Andy Burnham

Q3. Last week, the US special envoy to Ukraine described Vladimir Putin as a “humanitarian”. My constituents were horrified that our closest ally could use such words for a man wanted by the International Criminal Court for the systematic abduction of 20,651 Ukrainian children. The following day, my constituency welcomed the Ukrainian Member of Parliament for Poltava with open arms and a determination to deepen our solidarity and co-operation. Will the Prime Minister remind our American partners that appeasement, flattery and sanction-dodging deals will only embolden Putin and risk further aggression to our NATO allies?

I have said many times that, yes, it was, and the Prime Minister is using those freedoms today. He is using those very freedoms, but he does not want to admit that. He is the Prime Minister, not me. He wants to ask me questions. I am very happy to swap places with him, if that is what he wants. I am not talking about something that he might have said 10 years ago, although I can read out those quotes if he wants. I am talking about something that he said just a few months ago. The Prime Minister was not here for the 2017 Parliament, but many of us were. We do not want to go through that again. The country was paralysed—it was miserable, regardless of which side of the debate you were on. [Interruption.] It was, because Labour Members would not respect the result, and they are doing it again. Does the Prime Minister really think the country wants to reopen that debate?

The Prime Minister keeps talking about our deal, but he is using our deal. He is using our Brexit freedoms to take VAT off energy bills. He used those Brexit freedoms just yesterday to scrap import taxes on hundreds of goods. What he should be saying is thank you. I asked the Prime Minister about freedom of movement. I do not think he has been talking to his Cabinet colleagues, because I will tell him who does not want a debate about freedom of movement: the Home Secretary—she has been very clear on that. The Business Secretary does not want it either. The Culture Secretary and I do not agree on much, but even she does not want the Prime Minister to restart this debate. What about his Back Benchers? Let’s have a show of hands—who wants free movement? I know the Prime Minister does not want to look behind him, but nobody raised their hand. There was someone else who did not want to reopen free movement: an ambitious candidate fighting a by-election earlier this year. He said “the last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments.” Does the Prime Minister still agree with himself?

May I also give my thanks to the Clerk of the House and convey to him, on behalf of those on my side of the House, our very, very best wishes for the future? There has been a bit of confusion this week, and I hope that the Prime Minister can clear it up. Does he or does he not want a referendum on rejoining the European Union?

The present Foreign Secretary’s ridiculous policy on oil and gas has now been overturned, so will the Minister, in a similar vein, ensure that the right hon. Gentleman’s equally absurd refusal to allow localised electricity pricing can also be overturned, so that businesses, such as those in steel in Scotland, can enjoy the competitive energy prices that the considerable generation in that country deserves?

Does the Minister agree that a good example of a Government policy that will have a positive impact on businesses in Scotland is our youth guarantee, which is providing Scotland’s businesses with skilled-up young people ready for work? That includes our new youth hub in West Dunbartonshire, which is set to open this Friday.

Scotland’s fishing industry makes a vital contribution to coastal communities in every part of Scotland. Last year, Labour negotiated away 12 years of access to our seas to the EU in a disastrous deal for the UK. Can the Minister guarantee that our fisheries will not suffer in any way from the sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU or lose any of our remaining freedoms outside the common fisheries policy?

6. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of Government policies on businesses in Scotland.

The Labour Government’s answer to energy independence was to create GB Energy, which we were told was going to create 1,000 jobs in Aberdeen. Two years in, it has just 132 employees, and only 86 of them are based in Scotland. The chairman and the chief exec are not based in Aberdeen—the people of Aberdeen were sold a lemon with GB Energy. Does the Secretary of State now accept that the best way to boost employment in Aberdeen is to get Britain drilling again?

I note that the Minister has failed to quash the rumours about Acorn, so let me try another imminent Labour party betrayal of Scotland’s energy. At a time when bills are set to be £1,000 higher than the Labour party promised, the Chancellor is inexplicably going to increase the unit price of gas. We know that families in Scotland will be disproportionately hit by the Labour party gas price increase. The Minister says that she and her colleague the Secretary of State are Scotland’s people in the Cabinet. What is she going to do to protect people from the Chancellor’s gas price rise?

There is real fear in Scotland this morning that the Labour party is about to embark on another big betrayal of Scotland’s energy. After abandoning Grangemouth and costing thousands of energy jobs in Scotland, the UK Government now seem set on withdrawing funding for Scotland’s carbon capture industry. Will the Minister take this opportunity to quash that rumour?

The Minister saw for herself this summer the opportunities being developed around marine renewables in my constituency at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney. Next month we will hopefully get the report from the taskforce commissioned by other Government Departments. Will the Minister engage with that and ensure that we get marine energy across the line and, as a consequence, win a home-grown supply chain in Scotland for her reindustrialisation policies?

Oil and gas workers are fed up with the Government skirting around this. Some 25,000 linked oil and gas jobs have been lost since the general election. The Government know that new fields support jobs—they said that last week—and they know that UK production supports UK businesses. Last month, they signed off on new oil in the Falklands, but are too squeamish to do it in UK waters. The Secretary of State knows more is needed. When are the Government going to wake up to the damage they are doing to our crucial oil and gas industry?

Last week, the Government finally approved Jackdaw. The Secretary of State called that “a win for Aberdeen, a win for Scottish workers and a win for Britain’s energy security.” But there can be many more wins: Rosebank and other fields can also protect jobs and supply chains, secure investment and tax returns, and boost our energy security. Based on his own logic from last week, will he confirm that he fully supports approving Rosebank and ending Labour’s ban on new licensing?

I commend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero for the decision to approve Jackdaw. It takes courage to lead, and the same logic applies to Rosebank. Does the Secretary of State agree that the £2 billion fund set up to transfer jobs from oil, gas and carbon into renewables sends a signal to workers that we are with them in the North sea, today and for years to come?

It is fair to say that there was a muted response from the First Minister at the good news from the UK Government on Jackdaw. Will the Secretary of State help to inspire and animate Mr Swinney by telling him more about the new energy wealth fund and how it will support jobs in Scotland?

For many of my constituents in rural Stirling and Strathallan, energy security also means being able to afford the heating oil they rely on to live and to run businesses from home. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues about ensuring that support for jobs in the oil and gas sector is mindful of the need to deliver the affordable and secure energy that many rural homes and jobs rely on?

The Government spent two and a half years virtue signalling about the North sea. They said there was no future for oil and gas and had a ban on licences, as well as increasing taxation. The result has been 25,000 job losses—1,000 every month and counting—not because of an external shock, but because of a crisis 100% caused by Government policy. When will this Government leave their student politics behind, back British business and get us drilling again?

The Government are accelerating the decline of an industry that supports thousands of jobs across Scotland, while promising replacement jobs that are not materialising quickly enough. Scotland’s oil and gas workers are paying the price for the Government’s ideological opposition to the oil and gas sector. Will the Secretary of State confirm now whether he supports Labour’s ban on new licences?

In 2024 the Scottish oil and gas industry supported 118,000 direct and indirect jobs, and after much dither and delay, thankfully the Government have approved Jackdaw, which will safeguard jobs that otherwise would have been lost, and create more. The Government need to do more to support Scottish oil and gas, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking?

14. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on levels of employment in the oil and gas sector in Scotland.

Almost two weeks ago, the Prime Minister gave a speech about devolution in Scotland. Since then, the Government have not clarified anything. Is the Prime Minister suggesting more powers to Scotland, or does he think that just by asking nicely the SNP will stop hoarding so many powers at Holyrood? Holyrood is already one of the world’s most devolved Parliaments; the issue is not the powers but the party in power there that has created Europe’s most centralised Government. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Labour Government will not devolve any further powers to the Scottish Parliament?

It is estimated that decisions by the Scottish Government cost my city of Glasgow some £347 million last year. Does the Secretary of State agree that devolution should not just stop at Holyrood but should be pushed down to local government, cities and towns across Scotland, that it should be accompanied by money from the record settlement given by this Government to the Scottish Government, and that until that happens devolution in Scotland will not be complete?

1. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the devolution of further powers to Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the apprenticeship budget was for 2025/26; what proportion of that budget was spent in total; and what proportion was spent on (1) training for apprenticeships with levy-paying employers, (2) traini

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether recordings made by his Department of advice given during phone calls by the Universal Credit helpline can be used by claimants as evidence when appealing an overpayment decision.