PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Economic Growth - 5 March 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

The Scotland Office is playing a key role in driving economic growth in Scotland, ensuring that our new industrial strategy works for Scotland and securing Harland & Wolff’s future to protect hundreds of jobs in Arnish and Methil, and I led the cross-Government ministerial taskforce to secure £200 million from the National Wealth Fund for Grangemouth. Over the next 10 years the UK Government will directly invest £1.4 billion in local growth projects in Scotland. From the V&A in Dundee and the town centre of Elgin to a freeport on the Forth and local travel in Paisley, our plan for change will bring growth to every part of Scotland.

The formal redundancy consultation process started last week for laboratories and stores at the Grangemouth site, with emergency response and other shared services consultations also about to start. The redundancies are due to Petroineos serving notice to end shared services contracts because of the imminent refinery closure. The Prime Minister has announced a support package, guaranteeing workers’ incomes for 18 months. Will the Secretary of State reassure the shared services workers who are about to lose their jobs at the Grangemouth site because of the refinery closure that they too will be eligible for the package of income guarantee and for reskilling support from Forth Valley college?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House, and for protecting workers in his constituency. The UK Government are fully committed to seeking a sustainable industrial future for Grangemouth and all its workers. Following the work of the Scotland Office-led taskforce, the Prime Minister announced that the National Wealth Fund will provide £200 million of investment for the Grangemouth site. The UK Government, working with the Scottish Government, are providing a training guarantee for all staff at the refinery to support them into good jobs, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that Unite the Union has welcomed the funding and said that the package

“safeguards Scotland’s energy security and delivers the jobs of the future.”

The defence sector contributes £3.2 billion to the Scottish economy, and Scotland’s contribution keeps us all safe. The Prime Minister has announced increased spending in our country, which also means more investment in Scotland, higher industrial production and higher incomes. Does the Secretary of State agree that this shows the difference a Labour Government make—both south and north of the border?

The Prime Minister is absolutely right when he says that the first responsibility of this Government is to protect our national security and keep our citizens safe. The last time that defence spending was at 2.5% of GDP was under the last Labour Government.

Scotland is a leader in the defence industry. Just this week, I had the pleasure of visiting JFD in Renfrew, which works with the Royal Navy to design, manufacture and operate world-class submarine rescue systems. From Babcock and BAE Systems to small businesses and start-ups, I am determined that Scotland leads the way in building our military industrial base.

Given that the defence sector already supports more than 20,000 jobs in Scotland, as well as hundreds in Harlow, does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending will also help to grow Scotland’s economy and create more skilled jobs?

For years the defence sector in Scotland has been at the forefront of creating skilled, well-paid jobs, despite the SNP’s refusal to stand up and back UK defence. This week is Scottish Apprenticeship Week, and I hope that those on both sides of the House—particularly Members from Scotland—will join me in paying tribute to Scotland’s wonderful defence sector apprentices, who do a great job at not just keeping our country safe, but helping our economies grow and building the skills base of Scotland’s future.

A proper industrial strategy is key to economic growth, which is why industry has been asking for support for many years. My constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme were failed by the Tories, and the people of Scotland have been failed by the SNP since 2007. Can the Minister set out what work the Scotland Office has done to ensure that a new national industrial strategy delivers for Scotland, as well as for the good people of Newcastle-under-Lyme?

The Scottish Government and SNP Members seem to think that defending the defence industry is done on Twitter. This Government inherited not just a fiscal crisis but an industrial one, because we have had well over 10 years without a clear industrial strategy. I was pleased recently to meet the chair of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, and I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary to Scotland last month to meet business leaders at the forefront of Scotland’s industrial future. This Government have already delivered, among other things, £200 million for Grangemouth, £2.6 million for the V&A in Dundee, and job security for 300 skilled workers at Harland & Wolff’s shipyards in Methil and Arnish. Just this morning, we announced £55 million for the Cromarty Green freeport to expand its capability for floating offshore wind. That is the commitment to growth that this Government make to the country.

The SNP Government continue to be opposed to nuclear energy, despite the huge economic benefits it would bring to Scotland. We can see that in the jobs and investment that the Torness power station generates. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that investing in nuclear would help bring down bills for our consumers, help the environment and create many more jobs?

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Our nuclear policy in Scotland should allow us to have nuclear power to bring down bills and give us energy security. Of course, he is also right that the SNP is against nuclear power in Scotland, but very happy to take the baseload from England.

The Scotch whisky industry is central to the economic growth of Scotland, and I was very pleased to hear from the Dispatch Box yesterday that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not moving forward with its consultation on single malts. However, can the Secretary of State explain why we were in that position in the first place? What discussions were had between DEFRA and the Scotland Office before that consultation was opened?

I agree with the hon. Lady about the commitment given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the Dispatch Box yesterday, and I reiterate that the only watering down of whisky in Scotland will be the little bit of water that some put in to taste.

The Secretary of State will be well aware of the manifold range of family-owned businesses in Scotland, many of which are very large and trade with multimillion-pound balance sheets every year. The Chancellor’s move to change the rules on business property relief threatens at best these businesses being sold off to plcs and at worst their being liquidated to pay their liabilities to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. What assessment has the Scotland Office made of the potentially catastrophic implications for Scottish enterprise of the BPR changes in train from the Treasury?

It seems to me that SNP Members decided when they came back to the House in July to defend the Conservative Government’s economic record. We inherited a £22 billion black hole, and when the Chancellor came to the Dispatch Box for the Budget, she had to fill that black hole and end austerity. It is what we promised, and it delivered £4.9 billion to the Scottish budget, which the hon. Gentleman’s party is intent on spending. This is the key point: SNP Members in this House have objected to every single measure in that Budget, but they are very happy to spend the money.

If the Secretary of State wants to help economic growth in Scotland, I suggest he looks at oil and gas. Ending the licensing of domestic production, which will not make the slightest difference to how much we consume, will lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs—35,000 jobs—and billions of pounds in tax revenue, and we will then import oil and gas with higher embedded emissions. The Secretary of State knows that that is crazy. He cannot say so publicly at the Dispatch Box, but can he use his good offices to persuade his fellow Cabinet members that this is not a sensible course for Scotland?

This Government back the oil and gas industry in Scotland. We have consistently said that oil and gas will be with us for decades to come, but that sits beside our national mission to get to clean power by 2030. It is a mission we should all be backing not just for the jobs of the future, but to bring down people’s bills.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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 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?

The shadow Secretary of State will know that the Government are working very hard, after the Finch decision and the decisions around Rosebank, in terms of oil and gas. He asks me to answer the question about where Scottish Labour MPs would rank in the table. Scottish Labour MPs are in the premier league; he is in the Sunday league. [Interruption.]

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?

This Government are fully committed to economic growth. As I have said, the Prime Minister has said and the Chancellor has consistently said, oil and gas will be with us for decades to come. We support the industry. We are working through the issues that have arisen from the legal cases the shadow Secretary of State references. Our clean power mission by 2030 will create jobs, create economic growth, lower bills, and give us energy security for the future.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

If economic growth in Scotland is to succeed, our world-class universities—the knowledge, the skills and the jobs they provide—will be absolutely vital. Last week, Edinburgh University announced that it faced a £140 million deficit, which is projected to be the largest in the UK. That is hugely concerning for my constituents and I am sure also for the Secretary of State. The principal cited several issues, including the national insurance changes. This morning, visiting universities told Scottish MPs that they also have funding concerns. They cited the immigration laws in this country as a disincentive. What are the Government going to do to stop further damage to this vital sector inhibiting economic growth?

Scottish universities punch above their weight internationally. They are one of the jewels in the crown of the Scottish economy, and of the Scottish and UK education system. Of course, Edinburgh University is the best university in the world—the House would expect me to say that as the MP in Edinburgh and as an alumnus. Let us not hide from the fact—I say this gently to the hon. Lady—that part of the big funding challenges for the universities is the lack of funding from the Scottish Government, because higher education is devolved. I will follow that up by very gently saying again that she says she does not want anything in the Budget that raises funds, but she wants to spend it.

I join others in congratulating the Secretary of State on the birth of his daughter. That is one gain from Labour that even the SNP can endorse!

One of the most important areas that business has identified for growth is a more Scotland-specific approach to migration. That was touted by Scottish Labour in its manifesto and by its leader, but it was shot down by the UK Government in no time at all, going the same way as the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, child poverty commitments and the winter fuel payment commitment. If the UK Government will not listen to Scotland’s Labour leader, why should anybody else?

I am very surprised the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to apologise for his Twitter rantings at the weekend on foreign policy with regards to the Prime Minister. He said:

“The UK has left itself in an utterly isolated position.”

I think the hon. Gentleman left himself in an utterly isolated position.

This Government are completely committed to economic growth and to transforming lives in Scotland. We are already seeing the fruits of that in the Scottish context. I ask the SNP either to get behind that, or to give Scotland a new direction and get out of the way.

If the Secretary of State had bothered to read in more depth, he would have seen that I was saying something that he once agreed with: leaving the EU has left us more isolated. He once agreed with me about that, before he went into government—but then, he agreed with me on other things before he went into government, such as tackling fuel poverty and tackling child poverty. Is the Secretary of State no longer worried about those issues and more worried about league tables? Is he more worried about being in the relegation zone? Do you know what is really interesting, Mr Speaker? Throughout all of this, not once has he stood up for his leader. That makes me think that we should not listen to his leader—because Labour Members are not listening to their leader any more.

Sorry, Mr Speaker. I lost the thread of that question about halfway through, but one thing I did take from it is that it was absolutely identical to the question from the Tory shadow Secretary of State. That tells you all you need to know.