Tag: Andrew Bowie

  • Andrew Bowie – 2025 Speech on Energy Grid Resilience

    Andrew Bowie – 2025 Speech on Energy Grid Resilience

    The speech made by Andrew Bowie, the Shadow Energy Minister, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and echo his comments; of course, the Conservatives’ thoughts are with all those affected by the blackouts in Spain, Portugal and more widely.

    The Minister rightly addresses concerns about the security of our grid in the context of the shutdown witnessed on the Iberian peninsula, and I am glad that he can confirm that he is carrying on implementing the recommendations from Exercise Mighty Oak, in which I was involved, on the action that would be required if such an event took place in GB. The primary responsibility of the Minister’s Department is to keep the lights on in this country. The images from Spain and Portugal are a sombre reminder of what happens when the grid fails. Extended blackouts are devastating, and it is a relief that power was restored to 99% of customers by 6 o’clock yesterday morning. The grid collapse in Iberia has demonstrated the fragility of the complex, interconnected systems that support modern life, and the very real impacts on human life of such a collapse.

    It is the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the same thing does not happen in Great Britain, as the price for our economy and for communities across this country would be catastrophic. We cannot get away from the fact that this Government’s plans to rush ahead to build a grid that is entirely dependent on the wind and the sun in just five years’ time will make our electricity grid significantly less reliable.

    The stability of our electricity grid depends on what is called inertia, which is the ability for the system to resist destabilising fluctuations in frequency. It is the reason our grid has been so secure and resilient over the decades the Minister references. This inertia is provided by turbines, like those found in nuclear, hydro or, crucially, gas power stations, but it is not provided by solar or wind farms. If the grid does not have enough inertia to resist sudden changes in frequency, it can become destabilised, and cascading grid failure can occur. That means blackouts. As the Spanish NESO said in its latest annual report, the closure of conventional generation plants, such as coal, gas and nuclear, has reduced the firm power and balancing capacities of its grid, as well as its strength and inertia. This has also happened here in Great Britain. Data from NESO shows that the inertia in our grid has been steadily decreasing over time, as gas and coal have come off the system, to be replaced by wind and solar. This comes with a hefty price tag, which is the problem with so much of the Labour Government’s approach to energy security. Their imposed targets are saddling the British people with mountains of extra costs, as the Government rush ahead towards a power system that depends on the weather, rather than on firm, reliable baseload.

    Tens of billions of pounds are spent subsidising wind farms, expanding the grid, and providing back-up from reliable gas plants. The Government set their 2030 target, and now they are trying to work out how they can achieve it, but they refuse to be honest with the British people. They refuse to do an open and honest assessment of the costs and risks that come with this approach. It is no wonder that even Tony Blair has said that the present policy solutions are inadequate and doomed to fail.

    The Conservatives believe in a system that delivers secure, affordable and clean energy for the UK. A cyber-attack has been ruled out by the Spanish Government as a cause of their grid collapse, but we know that the threat of interference from hostile states is constant. Will the Minister update the House on the action he is taking to protect the grid from hostile activity? When will he finally tell us which single Minister is responsible for the safety and security of our offshore energy infrastructure?

    The lessons from the incident on the Iberian Peninsula are abundantly clear. We must retain inertia in our grid to keep it stable and resilient. Nuclear power provides vital baseload power generation, along with inertia, which would have helped to mitigate a cascading failure like the one earlier this week. Will the Minister give the nuclear industry the certainty that it is asking for, and commit to 24 GW of nuclear power, as the previous Government did? Will he ask NESO to provide this House with a full, transparent update on the role of inertia in our power system, on the consequences of declining inertia, on the impact that has on grid stability, and on the costs associated with it?

    Finally, the Minister has said that Great Britain has never experienced a complete shutdown such as that seen on the continent. What assurances can he offer this House that work is being undertaken, so that NESO and the National Grid are prepared for a black start, if ever that is needed?

    Michael Shanks

    I shall start with the more serious of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and then, in reply to some of his other questions, I might gently remind him who was in office not that long ago. On a serious note, I agree entirely with him on his opening point: the first priority of my Department and the Government is to ensure our energy security. The past few days in Spain and Portugal have brought to light just how much of our day-to-day lives are dependent on a functioning electricity system, so he is right to make that point, and we are very aware of it.

    I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise the work that the previous Government did on building the renewable system, and on introducing inertia into the system, because that all started a number of years ago. We have a resilient grid in this country, and it is important to continue to have that. That means building new grid infrastructure, which he and a number of his colleagues quite often oppose. It is important to build that grid infrastructure and to invest in it. We will continue to work with NESO and others to understand the full causes of this outage. I will not be drawn into speculation on what may have caused it, because clearly the first priority of the Spanish and Portuguese Governments has been restoring power, but they will carry out investigations to find out the cause, and we will implement any lessons from that.

    Finally, the hon. Gentleman was right to reflect on Operation Mighty Oak, which was carried out under the previous Government. We have been taking forward those recommendations right across government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is looking at resilience across Government. These are all important points. However, I say gently that energy security is an absolute priority for this Government, which means building the energy infrastructure that this country needs, and not opposing it at every turn.

  • Andrew Bowie – 2023 Statement on Energy Efficiency of Buildings – Funding

    Andrew Bowie – 2023 Statement on Energy Efficiency of Buildings – Funding

    The statement made by Andrew Bowie, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2023.

    My noble friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Lord Callanan) made the following statement on 22 March:

    Today the Government are announcing £1.8 billion of funding to cut the emissions and boost the energy efficiency of homes and public buildings across England.

    The investment will further reduce energy bills for householders and businesses, as part of the Prime Minister’s pledge to halve inflation and ease the cost of living. Altogether, 115,000 homes will benefit from energy efficiency and low carbon heating upgrades, along with 144 public sector organisations responsible for hospitals, schools, leisure centres, museums, universities and other buildings.

    It is being delivered through the Home Upgrade Grant (HUG), Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (SHDF) and Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS).

    In 2019, the UK became the first major economy in the world to legally commit to end our contribution to global warming by 2050. This is a huge challenge. But it is also an unprecedented opportunity.

    The UK has already shown that environmental action can go hand-in-hand with economic success, having grown our economy by more than three-quarters while cutting emissions by over 40% since 1990.

    The effort will be shared across many sectors, and decarbonising the energy used in buildings, and increasing energy efficiency will be a vital component.

    The UK is home to around 30 million buildings which are responsible for 31% of UK emissions. We have some of the oldest housing stock in Europe, over 80% of buildings still rely on high carbon fossil fuels for heating and have low levels of thermal efficiency.

    To reach our net zero target by 2050 we need to decarbonise the way we heat and cool our homes and workplaces, and to ensure that in the near term we meet our fuel poverty targets and emissions reduction targets.

    This £1.8 billion investment will be critical in supporting our commitment made in 2022 to reduce the UK’s final energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030 against 2021 levels.

    The Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund and Home Upgrade Grant

    Through the SHDF Wave 2.1 and HUG 2 the Government are awarding a significant injection of funding worth £1.4 billion to local authorities and providers of social housing.

    An additional £1.1 billion in match funding for social housing is being provided by local authorities and providers of social housing, bringing the total investment to £2.5 billion to upgrade social and private homes in England.

    The grant funding will be invested from April 2023 to March 2025, although delivery on the SHDF can continue with the use of match funding until September 2025.

    The money will go towards improvements to social households and private, low income, off-gas grid households with an EPC rating of D or below and could save homes occupants between £220 and £400 a year on energy bills.

    Energy cutting and cost saving measures provided through the schemes include external wall insulation, cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, new windows and doors and draft proofing measures, as well as heat pumps and solar panel installation.

    These schemes will also support around 20,000 jobs in the construction and home retrofit sectors, helping to deliver on our promise to grow the economy and create better paid jobs, whilst supporting families across the country.

    The funding awarded through these schemes continues the investment through “Help to Heat” Schemes which has already seen:

    Over £240 million already awarded to the SHDF Demonstrator and SHFD Wave 1 projects, indicating the Governments continued support to the £3.8 billion manifesto commitment between now and 2030 to deliver energy efficiency improvements in social housing.

    Over 37,000 households have seen energy efficiency upgrades as part of the first two phases of the local authority delivery scheme, with a further 20,000-28,000 homes expected as part of the sustainable warmth competition.

    In addition to the SHDF and HUG, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will also use EC04 and ECO+ to accelerate our efforts to improve homes to meet fuel poverty targets and the Government have committed to a four-year, £4 billion extension and expansion of ECO with EC04. We have announced a further £1 billion extension of the scheme through ECO+ to start in Spring 2023.

    Public sector decarbonisation scheme

    Over £409 million of grant funding has also been awarded through the Government’s public sector decarbonisation scheme. This Phase 3b of the scheme will support 144 public sector organisations across 171 projects to undertake low carbon heating and energy efficiency measures across hundreds of buildings.

    These projects will not only help reduce the carbon emissions of these public buildings but save them money on their energy bills and ultimately, save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in the long-term.

    Hospitals, schools, leisure centres, universities and other vital public service buildings across England are set to benefit from the scheme.

    £2 billion has now been awarded across over 900 projects to decarbonise the public sector across all phases of the scheme to date, and even more funding through Phase 3b is to come as applications are assessed and approved.

    Today’s £409 million is part of the wider £2.5 billion package that this Government have committed to spending on upgrading public sector buildings between 2020 and 2025, supporting this Government’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions from public sector buildings by 75% by 2037.

    Funding through the schemes will be allocated across England based on the following allocations:

    Region PSDS HUG SHDF
    East Midlands £18,112,366 £3,291,300** £74,715,671
    East of England £14,677,719 £23,577,300 £83,628,477
    London £44,280,137 £12,006,000 £131,724,938
    North East £7,636,389 £28,576,000 £29,355,551
    North West £44,555,899 £83,885,000 £105,371,309
    South East £108,324,556 £161,237,898 £128,906,218
    South West £33,450,968 £77,514,032 £80,236,981
    West Midlands £88,371,731 £152,745,310 £93,593,216
    Yorkshire and the Humber £21,737,561 £41,144,920 £ 50,053,929
    Across regions £26,688,898
    Scotland* £1,221,871

    * The Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme was open to applications from public sector bodies in England and areas of reserved public services across the UK.

    ** Further funding is available to the region via the Midlands Net Zero Hub which represents £138 million of grant funding across the Midlands

    The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has also partnered with the energy systems catapult to launch a freely accessible suite of tools, templates, and guidance to support the public sector in further decarbonising their sites.

    This support will help public sector bodies through the entire decarbonisation lifecycle, from the first stages of developing a strategy, through funding, installation, and completion, to help make achieving net zero sites and energy savings simpler.

    Energy efficiency taskforce

    The Government have launched an energy efficiency taskforce to support a step change in the reduction of energy demand through accelerated delivery of energy efficiency across the economy. It will help to support the Government’s ambition to reduce total UK energy demand by 15% from 2021 levels by 2030 across domestic and commercial buildings and industrial processes.

    Future funding

    £6 billion of new Government funding will be made available from 2025 to 2028, in addition to the £6.6 billion allocated in this Parliament. This provides long-term funding certainty, supporting the growth of supply chains, and ensuring we can scale up our delivery over time.

  • Andrew Bowie – 2023 Statement on the Nuclear Decommissioning and Radioactive Substances Consultation

    Andrew Bowie – 2023 Statement on the Nuclear Decommissioning and Radioactive Substances Consultation

    The statement made by Andrew Bowie, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, in the House of Commons on 1 March 2023.

    The UK Government and devolved Administrations are today publishing for consultation proposals to update policies on nuclear decommissioning and the management of radioactive substances, including radioactive waste.

    We use radioactive substances in many different products and processes: to treat and diagnose serious illnesses, to deliver research and development, and in industrial processes. In some parts of the UK nuclear power continues to provide low-carbon electricity to our homes and businesses. Nuclear power will continue to be an important source of low-carbon electricity as we work towards reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

    Most uses of radioactive material generate radioactive waste, which needs to be managed. The waste can occur as gases, liquids or solids. Radioactive substances policy covers the management and use of radioactive materials and how any subsequent wastes and legacies are then managed to ensure that people and the environment are not exposed to unacceptable risks.

    The last overarching policy document on the management of radioactive waste, Command Paper 2919, “Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Final Conclusions”, was published in 1995. Since then, the regulatory and policy landscape has changed significantly, not least with the advent of devolution and the creation of new regulatory bodies and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Some parts of the Command Paper have been updated and replaced with new policy documents. Furthermore, new policies have been developed that did not originally feature in Command Paper 2919.

    The UK Government and devolved Administrations consider it time to replace Command Paper 2919 and the separate policy documents that have superseded some parts of it with a consolidated UK-wide policy framework. In doing so, we aim to set out clearly those policies that are pursued jointly by the UK Government and devolved Administrations and any separate policies that apply in any one nation.

    The proposals update, clarify and consolidate a number of policies into a UK-wide policy framework and facilitate speedier and more cost-effective decommissioning and radioactive waste management. They aim to create clearer and more consistent policy objectives across the UK, to reduce unnecessary burdens and to unlock more innovative and sustainable ways of working, realising significant savings for industry and the taxpayer whilst maintaining high standards of safety, security and environmental protection.

    The consultation is in two parts. Part I sets out policies that we are proposing to amend. The proposals are aimed primarily at driving improvements in nuclear decommissioning and managing radioactive waste. Part II is a draft of the proposed UK-wide policy framework as it would appear if the policy changes being consulted on in part I were implemented.

    I am placing copies of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Andrew Bowie – 2023 Statement on the Food and Drink Export Council

    Andrew Bowie – 2023 Statement on the Food and Drink Export Council

    The statement made by Andrew Bowie, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, in the House of Commons on 26 January 2023.

    Today I am providing an update on the establishment of the Food and Drink Export Council (FDEC).

    I am pleased to announce that the inaugural meeting of the FDEC took place on Wednesday 25 January 2023.

    The UK Government previously announced their intention to establish the new FDEC in response to recommendation 13 of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. The Department for International Trade (DIT) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) have worked in partnership with the devolved Administrations and industry to develop the remit and membership of the FDEC.

    The FDEC is a collaborative expert committee which I co-chair alongside Ian Wright CBE, a leading figure in the industry.

    British food and drink are among the best in the world and renowned for their quality and provenance. Exporting supports higher pay and more productive jobs. We are helping our farmers and food producers to seize the opportunity of the enormous global demand for British food and drink. The council has an 18-month term with a focus on harnessing the expertise and resource from Government and industry across the UK in a collective endeavour to increase agriculture, food, and drink exports. It brings together dynamic agriculture, food, and drink sector experts from across the UK with an onus on sharing knowledge, raising ambition, building capability, and effective collaboration. The full membership is listed below:

    1. Ian Wright CBE (co-chair)

    2. Andy Richardson, Volac

    3. Anthony Mulley, Quorn

    4. Dominic Goudie, Food and Drink Federation

    5. Donna Fordyce, Seafood Scotland

    6. Ewen Cameron, Scottish Development International

    7. Grainne Moody, Invest NI

    8. Helen Dallimore, Coombe Castle

    9. lain Baxter, Scotland Food and Drink

    10. Keith Smyton, Welsh Government

    11. Lee Hemmings, Belvoir Farm

    12. Margaret Boanas, International Meat Trade Association

    13. Michael Bell OBE, Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association

    14. Nick von Westenholz, National Farmers Union

    15. Patricia Dillon, Speyside Distillers

    16. Phil Hadley, Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board

    17. Rachel Gwyon, DIT

    18. Sandra Sullivan MBE, Food and Drink Exporters Association

    19. Tee Sandhu, SamosaCo

    20. Tim Brooks, DEFRA

    The launch of the FDEC reflects the UK Government’s strategy to promote exports from all parts of the UK and level up the country. It is a genuine partnership which recognises and respects the unique and different approaches to supporting exports that have evolved across the whole of the UK. The FDEC has no remit to discuss strategic trade policy, negotiations of free trade agreements, or areas of devolved or reserved competence.

    You can find out more about the FDEC here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/food-and-drink-export-council.

  • Andrew Bowie – 2022 Speech on the UK Trade Deals with Australia and New Zealand

    Andrew Bowie – 2022 Speech on the UK Trade Deals with Australia and New Zealand

    The speech made by Andrew Bowie, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, in the House of Commons on 14 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to have had the opportunity to listen to this debate, to contribute to it and, indeed, to close it on behalf of the Government, especially as I am doing so as the first Scottish Conservative Minister outside the Scotland Office for some 25 years, since the noble Lord Lang of Monkton, who served as Secretary of State for Trade in John Major’s Government.

    May I start by thanking all Members for their contributions? It is clear from today’s on the whole positive debate that, on the whole, Members agree that the UK’s trading relationships with Australia and New Zealand are good for this country and for the world. In particular, the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) was right: trade has enabled the development of civilisation and human progress, and we need to make the case for it much more strongly. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) said, the trade deals that we are debating will bring positive benefits to our respective countries and economies. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who is a walking example of the positive benefits that antipodean trade can bring to this country.

    The agreements will remove tariffs, make it easier for British businesses to invest in Australia and New Zealand and deliver growth to every part of our country. They will also address trade barriers faced by small and medium-sized enterprises, such as lengthy costs and procedures, and allow our citizens to work more freely in both countries, thanks to new environmental commitments for businesses and travel. In short, the deals provide real benefits to real businesses and our respective countries at large.

    Before I address the points about scrutiny and environmental protections on which most of the contributions have been focused, let me turn to the contribution by my friend on the Scottish National party Benches, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). Time and again, SNP Members turn up to debates on trade deals and ask questions in the Chamber and elsewhere, professing to be friends of Scotland’s farmers and to be standing up for Scottish agriculture as champions of rural Scotland. There is just one problem: the record shows that, sadly, contrary to the rhetoric, the SNP are no friends of rural Scotland and Scotland’s farmers.

    Drew Hendry

    Is the Minister able to name one single amendment that the Government have accepted from the SNP on any trade deal?

    Andrew Bowie

    I would like, instead, to run through how the SNP are failing Scotland’s farmers, given how strongly the hon. Gentleman professes to be championing them. If they were friends of Scotland’s farmers, they would have voted with us, as the National Farmers Union of Scotland wanted them to do, on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill. If they were true friends of Scottish farmers, they would have listened to the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which has accused the SNP Government of operating in an “information void” due to the lack of information and slow progress of Scotland’s post-Brexit agriculture Bill. They say that they are friends of Scottish farmers, but when did the Scottish Government’s own agriculture and rural development board last meet? It was 10 months ago. That is absolutely shameful.

    In only the last two months, the SNP has been criticised by Scotland’s rural bodies for having no plan for rural economic growth and no plan to support Scotland’s pig farmers. Its policies threaten thousands of hectares of good agricultural land. Let us remember, too, that it would take Scotland’s farmers back into the common agricultural policy. I suppose that without Westminster to blame, they would need to join the EU in order to have somebody to point the finger at.

    Drew Hendry

    Will the Minister give way?

    Andrew Bowie

    I will not.

    The SNP are not champions for Scotland’s farmers. They are political opportunists who think that they can still get away with professing one thing in this place and practising another in Scotland, tied as they are to their Luddite partners in Government, the Green party. The SNP is not pro-farming; it is anti-business, anti-growth and, as we know too well, anti-trade.

    Deidre Brock

    Could the Minister explain, in this middle of his diatribe, exactly what he will say to his constituents in his rural constituency about the contribution of the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), which contained startling revelations that will not please them?

    Andrew Bowie

    In my 1,900 square mile rural constituency I have regular interactions with farmers—probably far more than the hon. Lady has in her Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. I will turn to the comments by the former EFRA Secretary in due course, but we will hear no more from the SNP on what is in the best interests of Scotland’s farmers.

    Our trade deals balance open and free trade with protections for our farmers. As I have said, I have immense respect for my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for EFRA. I listened intently to his concerns about the trade deals, but I have to take issue with him and defend officials in the Department for International Trade, all of whom, without exception, are dedicated to bettering the trading relationships for this country. They all, without exception, have this country’s best interests at heart and are working day and night for this country.

    I also point out that Australian and New Zealand beef and lamb suppliers are already working hard to satisfy demand from the booming Asia-Pacific markets on their doorstep. New Zealand already has a significant volume of tariff-free access for lamb to the UK market, but used less than half that quota in 2020. None the less, our deals include a range of protections that collectively allow us to apply higher tariffs to protect UK farmers for up to 20 years.

    George Eustice

    The Minister is absolutely right that, at the moment, New Zealand uses only about half the tariff rate quota available to it. That being the case, why would it have been such a big deal to require an enduring TRQ of Australia and New Zealand that was generous but within a fixed envelope?

    Andrew Bowie

    My right hon. Friend has an incredible amount of experience in this field. I would be happy to take up the issue with him outside the Chamber following the debate.

    Our deals include a range of protections that allow us to apply higher tariffs to protect UK farmers, including tariff rate quotas for a number of sensitive agricultural products; specific additional protective measures for beef and lamb products, which will provide further tariff protections to our farmers; and a general bilateral safeguard mechanism that will allow the UK to increase tariffs or suspend their liberalisation for up to four years in the unlikely situation that the farming industry faces serious loss from increased agricultural imports. On top of all that, there is still the option of global safeguards under the WTO.

    I will now turn to the points raised about environmental, animal welfare and food standards. I stress that we will never compromise on these critical protections—

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle

    You have!

    Andrew Bowie

    No, we have not. That is why our trade deals include specific measures to uphold them.

    Before I go on, I must quickly correct the record. Earlier, the Minister for Trade Policy, who unfortunately has a prior engagement in his constituency, said in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) that the climate change agreement in the deal was Australia’s first. It is not; it is actually Australia’s second. It also has an environmental chapter in its agreement to the CPTPP. In addition, the Trade and Agriculture Commission has separately confirmed that our free trade agreements do not require the UK to change our existing levels of statutory protection in relation to any areas.

    I now briefly turn to scrutiny, which is incredibly important. Contrary to the description of the right hon. Member for Warley of the scrutiny process, and always remembering that CRaG was introduced by Labour, the Government have made extensive commitments to support robust scrutiny of all new free trade agreements. These commitments greatly exceed our statutory requirements and we have met every single one.

    I hear and understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Rochdale and I accept the challenge to go further and do better, but the Australian FTA was examined by Parliament for more than seven months and the scrutiny period featured reports from three Select Committees. I praise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and it is sad that the Chair of the International Trade Committee, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), is not in attendance today.

    Drew Hendry

    It is important to make it clear that there have been substantial travel disruption and difficulties from Scotland today, so it is unfair to single out an hon. Member who has been hit by that.

    Andrew Bowie

    I thank the hon. Gentleman; I was about to reference the travel requirements. I was not blaming the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar for not coming, but it is sad. I am genuinely disappointed that he is not here to intervene on me at the Dispatch Box today.

    By the end of the New Zealand CRaG period, hon. Members will have had the opportunity to examine the detail of the New Zealand deal for eight months. Of course, His Majesty’s Government also welcome the fact that we have a debate on both trade deals today.

    It has been a privilege to speak in today’s debate. Our free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand are game-changing deals. They demonstrate that the UK is a confident, outward-looking, free-trading country that is ready to grab the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, and that we are a nation that is using the power of free trade to the benefit of great British businesses and the wider world—and as the right hon. Member for Warley said, to the benefit of all our people.

  • Andrew Bowie – 2022 Comments on the Trade Surplus Left by John Major’s Government

    Andrew Bowie – 2022 Comments on the Trade Surplus Left by John Major’s Government

    The comments made by Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, on Twitter on 3 November 2022.

    Labour inherited a trade surplus of £4.6b in 1997, and left the country with a trade deficit of £35.1b in 2010.

    This Government won’t take any lessons from the Labour party and is determined to drive up trade, not just with the EU but worldwide.

  • Andrew Bowie – 2022 Comments on Rishi Sunak Becoming Prime Minister

    Andrew Bowie – 2022 Comments on Rishi Sunak Becoming Prime Minister

    The comments made by Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, on Twitter on 20 October 2022.

    There is only one person that can unite this party, get the economy on a firm footing. Only one with the plan to move us forward. And that is the same person I believed in over the Summer. It has to be Rishi.

  • Andrew Bowie – 2022 Comments on Government’s Emergency Statement

    Andrew Bowie – 2022 Comments on Government’s Emergency Statement

    The comments made by Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, on Twitter on 17 October 2022.

    We owe the British people a period of calm, steady government in the national interest.

    We need to give the new Chancellor time and space to calm the markets and present his economic plan.

    What we don’t need is another sequel added to the Conservative psychodrama.

  • Andrew Bowie – 2022 Comments on Nicola Sturgeon “Detest Tories” Remarks

    Andrew Bowie – 2022 Comments on Nicola Sturgeon “Detest Tories” Remarks

    The comments made by Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, on Twitter on 10 October 2022.

    Sturgeon “I detest the Tories”. That’s the First Minister of Scotland “detesting” a 1/4 of the Scottish electorate. Good to see the language of respectful disagreement being demonstrated here. BTW, how’s that plan to win over 2014 No voters going?

  • Andrew Bowie – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    Andrew Bowie – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The speech made by Andrew Bowie, the Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    In rising to speak this evening, I find myself, unusually, in disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and in agreement —in part at least—with the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I am in agreement only in part because he said in his speech earlier today that we bandy around phrases such as “our precious Union” and “the integrity of our Union” quite a lot in this House, but it is quite clear that not everybody understands what is meant by the “Union” or its “integrity”, so much so that I worry that the meaning—the importance—has indeed been lost.

    None the less, the Union does mean quite a lot to those of us who are in politics, because we are fighting every day to maintain it: to retain our national identity and to retain the right, which we all have in this country, to say that we are British, or that we are of this United Kingdom. We may be Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh or English, but we are also British, and all else is secondary to that.

    I sympathise with those in Northern Ireland who were alarmed to hear the British Government claim in court that the Northern Ireland protocol “temporarily suspended” article VI of the Act of Union. Article VI created the internal market of the United Kingdom and was designed to give Ireland—now Northern Ireland—residents equal footing with regards to trade, and guarantee equal footing in all future treaties with foreign powers.

    To those of us who hold most dear the notion that all in these islands are equal and that all are held in parity of esteem, that article is fundamental to who we are as a people. That is why it is not surprising that those who want to break this Union, to remove that right, to take away our identity, to remove the right to call ourselves British, from those of us who hold that right most dear are against that move today.

    The SNP may couch its opposition to the Bill in legalistic language and it may claim, as it did in its amendment, which was not selected, that it was against this Bill because it was against international law—

    Martin Docherty-Hughes

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Andrew Bowie

    I will give way as the hon. Gentleman represents the SNP.

    Martin Docherty-Hughes

    If the hon. Gentleman is protecting what he and I would both agree is the Treaty of Union, why does he not extend the protocol, even as reformed by the Government, to Scotland, which, like Northern Ireland, voted to remain in the European Union?

    Andrew Bowie

    It might have passed the hon. Member’s attention that we actually had a referendum in Scotland in which the people of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom. The reason why it was extended to Scotland is that Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom voted as a whole to leave the European Union. He really must catch up. It was eight years ago that we had that argument—and we won.

    The SNP is against the Bill because, as it says in clause 1, the introduction, it

    “provides that enactments, including the Union with Ireland Act 1800 and the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800, are not to be affected by the provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol”.

    In effect, the SNP is against the Bill because it affirms our Union and protects its integrity, which is a very bad thing indeed for the separatists.

    We, myself included, did vote for the protocol. But, as we have heard numerous times today—I will not waste the House’s time by rehashing the examples that we have already heard—it is not working. Rightly or wrongly, true to previous international obligations or not, whether we like it or not, whether we would rather it were different, whether we brought it upon ourselves or think it the fault of others, the protocol is not working. And almost everyone acknowledges that. The European Union, albeit tacitly, acknowledges that. The protocol fails to meet its first objective. It says, as specified in article 1, paragraph 2 of the protocol itself:

    “This Protocol respects the essential State functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom.”

    And that is before we even look at whether it passes its own tests regarding trade. It says:

    “Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market.”

    It is hugely frustrating that the Commission refused to change the mandate of its representative in the talks, Maroš Šefčovič.

    Everyone wants to see a negotiated solution to this. The European Union reopens agreements and negotiates changes with international partners all the time. It is almost certainly the world record holder in reopening international agreements. Having been in Brussels recently and spoken to colleagues in the European Parliament about this, I simply cannot understand the outright refusal to do so on this occasion, particularly when there is provision in the actual protocol to do just that. I do wonder whether all the Opposition’s strenuous efforts in demanding that we negotiate a solution might be better directed in calling for the EU to come to the negotiating table with a mandate to do just that. We cannot negotiate when there is nothing to negotiate about.

    I am pleased that the Government have introduced this Bill. We need to resolve the issues of east-west trade. For the people of Northern Ireland, we must see a return to devolved government at Stormont. We must restore the primacy of the Good Friday agreement and we must ensure that parity of esteem for all people on these islands is held dear. I would rather that we did not have to introduce this Bill, but the refusal of the EU to come properly to the negotiating table is a huge frustration, so acting as they are is the Government’s only option. That is why I am proud to be supporting the Bill this evening.