Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  We have already seen that if Rosebank does not go ahead £6.6 billion-worth of investment and 2,000 jobs will be lost. Those 2,000 jobs are really important to us in the north-east of Scotland. They are there for sentiment and for confidence, and they are also to show that we have a future. At the moment, it feels like the north-east is being sold down the river and that any opportunity we have is being lost because the Government are so ideologically committed to moving away from oil and gas now, as quickly as possible, and not to doing that when it is right. Are the Government still committed to jobs and security in the north-east of Scotland? It does not feel like that, living up there.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I agree 100% with what the hon. Member says, and it will be repeated across the country in rural Labour constituencies and in our constituencies. It does not matter where they are in the country, our farmers will face hundreds of thousands of pounds in IHT bills because of this Government’s decisions—for no other reason. Some balance sheets might say one thing and the Treasury’s might say another, but the reality in rural constituencies up and down the country is that the policy will devastate our family farmers and rural communities. The Government must change course before it is too late.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  In the 103 days since the Budget and the Chancellor turned farmers’ lives upside down in this country, we have heard stories from farmers across the UK, and will hear more today. Labour Members marched out stories of their own farmers; a few months ago, they did not hear anything from their farmers, but suddenly they have a voice. It is good to hear that they have been listening and now are actually representing those farmers’ voices. Farmers have been telling us for months about the impact the IHT change will have. I have spoken about the 90-year-old farmer in my constituency whose son is now resigned to the fact that he will have to sell the farm and give up on the livelihood and life he thought he was going to have. I have spoken about the farmer whose wife died earlier last year, who also realised by the end of the year that they were going to lose their farm. However, the Government did not want to listen. They would not to listen to the stories coming from our farmers. We have heard about the fact that farmers only make 1% profit. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said, what other businessperson would take a 1% profit and want to continue that life? We have also heard about how investment in farms has fallen off a cliff since this policy was introduced. If we do not invest in or encourage investment in farms, how will we increase profitability? Profit and productivity are linked; if we have poor productivity and profitability, we will never get to a stage where any sort of IHT bill—let alone the one proposed by the Government—can be managed by farmers. It is not just farmers making the Government aware of where they stand; we have heard the NFU and NFUS say that three quarters of commercial farms will be impacted. Experts in valuing the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers says that 75,000 farms will be impacted. The CLA says that an eighth of farms over 350 acres will have to sell land in order to cover the bill. Savills, the property experts, says that 88% of UK farmland will be impacted, yet, as the Treasury says it is only 20% to 25%, that is the figure we stick with. We stick with the Government figure because it fits the narrative; we do not listen to the industry or the experts, which is how we have got into the situation we are now in.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  No, I do not know of any family farmer who has the sort of money to cover that bill. That is the issue. We are penalising the very people who have fed us, who have supported our rural communities and who have been custodians of the land for generations, to fit whatever the Government’s narrative is with this policy. The unintended consequences also have impacts. There is an impact on hauliers, vets, rural communities, farm shops and workers—they will all be impacted by the policy. It is not just family farmers; they are the start, but the result of the policy spreads through rural communities the length and breadth of the country.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Undersea Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  18. What steps he is taking to protect undersea infrastructure.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Undersea Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State recently outlined to this House the serious situation with the Yantar—a clear example of the threat posed to our critical undersea infrastructure, and of the work that we need to do to defend ourselves and deter potential attacks. Does that not show that we need to increase our defence spending as quickly as possible to defend our crucial infrastructure and protect national security?

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Wealth Fund: Opportunities for Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Court of Session’s judgment on Rosebank and Jackdaw was to do with their consents, not their licences? When he comes to consider his decisions on those consents, he should do so on the basis that these are existing, not new, licences.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the principle of CBAM. However, in practice, if we import fertiliser to increase our food production here, for example, we will reduce our imports of food from elsewhere. It might not balance out exactly, but we would not be changing how much carbon we sent abroad, because we would just be taking it from another mechanism that is not included in the CBAM.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  We all recognise that trust is important in politics, and we are responsible for building that trust. One way in which we build trust is by being accountable, and the current system gives us accountability to our constituents within the defined area of our constituency. How would first past the post help build the accountability of a named person—a single MP—in that defined area?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Scotch Whisky Association is not on the list of people the Minister met. Can he confirm whether he did meet the association?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is of course welcome that more land is to be brought under the scope of agricultural property relief, but given the introduction of the £1 million cap on agricultural property, is it not somewhat redundant? I know the Government use different numbers, but the industry believes that the majority of farms will be over that threshold anyway, so bringing more land within the scope of APR does not actually make much difference to the bill they will have to pay at the end.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Regardless of the uncertainty, we know from the projections that, although the tax intake should peak at about £6 billion, it tails off by the end of the period to £95 million—a huge difference. By the time this spending and the costs have been worked into the system, no matter what happens in terms of uncertainty, at the end of that tax period there will be a huge amount of money that was in the system, but which now has to be filled. This policy, if implemented, will mean that there is a hole in the system at the end of the ’29 period that will need to be filled in some way.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We heard earlier that the thresholds for income tax will be unfrozen as of 2028; why will the thresholds for inheritance tax not be? What impact will that have on, for example, agriculture and business property reliefs? Have the Government done an assessment of the number of additional estates that will be brought into inheritance tax beyond 2028, and how many of those will be family farms?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for listing the amendments before the Committee. At Davos last week, the Chancellor announced other amendments that will be made to non-dom status. It is disappointing that they have not been put before the Committee, where they can be scrutinised line by line. Why is that not the case, and when will either a Committee or the House get to see those amendments?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  People might be buying cars now—that is, overnight—that they still have in ’28-29, when the changes come in. They will be making decisions now that will be caught up in future changes.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Although we of course welcome a road map as a way to give businesses confidence on corporation tax, we should not get mixed up in the smoke and mirrors of what business taxes are. Because of the Budget, businesses now face many taxes and the uncertainty that they bring. Will we also see road maps for things such as the national insurance rises, the increase in business rates, minimum wage increases and measures in the Employment Rights Bill, all of which have an impact on business?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On aligning hybrid cars more closely with petrol and diesel cars, what assessment has been made of the impact on the hybrid car market and the take-up of hybrid cars, if we are ultimately looking to move away from petrol and diesel in the long term?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Finance Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister recognise the difference between properties with a use clause compelling them to be used for holiday let accommodation and houses that do not, and that can therefore be used as residential properties? Those two things do not necessarily line up in terms of what the owner can use the property for.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept that the Law Officers’ convention does not extend to questions of recusal or conflicts of interest, and that the House and the British people have the right to have questions on those matters answered transparently?

• 23 Jan 2025 · ECO4 and Insulation Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her statement, in which she confirmed that the 39 suspended companies are suspended from providing new solid wall insulation under the scheme. Are they also suspended from providing other sorts of insulation, such as external, loft and cavity wall insulation?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing · Hansard source

  More

  In the light of the uncertainty in the OBR’s report; the fact that the policy will hit elderly farmers the hardest and put food security at risk; and the fact that rural communities will suffer the most, given the impact on tenants and young farmers, and the wider agricultural sector, does the Minister really still believe in this policy?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Foot and Mouth Disease · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government’s efforts in bringing us up to speed today, but also in imposing the import ban. I recognise that the ban applies to products from Germany, but does it capture products that may originate there but for which the point of import is outside Germany? What steps are the Government taking to proactively increase spot testing or screening across the country, so that we can get ahead of any possible outbreak?

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor referred in her statement to safeguarding national security, which I welcome, but this must include energy security. Yet her changes to the energy profits levy, removing investment allowances and not permitting new licences at a time when we are still reliant on oil and gas, not only undermines our energy security but dwarfs the £600 million that she has brought back from China with the £12 billion of tax revenues that will be lost from the sector. Why, rather than supporting our energy security, is the Chancellor turning her back on the sector, turning her back on these tax revenues and risking selling our energy security to China?