Harriet Cross MP: speeches

178 published records · newest first.

Speeches

19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source
More
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source
More
I just want to make sure that everyone is clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about electricity, rather than energy. He is talking about the power that makes up just 20% of our energy mix, not the oil and gas that makes up 75% of it. The two are very different.
19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source
More
Does the hon. Lady agree that new licences in the North sea would help protect the workforce and the supply chain, to help with the transition to new energies?
19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source
More
Will the Secretary of State give way?
18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source
More
The shadow Chancellor is completely right to reflect on the plight of the oil and gas sector under this Labour Government: 1,000 jobs are being lost in the sector every single month, which is affecting all our constituents, not just those in the north-east of Scotland. Does he share my dismay that a Labour Government do not take that more seriously?
18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source
More
That was a great list, but what was missing from it was the oil and gas sector, and specifically the £17 billion of investment that was lost as a result of the Government not scrapping the energy profits levy and the £50 billion of investment lost because of their ban on new licences, and other hostile policies. Will the Secretary of State reflect on those, and on the damage that the Government are doing to growth not only in the north-east of Scotland but in the United Kingdom as a whole?
14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source
More
In that case, can the Secretary of State credibly stand at the Dispatch Box and talk about the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions and of the Employment Rights Act 2025 on employment? The Government are now paying companies to employ young people because of the mess they made.
14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source
More
The energy independence—or dependence, as I think we can probably call it—Bill will make us more reliant on overseas imports of oil and gas. We will use oil and gas for many years because our system needs it. The Bill bans new licences in the North sea, making us more reliant on imports. Does the right hon. Lady really welcome that?
14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source
More
I completely agree that we must protect British industries such as steel and oil and gas refining—they are all vital. The carbon tax is a reason why these industries are declining and moving overseas. From what the hon. Member is saying, it feels like he agrees that we should get rid of the carbon tax. Is that correct?
28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source
More
Is the hon. Member therefore suggesting that the previous ambassador was not capable?
28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source
More
That says all we need to know. I hope that Labour Back Benchers and, indeed, Ministers see today as the opportunity it is for the Prime Minister. By voting for the motion, they will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to present his case to the Privileges Committee, an opportunity to prove his side of the story and an opportunity—if, as he said, he did not mislead the House—to be exonerated on that claim. I leave MPs with this final thought. If, as he claims, the Prime Minister has done nothing wrong, why has he whipped the entire Labour party, some of them back from across the country—some of whom we have not seen for weeks in this place—to vote to prevent him from having to give evidence to the Privileges Committee?
28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source
More
Having listened to this debate, I fear that the Labour Back Benchers who do not support the motion are being too pessimistic. They see a referral to the Privileges Committee as a threat or something to fear, which is the wrong approach. A referral to the Privileges Committee should be seen by Labour MPs as an opportunity for the Prime Minister to prove, as he says he believes, that he has done nothing wrong and has not misled the House; and an opportunity for the Government, who have summoned all their Back Benchers here today, demanding and expecting that they will give the Prime Minister their confidence, to show that the loyalty the Prime Minister expects of them is justified. Labour Back Benchers should be in no doubt that, as we have heard multiple times today, the manner in which this vote is being managed by the Labour Whips is not usual for a privilege motion. In whipping them to vote to save him from appearing before the Privileges Committee, and from having to explain himself, the Prime Minister is once again not following normal process. We have heard many speeches from Opposition Members about the allegations, our belief that the Prime Minister has misled the House, and our belief that normal due process has not been followed, although the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that it has. Labour Members must not forget that at the heart of this saga is the catastrophic lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister in hiring the twice-fired known friend of a convicted paedophile, who, as the Prime Minister knew, retained, even after the annexation of Crimea, an exec role at Sistema, a company with Russian defence interests. That is the level of judgment and the calibre of decision making that the Prime Minister has been trying to justify, and that is what has led to the claim that he has been misleading the House, which we are discussing today. The decision that Labour MPs face today is whether to support the Prime Minister’s version of events. We have seen too many times throughout this saga that it has been the Prime Minister’s version of events versus that of others. By asserting that he has not misled the House, the Prime Minister is effectively saying that Sir Olly Robbins and Sir Philip Barton have misled the Foreign Affairs Committee. Is that really what Labour MPs are comfortable supporting? Sir Olly Robbins said that No. 10 put pressure on the Foreign Office to expedite Mandelson’s vetting, and the Prime Minister insists that this did not happen. Sir Philip Barton said today at the Foreign Affairs Committee that the usual process for appointing an ambassador would be vetting first and then the announcement, not the announcement and then the vetting, as happened in the case of Mandelson’s appointment.
28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source
More
That is a very welcome intervention. My recollection, and that of most Opposition Members, is that the Prime Minister said there was no pressure whatsoever. That is not what was said at the Foreign Affairs Committee. Both those things cannot be right. Are Labour MPs saying that the Prime Minister is right, or are they saying that Sir Olly Robbins misled the Foreign Affairs Committee? Both those things cannot be right. They need to choose who they agree with and which of those is correct. They cannot both be correct.
28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source
More
Genius! My hon. Friend is full of great ideas. That is the calibre that we expect of him. On misleading the House, the Prime Minister said that no one in No. 10 was aware that there had been any concerns about Mandelson’s vetting before the revelation was made a few weeks ago, despite it being reported in The Independent in September last year. On that very point, I submitted a named day question to the Cabinet Office last week, which was due to be answered yesterday. It simply asked whether The Independent is one of the newspapers to which the current or any previous director of communications, press secretary or anyone else at No. 10 has a subscription. The named day deadline has passed; the answer has not been received. That was a simple question. Why has it not been answered? It would be very easy to find the answer. Maybe no one at No. 10 had a subscription to The Independent , but if they did, it would be difficult to hold the line that no one at No. 10 had any indication until just a few weeks ago that there had been any issues with Mandelson’s vetting. If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister would like to intervene now and shed light on either the delay or the answer to that question, I will happily take the intervention.
28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member mentioned the Guardian story on 16 April. The Prime Minister found out about this on 14 April, so the earliest opportunity would have been 15 April at Prime Minister’s questions, would it not?
27 Apr 2026 · Draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source
More
We can. This is an alternative to the warm home discount, Sir Desmond.
27 Apr 2026 · Draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source
More
Does the Minister think it fair that someone who is £1 or £10 over the limit will have to pay for someone who is £1 or £10 under the limit? This redistribution is penalising people near the limit to such an extent that those who are just outside it will end up worse off than those who are just inside.
27 Apr 2026 · Draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source
More
The warm home discount, as I say, moves bill payers’ and taxpayers’ money around; it does not reduce the cost, and it does not take money off bills. People are still paying it, but in a different place. People who can just manage are paying it for those who just cannot. It is an unfair mechanism that penalises those who are just above the margin. Although we recognise the importance of making sure that bills are affordable for everybody, that does not mean that those who can just pay should be penalised. That is why we brought in, and we support, the concept of a warm home discount to help make bills affordable, but there must be an alternative via the cheap power plan to ensure that we can help everyone. I would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions. Why have the regulations only been put before us today, when the 31 March 2026 deadline has already passed? The Minister mentioned that the measure will cost £92 million. I believe that that is for the next five years.
27 Apr 2026 · Draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. As the Minister has outlined, the draft regulations set out provision for the continuation of the warm home discount in Scotland through to 2031. The Conservatives will not oppose them: with a few changes, they will simply extend to 31 March 2031 the current scheme, which ended on 31 March 2026. However, it will have escaped no one’s attention that today is 27 April—not 31 March, which was four weeks ago. Will the Minister address that apparent delay? The Conservatives do not want to see anyone struggling to pay their energy bills or having to choose between heating their home and going cold. That is especially important in Scotland, where it does not need saying that the winters are very long and very cold. Some of my constituents in Gordon and Buchan and others across Aberdeenshire live in areas that often record low temperatures each year. However, we have some reflections on the mechanism by which the warm home discount helps with bills. At its core, it is a taxation-funded redistribution mechanism. It does not reduce the cost of electricity; it takes money from all taxpaying bill payers, including those who are struggling themselves, and redistributes it to a defined group. It does not make electricity affordable for everyone. There is an alternative to the warm home discount, which could be implemented immediately if the Government so chose. The Conservatives’ cheap power plan would eliminate certain costs completely from electricity bills, instead of just moving costs around. It would do so for everyone: for those currently in receipt of the warm home discount and for those who are not, including those who are marginally above the threshold for the warm home discount and are therefore effectively paying more to support others while struggling to support their families or to pay their bills. The Government came to power promising to cut energy bills by £300, but without a plan to do so. Today, bills are £73 higher than when Labour took office. In comparison, our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills by 20%, saving all households £200 and cutting electricity bills for businesses, without costing households a penny and without—
27 Apr 2026 · Draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source
More
It is per year. Does that fall completely on the Scottish Government’s budget, or is it shared between the Governments of Westminster and Holyrood? Given that there is an alternative, via the cheap power plan, that would eliminate the costs rather than moving them, and given that the Government have already addressed some of the costs by removing some of the carbon taxes, why would they not go further and implement more of the Conservatives’ cheap power plan?
27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source
More
The shadow Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster has asked today and previously, as have other Conservative Members, about the existence or not of a declaration of interests form for Mandelson. Does that form exist?
20 Apr 2026 · Higher Education: Freedom of Speech · Hansard source
More
I thank the Minister for that update. The scheme is long overdue, but of course it does not go far enough. Let us take, for example, the case of Brodie Mitchell, who was suspended from Royal Holloway for a spat at a freshers fair. Under the new guidelines, he would not be able to complain directly to the Office for Students. Why is that?
20 Apr 2026 · Higher Education: Freedom of Speech · Hansard source
More
16. What recent progress her Department has made on implementing the complaints scheme provided for in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →