Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said, private companies will invest where they see opportunities. They will risk their money how they want, and it is up to them to either gain or lose in the investments that they make. A secure domestic supply of gas is a crucial consideration when it comes to our energy security. I want to see the UK safeguarded with a domestic supply of gas, which we use and need every day. However, there is a viable gas source that does not need onshore fracking, a source that has been producing in the North sea and safely entering our gas grid for decades. Today we are discussing whether fracking should be banned, but we should be more concerned about the Government’s hostile policies when it comes to North sea oil and gas production. Let us take Jackdaw, a gasfield that could produce enough gas to power 1.4 million homes in the UK this winter—about 6% of our gas needs. Those who are worried about onshore fracking should reflect on the fact that there is a choice here, because they cannot be against all sources of gas. Would they prefer gas from Jackdaw or another North sea gasfield, gas from onshore fracked resources, or imports of liquefied natural gas? The option is not “no gas”; it is just a question of where the gas comes from.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  After that very long intervention, we finally got to the point. We are not opposed to net zero; we are opposed to a 2050 net zero target, which makes the country weaker and poorer and costs jobs, particularly in my constituency in north-east Scotland. Returning to the principles that I was talking about, it is right that, where possible, countries utilise their own resources. That is a fundamental part of a country’s national security. Whether it is jobs, investment, industrial capability or resource security, ensuring a domestic supply of crucial materials and products should be a concern for all Governments. That is becoming ever more pressing in a world that is increasingly uncertain, and where the flow of goods and products is becoming less predictable than we have known for decades. The second principle, which I think only one Member touched on today, is market forces. It is not for us sitting here to tell the market whether an industry is commercially viable. Private companies with private money or bank financing looking to invest in a range of competing opportunities will decide that. The reason I mention this is relevant, because whether fracking is or is not banned is only half the story. If it is permitted but companies cannot make it viable, it will not happen, and that is a genuine concern. The amount of reserves we have in the UK and the viability of producing them remain an open question.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing today’s debate? As we have heard in a number of speeches today, including from the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) and others, there are a range of strongly held views about fracking. Those are not least concerns about the distinction between high and low-volume fracking, the environmental impacts, seismic activity and the wider impacts of onshore gas production on local communities. I start by acknowledging that view. Local communities, particularly rural communities, too often find themselves the hosts for onshore infrastructure, whether that is for energy, mining or transport projects. It is critical that these communities have a say, should any proposals for fracking projects come forward. There are, as we have heard, mixed views on the suitability and capability of onshore fracking in the UK, so instead of us here deciding whether the UK has viable reserves that can be fracked, I will instead touch on two broader principles that we should all be considering when discussing not just fracking, but any industry.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  What is important here is the reality and, as the Prime Minister said, being pragmatic. Some 24 million homes in the UK use gas, and that situation cannot change overnight. Whether or not we ban our own gas, that need does not change. The demand is what is important, not the supply. The demand is what will, or will not, dictate any sort of target or progression to other energy sources. I think the crucial question hanging over us in this debate is “Why?” Why is there a desire for a full fracking ban? Is it a concern about the environment—about seismic activity? Yes, I am sure that is part of it, but I expect it is more a continuation of the hostile attitude—an attitude to which we have become all too accustomed—towards UK oil and gas production. Let us put the merits of fracking as a means of production to one side. It cannot, or at least should not, be denied that the UK’s producing its own resources where at all possible—be they gas, oil, food, cement or steel; the list goes on—is a good thing. It is good for jobs, good for skills, good for investment, good for security of supply, good for industrialisation, and good for national security.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  Because, unlike this Labour Government, we were not banning new production from the North sea, so we would have had a flow of gas from there. Let us be serious. No one who has expressed concern today about the loophole in the moratorium needs to fear, because there is no way that this Labour Government are going to use any loophole that might mean more UK gas production. Their record offshore shows that their plan is incoherent and self-defeating. They would prefer to ban new licences to rely on more imports. They would prefer to tax the industry so highly that investment is drying up and moving abroad at the expense of jobs and livelihoods here in the UK. They would prefer to pay Norway £20 billion every year to import gas from there instead of from the North sea. Just today, they have decided to put votes in a by-election ahead of permitting Jackdaw, and presumably Rosebank, before those results. And what is the result of all that? The UK will import more LNG, which is more carbon intensive and which, with relevance to this debate, largely derives from fracked shale gas. So it is not true to say that Labour, the Liberal Democrats or the Greens oppose fracking, the same as it is not true to say that they oppose oil and gas. What they oppose is producing gas here in the UK, and therefore they oppose oil and gas jobs here in the UK. Yes, this debate today is about fracking, but the more pressing issue is protecting the UK’s established oil and gas sector: its jobs, its supply chain and the expertise that is disappearing. The steps the Government can take to do that are simple; indeed, the Conservatives have set them out many times. We must end the ban on new licences, permit Jackdaw and Rosebank, end the energy profits levy and get Britain drilling again.

• 15 Sept 2026 · English Whisky: Single Malt Definition · Hansard source

  More

  Across the country, businesses are under increasing pressure. Competition, the costs of doing business, ever increasing taxation and regulatory burdens are making it as hard as it has ever been for our rural businesses to get on. While I recognise that whisky producers, farmers and the wider supply chain in England will welcome this announcement, those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are viewing it with concern. The whisky industry is a crucial sector in Scotland, supporting more than 40,000 jobs, adding billions to our economy and showcasing great Scottish produce abroad. Consistency in regulation is key across the UK. How are the Government going to ensure that the Scotch single malt whisky industry is not undermined by this decision, particularly given that distilleries in England will not have to follow the same single-site production standards as distilleries in Scotland to get single malt status? Has the Minister engaged with the Scottish Government on this issue to ensure that the Scotch whisky industry is not put at a disadvantage because of this announcement? A new designation for English whisky does not compensate for the hostile business environment being created by Labour. The Government are piling costs and regulation on to food and drink producers, including distilleries across the UK. The ever increasing level of whisky duty, the exclusion of distilleries from the British industrial competitiveness scheme and now the extended producer responsibility—adding £1.4 billion of costs to producers—all mean that the Government are making life ever more difficult for businesses that are struggling to keep their head above water. The huge and growing cost of doing business is making it difficult for businesses to survive, especially in rural areas. What steps will the Government take to ensure that these mounting costs, especially for food and drink producers, will not result in more and more businesses going under?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Support for Pig Farmers · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for pig farmers. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank Members for coming to the debate. To say that the UK’s pig industry is worried is a gross understatement. The sector has always experienced ups and downs, but the current trough and range of difficulties faced by our pig farmers is sustained and significant, and there seem to be few routes to stabilising the sector. The current downturn is considered to have begun back in the autumn of 2025, and has been driven by a combination of factors, including an oversupply of pigs, stagnant demand and falling prices in Europe, which have put downward pressure on UK pig prices. The situation has been exacerbated by constraints in the processing sector and by rising costs. Next came the substantial backlog of pigs at the start of 2026; at its peak, as many as 100,000 pigs were left on-farm. Although the worst of the backlog cleared, the standard pig price fell markedly and has remained low: it has fallen from about 208p per kilo in August 2025 to 178p per kilo now—a 15% fall. In the context of profit margins across agriculture that are sometimes only 1%, it is understandable why the fall in price over such a sustained period is causing issues for the sector. However, it must be acknowledged that the standard pig price is very much an average price metric. Many producers are receiving significantly less than that—sometimes in the region of just 130p to 140p per kilo, which is significantly below the farm’s break-even point. Indeed, a farmer I recently met in my constituency is losing about £50 per pig, and across Scotland, the industry has lost £5.7 million since January. Unless farmers are paid a price that at least covers the cost of production, there can be no future in the sector. It is as simple as that. Lower welfare standards and the attractiveness to UK retailers of the flood of cheap pigmeat from the European continent is a key factor dictating the low UK price. Here lies a significant problem: the undercutting of UK pig farmers by retailers, food manufacturers and providers, be that in the food service sector or in local authority procurement, is making the viability of the UK pig sector even tougher. While I absolutely understand and appreciate the fine margins in hospitality, not least due to rising costs and seemingly ever-increasing taxation, and the tight budgets of our local authorities, more needs to be done to ensure that local British produce, be that pork, beef, lamb or other farm outputs, can be prioritised and offered to British consumers. Fairness in the contracts for independent pig farmers is also a well-voiced concern. I recognise that the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025, which are designed to improve fairness and transparency across the UK pig supply chain, will come into effect for the sector next month. The regulations were introduced in recognition of the imbalance in bargaining power between individual pig producers and the relatively small number of large processors and purchasers. The changes will include principles such as mandated written contracts, a clear pricing mechanism, mutually agreeable term lengths and fair notice periods. Those regulations will not immediately resolve every challenge facing the sector. The industry still has concerns, and has requested that the Government undertake an assessment of whether the fair dealing regulations are truly robust enough to address the pricing and margin concerns of producers when dealing with processors. Is that something the Minister would consider? Biosecurity concerns are never far away from the pig sector. Indeed, the outbreak of African swine fever in Spain and elsewhere on the European continent and the impact that that had on the export market, including to China, is partly responsible for the oversupply and depressed prices we are currently seeing. There is real and growing concern about the emergence of diseases such as African swine fever and about foot and mouth entering the UK and infecting our livestock—no one needs reminding of the devastation that the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak had. Every possible effort must be put into ensuring that these diseases do not arrive on our shores. In winding up, I ask the Minister to comment on what proactive and robust steps the Government are taking to ensure that diseases like African swine fever do not spread to the UK, because more robust checks are needed. His answers to my recent written parliamentary questions and a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) in the main Chamber last week show that these robust provisions are not in place. It feels like we have been lucky not to see cases of African swine fever, foot and mouth or any other significant livestock disease enter the UK. The UK’s biosecurity system cannot rely on luck, because the consequences of any of these diseases entering the UK and our livestock is hard to overstate. Before I conclude, I want to reflect briefly on the situation in Scotland. Although I appreciate that agriculture is devolved, a robust agricultural sector and supply chain and strong food production and biosecurity controls are relevant UK-wide. Indeed, the UK pig industry, of which Scotland plays a significant part, is worth £2 billion at the farm gate, £7 billion in retail sales and, considering food service and export values, £14 billion in total. As I said, Scotland does contribute to that. The Scottish pig industry is facing even more acute pressures than those in England. With just one single processor in Brechin and distances too large to transport the pigs for processing south of the border, Scottish pig farmers are seeing an even lower standard pig price than their English counterparts. According to data that I have seen, the price being paid has barely got above 140p a kilo since April. At present, Scottish pig farmers have no formal contracts, so there is no guarantee that their finished pigs will even be taken. Having spoken to pig farmers in my Gordon and Buchan constituency—most recently just yesterday—there is genuine fear for the future of the sector. Just since January, Scotland has lost 15% of its pig herds and the average price per kilo has fallen by more than 20%. The pig sector in Scotland is down £5.7 million since January this year, with continued losses almost guaranteed if prices remain suppressed. Almost half of those losses—more than £2.5 million—are in my constituency. In closing, I want to ask the Minister just a single question, in the hope that it will be the most beneficial way to help the sector to address the challenges it is facing. My understanding is that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last met the National Pig Association or the pig industry in November 2024. Will the Minister commit to meeting the NPA and, when he does, making sure that there is a substantial package brought forward that can help support the sector? The best way to support the sector, which is complex and facing a wide range of issues, is to meet those who know most about it. That is the best way that we can support our pig farmers going forward.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Support for Pig Farmers · Hansard source

  More

  13 August is obviously a very important date, because it is when the fair dealing regulations come in. There have been warnings from the sector that that sort of thing will happen and about why it is so important. I ask the Minister for a proper review of these obligations to assess how they are working for the sector, so that we do not have situations like the one that my right hon. Friend has just mentioned.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Support for Pig Farmers · Hansard source

  More

  Given that there is a Division in the House, I will keep this very short. I thank everyone for participating in the debate. I hope the Minister’s meetings will be constructive. I ask him to go in with an open mind and listen to what the NPA is saying. It is not sounding a false alarm; it is genuinely very worried about the future of its sector. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for pig farmers.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) was elected less than a month ago. He will be Prime Minister on Monday, by which time we will be on an almost 50-day recess. He will be appointing a Cabinet in that time, some of whom will not have to come to this House to answer questions until the middle of October, after the conference recess. We do not know what his plan is. He was elected leader of the Labour party without a contest, and our constituents have the right to know. The point of our motion was to give them the opportunity to know his plans for the country. Why is that too much to ask?

• 8 Jul 2026 · NHS Corridor Care · Hansard source

  More

  Community care, which my hon. Friend has just touched on, is still important, particularly in preventing the need for corridor care. Insch War Memorial hospital, in my constituency, has been earmarked for closure, which is completely wrong. The trustees have done an amazing job in raising money to keep this vital community asset open. Does my hon. Friend agree that such community hospitals are vital not just for rural communities, but in helping the larger hospitals to manage their own patient care?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Just this year, Norway has opened up a licensing round for 70 new oil and gas blocks. It is reopening three old gas fields and has permitted development plans for three new fields. Meanwhile, this Government are still banning licences, taxing the industry out of business and not permitting Rosebank and Jackdaw. Why does the Secretary of State think he is right and our Norwegian friends are wrong?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Farming Sector: International Trade · Hansard source

  More

  Farm profitability in the UK is incredibly low. As we know, for many farms it is less than 1%. Reports show that a poorly negotiated and poorly implemented sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could see a 10% hit to profitability for our arable farmers. That will have a trickle-down impact across the whole agricultural supply chain, impacting many businesses UK-wide. How is the Minister’s Department working with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that our arable farmers and the supply chain are not impacted?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  This is incredibly frustrating. Scrutiny is not the same as climate change denial. Asking questions on behalf of our constituents, industries, households and businesses that will front the costs of this measure is not climate change denial. Will the hon. Member and the rest of the Labour Members here recognise that?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I will use my time to draw attention to parts of the impact assessment, because we are, after all, debating the carbon budget. First, this budget allows for 37% of our energy consumption by 2040 still to come from oil and gas. The Climate Change Committee itself is allowing for oil and gas to be included in our energy mix into the years to come. On that basis, why are the Government still committed to banning new licences in the North sea? Why are they still committed to the energy profits levy? Why are they still stopping the permitting of Rosebank and Jackdaw? All that will do is increase our imports of more carbon-intensive oil and gas, which is not good for the climate, economy or jobs in the UK. That point can also be found in the impact assessment. Secondly, reaching the carbon budget will require an “electrification of industry”. That means a reduction in our industrial capacity. The electrification of steel means a move away from blast furnaces, which will mean we lose our virgin steel capacity. Virgin steel is used for other industries as well, such as defence and civil nuclear, so we are going to hinder our civil nuclear capacity by reducing our virgin steel capacity. Thirdly, the impact assessment—I hope Members have read it, but I am not so sure—says that “a faster transition to renewables will not eliminate global supply chain risks.” It is not true, no matter how often it is said, that reducing our reliance on oil and gas and upscaling renewables makes us less vulnerable to global pressures. It does not. This impact assessment says it does not. We must recognise that everything has a cost and a risk, including renewables. I will bring my remarks to an end shortly, because I do not want to speak for too long. We must be realistic and pragmatic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) pointed out, this carbon budget assumes that we will reduce our meat and dairy consumption by 25%. It assumes that we will put a cost on households of thousands of pounds, which far exceeds any £300 saving on energy bills, were this Government to achieve it. China is not putting these costs on businesses or households, and it is not closing down its domestic industries. China is opening 50 to 70 GW of new coal every year. It has almost 1,200 coal-fired power stations, which it is using to export its renewables technology to us—it does not make sense. China is responsible for over a third of global emissions, and we are responsible for 1%. We are not making a difference to global climate change by impoverishing our businesses, industries and households. We said that we wanted to lead, but there is no point in leading if nobody is following. The key players are not following.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the hon. Lady has a gotcha for me on that one. I believe it has either not set a target or it is 20 years, but I could not tell her which.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) was returned on 50% of the vote because of the people who actually feel this. The jobs of the residents of Aberdeen South and north-east Scotland are being lost, daily and monthly, because of the rundown of the oil and gas sector and because of the eco-zealotry of this Government, who want to hit their net zero target faster than anyone else. That is the reality, and it is costing jobs and livelihoods. I have knocked on hundreds, probably thousands, of doors in Aberdeen South in the last month. I have met so many people in their 30s and early 40s, with young children, who lost their job because of this Government’s anti-North sea oil and gas policies. I do not call them anti-oil and gas policies, because the Government will happily take it from abroad. They will happily import liquefied natural gas and Russian-derived oil and gas products; they just do not want oil and gas products from the UK. Until we get over the obsession with running down our own industries, and with meeting a target that no one else is aiming for, the UK will suffer. Our industries, skilled workers and future economy will suffer. No other country will follow us if we do that. No other country is looking at the UK as an example. They are looking at the UK as an opportunity to export more of their refined goods and their manufacturing, because they know we are running down our industries here, but they will not copy our lead on reducing emissions because they can see the impact it is having on our economy and our energy bills. We are missing so many opportunities. Who is going to invest in AI and data centres here when we have four times the electricity costs of the US? They just will not, as there is no incentive. Driving down our agriculture to hit a net zero target is madness. We need food, which I hope is not controversial, but all we will do is import more. All that driving down the amount of our agriculture will do is free up more land for the Government to put solar panels on, which might help them with their target, but it is not going to help with our food production, and nor will it help our rural communities. I will happily vote against these measures today. I have happily read the impact assessment, and I do not believe that this is best for my constituents, best for the country or best for the economy.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  On that basis, why do the Government feel it necessary to ban new licences? The Minister says that production is declining, so why do they need to ban them?

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member—I call her a friend—is a huge champion for this sector and her constituents, and she is completely correct: these job losses impact everybody and all our constituencies, so we should all care about what is happening to the sector. This is not just about the big producers or operators; it is about the supply chain, too. Companies in the supply chain are UK-wide, and they must be protected UK-wide. They are also vital for the roll-out of other renewable technologies and nuclear. Without the supply chain, our future energy security will be so much poorer —we will have less energy security. Adura has submitted the additional information that is needed on Rosebank and Jackdaw. I appreciate that the Minister will probably say something about “quasi-judicial”, but can he make the commitment that there will not be any unnecessary delay? The decision does not have to be delayed for a new Prime Minister or a new Energy Secretary. These companies and the industry need confidence; they need to know that the projects will go ahead as soon as possible. The Government’s decision to write the ban on new licences into law via the energy independence Bill is an absolute kick for the sector. They had already said they would ban new licences, but the decision to put that ban into law drains any confidence that investors might have in the sector. Will the Minister think again and not include that awful policy in the Bill?

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Can the hon. Member confirm the SNP’s position on this issue? Does it unequivocally support new licences in the North sea?

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  It is wonderful to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate, and I welcome my great friend—now my hon. Friend—the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) to this place; he has been by my side pretty much from the day I joined the party, and it is fantastic to finally have him here alongside us, particularly in this debate. I have spoken a lot about oil and gas, particularly North sea oil and gas—UK continental shelf oil and gas—in this place, because it is so important. We cannot overestimate just how important it is to Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and north-east Scotland, and the by-election result in Aberdeen South is a testament to that. We are not naive; we do not think that 50% of Aberdeen South voters suddenly have a huge love of the Conservative party—although I am sure they will eventually—but this was a referendum on oil and gas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South put the point across perfectly that we must protect the sector and its jobs, the tax and investment that it returns, and our energy security. I have been knocking on doors in Aberdeen over the last four to five weeks, and the number of people I spoke to who have lost their job is tragic. They are very willing to talk about the job they had and the struggle they now have of finding a new one. Many of them are looking to move away because there is not a replacement job in Aberdeen. Many of them have young children, who will also have to move away. That is ruining friendships, it is ruining the future skills of Aberdeen, and it is changing the demographics of our region. This does not have to happen. We do not have to run down the North sea as quickly as we are. The Government do not have to ban new licences—that is a choice. The Government do not have to keep the energy profits levy—that is a choice. The Government do not have to keep delaying on Rosebank and Jackdaw—that is also a choice, and it is a choice that they keep making the wrong decision on. Once we get a new Prime Minister and undoubtedly, we hope, a new Energy Secretary, those choices will be different, because the public want the position to change: three quarters of the public support North sea drilling and North sea production if it means we will import less. The stats show that if we maximise production from the North sea, we could be using only 6% liquefied natural gas by the mid-2030s. On the current trajectory, we will be using 46% LNG. Again, that is a choice that this Government are making. LNG is more carbon-intensive, so it is worse for reaching our climate goals; it costs a huge amount of money; and it is supporting foreign jobs, not UK jobs. Again, those are all choices that the Government are making. It is up to them to change direction. I am delighted by, and very grateful for, the number of Labour Back Benchers who are here today and who tell me in private that they want the Government to change their position, because they recognise that there is a pragmatic path and we need to be on it. The impact is not only directly on jobs in the oil and gas sector. I have met hauliers and people who work in other industries in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, such as cafés and other hospitality businesses on the high street, who have seen footfall and trade decrease because of the decrease in the oil and gas sector. This impacts everybody, and not just in the north-east of Scotland.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?