[0:00]Hello, it's James in the Westminster studio >> and it's Alex in the Westminster studio >> and Chris in Westminster, too. >> And later in this episode, we are going to hear from Simon Jack about the International Energy Agency, which has
[0:11]agreed to their largest ever release of oil reserves. But first, we have had the first release of papers relating to Peter Manderson's appointment as US ambassador. Chris, before we get into
[0:21]the substance, the detail, what they showed us, just remind us about how we got to this point of them being published in the first place. Yeah, because you'd be sort of forgiven with all the news the last couple of weeks of sort of forgetting about not necessarily
[0:32]the Lord Mandlesson route, but you know what? Where are all these documents coming from? Why are we getting stuff we don't normally get? So, rewind about a month, beginning of last month, Conservatives used this pretty obscure
[0:43]parliamentary mechanism called a humble address. And that means a humble address to the king to request documents. Now, normally when an opposition party tries that as a mechanic, it doesn't work
[0:54]because they haven't got a majority. But such was the kind of colossal sense of disgust, frankly, in parliament about the revelations from the Epstein files that it was impossible for Labour at the
[1:05]time to to try and oppose. And so it sailed through the House of Commons. I don't think there was a vote in the end. It was just acknowledged that that's what the Commons wanted. And this humble address said look the government should
[1:16]publish all sorts of documents relating to the appointment of Lord Mandlesson as ambassador in Washington and then his time as ambassador in Washington. And then since then there's been a whole
[1:27]process of oh well hang on what can be published and what about things that might be um an issue in terms of intelligence sensitivity. What about things that might imperil the UK's international relations in other words
[1:38]the relationship with Donald Trump in this instance the intelligence and security committee which is a cross party group of MPs and peers that have security clearance have been involved in all of that. And then here comes Trunch
[1:50]N. Uh, actually, what would be the I nearly said numero uno, but actually what would be the French multilingual you? >> Oh, I mean, absolutely. What would be the French for trunch number one?
[2:00]>> I'm not going to be doing any French. >> I can do you a tiny bit of Spanish, but you've done that already, >> have I? Okay. >> More or less. >> So, yeah. And then, so there it comes.
[2:09]137 pages of um of the government's answer to the honorable to the humble address. 147 I reckon. >> Well, it's 14, >> but then you've got the bits at the top
[2:19]which are like this is the humble address and then this is why we're publishing and this is your contents >> and anyway it's all digital so pages pages. What what how do you get this? How does this all work? Were you because
[2:31]you've both been working on this all day? Um do you were you sitting hitting refresh you know and then how do you go through so much like how how was it all working here at Westminster? >> Were you an F5 merchant today on your
[2:42]keyboard? No, I actually read the whole thing top to bottom as quickly as I possibly could. Just did a thorough speed readad of it, but we had in the BBC because we knew it was coming. Chris confirmed on Tuesday night that we were expecting to get this published on Wednesday. So, there was a little bit of
[2:54]a heads up. So, yeah, the BBC had just sort of in in the Westminster team had assigned a couple of people to section up bits of the document. I think broadly people knew what we were looking for because obviously the reason that MPs
[3:06]wanted this published was because there was the question about that initial appointment of Peter Manderson and was it the right one and what did that say about the prime minister's judgment and what was known and what wasn't. So we had a sense of what people wanted to see
[3:17]in these documents what they may or might not shed light on. So we had different people sort of sitting there when the link came through from the government it got popped into a WhatsApp group. So everybody kind of had it and
[3:28]then people were sort of divvying up bits of these documents to look out for, looking out for what it could show us about what was or wasn't known around the time of that appointment. But I took
[3:38]the really old-fashioned old school version of just reading it all as quickly as I possibly could. >> And so and so did I. And actually, you know, unlike that stuff we got from the Department of Justice in the States
[3:48]that, you know, there were stories dripping out of for well over a week because of the scale, this was, I mean, granted north of 100 pages, but readable. >> But that was talking millions of pages.
[3:59]>> Exactly. This was readable if you avoided distractions like WhatsApp's pinging away in about half an hour, 40 minutes. I think to have a proper read of it and glean the uh the broad gist of it.
[4:09]>> Well, I suppose we better get to it then. What did we learn? Well, I suppose there's probably I think you can break this down broadly into two kind of bits. So the first bit is about what this showed us and with the huge caveat that
[4:20]this is only a partial release because as Chris said there is more to come and when we get more it might cast what we've seen today in a different light or not but it's just worth remembering that
[4:30]but of what we've seen today the the two kind of bits are one about the initial information the due diligence that was carried out initially around Peter Mandlesson prior to his confirmation as
[4:41]US ambassador and then there's a sort of separate issue about what happened after he was sacked and how much money he was going to get. But on that kind of first bit, the one of the key documents for me
[4:51]was that initial due diligence document that was compiled in December before his appointment was announced. And it lists effectively on there things like Peter
[5:01]Mandlesson's um past associations, his business dealings, and it lists some potential reputational risks. things like the role he had at Global Council, the consultancy firm he worked for,
[5:12]things like his previous resignations from government roles under the Blair Brown governments. And it also has a section there about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And effectively in a series of bullet points, it sets out
[5:24]what was known publicly at the time about that relationship. And it does make clear that the relationship between Lord Manderson and Jeffrey Epstein continued after Epstein was first
[5:34]convicted of procuring an underage girl. It also references reports that that Peter Mandlesson stayed in Epstein's house while Epstein was in jail. So, it
[5:45]sets out very clearly the government knew these things at the time of the appointment. And it describes them as a general reputational risk. >> I think what's interesting on a couple of levels about this, well, two things.
[5:57]uh one is much of the content of those eight bullet points I think they are on page what is it page 11 isn't it of the document uh were things that were in the public domain that you could that you could have found with a bit of sort of
[6:08]nifty uh googling the second thing I think you know which I think will be interesting to newscasters is that you know I think overall these revelations today were sort of interesting rather than explosive but what you do get a
[6:20]sense of of with real documents that the prime minister saw of what it's like as prime minister what is in you know we will frequently talk James as political reporters Alex and I and others about
[6:31]you know ministerial red boxes you know the business of the red box and the this is this is the kind of stuff that confronts a prime minister the whole time advice that's presented to him or
[6:41]her and then they read it and they have to reach a uh reach a decision now I think the intriguing thing around all this today is firstly it's partial because we now know there is going to be
[6:52]one extra the government plans at the moment one extra trunch to come within weeks. Now whether weeks is two weeks or 13 weeks or whatever, who knows? But I'm told it's not days and it's not months,
[7:02]it's weeks, and it'll come in one go. Now, potentially that could be really, really big, but let's see what's deemed, you know, admissible to be um to be published. There's also the sort of nagging thought I have with stuff like
[7:13]this, which is that you get this fascinating insight into into what goes on, which we don't normally see. But what do we not know that we don't know? So what for whatever reason has not
[7:25]emerged firstly this is the stuff that was written down so you don't know about and there's references sometimes to informal conversations. I'm always fascinated by that. Oh yeah yeah oh yeah know there wasn't a meeting but there might have been some informal
[7:36]conversation about whatever and you think oh yeah I mean a lot of business gets done in corridors. So you know there's all that kind of stuff. Um and and then crucially I'm wanging on a bit
[7:47]here um because we'll get on to the whole stuff about the severance pay. Crucially, it's worth us kicking around perhaps a bit later on the pod about
[7:56]what we didn't get today because that's really key. >> Well, let's see just one thing about that and then maybe we will talk about the severance pay as well. But just on that, Dan Jones in the Commons, chief
[8:08]secretary to the prime minister said the Metropolitan Police had asked the government not to publish certain documents, as you were saying, Alex, in order not to prejudice its criminal investigation. Lord Mandlesson was
[8:18]arrested last month on suspicion of leaking sensitive government information while serving as business secretary during the last Labor government. And Lord Mandlesson has repeatedly let it be
[8:30]known that he believes he has not acted criminally. He did not act for personal gain and he is cooperating with the police. That's his position. This is Darren Jones's position. We can have a
[8:42]listen to it now on newscast in his statement to the house. Whilst the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Manderson and Jeffrey Epstein, the
[8:51]advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship which only became apparent after the release of further files by Bloomberg and then the
[9:00]United States Department for Justice. After the prime minister reviewed the Cabinet Office due diligence that noted public reporting on Peter Manderson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,
[9:12]questions were put to Peter Mandlesson by advisers in number 10 as right honorable and honorable members can see referred to on pages 8 and 94 of the
[9:20]bundle and Peter Mandlesson responded, "These are matters that are currently the subject of an ongoing police investigation and we will publish this document when
[9:31]the investigation allows. when we do, the House will be able to see Peter Manderson's answers for themselves, which the prime minister regrets believing.
[9:43]So, effectively, the government's argument at this point is twofold. They are saying once again that they didn't know at the time the breadth and depth of the the extent of the relationship between Lord Mandlesson and Jeffrey
[9:54]Epstein. They're also making the argument that because they can't release all of the documents they say they want to at this stage because of the ongoing police investigation, um that there might be some follow-up documents and
[10:05]particularly this relates to the fact we understand there were questions that were asked after that initial due diligence process about that relationship between Lord Manderson and Jeffrey Epstein. We don't know the
[10:16]specifics of what the responses were and that's still a real point of contention because the prime minister effectively says he was lied to or they were lied to and Peter Madison says hang about no >> exactly I mean right at the heart of the
[10:27]heart of this in terms of the political contention is precisely that and it's one heck of a claim isn't it a prime minister publicly claiming that his former ambassador in Washington lied. That's one heck of a claim. >> And not only that, a a guy who's been at
[10:39]the heart of that party's project for decades and decades back to Neil Kick in the 1980s. >> Exactly. and and and and a and a claim of that gravity playing out publicly.
[10:49]And what we got today neither verifies the prime minister's claim nor verifies the claim that uh Peter Mandles makes which is that no uh he believes that he
[11:00]answered all of the questions uh around the vetting process uh truthfully and fully. Now, as Alex says, the argument ministers make is the reason for that is the documents that would uh get into all
[11:12]of that and the government believes would verify their claim. We wait to see if it they do. Um the police, so the argument goes, don't want to see the light of day yet because they fear it could prejudice any future legal
[11:24]proceedings involving uh involving Lord Mandlesson. So on that central claim, we are still none the wiser. And you do wonder at what point down the track we
[11:34]do get to those documents because obviously we don't know the longevity or otherwise of the police investigation. They are regarded as part of trunch one
[11:44]rather than if you like trunch 2 which is still to come. So it's possible you get trunch 2 and we've still not got these documents. And if you're a
[11:53]newscaster listening to this, there's a very practical sense in which this affects you beyond the um principles involved because your money has been
[12:04]used here. Taxpayers money has been used to pay Peter Mandel on leaving his role um £75,000. That's another email in the files tells
[12:15]us that, doesn't it? that the Treasury agreed a settlement of £75,000 with Peter Peter Mandlesson who'd asked for more than half a million pounds. He wanted several years salary, didn't he?
[12:27]>> Well, that's what the documents suggest. So, the documents include effectively reports of conversations that suggest that Peter Mandlesson thought he might be entitled to something in the excess
[12:38]of 500,000, which would have been the salary he would have received for that fixedterm position over the subsequent 4-year period. The documents also suggest and report conversations that he
[12:50]might have been consulting senior lawyers about his rights as a sort of dismissed employee at that stage. Now Darren Jones in the House of Commons repeated that and said that Peter
[13:01]Mandelton had asked for a a final settlement in excess of what was ultimately agreed at that 75,000 mark. that still that that that final severance pay still came came in for
[13:12]some hefty criticism from political opponents who suggested that none of that should have been paid. Darren Jones ultimately said he thought it should be donated to charity. But you've also had a bit of a sense of this as well.
[13:23]>> Yeah. So my understanding is Lord Mandlesson's view is that he never requested or demanded the sum £547,21 and that very quickly in the
[13:34]conversations he was having uh with the foreign office they arrived at this much lower figure of of £75,000. My understanding is also that he never had any intention of pursuing an employment
[13:44]tribunal which clearly some folk in government were fearful was one potential outcome. But what we don't what we know from these documents is what people in government concluded
[13:55]might happen rather than testimony written testimony from Lord Mandlesson that says this is what he was demanding. So it's the government's claim that he
[14:05]may have been wanting uh or began with a request as it says on page 111 negotiations back began with a request by the individual to pay out the remainder of the four-year salary cost of the fixed term appointment. By the
[14:16]way, on just a small matter, which people might be able to relate to in their own in their own experience, the and this isn't surprising, but I just think on a human level, it's quite interesting, the change in tone around the references to Lord Mandlesson. So,
[14:28]it's very human early on. Well done, Peter. It's all, you know, welcome to the we're going to on board you, that horrible verb, but anyway, you know, and all you know, welcome to the team, all that kind of stuff. And then you fast
[14:39]forward a 100 pages and it is the individual. >> That's that is interesting. about what another thing I think newscasters might be wondering is
[14:48]if I look let's we you we've said Peter Mandlesson disputes that he should have been fired right but taking the government's argument that we had to we
[14:58]thought we had caused to fire this man >> from this job because in their view he had lied to them in his application which he denies but if you're listening
[15:08]to this do not think sorry wait a minute is this normal down here in right hole is that that you get fired and they give you 75 grand. Who gets 75 grand when they're fired?
[15:20]>> Why is that? And that was a point that was raised by actually several MPs and not just opposition MPs but a couple of Labour MPs actually stood up in the House of Commons and raised that very point that very question you know and
[15:30]another couple of Labour MPs did also make that that sort of broader point which I think you're alluding to about the sense of of what I mean take away the kind of detail the claim the counter
[15:41]claim the rights the wrongs the who knew what when why and all of that the references that were being made in the House of Commons to this sort of broader sense of the way the world operates at these
[15:53]kind of high levels of power and government is not necessarily a way that many people will be able to relate to. And I think when you look at some of this, I think you do get the sense of that as well,
[16:05]>> otherworldliness of the political this place versus the the real world, you know, and and on that I mean the government's position, correct me if I'm wrong, Chris, seems to be that this was
[16:16]the >> although it sounds mad to say it now, the most efficient use of taxpayers money because their feeling was that they would might have to pay out a lot more if they didn't pay this amount of
[16:27]money. But but isn't the point there that there's a moral consideration there about in spending public money is not only about how much you spend but who
[16:38]you give the money to and what you spend it on. I.e. you know it's one thing to use it to defend what you be believe to be a fair legal and morally proper decision in court. It's quite another to
[16:49]say well we we think it's going to cost us more so we'll just give this guy the money anyway. I was just doing a control F to check a phrase that I remember reading about 3 hours ago, but I wanted
[16:59]to check I was quoting accurately on exactly this point. So the 6th of October 2025, a letter from uh Ollie Robbins who was the top civil servant in the foreign office uh to James Murray,
[17:11]the chief secretary to the treasury. This is around the severance payment uh subject special severance payment concluding £75,000. Paragraph two, quote, "This represents
[17:23]good value for money." So that was the argument they were explicitly making and therefore speaks to the concern that they had at the time um fair or
[17:34]otherwise or reasonable or otherwise that the alternative from the taxpayers perspective was could be much worse if this ended up either involving lawyers or it goes to a tribunal or or or indeed
[17:45]um anything else. And this rewinds all the way back to something right at the top of all of these documents, which was the advice the civil service gave around a political appointment in this job, irrespective of who it was
[17:56]>> completely. That that is just higher risk for a prime minister because it is somebody you are picking for political reasons as opposed to a frankly more anonymous career diplomat who everything
[18:08]else being equal would likely have a far lower risk profile and be much less likely to be somebody who is blown out of the job months in and gets into all this kind of stuff. And it's just worth a final sort of other point that came
[18:19]out of these documents today was that was a note included in there from Jonathan Powell who is now Seca's national security advisor when he refers back to the process that was taking
[18:31]place at the time around the appointment of Peter Manderson and he calls it unusual and weirdly rushed and I think that's getting quite a lot of attention. It doesn't really elaborate in the documents beyond that,
[18:42]>> but that in in and of itself is getting quite a lot of attention because of course the central point about this is still comes back to the judgment at the time as to whether it was right or wrong
[18:53]to have appointed Peter Manderson. Clearly there's a lot of hindsight now, but was that the right call in that moment? completely and remember the context around the context was just to state the obvious but it's worth
[19:05]remembering because you should say there is a bit of hindsight bias I think at the moment inevitably given what we've learned since that wasn't known then which is this was a government
[19:13]determined desperate to have a workable viable positive relationship with Donald Trump a president like no other and so the decision was taken you need to make
[19:24]an appointment like no other and they thought that Peter Mandlesson with his political skills and his connections and his contacts was the person to be the
[19:35]person to woo Donald Trump. So that contributes towards the explanation of the timeline. They had a a they had an ambassador who was due to leave at just the point Lord Mandlesson just the point
[19:46]Donald Trump was about to be uh have his second inauguration. They needed to act quickly. They felt and they thought Lord Mandlesson was the man that they needed. Boy, does the prime minister regret it.
[19:56]But that was the the logic and outwardly certainly from his perspective at the time the sensible logic that led him to that judgment. >> Yeah. And if I'm a diplomat newscaster listener I'm thinking should have stuck
[20:08]to the professionals is what I'm thinking probably. Chris thank you very much to >> now we promised you Simon Jack and this afternoon we got the news that the largest ever release of oil reserves had
[20:20]been agreed by the international energy agency. Yeah, because we were talking on newscast on Monday, I think it was, James, about the pressure that the war in Iran is causing on the cost of oil because of all the disruption to supply
[20:31]routes and the cost of a barrel at one point went above $100 a barrel, which is a benchmark that people kind of look out for. So now this International Energy Agency, it's always
[20:42]>> IEA. No, I >> it's a tongue twister. >> The IEA >> Yeah. and all of its member countries. They are hoping they are planning to release some oil hoping it's going to ease the pressure on the market. That's
[20:53]my kind of basic understanding. >> I think that's correct. But Simon Jack knows. And earlier we were joined by Simon in the main newscast studio to help us understand how this all might work and what it means for the oil
[21:04]industry too. >> Hello Simon. >> Hello James. >> Right. You are a very very busy person today. >> Like many people I hope. >> Yes. But you're particularly busy. So let's get on with this. And I need you
[21:15]please to tell me first of all what is the organization that I find hard to say the IEA the IEA >> IEA the international energy agency it's
[21:24]got about 150 members and it is sort of the collective body to sort of coordinate um responses to the kind of crisis we've
[21:33]got right now. And so what has been emerging over the last couple of days is that the countries who are members all of them are obliged to hold 90 days of
[21:45]oil supply in reserve earmarked especially for crises like these. Uh the UK does it and many other countries do
[21:52]it as well. and in certain circumstances they can release this into the market in order to try and combat um price spikes,
[22:04]shortages, etc. And that's what we've seen. So, we've seen, for example, Japan said they might go a little early. We've seen Germany saying they're going to do it. And in the last hour or two, the UK
[22:15]government confirmed that it will release 13 and a half million barrels of oil stocks into the market as part of a total of 400 million for all the IEA members. And that would make it the
[22:26]biggest ever release of oil stocks in the IEAs. I'm just trying to figure out 1974 to now 52-year history. Um, we've seen we saw it done did it twice during the Russia Ukraine crisis. It did it
[22:38]during Libya. There have been a couple, but it's pretty rare and this is the biggest ever. >> So, Simon, I mean, they were sort of talk, they've been talking about this for a couple of days because of all of the disruption that we've seen to oil
[22:50]supplies. I just wanted to give it a bit of context. You're saying this is like the biggest ever, but what will that actually do? Like, how will it help ease the pressure? How long does that sort of level of supply last? You know, what
[23:02]kind of practical difference is it going to make? Okay. So in in arithmetic terms 400 million barrels of oil is about 4 days worth of global supply. We the planet uses about 100 million a day. Now
[23:13]it's a really good question Alex because in a way it's not as if there's some big reservoir where this is all kept and you just open the gate and it all comes sloshing out. What happens is that the
[23:24]companies and the countries which have earmarked these stocks and in the UK they're all over the place in Scotland and Wales and whatever in the US they're in big caves in Louisiana and Texas. What they do is they make it available
[23:36]to the market. So refiners who make petrol and jet fuel and other things can then basically order it. But the problem is is that there is a bit of a refining bottleneck in capacity. So it's not as
[23:47]easy as just saying that doesn't become petrol overnight. It's got to be refined. uh and that is why it's generally seen as in a way more of a kind of signal that listen we're thinking about this we understand
[23:59]there's a problem we've all got together the G7 the IEA etc the EU and we realize and we're trying to act in a coordinated way so in a way it's a kind of sentiment
[24:08]boost it's a reassurance rather than a physical solution to this and because 400 million is about onethird of the total global amount in the oil reserve it's not a card you can play very often
[24:20]so I think it's going to be Super fascinating to see as we now know it's beginning to happen what the impact is actually going to be on the on the old prize. It's a bit like if a asteroid is hitting towards Earth and you've got one
[24:31]shot at it with a nuclear weapon or something. If you miss then what? So I guess is is the question. >> Is it too early to say whether they have missed? I mean the time now is 22
[24:42]minutes to 4 in the afternoon on Wednesday. So this has just happened. The oil price near nudged $120 a barrel the other day. dropped back. Where does it now? So,
[24:52]>> so it went from 120 at the height of the frenzy. It came all the way back down to um 81 when Donald Trump and said that he thinks he's pretty much done and victory
[25:02]is almost complete. At the moment, it's at about $90 a barrel. Helped in part, I think, um because people were expecting this coordinated action to happen. So,
[25:13]at the moment, $90 a barrel is expensive. Remember before all these hostilities began it was at 72. So by my maths that means it's up 25%. So that is
[25:24]not crisis terms but clearly it's still I was just talking to an energy boss actually a couple of hours ago and they're saying look if this goes on for another six to 8 weeks then you have a genuine genuine problem. But at the
[25:35]moment people are thinking maybe you can get some out through pipelines from Saudi Arabia. Maybe there's going to be some military escorts. You know, you had that sort of fiasco where Chris Wright, the energy secretary in the US, said,
[25:46]"We've escorted a vessel out." And then they said, "Oh, no, we didn't." So, all of that's going on at the moment. So, at $90 a barrel, it's it's expensive, but it's not the kind of crisis levels we saw last week.
[25:57]>> It's so interesting, Simon, because from what you're saying, this decision to release these reserves is in part to do with sentiment. It's in part to do with this kind of trying to I guess, >> tell me if this is a wrong wrong way of
[26:08]phrasing it, but you know, kind of make the markets know there's an effort collectively going on to keep a kind of supply coming. And we also saw when Donald Trump was talking about where the war in Iran is at that was widely
[26:18]interpreted as him trying to kind of calm the oil markets. I just wonder, you know, what other levers can be pulled as it were if we carry on seeing this kind of up and down spike in prices which
[26:30]governments are clearly really worried about. I mean that's when I said you know if you take a shot at the asteroid and you miss and then it's still heading towards you. I think we're still in a place everyone has been like Fatty Birll
[26:42]who's the boss of the IEA said today this is a major move but the only solution to this is deescalation of the conflict and the reopening of the straits of moves and that still be is
[26:53]that still pretty much an onoff switch in that regard in terms of how you deal with this conflict. this goes on for another four or five weeks, then you know that then you'll begin to see well you may see oil prices begin to rise
[27:04]again. Let's see how this release goes. But like I say, most people are saying I mean you had Rachel Reeves for example talking about fuel duty today saying we're going to keep that under review. A
[27:14]5p cut brought in in 2022 during the last energy crisis by the way. Um that's due to be phased out from September that's now under review. You've seen people in Austria for example telling
[27:25]petrol stations they can only raise prices every other weekday. You've had um Germany saying you can only change petrol prices once a day. So you see this collective action but all of these
[27:36]in a way the margins the real substance of it is how do you open reopen a passage of 22 mi wide where 20% of the world's energy goes through. and we as
[27:46]some newscasters will remember and you may like to know if you didn't h hear it talked about that on yesterday's episode and there it's really worth listening to if you want to know more about the straits of hormones go back to
[27:57]yesterday's episode just coming back here for a minute um what does this mean in terms of we've talked a bit about the consumer and what it might mean for the
[28:08]consumer and certainly in terms of um prices at the petrol pump for example what does this mean for British industry and for the oil industry street here. If anything, there's been an argument about
[28:19]what they call the windfall tax, the energy profits levy levy. The North Sea oil industry detest it. They think it's been outrageous because there they argue not been windfall profits to be made. I
[28:30]mean, arguably now there are windfall profits to be made. We're exactly at the point where we're we we're told that the chancellor is considering maybe reducing or, you know, changing or getting rid of
[28:41]reforming. Well, you would know better than anyone with your, you know, with your hat, your Scotland hat on just how unpopular in in some circles the energy profits levy is windful tax by any other name.
[28:51]>> Some, but not all. Absolutely. Certainly certainly in Aberdine. And and what is you know in in a sort of really almost amusing bit of timing they announced last week that there was going to be
[29:02]some movement on reforming the energy profits levy which by the way taxes profits on North Sea oil at at a rate of 78%.
[29:11]Now a lot of oil companies have said this is ridiculous because actually uh there in the last few months you know oil prices have been down at 60 and we're not making windfall profits. So, it's a a rather strange curious bit of
[29:23]timing to say we're going to reform the Wimful tax at exactly the same time as some of the old companies will be making some whimful profits because you see particularly when it went up to $120. What they would say though is that we
[29:35]don't mind paying the taxes when it's high. We do mind paying the taxes when it's low. It is, as I say, a curious bit of timing to talk about getting rid of the whimful tax at a time when oil prices are rising. I mean it's just so
[29:46]interesting because when you do have something like this where there is a real sort of shock to energy supplies what it often does is reignite the very debate about energy supplies in the UK and we've already seen that I think in
[29:56]recent days so around whether or not it means you should be tilting more towards exploiting North Sea oil and gas whether it means you should be tilting more to ensuring that the supply of renewable energy is more secure and we've seen
[30:08]some of those political arguments and the other area this is getting a lot of political traction is around fuel duty that you mentioned Simon I don't know if you caught prime minister's questions >> a little bit and also Rachel Reeves was asked about it earlier in Treasury
[30:19]Select Committee as well. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's become a real sort of focal point of the debate in the UK. So you've got Kimmy Bnock but also you've had Davy Nigel Farage all suggesting the government needs to move on fuel duty
[30:30]because at the moment it's frozen obviously but it's due to go up as things stand from September. K Starman making the point that prices haven't gone up. It hasn't increased yet. It's you know due to go up in September.
[30:41]We'll keep it under review. I just don't know sort of what your sense is of are the government kind of just hoping things stabilize and that they don't have to take any action that might kind of blow another hole in the public
[30:53]finances with some sort of intervention whether it's fuel duty or something else. You know, how realistic is your sense of what they're looking for? >> Well, my guess is that once you put it on the table, it's definitely is there as an option and I think it would be,
[31:04]you know, given the fact that oil prices are so high, fuel duty is tacked on to that. remember that when you have high oil prices, the government makes an awful lot of money in VAT. So, um because as as petrol prices go up,
[31:16]there's 20% VAT on that. So, in a way, it might be exch neutral to do that at a time, you know, in terms of how much money they're getting in. I think having it's one of those things that seems
[31:25]impossible to ever change his fuel duty. So, I think that having raised the prospect that that is a lever they could pull, it'll be very hard for them to leave that on the table. >> Yeah. And and just absolute final note,
[31:36]if you're listening to this as an environmentalist who's concerned about the planet, you're probably thinking actually yet another reason to wean ourselves off oil. But that that that's >> probably because you can see the argument in both ways. There's a lot of
[31:48]people saying this is just goes to show we should have our own domestic oil and gas supplies. Um the truth of that is is that if you get the oil the oil out of the North Sea, it gets sold into the
[31:58]international market, it's a tiny drop compared to the world supply. It is not going to change the price of oil or petrol. Slightly different with gas. Most of the gas that comes out of the
[32:08]North Sea is actually used here in the UK. Other people, Ed Milliband included, and Ed Milliband especially maybe would say this is goes back to what I've always said that we can't rely on
[32:19]hydrocarbons which come from dictators or hostile volatile areas of the world. That's why we need to do renewables. The problem is the energy system we have at the moment, the electricity price is
[32:31]still often set by the price of gas. That's the sort of leveling out bit which sets the price of the whole market. Until that link is broken, you don't get the full benefit of the sort
[32:41]of cheaper, more consistent and truly domestic renewable energy. >> Simon, thank you. Very busy and we packed so much in. Thanks very much. A lot to get through. Yes. Thanks, James. Thanks, Alex.
[32:52]>> Thanks so much, Simon. See you.