Tory leader Kemi Badenoch to call for windfall taxes on oil and gas firms to be scrapped to avoid ‘killing' the industry
TORY leader Kemi Badenoch due to call for windfall taxes on oil and gas firms to be scrapped to avoid 'killing' the industry.
She was also set to demand fresh drilling licences in the North Sea in a blast against Energy Secretary Ed Miliband's decision to ban them in the name of Net Zero.
The Energy Profits Levy was first introduced by the Conservatives to tax companies revelling in record revenues while families struggled with soaring bills.
At the last Budget Rachel Reeves increased the tax by three points to 38 per cent of profits for the next five years.
But Ms Badenoch will today warn these massive profits have 'long gone' and the longer the tax remains 'the more damaging it becomes'.
She will tell the Scottish Tory conference: 'Labour have extended and increased this tax. They are killing this industry.
'And frankly if it is allowed to remain in place until 2030, as is Labour's current plan, there will be no industry left to tax.
'Thousands will have been made unemployed and all while we import more gas from overseas – from the very same basin in which we are banned from drilling.'
Mr Miliband is pledging £500million to invest in hydrogen, claiming it will create thousands of jobs in the transition to 'clean energy'.
He says it will cushion the blow from sectors like iron, steel, glass, chemicals and ceramics whose factories are exposed to higher energy costs.
The Energy Secretary said: 'By building hydrogen networks, we are securing homegrown energy that will power British industry for generations to come.'
Kemi Badenoch pleads for Tories to give her more time just like Margaret Thatcher was given
2
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Spending billions on unclean, risky energy? What a nuclear waste
Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactors have powered British nuclear subs since 1966, but small modular reactors (SMRs) aren't yet proven at scale anywhere on land (Rolls-Royce named winning bidder for UK small nuclear reactors, 10 June). Only three are operating worldwide: two in Russia, one in China. Argentina is constructing the world's fourth; is Labour simply keen to keep up with historical geopolitical rivals (Sizewell C power station to be built as part of UK's £14bn nuclear investment, 10 June)? The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported actual cost overruns of 300% to 700% for all four projects. Rolls-Royce claims costs of £35 to £50 per MWh; so should we triple this? The government says the SMR project would create 3,000 new low-carbon British jobs, but at what cost? The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, can't know the true costs yet, and three reactors doesn't scream 'economies of scale'. Yet £2.5bn is already 10 times more than Great British Energy has invested into simple, cheap rooftop solar, which democratises energy savings. The true cost of renewables must consider intermittency and balancing costs, but why not invest more in flexibility through distributed renewables and grid-scale storage? And what of energy security? SMRs may mitigate against Putin snipping offshore wind cables, but increased reliance on imported uranium, and a heightened nuclear waste security threat, are significant risks. Last May, the IEEFA concluded that SMRs 'are still too expensive, too slow and too risky', and that we 'should embrace the reality that renewables, not SMRs, are the near-term solution to the energy transition'. Has this truly changed? The climate crisis requires scaling all feasible solutions as fast as possible, but, with limited capital, we should prioritise those that make economic sense HillMBA student, Cambridge Judge Business School As Nils Pratley says, Great British Energy's budget has been nuked to divert funding away from local energy initiatives (11 June). But let's get away from the idea that SMRs are a cutting-edge technology. Rolls-Royce is proposing a 470MW reactor, the same size as the first-generation Magnox reactors. Their 'small' modular reactor, if it ever emerges, will use the familiar method of generating a lot of heat in a very complex and expensive manner, in order to boil water and turn a turbine. It will bequeath yet more radioactive waste to add to the burden and risk at Sellafield. In the meantime, if government SMR funding continues, it takes money away from opportunities for cutting-edge technical and social innovation, discovery and training all around the country, as schools, hospitals, community groups, network operators and all of us get to grips with renewables-based systems. This sort of innovation is necessary, it's already benefiting us and it needs full-on government support rather than uneasy compromises with an increasingly redundant nuclear DarbyEmerita research fellow, Environmental Change Institute I'm a Scot who moved to the US in 1982. I returned to the UK seven years ago. In my time in the US, I worked with a few contractors as a chemist and health and safety manager on a number of environmental clean-up projects, chemical, biological and nuclear. The nuclear clean-up sites I worked on directly and indirectly were Hanford in Washington state, and Rocky Flats, Colorado. The multibillion-dollar Hanford cleanup is ongoing. Most of the problems there are as a result of gross mismanagement of nuclear waste during the cold war. I very much believe in wind, solar and other environmental solutions to energy production. I am cautiously supportive of small‑scale nuclear energy, but outraged by this government's failure to include the costs of the disposal of past, current and future nuclear waste in its support of 'cheap energy'. Has Ed Miliband taken into account future waste management issues? Google Hanford cleanup to see the real expense. Can we trust this and any future government to protect the environment, public health and the taxpayer from future nuclear 'cost overruns'?Peter HolmyardEdinburgh The more I read about the government's nuclear intentions, the more it sounds like HS2 all over again, ie another financial boondoggle. Where are the detailed costings? What is our experience with cost overruns, eg at Hinkley Point C? What is the overseas experience with pressurised water reactors (the kind proposed for Sizewell C) at Olkiluoto, at Flamanville, at Taishan? Uniformly bad in all cases, actually. No matter which way you look at this, viz the future cost overruns, the facts that we consumers will be on the hook for them, that reactors are never constructed on time, that nuclear wastes are unaudited, that we have to import all our uranium, that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2023 that renewables are 10 times better than nuclear at lowering carbon emissions, all point to a remarkably poor decision by the government, sad to Ian FairlieIndependent consultant on radioactivity in the environment; vice-president, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Russia adviser Fiona Hill's alarming conclusion
Fiona Hill's assessment of the Russian threat to Britain is a classic example of how a seemingly rational argument based on a false premise and scanty evidence can lead to a mad conclusion (Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says, 6 June). It is especially alarming that this conclusion was reached by one of the three principal authors of the recent strategic defence review. The false premise is that Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the first step to make Russia 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. Evidence that Britain is already under attack is provided by 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations … cyber-attacks and influence operations ... sensors … around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables'. It follows that Britain's economy and society must be geared up to resist the Russian menace. Deny the premise and the argument for a 'whole society' mobilisation against Russia collapses. What it reveals is the strength of the warmongering mood of official Britain. This is not to deny that we have to take precautions against the real danger of a significant US pullout, perhaps amounting to rendering article 5 of the Nato treaty meaningless, and that the Russians can be quite ruthless in exploiting an advantage if they think they have one. But this is a far cry from proposing, as the strategic defence review does, a national mobilisation in face of an immediate and pressing Russian Skidelsky Emeritus professor of political economy, Warwick University, Richard Balfe Former MEP, Anthony Brenton British ambassador to Russia, 2004-08, Thomas Fazi Author and journalist, Anatol Lieven Senior fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statesmanship, Ian Proud Senior diplomat, British embassy, Moscow, 2014-18, Geoffrey Roberts Professor, University College Cork, Richard Sakwa Emeritus professor of Russian and east European studies, University of Kent, Brigitte Granville Professor of international economics and economic policy, Queen Mary University of London Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Herald Scotland
33 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Bowie challenges Tories to ‘step up' against Miliband's ‘eco-zealotry'
Accusing the UK Government of 'overseeing the wilful deindustrialisation of this nation', Mr Bowie hit out at the 'frankly dangerous eco-zealotry of Ed Miliband', the Energy Secretary. Speaking at the Scottish Conservative conference at Murrayfield in Edinburgh Mr Bowie told his party: 'We must step up. Britain needs us more than ever.' The Tory insisted: 'The future of Scotland and Britain is at stake, our country's security depends on a strong Conservative Party to stand up for what is right.' He recalled how former US president Ronald Reagan had 'once said the first duty of government is to protect' – but added that 'on every front the SNP and Labour are failing to do that'. Attacking both Labour and the SNP, Mr Bowie, who is also his party's shadow Scottish secretary, said: 'They haven't protected everyone's economic security, by raising taxes, or ripping away their winter fuel payment, even if they are now apparently going to hand it back to them. 'They haven't protected our energy security by insisting on no new oil and gas developments.' The Conservative MP continued: 'We can all see what is happening in the world, there is more risk out there, we as a country are more vulnerable. 'That is why the decisions of this Labour Government are so gravely concerning. Their economic incompetence, coupled with their frightening ineptitude when it comes to our energy security is making the United Kingdom more vulnerable.' He attacked the Labour Government over its 'madcap drive to clean power by 2030', as he said ministers were 'actively accelerating the decline of our North Sea'. This, he said, was 'forcing us to become increasingly exposed to over-reliance on imports from overseas, imports that are shipped in diesel-chugging tankers across the Atlantic from America or from Norwegian wells'. The Tory said the opposition to new oil and gas developments meant 'investment is drying up, work is being put on pause, companies are literally shutting up shop and jobs are being lost'. But he added: 'This hostility for our oil and gas workers is not simply the preserve of the zealots in the Labour Party. 'The SNP have their fingerprints all over the job losses, the well closures.' Mr Bowie added: 'We need Conservative leadership because we know where the SNP and Labour will take us.' He also used his speech to attack the 'snake oil salesmen' in Reform UK, insisting that Nigel Farage's party do not 'care one jot for Scotland, or for our United Kingdom'. The Tory said: 'Let me be clear. Reform is quite simply not a conservative party, not a unionist party, frankly they are not a serious party.'
