Harriet Cross MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member appreciate that the issue is not legislating for jobs but the lack of accountability in the Bill?

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I would obviously I have to see what the TFA suggested, but I think that we need to look at the agricultural sector as a whole. If land is being taken out of farming for any purpose, it is not going to be available for tenants, so if landowners are feeling compelled to sell their land because they have to cover an IHT bill, it does not matter what happens with reforms down the line; that land will not be available for tenants to access. I fully support the tenanted sector—it is a vital part of our farming sector—but, on its own, it will not be enough to keep land in production. BPR is important for every family business the length and breadth of the country, and therefore in all of our constituencies. Family-owned businesses are the beating heart of the British economy. Across the UK, there are approximately 5.3 million family businesses, employing over 14 million people and contributing £225 billion per annum to the Treasury. BPR is especially vital for small family businesses—including many in my constituency of Gordon and Buchan—which form the backbone of our local economies, providing much needed local employment, stability and resilience in the face of economic and environmental challenges. Businesses that rely on BPR to survive a succession event are often significant local employers, and their failure would have a knock-on effect on local services and on business rates, which are vital for local authorities. Other models of business ownership, such as plcs and those backed by private equity, do not face a tax charge on the change of ownership, so BPR is a vital mechanism to ensure that family businesses—85,000 of which are passed to the next generation each year—are at least on a level playing field. About 77% of family small and medium-sized enterprises are first-generation businesses. Without BPR, these family firms would lose the opportunity to grow and transition into successful next-generation businesses. If, following a succession event, businesses effectively have to take a 40% hit on their finances or asset base to cover an IHT bill, what chance is there for them to secure longevity and flourish in the future? As we approach the Budget, I hope the Minister and his Government will take on board that APR and BPR are vital to the long-term planning and investment of rural areas and family businesses. It is not an overstatement to say that the future of rural communities and our food security depend on it. In particular, the Government should focus on four things: providing clarity and reassurance on their intentions regarding APR and BPR; committing to maintaining those reliefs in their current form for at least the duration of this Parliament; commissioning an independent review on the wider economic and social impact of those reliefs beyond just the direct cost to the Treasury; and engaging meaningfully with rural communities, farmers and family business owners before pursuing any future changes. APR and BPR are not mere tax reliefs; they are the foundation of a thriving, sustainable and entrepreneurial United Kingdom. They support our farmers and family businesses, pillars of our communities that have been there for generations. They ensure that businesses can continue to operate following a succession event and allow for the long-term planning necessary for farms and family businesses to develop and thrive. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up this debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and the Minister for his closing remarks. A constant theme of today’s debate has been the importance of family businesses and family farms and the vital role they play in our rural economy. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly said and, of course, knows well from his ultra-rural island constituency and communities, the interconnection between farms and other local businesses cannot be denied. Any impact on farming impacts everything else, whether that is marts, vets or suppliers—the knock-on effects are endless. I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), and echo her words about the Government’s commitment to not increase taxes on working people. If farmers and family businesses are not the pure definition of “working people”, I really do not know what is. Similarly, I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) about the need for cross-party working on this issue; as we all strive to secure a stable rural environment for the economy and employment, that is really important. We should absolutely work on a cross-party basis as we go forward. Farms and businesses must adapt and innovate to survive across generations. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) correctly identified, the ability of farms and family businesses to do so will be severely hampered by changes to APR and BPR—they must be able to survive across generations, as well as during single generations. Put very simply, people need cash in order to pay a tax bill, and they need a lot of cash to pay a very large tax bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) put it so succinctly, asking many farmers and family businesses to pay a tax bill from an illiquid asset is very difficult: they do not have liquid to play with. As I said, I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate that we are less than two weeks out from the Budget, and therefore he is completely unable to confirm or deny rumours, but I hope the concerns that have been raised today have been heard and will be considered in good faith, because they are not just the concerns of people in this Chamber. They are the concerns of our constituents—of farmers and small and family businesses the length and breadth of the country. The Minister pointed out that the cost of BPR has risen to £1.3 billion, but that compares very favourably with the £225 billion of tax income that family businesses contribute to the Exchequer each year. I will conclude by reiterating my calls for clarity on this matter, maintenance of these reliefs, and meaningful engagement with affected communities on any such matters going forward. Today’s contributions have strengthened the case for action in this area: our rural communities, family businesses, food security and stewardship of our countryside all depend on the certainty that those reliefs provide. I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s important debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief. I rise today to address a pressing issue affecting not only my constituents in Gordon and Buchan but rural communities and family-run businesses across the entirety of the United Kingdom. As we approach the autumn Budget, there is growing anxiety, yet to be put to bed, among farmers and family business owners about the potential changes to agricultural and business property reliefs. APR and BPR play a crucial role in securing the longevity of farming and family businesses. Without inheritance tax reliefs, the value of an individual’s business assets will be chargeable at a full 40%. The rate of inheritance tax in the UK kicks in at a relatively low value in relation to the value of farming assets, even for a small farm, particularly when compared with that of other countries. There is speculation in the media, coupled with Government silence, on the future of these reliefs, which is causing profound problems. In a meeting with the Country Land and Business Association just yesterday, I heard how some of their members are already taking rash and rushed decisions because of this matter, which will impact their businesses, tax position and operations for years to come. Its members—our constituents—fear the worst in terms of changes to APR and BPR in the Budget and the profound impact that may have on their businesses, which, in many cases, provide employment for their families and wider communities, and have done so for generations. APR and BPR are not, as some would have us believe, just tax loopholes for the wealthy. Viewing those reliefs as fair game in a Budget shows a complete lack of understanding of their importance and function. APR and BPR are lifelines for hard-working family farms and entrepreneurs, who form the backbone of our rural communities and local economies the length of the country. These are same businesses that we MPs are always too delighted to be seen to visit and champion as pillars of our communities and for their hard-working, entrepreneurial spirit; it is now time that we put those words into actions. Many of these businesses would not survive a succession event without APR or BPR—it is that simple. There is a reason why the reliefs have been in place for almost 50 years, which is that they work and are needed. Without them, farming and family businesses would change, and the UK’s rural business landscape would be unrecognisable. Agricultural businesses are vital for not only economic activity but food production and security, land stewardship and environmental management. As farmers face ever-tighter margins from increased environmental obligations, spiking input costs and global market pressures, there is already considerable strain on farming profitability. It is important to understand that although farms have high asset values, they are often cash poor. In 2022-23, across all types of farms, 17% were failing to make a profit and 59% were taking home less than £50,000. Even where a profit is made, it is usually directly reinvested back into the farm—the business—in order to increase efficiency, develop or adapt. Cash does not simply sit idly; it is usually invested into assets needed to grow the farm and allow it to function, be it via land, buildings or kit. APR is also vital for ensuring that farms can be passed to the next generation without a crippling inheritance tax bill. The continuity of family farms is necessary for the maintenance of our cultural heritage and expertise and, crucially, generational stewardship of our countryside and responsibility for food production. Without APR, many families would be forced to sell their land or buildings or even split up the farm in order to pay inheritance tax bills, which, even for the most modest of farms, could be hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not in the millions. That would mean selling the very assets and losing the scale needed to operate and produce food, fundamentally undermining the viability of those businesses. It is important to appreciate that farms do not operate in isolation; they typically engage with multiple businesses in close proximity to their holdings. In my recent meeting with the National Farmers Union Scotland, I was told about a farm in north-east Scotland that engages with no fewer than 92 separate businesses within a radius of just a few miles; those businesses all benefit from that one farm. The closure of a single farm will have a ripple effect throughout any local economy. The average age of a farmer in the UK is 59, and 35% of farmers are aged over 65. We all know that it is common to see farmers still managing their holdings well into their seventh or eighth decades, but that means that, on family farms, a succession event—planned or otherwise—can hit very suddenly. Without the reliefs, we risk losing a generation of farmers, threatening the future of British agriculture. Many family businesses will simply cease to exist if they are removed. The impact will extend not just to landowners, but far beyond, to tenancies and the wider rural economy. In a recent poll by the CLA of over 500 landowners and farmers, 86% said they were likely to have to sell some or all of their land upon a death if inheritance tax reliefs were scrapped, and 90% said that the UK’s food security would be damaged in the long run. I find that really hard to disagree with. The potential loss of productive agricultural land and farmland has serious implications for our national food security, and I remind the Minister of the line in the Labour manifesto, that “food security is national security.” Let us also consider the alternative: if large areas of land were sold to cover an IHT bill, who would be likely to buy that land? Would it be another farmer, who would also have to manage their own capital in light of their own family’s IHT bill down the line, or a large corporate company, where boardrooms and bottom lines dictate the approach to environmental management, room for nature and food production? I do not think that that is the ownership and business structure of rural Britain that this Government, or indeed any of us, are striving for. We must also consider the impact on tenants as well as landowning farmers. Any changes to APR that make it less appealing for a tenancy to be created will have a detrimental impact on tenants, the tenancy sector and the next generation of farmers.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that in some constituencies this might not seem to be an issue, but in the north-east of Scotland it is a massive issue. For example, I have a town in my constituency called Kintore, which is next to a place called Leylodge. It is getting a 3 GW hydrogen plant next to an extended substation, with at least four or five battery plants and all the new pylons coming in to feed that. If the residents of Leylodge, where there are about 40 houses, and Kintore, where they number around 4,500—and similarly those in New Deer, up in the north—do not feel under siege, how do they feel?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The second part of the amendment states that the jobs should be created by 2030. That timescale is really important, because it ensures that the expertise we have now can be retained to help build these jobs of the future. Even if the Government will not commit to the figure, will they look at the timescale, which will give the industry certainty?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the supply chains that we have are used to delivering large-scale multimillion-pound projects? That is important not only for home-grown jobs, but for the success of GB Energy and any infrastructure and skills that will come out of it. We need our home-grown supply chain, which is world renowned, to help deliver this.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister appreciate that although in the run-up to the election it was assumed, or said, quite often that GB Energy would save households £300, that figure seems now to have been dropped? Is this not a mechanism to ensure that low-income households see some benefit from the Bill? They will not necessarily take the Government’s word for it that it may come later, when we have already seen announcements such as the figure of £300 being dropped.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Just for clarity, will the other changes that Labour is bringing in, such as ending North sea licences, increasing and extending the windfall tax and ending investment allowances, make us more or less secure in the meantime, before GB Energy is set up? Will they expose us more or less to the international market?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have already discussed the financial assistance in the Bill. It is therefore anticipated that there may be financial strain. Given that the objects in the Bill do not include reducing bills, what guarantee is there that reducing bills will be a priority if and when finances become tight?

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

  More

  Q The Bill, as we have discussed, is pretty light on detail at the moment, which means it could be all things to all people or not offer enough answers to give any reassurance to anyone. From your clients’ point of view, is there a different mechanism that they would prefer? How could this public investment be used in a different manner to actually help drive and retain the private investment coming in at the moment? In other words, is this the best mechanism for keeping and driving investment? Josh Buckland : On the surface, a range of different countries have publicly owned energy companies of different sizes and scales. Therefore, I do not agree with the concept that private investors are either unfamiliar or concerned at a general level. It will all come down to your point around the design of the actual institution and how it operates with the private market. I think you are right to say that the Bill is relatively high-level. Looking back at some of the precedents that exist, I would mention the Green Investment Bank again. That was operational for a number of years and was established and grown while the legislation was then taken later down the line. It was easier, if you were a private investor, to understand the role that the Green Investment Bank would play and then have the legislation to effectively inform and solidify that. The challenge in this context is that the Government have obviously proceeded with the legislation early on, as the institution is being established. That does not mean to say that it cannot be created as an institution that is independent and galvanises private investment but, clearly, the current level of uncertainty around the design and the mechanisms that it will deploy will add to that challenge. Therefore, the Government have said that alongside the Bill they will look to publish more detail on a framework agreement with Government, and how they will set that out and consult with private industry. That, in tandem with the Bill, is critical at this formation stage. That is not to say that it necessarily leads to all that detail being in the Bill itself, but it is critical that it goes alongside it.

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

  More

  Q The statement of strategic priorities set out in clause 5 does not have a timescale on it. I wonder how important it is from your members’ points of view that that timescale is narrowed down, particularly given that a lot of your members will be international companies. Obviously investment and personnel—that is, skills—flow abroad, and we cannot guarantee that they will wait for a strategic priorities document to come forward. David Whitehouse: There is no doubt that the UK and Scotland are in a global race for investment, and we need to create an environment where we are attracting investment. I sit in a sector that has been battered to some degree by public perception and by tax changes. There are things that are happening outwith GB Energy that, as a country, we need to look at. We need to make a great environment for investment. Time does matter; GB Energy will start to come to life when the Secretary of State puts forward priorities. The thing that we would ask—I think you have heard it from others—is about bringing forward the strategic priorities for GB Energy. The statement should be something that we are engaged in and are bringing forward now. It should come forward in a timely manner, but it must make sure that it has taken on board the necessary engagement with industry, Governments and other key stakeholders. Time is always of the essence.

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

  More

  Q The aim of GB Energy, among other things, is to decarbonise the grid. The 2030 date has been thrown around. Practically, in terms of timescales, no matter what happens with GB Energy, the Crown Estate and land leases, it would not impact the Crown Estate’s ability to bring more wind farms online by 2030. What is in the Bill at the moment that can bring on the transition and help to decarbonise? Dan Labbad: If you look at where we are today, we have just under 12 GW generating. The Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has about 42 GW in the pipeline. The first thing is: how can we bring as much of that to generating as possible? That is really important. Where and how do we remove immediate encumbrances? That is something we can work on immediately. From there, even to bring 20 GW to 30 GW to market by 2030 needs a lot of work and co-ordination. To put it another way, we have delivered 12 GW of generating capacity in 25 years and if, as informed by the Climate Change Committee, we are to move up to 125 GW of generating capacity by 2050, that means we need a five to tenfold increase in the next 25 years. What we do in the next few years is incredibly important to ensure that we are laying the foundations for that to be a successful deployment.

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

  More

  Q We have heard from various witnesses, particularly Ravi Gurumurthy, about the risk management of private investment and how that will sort of coincide within GB Energy. I am just wondering how the Bill is expected to ensure that GB Energy does not just effectively end up as a sink for risky investments, or is that okay? Is the prospect for GB Energy that it provides that full buffer? If not, how will we prevent that situation? Otherwise, we are effectively just making taxpayers’ money the risk management for private investment. I do not have a “yes or no, which side of that fence do I sit on?” answer; I am just wondering what is acceptable within the context of the Bill. Michael Shanks: That is a really fair question. The question of risk appetite is important; that is partly why setting up GB Energy as a company, regulated by the Companies Act and with a fiduciary board made up of financial experts who have a responsibility as a board of directors for the direction of the company and for its financial results, is so important. There has to be some risk appetite, and one of the earlier witnesses made a point that I would agree with—if there are absolutely no projects that do not have any risk at all, GB Energy is not really filling the gap. It is really important that GB Energy can move in the spaces where the current investors are not necessarily finding those opportunities. Crucially, however, GB Energy is obviously owned by the taxpayer and therefore, as a backstop, there is a real conviction that it will only invest in things that have a likelihood of producing a return for the taxpayer. Of course, when we get into making individual decisions, that is partly why it is important the Bill does not go into a granular level of detail on every single thing that GB Energy will do, because it is really important that we give that board, those experts and everyone they bring in to advise them, the space to move into opportunities as they emerge. If we were to go back five or 10 years, we would not have thought that we were about to have the world’s biggest floating offshore wind farm off the coast of the UK. That would not be on the face of a Bill like this, but actually it is a huge potential opportunity for us and we would like those kinds of opportunities to be open to GB Energy to explore.

• 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?