Global energy firm to cut 250 jobs in Scotland
Trade leaders have said they fear that it is 'the tip of the iceberg'
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
HUNDREDS of employees at a global energy firm in the North Sea face losing their jobs.
Harbour Energy is the UK's biggest oil and gas producer and is based in Aberdeen.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
2
Around 230 jobs are set to be cut at Harbour Energy's Aberdeen base
Credit: Handout
But bosses have now revealed that they are expecting to cut 250 jobs, which is around a quarter of the firm's workforce in the city.
The cuts come after the company launched a review of its UK operations and said it had to take "difficult steps".
Harbour Energy blamed the job losses on "punitive" government measures and regulations, according to BBC News.
They explained that they were necessary due to lower investment, which is a result of the UK government's policies towards the fossil fuel industry.
The news comes as a "devastating blow" after the firm previously announced the loss of 350 onshore jobs back in 2023.
Harbour Energy has often hit out at UK ministers for crippling firms with windfall taxes.
This is a devastating blow for the 250-plus families directly affected - and I fear it is just the tip of the iceberg
Russell Borthwick
Rishi Sunak introduced the Energy Profits Levy while Chancellor in 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
It was increased from 25 to 35 per cent the following year.
Then Rachel Reeves raised the rate to 38 per cent in her first Budget as Labour Chancellor in October.
At the time, the government said it implemented the changes to make sure oil and gas producers in the North Sea contributed their fair share towards the energy transition.
Major Scots university to axe 632 jobs as staff left 'in tears'
However, Harbour Energy claimed it has caused them to have been heavily taxed, adding that this has caused them to have little profit.
They also claimed that this has caused an undermining of investment in its operations in the North Sea.
Scott Barr, managing director of the firm's UK business, said: "The review is unfortunately necessary to align staffing levels with lower levels of investment, due mainly to the government's ongoing punitive fiscal position and a challenging regulatory environment."
Russell Borthwick, chief executive of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, said he feared that this is "the tip of the iceberg".
He said: "This is a devastating blow for the 250-plus families directly affected - and I fear it is just the tip of the iceberg."
That's 250 jobs in my constituency gone in the blink of an eye... They blame the policies of the Labour Party
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn
Back in March, Mr Borthwick slammed ministers for the windfall taxes.
He said: "Every other nation in Europe that briefly introduced windfall taxes very quickly took them away.
"It's limiting confidence, investment and stopping activity happening in the UK.'
The Harbour Energy job losses were raised at Prime Minister's Questions by both SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn and Tory leader Kemi Badenoch.
Mr Flynn accused Sir Keir Starmer of "destroying jobs in Scotland" as he defended the job losses in Aberdeen.
OIL-D FIRM
THE news of the job losses comes two momths after we revealed that business chiefs complained that Harbour Energy makes less money than Celtic
The Hoops' 2023 pre-tax profits of £40.7million outstripped Harbour Energy's £25million.
Trade leaders hit out at UK ministers and accused them scoring an own goal by crippling firms with windfall taxes.
Russell Borthwick, chief executive of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, said: 'There are no windfall profits being made.
'Celtic made more profit than Harbour Energy because the windfall tax stripped revenue.'
Tory MSP Douglas Lumsden said: 'Celtic fans used to moan about their board's 'biscuit tin' financial mentality.
'Times change but they will be stunned to learn that the Hoops are now more profitable than the biggest North Sea oil and gas producer.'
He said: "That's 250 jobs in my constituency gone in the blink of an eye and do you know who they blame, Mr Speaker? They blame the policies of the Labour Party."
Mr Starmer stressed that "nobody wants to see job losses" but hit back at the two ministers.
Responding to Mr Flynn, he accused the SNP of using the issue to "distract from their disastrous record" after nearly 20 years in government.
He also accused Ms Badenoch of being a "climate defeatist".
The UK government told BBC News that it will "support workers and communities" in the wake of the job cuts.
A spokesperson said: "Our thoughts are with any workers affected by this commercial decision, and we will do everything in our power to support workers and communities.
"The government has reformed the Energy Profits Levy to support investment and give industry certainty and stability."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves is the new Steve Jobs, says Cabinet minister
A Cabinet minister has been ridiculed for comparing Rachel Reeves to the creator of the iPhone. In an attempt to defend Labour's spending plans, Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, said the Chancellor was fixing the public finances in much the same way Steve Jobs saved Apple from the brink of bankruptcy in the late 1990s. Mr Kyle's comments prompted a swift backlash from the Tories, who argued it was ridiculous to liken Jobs's achievements to Ms Reeves's record tax rises on businesses. The Chancellor launched a £40 billion tax raid in her first Budget last year, including an increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. At the spending review on Wednesday, she will announce departmental budgets for the next three years. The process has involved a significant amount of wrangling behind the scenes as ministers attempt to dodge expected real-term cuts. Challenged on where the money was coming from for his department, Mr Kyle told the Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips show on Sky News that the Government is going 'to be investing record amounts of money into the innovations of the future '. 'Just bear in mind how Apple turned itself around … when Steve Jobs came back to Apple, they were 90 days from insolvency,' he said. 'That's the kind of situation that we had when we came into office. Now, Steve Jobs turned it around by inventing the iMac, moving to a series of products like the iPod. 'Now we are starting to invest in the vaccine processes of the future, some of the high-tech solutions that are going to be high growth. We're investing in our space sector … they will create jobs in the future.' Mr Jobs, who co-founded Apple in 1976, was credited with rescuing the company from collapse in 1997, when it teetered on the brink of bankruptcy in the face of competition from Microsoft. He died aged 56 in 2011 after a long battle with cancer. At the time, floods of tributes described him as a 'visionary' whose impact would be felt for many generations to come. Labour has long blamed 'difficult' decisions on tax and spending on the 'dire' state of the economy they inherited from the Conservatives. However, the Tories claimed that comparing Ms Reeves to Mr Jobs was inappropriate. Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, told The Telegraph: 'Labour are plumbing new depths of delusion. Steve Jobs, creator of Apple and the iPhone, improved life for billions of people. 'In contrast, Rachel Reeves has trashed the UK economy, spending billions of pounds that we don't have in the process. 'This comment just shows Labour have not the faintest understanding of business.' Greg Smith, the shadow business minister, added: 'Kyle's comments are a little far of the mark. 'Steve Jobs created a mega international business from scratch and Rachel Reeves is actively preventing anyone doing that in the UK, ripping businesses apart, increasing tax and red tape. Apart from that, yeah, they're identical.'
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Real risk Rachel Reeves's spending review will be about the departments that have lost out
"It's a big deal for this government," says Simon Case. "It's the clearest indication yet of what they plan to do between now and the general election, a translation of their manifesto. "This is where you should expect the chancellor to say, on behalf of the government: 'This is what we're about'." As the former cabinet secretary, Mr Case was the man in charge of the civil service during the last spending review, in 2021. On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will unveil the Labour government's priorities for the next three years. But it's unclear whether it will provide all that much of an answer about what it's really about. Unlike the Autumn budget, when the chancellor announced her plans on where to tax and borrow to fund overall levels of spending, the spending review will set out exactly how that money is divided up between the different government departments. Since the start of the process in December those departments have been bidding for their share of the cash - setting out their proposed budgets in a negotiation which looks set to continue right up to the wire. This review is being conducted in an usual level of detail, with every single line of spending assessed, according to the chancellor, on whether it represents value for money and meets the government's priorities. Budget proposals have been scrutinised by so called "challenge panels" of independent experts. It's clear that health and defence will be winners in this process given pre-existing commitments to prioritise the NHS - with a boost of up to £30bn expected - and to increase defence spending. On Sunday morning, the government press release trumpeted an impressive-sounding "£86bn boost" to research and development (R&D), with the Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle sent out on the morning media round to celebrate as record levels of investment. 14:18 We're told this increased spending on the life sciences, advanced manufacturing and defence will lead to jobs and growth across the country, with every £1 in investment set to lead to a £7 economic return. But the headline figure is misleading. It's not £86bn in new funding. That £86bn has been calculated by adding together all R&D investment across government for the next three years, which will reach an annual figure of £22.5bn by 2029-30. The figure for this year was already set to be £20.4bn; so while it's a definite uplift, much of that money was already allocated. Peter Kyle also highlighted plans for "the most we've ever spent per pupil in our school system". I understand the schools budget is to be boosted by £4.5bn. Again, this is clearly an uplift - but over a three-year period, that equates to just £1.5bn a year (compared with an existing budget of £63.7bn). It also has to cover the cost of extending free school meals, and the promised uplift in teachers' pay. In any process of prioritisation there are losers as well as winners. We already know about planned cuts to the Department of Work and Pensions - but other unprotected departments like the Home Office and the Department of Communities and Local Government are braced for a real spending squeeze. We've heard dire warnings about austerity 2.0, and the impact that would have on the government's crime and policing priorities, its promises around housing and immigration, and on the budgets for cash-strapped local councils. The chancellor wants to make it clear to the markets she's sticking to her fiscal rules on balancing the books for day-to-day spending. But the decision to loosen the rules around borrowing to fund capital investment have given her greater room to manoeuvre in funding long-term infrastructure projects. That's why we've seen her travelling around the country this week to promote the £15.6bn she's spending on regional transport projects. The Treasury team clearly wants to focus on promoting the generosity of these kind of investments, and we'll hear more in the coming days. But there's a real risk the story of this spending review will be about the departments which have lost out - and the promises which could slip as a result.
Scottish Sun
2 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Boots shoppers devastated as popular snack is axed from shops
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) BOOTS has axed a popular snack, leaving customers devastated. The chemist has confirmed that it no longer sells Eat Real lentil chips. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 2 Boots has axed a popular snack leaving shoppers devastated Credit: Getty 2 Boots has confirmed that it no longer sells Eat Real lentil chips Credit: Sainsbury's The tasty crisps come in several flavours, including Tomato and Basil, Salted, Sour Cream and Chive and Chilli and Lemon. The plant-based snack is made with nutritious pulses, grains and greens. A 95g bag usually costs around £2. Shoppers have taken to social media to ask where the popular snack had gone. One visited social media website X, formerly Twitter, to ask: '@BootsUK please tell me you've not stopped selling the chilli and lemon lentil crisps.' To which the Boots Help account replied: 'Hi Jo, thanks for getting in touch. Unfortunately it appears that this product has been discontinued in our stores. I apologise for the disappointment this may cause.' Retailers often discontinue products to make way for newer items on shelves based on sales and customer demand. When The Sun reached out to Boots it confirmed that the crisps will no longer be available on its shelves. But it said that shoppers can still get their hands on other lentil-based crisps individually and as part of the Boots Meal Deal. Among the other options are Properchips, which come in BBQ and Salt & Vinegar flavours. Four ways to save on your weekly shop at Boots The snacks are a similar price, at around £2 for 100g. Other discontinued products The lentil crisps are not the only product that has been pulled from supermarket shelves recently. Tesco recently axed its southern friend chicken instant flavour noodles in a blow to shoppers. The snacks cost around 50p and were available in store and online. Why are products axed or recipes changed? ANALYSIS by chief consumer reporter James Flanders. Food and drinks makers have been known to tweak their recipes or axe items altogether. They often say that this is down to the changing tastes of customers. There are several reasons why this could be done. For example, government regulation, like the "sugar tax," forces firms to change their recipes. Some manufacturers might choose to tweak ingredients to cut costs. They may opt for a cheaper alternative, especially when costs are rising to keep prices stable. For example, Tango Cherry disappeared from shelves in 2018. It has recently returned after six years away but as a sugar-free version. Fanta removed sweetener from its sugar-free alternative earlier this year. Suntory tweaked the flavour of its flagship Lucozade Original and Orange energy drinks. While the amount of sugar in every bottle remains unchanged, the supplier swapped out the sweetener aspartame for sucralose. The supermarket also axed its eight packs of beef sausages this week in a blow to BBQ fans. Customers can still buy six packs of Tesco Finest Aberdeen Angus Beef Sausages for £3 and four packs of Tesco Finest Pork and Beef smoked sausages for £4. Meanwhile, last month The Sun exclusively revealed that Cadbury's has axed Fry's Coffee Cream after first launching it in 2023. Cadbury didn't say when the Fry's Coffee Cream multi-packs were discontinued - just that they were available while stocks lasted. Carlsberg Britvic has also axed Tango Dark Berry Sugar Free after customers reported that they struggled to find it on shelves. A spokesperson for the drinks maker said it stopped producing the fizzy drink earlier this year. Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@ Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories
