Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning, Mr Maier. The Bill states that GB Energy will be involved in the supply and storage of clean energy. It goes on to say that clean energy is from “sources other than fossil fuels”. Where is the cut-off? With things like blue hydrogen, there is a crossover: fossil fuels are involved, but the product is not necessarily what you would call a fossil fuel. Where does GB Energy come in? Juergen Maier: Our core focus will be on renewable energy that is not derived from fossil fuels, to be clear. However, there are obviously energy sources that are part of the transition, and the Bill so allows. Clause 3(2)(b) refers to “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels,” which would include blue hydrogen, for example. I believe that blue hydrogen is necessary as part of the transition, because you just cannot produce enough green hydrogen to get us going from the get-go, so you need a transitional way of getting there, as long as the clear purpose is to see it as a transition to ensure that the future is all green hydrogen.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In that respect, we would still need fossil fuels—oil and gas—going forward to help the transition. Juergen Maier: Of course, yes.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We have heard a lot about public investment and the importance of private investment for meeting net zero. Is there anything in the Bill that encourages you that the amount of public investment going in will attract the amount of private investment that is needed? We have to take this Bill in the round with other energy policies coming forward. How does it sit alongside those in ensuring that we continue to attract private investment into the energy sector? Marc Hedin: I may be playing devil’s advocate here, but there is a slight risk if a public company were to invest in a utility scale project. At the moment in GB, we manage to attract quite a lot of capital to deploy renewable projects, for instance. There is also a risk of perceived unfair competition that would be detrimental to future capital attractiveness, so I would add that to the global reflection around this topic. Ravi Gurumurthy: To come in on that, it is very common in other countries for the state to co-invest. I have spoken to a lot of other organisations, and we need to attract £350 billion to £500 billion of capital into power generation in the next 10 years. I think it is perfectly possible for the state to play a role in that. Everything that GB Energy is trying to do is to reduce the risk and increase the predictability of the investment environment. If you take the developer role, at the moment the private sector, when it bids in for a seabed lease, has to have the uncertainty of whether that project will ever get commissioned and the long delay in planning and consenting, grid connection and environmental surveys. If we can actually have the state do some of that and de-risk it, I think it is more likely to get that private sector investment. That is what happens in the Netherlands and it is what the Danes are moving towards, and it is also partly what happens in Germany. There is a good track record of these sorts of environments working well to attract private sector investment. Shaun Spiers: That is right. You cannot dictate the culture of a company in a Bill. There was a criticism of the Green Investment Bank, for instance, that it invested in rather established technologies and had an insufficiently high appetite for risk. It will be important that GB Energy does pump-prime private investment and not replace it.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This question is aimed at both of you. In terms of the job prospects for GB Energy, we have had figures such as 650,000 jobs, with 69,000 of those in Scotland as and when they come. However, I am sure that your members will be looking at not necessarily future jobs, but current jobs and the implication of the Bill for them. What would you like to see in the Bill to ensure that the jobs that are there today are protected? Do you think the Bill as it stands can and will impact them? Mike Clancy: I am not sure. As extensive as the powers of Parliament are, I am not sure a Bill in itself can give any of those guarantees. I am not trying to avoid an answer; the reality is that the Bill will set up a company with certain objectives, and those objectives should address directly the generation of employment. You have already heard and asked questions about how many jobs there will be in Aberdeen, what that will scale up to, and what it will mean in terms of the supply chain. We are seeing a lot of very considerable numbers in a lot of different energy spaces: potentially great demand and very high-quality jobs in both the public space and the private ownership of utilities. But it is all promise. Some of the numbers are so significant in aggregate that you have to wonder where they are going to come from, because there is pressure on different parts of the infrastructure. There are lots of synergies between this sector and others—the skills are the same in aviation, defence and so on—and the basic throughput of science, technology, engineering and maths skills in this country is a long-term inhibitor to our productivity and our delivery. In terms of the narrow focus of the Bill, this organisation needs to be the stimulus for that supply chain, with good employment conditions throughout. One of the issues in a just transition is that you replace public and private structured, high-quality jobs with jobs that are flimsier, more fragile and more temporary. If GB Energy can be a champion for long-term, durable relationships with its workforce—and that is how you want the energy sector to go—that is your best bet for having the jobs promise to replace those that have to be removed due to the climate impact. Mika Minio-Paluello: The easiest solution is to keep someone working in their current workplace, precisely because, as Mike explained, there is a significant risk that, in shifting across, you end up with more precarious work. A lot of the onshore supply chain for offshore oil and gas has been struggling; we have seen a big decline over the past 14 years both within the supply chain and directly. Chunks of that supply chain can be future-proofed to support offshore wind and other parts, and GB Energy has a significant role to play in supporting those supply chain sites. Whether it is Shepherd Offshore, Smulders or cable manufacturers, GB Energy should say, “We will be purchasing from you, and not just from China.” There is a big risk of China coming to dominate the offshore wind supply chain. We could end up in a situation with offshore wind like the one with solar at the moment, where if you buy a solar panel, it is 97% made in China. GB Energy can play a role in making sure the offshore wind supply chain is situated here, and that is part of the protection. The other part is about what could be done in the Bill, although it will not necessarily protect jobs—Mike is right; the Bill itself cannot entirely protect individual jobs. In our submission, we suggest that there could be an amendment to the strategic priorities section and that the statement of strategic priorities should have regard for a just transition, job equality and job creation. It should be embedded as a core part of the statement so that, when the Secretary of State sits down to prepare it, they go, “Okay, part of what we are going to put in here is about a just transition, job equality and job creation.” That is a possible amendment. We have also suggested an amendment on protection, particularly given that a lot of the job creation and economic impact will be in Wales and Scotland, so the Bill will play an important role for those nations. That means that those nations should probably have a say, through their devolved Governments, on what happens down the line to GB Energy. Let us say that down the line a future Government goes, “Well, actually we are going to privatise it,” or, “We are going to instruct it to dispose of a lot of assets,” Scotland and Wales should be able to have a say and go, “Well actually, this is about our economy here and we think that shouldn’t happen.” We suggest doing that through an amendment but you could explore different mechanisms, including golden shares for those devolved Governments that specifically say that.

• 7 Oct 2024 · Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will know that investment in these CCUS projects would not be possible without the private investment generated from our oil and gas companies. In the light of that, of him again confirming his policy on no new licences and of other policies that are set to close down the North sea, how will he ensure that that private investment continues so that more CCUS projects come forward in the future?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Funding for Farming · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour party manifesto rightly stated that the Labour party “recognises that food security is national security.” I agree, but those words must be matched with actions. We have already asked today about future budgets, but have not heard any answers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no real-terms cuts to the agriculture budget?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Funding for Farming · Hansard source

  More

  5. If he will maintain the level of funding for farming.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Some 17,047 pensioners in Gordon and Buchan will lose their winter fuel payment following today’s vote by the Labour party, but this decision for my constituents shows that they are being let down by their Governments at Holyrood and at Westminster. The Labour party is choosing to let them down by cutting the winter fuel payment, and the SNP is choosing not to pass on Barnett consequentials. In north-east Scotland, winters are longer and harsher than in most of the country. Our temperatures often fall below minus 10°C for a sustained period, and in recent years it has not been unusual to have had minus 20°C in Aberdeenshire. The winter fuel payment is not a luxury for our pensioners; it is a lifeline. This is the Labour party’s choice. As much as it would like to explain that choice away, it has chosen to cut the winter fuel payment, and it must face what that means. Labour’s choice means that our pensioners now have to make their own choices, so Labour’s choice has become a pensioner’s choice. Perhaps most shocking of all is Labour’s breathtaking hypocrisy on this issue. In 2017, Labour Members on these Opposition Benches had their own research showing that cutting winter fuel payments could lead to almost 4,000 excess deaths. They then vehemently opposed any changes to what they called that “vital” support. What has changed? Have pensioners suddenly become more resilient to the cold, or has the Labour party simply abandoned its principles to fund its own political choices? Many pensioners in my constituency still rely on solid fuels such as oil, so once a year, going into winter, they fill up their tanks. Payment for that will be coming shortly—before November, and way before next year and any pension rises. How will those pensioners afford to fill their tanks and heat their homes in the months to come?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member appreciate that some of the hardest working people are the pensioners we are now standing up for, and who we are trying to stop freezing in the winter to come and those ahead?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is hard to overstate the importance of the energy sector to my constituents and, indeed, to the whole of north-east Scotland, so I am grateful to be called today. First, I must address the reports that Great British Energy might be headquartered in Aberdeen. The Government are still yet to confirm that, saying that it is speculation, but the manner in which they have managed this announcement speaks volumes. The ambiguity and the joking about when an announcement might be made, and then just saying that the headquarters will be in Scotland, do absolutely nothing to help the speculation and delayed decisions or give the industry any confidence. These layers of uncertainty are driving away investment and creating a less secure job environment in north-east Scotland. Aberdeen has always been the energy capital of Europe. It has been that way for half a century, so it is the most logical choice for the headquarters. I have significant reservations and concerns, which I will outline today. The North sea oil and gas industry is not just part of the economy in Aberdeenshire, but the bedrock on which our communities and my constituents in Gordon and Buchan have built their livelihoods for generations. It is not just about the direct jobs in the industry and the associated services in the hospitality sector, for example. An overall economic ecosystem has developed, and that is why it is critical that we manage the energy transition properly, so that the north-east of Scotland does not become the next region to suffer industrial decline as the mining areas did. I am sure that the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Labour party do not want that on their record. The Government’s plan for Great British Energy, coupled with the energy profits levy, puts the industry at risk at this vital time. The proposed increases and the removal of the investment allowances could be a death knell for investment in our area. Let me be clear: this is not about protecting the profits of large companies just for profits’ sake; it is about protecting the jobs and skills and futures of our communities. Offshore Energies UK has warned that the tax increase could see investments in the UK cut, and that they might fall from £14.1 billion to £2.3 billion between now and 2029. That is not scaremongering; it is what the industry is facing. We can take today’s figure of £14.1 billion of private investment and compare that with what the Government are suggesting: £8.3 billion of public investment into GB Energy just to create an investment vehicle. We already have an investment stream in the north-east of Scotland. It is not Government money that is needed, but a stable, fair, globally competitive market for our national and multinational companies. They will do the business. Public money to create GB Energy while simultaneously introducing these punitive taxation and other measures that are projected to drive away investment just does not make sense, because the same investment in capital, skills and personnel that we need for our energy security today are also vital for an effective and efficient transition to clean energy. I have a number of questions for the Government about Great British Energy, and I will start with job security and creation. How will Great British Energy protect existing jobs in Aberdeenshire’s energy sector? We have already seen a significant loss of jobs due to the oil price downturn and market uncertainty. The Government boast that Great British Energy will create 650,000 new jobs, 69,000 of which are projected to be in Scotland, but we need specifics. Figures have been provided at a regional level across England, but we have only one figure for the whole of Scotland. The distribution of jobs in Scotland is currently heavily weighted towards Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the north-east, so no matter how many jobs might or might not be generated by GB Energy in Scotland, my constituents want and need to know where those jobs will be. Can the Minister confirm when he sums up how many of the jobs will be in Aberdeenshire and the north-east, what types of roles they will be and when they will be created? Already, oil and gas workers are losing their jobs and moving abroad to maintain or progress their careers. They are the workers we need for the transition. Secondly, we must consider the economic impact on our local communities. For example, how will the wealth that flows into our local infrastructure and economy and community projects be replicated in the future under Great British Energy? Looking at the national picture, the Oil and Gas Authority estimates that the total revenue from oil and gas production in the five years to 2024 was £5.3 billion. Are the Secretary of State and the Chancellor willing to sacrifice that in the pursuit of an accelerated transition? That would be a significant dent in the £8.3 billion of public investment. We need a balanced approach. We are not against the energy transition, and we recognise that the transition will take time, but rushing it could have severe consequences for communities such as mine in Gordon and Buchan. We are after net zero, not absolute zero. They are different things, and we do not need to banish oil and gas from our energy mix immediately in order prematurely to be on the road to net zero. The people of Gordon and Buchan and indeed all of north-east Scotland are not against change. We have been at the forefront of energy innovation for decades, but we need the transition to work for our communities and to build their strength, rather than dismantle them. We must protect jobs. I call on the Government to provide clear answers, not just high-level projections, on how we expect Great British Energy to benefit, not harm, the existing industry in Gordon and Buchan. Our communities have so much to lose if we get this wrong, and they deserve our help with a comprehensive plan, not ideology.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. Offshore Energies UK reports that the Government’s proposed windfall tax increases will cost our economy £13 billion, risk 35,000 jobs and see investment in the North sea slashed from £14.1 billion to just £2.3 billion by 2029. It also suggests that there will be a £12 billion cost in tax revenues. How does this proposal chime with the Prime Minister’s goal of economic growth, and will he reverse this tax increase, which industry leaders are calling economic suicide for the oil and gas sector?

• 26 Jul 2024 · Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I welcome you to your position. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) on his first contribution to this House; it already sounds as if he has made a huge contribution to the UK around the world, and I am sure his constituents are looking forward to him acting for them. I will begin by echoing the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) and for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) about the impact on agricultural and rural land of the Government’s plan to cover them with cables, pylons and other energy infrastructure. The sheer concentration of this infrastructure on prime agricultural land in communities such as New Deer, Maud, Turriff and Leylodge in my constituency and the apparent lack of ability for communities to engage in meaningful discussion on this will in no way bring the public along on this crucial national endeavour. However, I am going to focus on the key issue for my constituents and those across north-east Scotland, and that is the oil and gas sector: the jobs, expertise and investment that we will be putting at risk if the Government rush towards their green energy agenda. No matter how much the Minister may wish otherwise, we cannot and will not have a green energy revolution without the existing oil and gas sector, its skills and, crucially, its funding. The companies that make their money from oil and gas developments now are the key investors in our renewable energy sector and carbon capture projects—that is undeniable. We must make the UK an attractive place to invest in all energies in order to attract and keep multinational companies here, and to keep them investing here in the future. We have to draw only a very short line to realise that if we dismiss, alienate and penalise the traditional oil and gas parts of energy companies, the boards of those same companies will turn their backs on the UK for more sympathetic and attractive investment opportunities elsewhere. We would lose not just the current investment in oil and gas, but the potential for investment in renewable energy. Does the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero or the Minister expect that we will have stopped using oil and gas by 2030? Of course not, so why are we banning new oil and gas licences and cutting off our own domestic energy supply? Why are the Government happy to see tens of thousands of home-grown jobs put at risk, and why are they happy to increase our reliance on imports of oil and gas produced with a higher carbon footprint from more volatile markets overseas? If there is a reason other than simply to fulfil their narrative of being a “green energy superpower” I am yet to find it. The UK, thanks largely to Aberdeen and the north-east, has long been an energy superpower—an oil and gas superpower. That status, built over half a century, has led to the energy sector’s skills, expertise, companies and workforce being honed and housed in north-east Scotland—not just the subsurface and technical skills of the likes of geologists and engineers, but, crucially, the experts in supply chains. Those will be vital to the renewable energy projects of the future. Our workers in the oil and gas sector know how to deliver huge, multinational, high-budget projects—exactly the skills that will be needed to deliver the Government’s green energy revolution. Again, the Government risk losing those crucial skills by moving too fast and not planning for a jobs and skills transition alongside the energy transition. Labour idly calls the investment allowance aspect of the windfall tax a “loophole” and plans to remove it and increase the tax rate to 78%; indeed, it boasts about doing so. Yet there are estimates that the combination of no new licences and changes to the windfall tax will cost £20 billion in tax revenues and risk up to 100,000 direct and indirect jobs. Last year, the leader of the GMB union said that Labour’s plans to end new oil and gas licences are “self-defeating”. I agree.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. It is so important for all those reasons—for jobs and future tax revenues—that we retain our domestic supply of oil and gas. Alongside the leader of the GMB calling the Government’s plans “self-defeating”, the former leader of Aberdeen council quit Labour last year, saying its plans were a “brutal attack” on the sector. Again, I agree. Just as Rome was not built in a day, the experience and expertise of the oil and gas sector—the energy sector—did not develop in a day. However, the vital skills and investment that we will rely on to deliver the transition to cleaner, greener energy will be lost in no time at all if the Government do not listen, appreciate them and act to protect them. The warning signs are there, and we must not ignore them. Without the existing workforce, the energy transition will take longer, be more expensive, and be less efficient—truly an unwanted trilogy for any Government.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s plans to ban new oil and gas licences have been criticised by business leaders, unions and community groups throughout Scotland. As a fellow Scottish Member, will the Minister say whether or not he supports his Government’s plans, which it has been said will put up to 90,000 jobs across Scotland at risk?

• 19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody)—she is clearly very proud of her roots and of what she has achieved in the area. It is lovely to follow another girl from the north-east—although in my case it is the north-east of Scotland. It is an incredible honour to be elected to this place to serve the great people of Gordon and Buchan. Having moved homes many times in my lifetime—more than I can remember—from Yorkshire to Ireland to Scotland and many times in between, I have seen my fair share of houses, but I can definitely say that this one will take the most getting used to. As Members are all aware, you are not a true Scottish MP if you do not proclaim that your constituency is the most beautiful, so: from the beaches of Balmedie and Newburgh through the fertile farmland of Formartine, Garioch, Huntly and Turriff, to the heights of the Correen hills and the Bennachie range, Gordon and Buchan has it all. I can tell Members in all seriousness that it really is the most beautiful constituency, and not just in Scotland but in the whole of the UK. Those of us who are blessed to live north of the Watford gap know that there is a direct correlation between how far north you get and being approachable and determined, having a dry sense of humour and being great company. As such, I am also delighted to say that I am the Conservative Member with the most northerly constituency. First, I must reflect on my predecessors, beginning with the most recent Conservative Members from the two former constituencies that have now been combined to make Gordon and Buchan: Colin Clark in Gordon and David Duguid in Banff and Buchan. Both Colin and David were embedded in our rural communities. They are unwavering champions for our region, in particular being loud, constructive and prominent voices for our farmers, fishermen and distilleries, and for the energy sector. I also want to take the opportunity to wish David Duguid and his family all the very best in his ongoing recovery. It would be wrong of me not to mention Malcolm Bruce, now Baron Bruce of Bennachie, who served Gordon for 22 years up until 2015. It is a show of the mark that he left on the area that his name was mentioned to me on the doorsteps many times during this election campaign, always very fondly. Finally, the former SNP Member for Gordon and my immediate predecessor, Richard Thomson, has long served the people of Gordon and Buchan and of Aberdeenshire, both in this place and on Aberdeenshire council as both leader and opposition leader. While he and I will not pretend that we see eye to eye on the means, we both agree that we want the very best for our special corner of Aberdeenshire, now and in the future. Much was achieved for Gordon and Buchan and the north-east of Scotland in the last Parliament. I wish to draw attention to the north-east investment zone, an £80 million investment in our region made as part of the last Conservative Government’s levelling-up agenda. It is a real investment in our area’s growth, development and potential—an investment in our future. The north-east shines with energy in every way. Indeed, the energy sector is what first brought my family to Inverurie, the largest town in Gordon and Buchan, 50 years ago this year. My grandfather, having been medically discharged from the Navy, never lost his love of service or the sea, so he channelled that love into creating in Aberdeen the International Association for Safety and Survival Training, whose courses are still used today by each and every offshore worker in our oil and gas sector. I am sure that if he were still here today he could give me some sound advice on surviving in this place. The energy sector powers Aberdeenshire, from direct jobs and high-skilled employment to the associated services and hospitality sectors that rely on it. To the people of Gordon and Buchan and the north-east of Scotland, the debate on the future of the oil and gas sector is not really about energy security, markets or net zero; it is about our jobs and our livelihoods. It is about knowing that we have secure employment for the years to come and that our children will not have to move away to start their career, or that the bottom will not fall out of our local economy. I cannot imagine that any hon. Member would sit here and allow their constituency’s key employment sector to be run down or conceded, and I will not do that either. Our rural communities are the beating heart of Gordon and Buchan. Indeed, three quarters of the land in the constituency is classed as agricultural, a fifth is forestry and only 2% is thought of as built up. If someone drops a pin on a map, it is more likely to land in a field or forest than on a house. Before being elected, I worked as a rural surveyor, meeting farmers across Aberdeenshire, many of whom I am now proud to call my constituents. As intimidating as it might be being on the Opposition side looking across at the Government Benches, that is nothing compared with sitting at a farmhouse table trying to tell farming clients that no, their farm is not worth three times what they think it is worth or that their worse-for-wear heifer will not get top figures at next week’s sale. I am delighted that my first contribution in the House is in this rural affairs debate. I know, and my constituents know, that rural living is unique, rewarding and, in my opinion, far superior to urban life. We also know that it is not all about green fields, welly boots and labradors, idyllic as that might sound. The reality is locals waiting in villages such as Fyvie, Auchleven and New Deer for the only bus of the day, which never arrives. It is the only healthcare facilities for many miles closing down. It is children having to move away to build their career. It is poor-quality, unsuitable roads. Or it is the lack of housing, or houses without gas, poor broadband and no phone coverage. We in the UK quite rightly hold our rural landscapes up in lights: our green and pleasant lands, which bring ecological benefits as well as much-needed tourism to remote areas. But rural communities are not there solely to be an escape or plaything for others; they are where my constituents make their homes and livelihoods, and where they grow up and grow old. We need tailored policies for our rural communities that help industries such as farming and food and drink producers, and the numerous small and medium-sized enterprises across Gordon and Buchan that bring so much not just to the immediate area but to the region and to the UK as a whole. Yes, we are less densely populated and yes, understandably, we have less choice in services and on where to find work, but we have no less aspiration. I am proud to have been sent here by the people of Gordon and Buchan to represent them, to fight for them, and always to keep their interests at the top of the agenda.