxes such as this, on those who have made billions—perhaps trillions—over the past century from sucking our resources out of the ground and making excessive profits, are invested to ensure that his constituents and the workers in those oilfields are entitled to a decent, sustainable, well-paid job?

  A just transition is at the forefront of my thoughts almost every day, because I see first-hand the impact of the decisions taken in this place on oil and gas. My own constituency contributes £14.4 billion of gross value added to the economy. How many other people’s constituencies can say that? However, I am aware of the poverty that exists notwithstanding that.

  We need to see a just transition, which is why we have tabled our amendment today, but I must repeat that I have concerns about Labour’s proposal. Without their detailing what they believe the impact on investment would be and what the subsequent impact of that would be on workers, it is a proposal I simply find difficult to support in its current form.

  That is not to say that the Government should be let off the hook, because the just transition, as has been said, is incredibly important. It is important to my constituents and to the constituents of Government Members, because there will be a change in the coming years and a transition to net zero. From the Scottish Government, we have seen a £500 million just transition fund put in place, with £80 million put towards the Acorn project, which the UK Government continue to drag their heels over supporting.

  I welcome many of the comments the hon. Gentleman makes, representing as he does the southern half of Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe, but he also refers to the so-called just transition fund of £500 million and the £80 million that has been announced as being on the table for the Acorn project. Does he or the SNP have any detail yet on precisely what any of that money would be spent on?

  Yes, it is £580 million more than the UK Government are putting in place. That does not start and stop with— [ Interruption. ] I am sure the hon. Gentleman can make his contribution in his own way later on. There is also the £62 million energy transition fund and the £30 million that has just been given to Aberdeen’s south harbour, specifically to ensure that we can meet our net zero future.

  Notwithstanding the just transition and the windfall tax, what irks me more than anything is the lack of an oil fund in this country, mentioned by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). If we look across the North sea at Norway, £1 trillion is sitting in a bank account because the Norwegians invested in their future. With that money, they are able to shield their public from the shocks that all our constituents face at this moment in time.

  Full debate: Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

• 13 Dec 2021: Vote

  Subsidy Control Bill — Schedule 1 - The subsidy control principles - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 30 Nov 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  It is not just at home that the Prime Minister’s reputation is plummeting; it is plummeting abroad, too. When we needed leadership at COP26, we got Kermit the Frog, belching cows and, of course, our Prime Minister sitting beside David Attenborough without a mask. On Brexit, our relations with the European Union are a complete and utter boorach. Last week, when people were dying in the channel as they tried to get to this country, the Prime Minister sought to do diplomacy via Twitter. That is a lesson in how not to do diplomacy.

  Full debate: Conduct of the Right Hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip

• 2 Nov 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  In Scotland, we have again been told we should be grateful about the block grant, despite the 2.4% increase. We are also told that £170 million towards the levelling-up fund is a remarkably good thing, for which we should be really grateful. In my part of Scotland alone, the Scottish Government are putting in place a £500 million just transition fund to ensure that we can make the journey to net zero without leaving communities behind. We asked the Chancellor to match fund it, but despite the fact that the Government have raked in more than £350 billion from our North sea oil and gas sector, they said no and ignored our plea for a mere £500 million. Of course, they did something much more damaging than that: they walked away from carbon capture and storage in the north-east of Scotland. [Interruption.] I hear Members saying, “Shame,” and it is exactly that—shame on the Government. They walked away from that billion-pound investment in the north-east of Scotland in 2015 and they have done the same again now. They have turned their back on the communities I represent and the needs of Scotland. We can do so, so much better, and we will do better when we have that opportunity to take our own future into our own hands. Let me tell Conservative Members that that day is coming faster than they dare think.

  Full debate: Budget Resolutions

• 22 Sep 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  That brings us to the next stage, as represented by this Bill. As I see it, the Bill’s objectives are to enable strategic interventions to support economic recovery, levelling up and net zero. That is not wholly different from the EU state aid rules, which were, of course, to support the environment and innovation. The one slight difference, however, is that the EU state aid rules had a specific remit for the EU regional aid system, whereby people advocated money to be directed to less developed regions.

  The Bill’s key objectives also include net zero. Again, there is no detail on net zero or how the Government intend to subsidise its delivery. We are being told to just believe—to hope on a whim and a prayer—that the Government will do this, that they will deliver. Let us look at that from a Scottish perspective. Let us look at the Government’s record. As the Minister and, indeed, others in this Chamber know only too well, Scottish renewables projects, which are key and fundamental to reaching net zero, pay the highest grid charges in the entirety of Europe. In the UK—on these islands—renewables projects in the south-east of England get paid to access the national grid, whereas renewables projects in Scotland have to pay to do so.

  That is a vital point that will come forward in the next couple of months, when the Scottish islands could be providing as much as is coming across from some of the European interconnectors at present. On subsidies, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made a good point on enforcement. In part 5, an “interested party” is defined in clause 70(7) as “the Secretary of State” while others are just people who “may be affected”. Should not Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers be specifically outlined? Or is this something seen as being granted by London and London only, leaving London to make arbitrary decisions on subsidies? My hon. Friend makes the point very powerfully that producing renewable energy in certain parts elicits a subsidy, while in other parts it is penalised.

  To finalise the point in relation to net zero, the UK Government are telling us that we should trust them. Well, we don’t and we won’t.

  Full debate: Subsidy Control Bill

• 21 Sep 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  We cannot understate the importance of the delivery of carbon capture and underground storage to the UK’s and Scotland’s journey to net zero. Let me be clear: the Acorn project should be in the vanguard of that process. I hear the warm words from the Minister, but warm words only go so far, particularly when we frame them within this Government’s record on sustainable projects in Scotland. If we look at the likes of offshore wind, we see that SSEN—Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks—has produced another report highlighting the fact that Scottish renewables projects continue to pay the highest grid charges in not only the UK, but the entirety of Europe. What is he going to do, as the new energy Minister, to end that renewables robbery?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 22 Jul 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  However, in real terms the biggest issue—perhaps the biggest issue of our times—is not the pandemic, but climate change. As an Aberdeen Member, it would be remiss of me not to talk about energy. Aberdeen has faced the triple whammy of covid, Brexit and an oil price crash, which has painted into clear focus the challenge that is going to face my city in the future. What did the Government do? They did almost nothing. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to deliver their North sea transition deal. Where is the hydrogen strategy? Where is the commitment to a carbon capture and underground storage facility in the north-east of Scotland? Where is the desire to ensure that there is sufficient capacity within round 4 of the contracts for difference auction to ensure that Scotland does not lose out? That is an important point, because Scotland is going to lose out.

  Full debate: Summer Adjournment

• 6 Jul 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  I do not think the Minister actually answered my question, but let us look at another aspect of the levelling-up prospectus: freeports. The Scottish Government have been clear that they want freeports to have a green agenda and to have fair work and net zero at their core, but just last week the UK Government told us that they will ignore that green port prospectus and will instead seek to enforce their will on the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people. So may I ask the Minister: when did levelling up become less about empowerment and more about dragging powers from Scotland back to London?

  Full debate: Levelling-up Agenda

• 7 Jun 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  New clause 3— Transition to net-zero carbon emissions —

  (2) 25% of ARIA’s annual budget must be directed towards scientific research and development that will support the UK’s transition to net zero carbon emissions by 2045.

  (3) In exercising any of its functions under this Act, ARIA must have regard to the requirement under subsection (1) and the UK’s transition to NetZero carbon emissions by 2045.”

  This new clause requires ARIA to be certified carbon-neutral annually, and to direct 25% of its annual budget to research and development that will assist the UK’s transition to net-zero. In carrying out its functions, ARIA must have regard to its carbon-neutrality requirement and the UK’s transition to net-zero.

  “(A1) ARIA’s primary mission will be to support the development of technologies and research that support the UK’s transition to net zero carbon emissions or reduce the harmful effects of climate change.”

  This amendment sets the primary mission for ARIA to support the development of technologies and research that support the UK’s transition to net zero carbon emissions or reduce the harmful effects of climate change.

  (a) for the period of ten years after the date on which this Act is passed, undertaking activities which support the achievement of the target established in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,

  This amendment would require ARIA to consider its core mission in exercising its functions. For the ten years following the Act passing, that core mission would be supporting the achievement of Net Zero. Thereafter, its mission will be established by statutory instrument subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

  The first matter on which that is fairly obvious is the lack of a mission, a purpose, a raison d’être for the Bill. There is no clear mission for ARIA as it stands, despite much to-ing and fro-ing on this topic. The Government have been clear on their reasoning as to why they do not want that to be the case, but I find it extremely regrettable, when we know there is a climate emergency—hopefully everyone across the Chamber is in agreement on that—that the Government still refuse to make the climate emergency a core purpose of ARIA to ensure that meeting our net zero targets is the aim of this agency.

  That is an interesting point that. I believe it is regrettable that there is no set mission. The mission should be to combat climate change and to meet our net zero targets.

  As the hon. Gentleman knows, we had these exchanges in the Bill Committee. It is not so much that ARIA had not got a mission; its mission is to discover areas of research that could potentially be high risk but deliver high rewards, but we do not know what those will be. That is its mission, and tying it to specifics such as health research or climate change, although they are very important, would potentially hamper its ability to find that cutting-edge science and make the most of it.

  Full debate: Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

• 07 Jun 2021: Vote

  Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill — New Clause 1 - Human Rights Abuses - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 12 May 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  I will turn to the Queen’s Speech now; if the hon. Member had bided his time, I would have got there. The reality is that the people of Scotland face the starkest of choices—a choice between deciding their own future, or the legislative agenda of a party that we did not vote for. What does that mean in real terms? It means that, as it stands, the people of Scotland will not have the power to borrow—we have been denied that throughout the pandemic by the Chancellor—that we will have to have nuclear weapons on the Clyde, despite our express wishes not to have them there, and that we will not be able to have climate change put front and centre. If we look at the Queen’s Speech, we see that there is just a cursory mention of net zero. That is simply not on. It is simply not right.

  We now have the opportunity to go down the path of net zero, to invest in our future, to put carbon capture and storage into fruition and to make sure that the hydrogen economy is built— [Interruption . ] The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) says, “We are doing it.” How much money are you giving to the north-east of Scotland to make that happen? I asked the Secretary of State that very question and he was unable to answer. The point I am making is that, while we remain within the United Kingdom, that investment must be targeted at the north-east of Scotland.

  I was talking about climate change and its importance in the context of the north-east of Scotland. That investment is important when it comes to securing jobs. The Scottish Government have one hand tied behind their back when it comes to energy, because it is this UK Treasury that has coined in in excess of £350 billion of oil and gas revenues over the decade, and it is this UK Treasury that has a responsibility now to act and to ensure that the north-east of Scotland is protected.

  Full debate: Better Jobs and a Fair Deal at Work

• 23 Mar 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  The right hon. Member for Doncaster North has rather stolen my thunder in that regard, because I want to discuss what the Bill could seek to do. It could follow Scotland’s lead. In Scotland, we have the Scottish National Investment Bank, which has a clear purpose to invest in net-zero technologies. Why do we not replicate that in the Bill? Why do the Government not put that front and centre of their agenda? The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is shaking his head, and he is more than welcome to intervene, to state why climate change should not be at the forefront of the Bill’s agenda.

  I reject the suggestion that climate change is a narrow focus given that climate change covers a whole host of areas. I see the Secretary of State nodding along with that. Presumably he is in agreement having previously been the Minister of State for Business, Energy and Clean Growth. When we look at this, we need to bear in mind DARPA, which has been talked about at length by others. DARPA had that clear focus, and that clear focus has allowed it to excel, in terms of GPS, the internet and the like. We should seek to replicate that, with climate change at the forefront.

  Why do the Government not seek to invest in the Scottish Parliament? Why do they not seek to allow the Scottish Government to put the money into the Scottish National Investment Bank, which I have already mentioned, so that Scotland can create the scientific achievements that it wants to use to shape our own agenda, particularly—I repeat—in relation to climate change? Why have none of those things come forward? It appears as though Scotland does not exist in the context of this Bill. The Government seek to talk up the Union; the way to solidify the Union is not to trample continuously over the Scottish Parliament, because the people of Scotland are well aware of what is going on in that regard.

  Full debate: Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

• 13 Jan 2021: Vote

  Financial Services Bill — Schedule 2 - Prudential regulation of FCA investment firms - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 24 Nov 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  Obviously, the debate relates to the potential of 5G, particularly for business. That potential is enormous, be that for health, transport or climate change. We are not talking only about better connectivity on our mobile phones, as some may believe. I will briefly reflect on climate change. There are two sides to that debate. There are those who believe that 5G working in the manner in which it should will ultimately increase energy usage, because we will do more and see more much more quickly. On the contrary, we can also seek to combat climate change by doing things in a more efficient and effective manner, a goal that we all must aim for, particularly when looking at 5G moving forward and how we can tie that into the climate change challenges that face us in Scotland, the UK or across the globe. That should really be at the heart of most of the things that we seek to do going forward.

  It is important that investment—be it from the Government or the private sector—seeks to benefit everyone and that nobody misses out. Climate change will be key, but those rural communities across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom must also get the connectivity that they so badly deserve. Ultimately, while we need to ensure that nobody misses out, we also need to make sure that security and resilience are at the forefront of everything that we do when it comes to 5G and ensuring better interconnectivity within Scotland and the UK.

  Full debate: 5G Network

• 16 Nov 2020: Vote

  Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] — Clause 124 - Climate change risk - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 11 Nov 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  In terms of universal credit, it is straightforward. The first thing that could be done is to extend the £20 universal credit uplift beyond the spring and to backdate it to legacy benefits. The second thing that must be delivered is an oil and gas sector deal, not just to protect industry now but to protect jobs in the future as we move towards a renewable transition—a just transition that protects all our futures and livelihoods within the city that I represent. The third thing, and perhaps the most important thing that the Government could do at this moment in time, is to provide the Scottish Parliament with the borrowing powers it has repeatedly asked for. The Scottish Parliament has repeatedly asked the UK Government for borrowing powers to provide the additional support that businesses and workers in Scotland need. That has fallen on deaf ears up to now, and that is a damned disgrace.

  Full debate: Covid-19

• 29 Sep 2020: Vote

  United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — New Clause 6 - Economic development: climate and nature emergency impact statement - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 8 Jul 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  The reality is that the sector has put £365 billion-worth of income into the Treasury. This is not just about protecting the jobs of the individuals in the sector at this moment in time; it is about what comes next. It is about being able to reach net zero. It is about being able to create an sustainable energy future for Aberdeen and for Scotland, be that through the hydrogen backbone across Europe, through an energy transition zone, or through the Acorn project on carbon capture and underground storage. So much could be announced, but to date the Government have continued to sit silent. The consequence of that has been job loss after job loss after job loss, and it is my constituents who are having to face that harsh reality.

  Full debate: The Economy

• 9 Jun 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  (b) assessing how the Enterprise Investment Scheme is furthering efforts to mitigate climate change, and any differences in the benefit of this funding in respect of—

  This clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to analyse the impact of the existing EIS and the changes proposed in Clause 35 in terms of impact on the economy and geographical reach; to assess the EIS’s support for efforts to mitigate climate change; and to evaluate the Scheme’s lessons for the encouragement of UK Government-backed venture capital funds in the devolved nations.

  We support Plaid Cymru’s attempts to get Westminster to own up to its failure to get investment into Wales. The amendment would force the UK Government to officially consider the unsustainable concentration of private investment in one region of the UK at the expense of all devolved nations. As the UK Government narrow the applicability of the EIS, they need to consider how that will affect the ability of firms in other areas of the UK economy; how EIS—a tax really funded by taxpayers—could benefit us all by addressing climate change; and how they can encourage the establishment of venture capital funds, and therefore private investment, in the devolved nations.

  I will focus briefly on climate change once again. As I said, we cannot escape the climate crisis in front of us. If we have the opportunity to do more, and if we have the ability to leverage investment in a way that allows us to combat the climate crisis, that is surely something that we should all seek to achieve. With that, I bring my remarks to a close. I hope that Members will be minded to support the amendment.

  The amendment also raises the important issue of the climate emergency, which has not simply vanished because we are currently focused on the pandemic. The climate emergency is still with us and the longer we take to tackle it, the faster we will start to feel the effects of global warming. Research and investment must go towards tackling the climate emergency and we need to encourage the responsible and relevant use of Government funds for knowledge-intensive companies to benefit from them.

  Amendment 4 would require the Government to review the economic and geographical impacts of the existing EIS and the changes to approved fund structure, and how far they support wider efforts to mitigate climate change. I understand and appreciate the intention of hon. Members to use EIS more strategically to help with mitigating climate change and to ensure that the benefits of EIS are spread more widely across the country, but I put it to the Committee that the amendment is not necessary.

  It is worth reminding ourselves of the principal purpose of EIS. It is designed to address a specific market failure, which is that younger, innovative companies across the UK struggle to get access to patient and long-term equity finance to grow their businesses and to develop the innovative products that consumers may want in future. It is not designed specifically to help certain types of companies—for example those that operate in certain parts of the country or certain sectors. The scheme operates on a neutral market basis, and there is no requirement for that companies use EIS funds in specific ways, such as to develop products linked to the fight against climate change.

  Full debate: Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)

• 4 May 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  I have raised this issue of the lack of support for the offshore industry with the Government on numerous occasions in recent months, and it is important to stress that the challenges facing the industry are not isolated to the coronavirus pandemic. On 3 January, the price of a barrel of Brent crude oil was almost $70, whereas as of 5 pm today it stood at about $26, having been as low as $19 last week. The industry has had to face the perfect storm of an OPEC price war coupled with the unprecedented situation posed by covid-19. The harsh reality is that the storm is being felt in Aberdeen, and I, like many others, feel that it could get much worse before it gets better. One way in which it can get better, and sooner, is if the UK Government listen and act upon the support mechanisms proposed by the likes of Oil & Gas UK in relation to the job retention scheme, the covid corporate financing facility and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme—CBILS. Another way is to provide the money necessary to support the city and wider region to embark on a just transition that protects jobs and builds a sustainable future.

  Full debate: Pensions

• 25 Feb 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  However, this discussion should not only be about stability and the here and now; it also has to be about what the future entails for the oil and gas sector. As we heard—and rightly so—we want a net zero future for Scotland and the United Kingdom, and it is vital for all our future prosperity that we get to that point sooner rather than later. Perhaps the best way in which that could be achieved, certainly from my perspective, is through harnessing some of the economic gain from the oil and gas sector.

  Full debate: UK Oil and Gas Industry

• 30 Jan 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the Secretary of State believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland taking an RAF flight from Cardiff to London is helpful in decarbonising the transport sector?

  Full debate: Topical Questions