Harriet Cross MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  Just to confirm, is the Liberal Democrats’ position that they do not want new licences in the North sea?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  The Government removed their support for Jackdaw and Rosebank, and that is why they are now held up. If the Government wanted Jackdaw and Rosebank, or Cambo and Tornado down the line—there are many others in the pipeline as well—they could approve them. It is in their gift. Apparently, they wanted to be in power for a long time because they wanted to be able to make these decisions. The only decision they are making for north-east Scotland, no matter what they say to the contrary, is the decision to close down the North sea, and to see redundancies going up, investment going abroad and tax intake reducing. The skilled workforce of north-east Scotland should be something that the whole of the UK treasures. It is a vital asset, as is the North sea. Any other country in the world would give anything to have the workers, skills and geology that we have off our east coast, but the Government are not interested. They would much prefer to hit their renewables targets and clean power targets than to support one of our most crucial industries. That is why I am delighted that the Opposition have secured this debate today. I am delighted that we will be voting to support our oil and gas sector, its workers and our industry. I really hope that Members across the House will support us.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to pick between the two, but as a double act they are dreadful for the UK economy. From now and into the years ahead, the transition, which the Government are so dedicated to, will see the industry move away from Aberdeen, because the supply chain, which they know is so important to the transition, is sustained by the oil and gas sector. Production from the North sea decreased by 40% last year. That is not because of geology; it is because of the energy profits levy and the ban on licences.

• 19 Mar 2026 · UK Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  What assessment, if any, has the Department made of the impact that moving from blast furnaces to arc furnaces will have on our virgin steel capabilities? The Minister for Trade, who did the morning round, seemed to accept that it would mean our virgin steel capabilities being undermined.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is obviously keen to hear from me, which is great, but as he says, I am four minutes in and have taken three interventions; I think I still have a couple of minutes to form my argument. I will first consider electricity. Our electricity is some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also some of the most expensive, and that is the issue. Making electricity the cheapest option will make it the preferred option. Making electricity cheap will encourage the adoption of electric vehicles and the electrification of home heating, and it will make the UK more attractive for businesses and for growth markets like AI. Cheap electricity will improve the cost of living for households across the country. That is why the Conservatives have a cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone—for households and for businesses. And how? By cutting the carbon tax, which is a tax that makes up a third of the price of our electricity. But of course, as Members know, electricity only makes up about 20% of our energy mix. Oil and gas—at over 70% of that mix—remain central to our energy needs, and will for a long time. The Climate Change Committee’s projections include oil and gas in its 2050 net zero scenario. So why are the Government banning new licences for the North sea? Why are they taxing companies to such an extent that they pack up and leave? Climate change is a global concern, and therefore global carbon emissions must be considered. Why is the Secretary of State determined to run down our oil and gas production just to increase imports, which are four times more carbon-intensive than what is produced in the North sea? LNG imports have to be extracted, liquefied, shipped and re-gasified, rather than just being piped from the North sea directly into our gas grid. Permitting Rosebank, Jackdaw and, down the line, Cambo will mean that the UK’s emissions from oil and gas, which we will be using in any case, will be lower—lower than if those reserves are left in the ground and instead we use more carbon-intensive imports. Based on science, emissions and the fact that oil and gas will still be needed in the UK for decades, no one can reasonably argue that replacing domestic North sea oil and gas production with imports is the right course of action. It is not—not for jobs, investment, growth, energy security or emissions.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. I have taken a lot of interventions, and there is not a huge amount of time—I want to wrap up. The targets of the Climate Change Act are forcing the UK to make decisions through the lens of emissions, not what is best for industry, electricity costs, growth, prosperity or jobs. That is why it is right that the Conservatives have committed to repealing it. The carbon tax imposed on our industry through the emissions trading scheme has also made it significantly harder for energy-intensive industries to do business in the UK. It increases costs for consumers and makes our industries less competitive. The illogical way in which we consider domestic emissions while ignoring global emissions further undermines UK industries. Carbon leakage—exporting production, and therefore emissions, abroad—has become a convenient way for the Government to reach their emissions targets at the cost of vital UK industries. We are offshoring our industries and losing jobs, skills, taxes and investment just to import products at huge cost on huge, diesel-chugging container ships from across the world from countries that still use coal power. It is a complete contradiction of what the Government say their emissions ambitions are. The UK has already done a lot—more than many other countries—to reduce emissions, but that cannot and must not be at any cost. From our electricity prices to the North sea, traditional industries to AI, the Secretary of State’s idealistic approach to energy policy, which focuses primarily on domestic carbon emissions, is impoverishing Britain for no benefit to global emissions. I once again thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke for securing today’s debate. To conclude, I ask the Minister the following three questions: does she recognise the incoherence in the Government’s determination to shut down North sea production just to increase reliance on more carbon-intensive imports? When will the Government make a decision on Jackdaw and Rosebank? Will the Government adopt our plan to cut the carbon tax and adopt our cheap power plan, immediately stripping 20% off household and business electricity costs?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether there has been a misunderstanding of the title of the debate—it is on climate change, not the costs of bills. For climate change, we are looking at emissions; if we are focusing on emissions, we are focusing on where the carbon is produced. There is less carbon intensity in our domestic oil and gas than in imported oil and gas. I know that is not the message that the hon. Lady or others want to hear, but those are the facts. Being wedded to domestic emissions targets while ignoring emissions produced elsewhere is causing the deindustrialisation we are seeing across the UK. Businesses in ceramics, refining, petrochemicals, oil and gas and many more industries are packing up and leaving the UK, not because their products are needed less, but because they are unable to sustain themselves here under the weight of industrial energy prices and carbon taxes.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing the debate and thank him for doing so. I recognise his concerns and those of others on climate change and its impacts, but I do—this will not be a surprise to anyone in this House—have a difference of opinion, especially when it comes to the actions we have taken and should now take, in particular with regard to our oil and gas sector, which I will come to later. But I will begin by looking backwards. Under the Conservatives, the UK made more progress to cut emissions than any other G7 country—by 2022, cutting emissions in half compared with 1990 levels. Indeed, emissions were cut to such an extent that the UK surpassed the targets that countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and the US set for themselves for 2030. Under the previous Conservative Government, the proportion of the UK electricity generated by renewables increased fourfold, from 9.5% in 2011 to over 47% in 2023.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we have made huge progress and yet others have not been following our lead, so why would we make our industry less competitive? Why would we ensure that investment goes down in our country just to virtue signal and for no one to follow? We will look at what is happening today. To be very clear—I think this needs saying—disagreeing with the Energy Secretary’s approach to energy policy, and questioning the speed and cost of moving towards renewable energy, does not make one a climate change denier. That is tedious; it is a lazy argument made by those who want to close down the debate—those who believe that decarbonisation must always be the No. 1 priority, at the cost of all else. That is the inherent problem with the current debate on climate change and carbon emissions. It has become a pursuit of what is perceived to be the perfect response—the purist approach to the climate—over what is pragmatic and what is practical. It does not prioritise the public, prices, industry or energy security.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Climate Change · Hansard source

  More

  I will not skip forward a few pages of my speech now, but we will touch on that matter in the coming few minutes. As I said, the things that we have done are notable. Between 2010 and 2019, the UK Government oversaw the planting of 15 million trees, and during our time in office, the UK was home to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest wind farms in the world. We—the UK—have done a lot, and yet the climate is still changing. That is not because there has not been enough ambition or enough action from the UK, and it is not because of a need to just go faster. It is because, first—and I know there will be wails about this—the UK contributes less than 1% of global emissions; and secondly, other countries have not been following our lead.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my constituency neighbour—almost—for giving way. Although my constituency might not be the biggest, it is definitely the prettiest.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is making a great speech, as we always expect from him. Does he remember that, for the 2024 Budget, the Chancellor stood there and said that increasing fuel duty would be the wrong choice for working people? She said then that that was because of uncertain global events, and that the cost of living remained high. Does my right hon. Friend remember anything changing between 2024 and now? I do not think that the position has got any better—does he?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, the Chancellor said it was great that Norway and Canada were increasing their production of oil and gas, and congratulated them doing so. And who could disagree with that—other than, seemingly, herself and the Cabinet? Does the Minister agree that, along the same lines, we should be increasing our production from the North sea and lifting the ban on North sea licences?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to be able to speak today in this important debate. I am glad that this is one of the topics that the official Opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition, have brought to the House, because fuel duty impacts everybody. It impacts every family, every household, every business, hauliers—everywhere we go, everything that we see is impacted by fuel duty, and that is no more obvious than in rural areas. People in our rural communities rely on cars more than anywhere else. We cannot rely on buses, because they are not reliable. We cannot rely on trains, because half of the time they are not there. We cannot rely on tubes, because we do not have any near us. Cars are the lifeblood of rural communities. We would be stuck without them, and therefore they are vital. The majority of the public know that too. There are 36 million petrol and diesel vehicles in the UK, and every single one of them will be taxed when fuel duty goes up. Fuel duty is a tax on every single vehicle, and all those vehicles are driven by somebody, so this is a tax on everybody. Rural communities will feel this change so much more because they are so much larger. The best way to demonstrate that is to compare the size of constituencies. My constituency in Aberdeenshire in north-east Scotland is large; it is nowhere near the largest Scottish constituency, but it covers 2,076 sq km. That is larger than the combined total of the constituencies of Treasury and Transport Ministers multiplied by three. Indeed, if the large constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), is removed from that equation, the total combined constituency area of the Treasury and Transport ministerial teams is 380 sq km. I assume, therefore, that it is no coincidence that they do not appreciate how important cars are for getting around large constituencies and how much increasing fuel duty will impact rural constituents. While distance is important, price is also vital. The “Fuel Finder” tool that has been created is helpful, not least because it tells me that in my constituency fuel is on average 147p per litre, compared with 139p per litre in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. We are already paying more in rural constituencies, and we already have to drive our cars further, so we are filling up our cars more often and at a higher price. Fuel duty rises impact us more than those living in urban areas. This is a point I keep coming back to, but rural communities do not have a choice—we have to drive. We have to drive to get to work, to get children to school, to go to doctors appointments. To use an example, my constituency has seen many bank closures, meaning that constituents in Ellon have to drive to Inverurie in order to bank. That is a 28-mile round trip—just to bank. That distance is further than the breadth of many Members’ constituencies, east to west or north to south. It is not just fuel duty that the Government are targeting. At the Budget they announced their new 3p per mile charge for electric vehicles. Constituents of mine who live in Huntly and commute to Aberdeen to work, often in the oil and gas sector, travel 17,800 miles a year—based on their working five days a week, 46 weeks a year—just to get to work. The pay-per-mile system that the Government have brought in will mean that those constituents pay £535 a year just to get to work in their electric car. Perhaps Treasury Ministers cannot imagine having to do a 77-mile round trip to get to work, but that is what my constituents do and they are being penalised for it. When the Treasury Front Bencher winds up, I would be grateful for confirmation that pay-per-mile for electric vehicles will not be a gateway to pay-per-mile for petrol and diesel vehicles. That would cripple rural communities, rural families, and rural businesses. It is a slippery slope that the Government have started on with EVs, and if the system progresses to cover petrol and diesel vehicles, it will be a hell of a lot worse for a lot of people. We all know that supply is just as important as price, if not more important; we have been talking about it a huge amount since the events in Iran. People panic when they get to the pumps because they see the price going up, but they will panic more if they get to the pumps and there is no supply at all. I am not saying that we are there at the moment, but we need to consider how important supply is.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Just for clarification, my point was that that is a pay-per-mile scheme and that the pay-per-mile basis would not be extended to petrol and diesel cars. Is the charge per mile on EVs a gateway for that extending to petrol and diesel vehicles?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; I think a lot of us can relate to the fact that in some constituencies people have no choice but to use their car. They will use their car and keep using it, because they have to, and if they are using their car, they need to fill it. Therefore, they need petrol and diesel at affordable prices, and increasing fuel duty is making that less affordable. Fuel duty makes up 38% of the cost of a litre of petrol. The wholesale price is 33%, which feeds into it, so any increase in fuel duty makes prices more and more expensive. The decision to do that is completely under the control of this Government. Refining is a vital part of the production of petrol and diesel for our vehicles. The UK has a very good record on refining, as we are net exporters of petrol from our refineries, but in the last two years alone, two refineries—a third of the UK’s refineries—have been lost, and our capacity is going down. That is not least because of the carbon tax, which has nearly doubled under this Government. It has made refining in the UK more difficult, putting industries under pressure and ensuring that the de-industrialisation of the UK under this Labour Government continues. Members need not look any further than the oil and gas sector, particularly in north-east Scotland, to see the de-industrialisation of the UK in action. The coherence of this Government’s oil and gas policy is non-existent. They know that we need oil and gas for years to come, and they say that we need oil and gas for years to come, yet they do not want British oil and gas for years to come. We have the largest tax on any mature basin, which this Government extended and increased in their first Budget. They have banned new licences, meaning that reserves will be left under the North sea. Norway will then drill those reserves, and we will import from Norway. There is no coherence in their strategy. As a result of the ban on new licences, we are also exporting jobs. The skilled workers in the oil and gas sector who produce our oil and gas and contribute to our fuel security will move abroad. They have the skills and are valued workers, yet other countries value them more than we do in this country. The Government’s policies show that. One thousand jobs a month are being lost, and billions in tax revenue is being lost. Billions in investment is being lost, which I know the Treasury Front-Bench team know very well following their recent meetings with the sector. The Government—either because of their own ideology or the one being imposed on them by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero—do not want to use our own natural resources. They would prefer to import, at huge financial and environmental cost and at the cost of work and jobs, in order to satisfy themselves that they are reaching a target that they imposed on themselves. Some 70% of the UK’s energy still comes from oil and gas, and it will do so for many years to come. Electricity, which is the power that the Government refer to in their 2030 target, makes up only 20% of our energy. In reality, the vast majority of the energy that keeps this country going and powers the UK comes from oil and gas. Some 50% of the gas that we use every day comes from the North sea. Shutting down the North sea impacts our fuel security instantly and into the future, and it will keep doing so. There are enough reserves in the North sea with the correct fiscal and regulatory conditions to support British energy security, but this Government have decided that they do not want them and would prefer to source oil and gas from elsewhere. We heard that yesterday from the Chancellor herself, who was delighted that Norway and Canada have increased production. Why would we not do the same? We can do the same. Why are we still waiting for Rosebank and Jackdaw to be approved? Why are we sitting on those applications? It makes no sense. All of these decisions affect our fuel security and the cost of living for households. They affect the amount of supply we have for all the things that we use energy for, yet this Government are happy to forgo that just for their headline. I am delighted that we are discussing fuel duty for our rural communities and businesses, but this debate also shines a light on the vital importance of our oil and gas supply into our refineries and our cars and vehicles. That is why I am delighted to support the Opposition’s motion today.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil Support · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s statement included what I am sure were some very sincere words. He said: “Whatever the challenges, we will always support working people; we will always fight their corner. That is why we are…doing everything we can to take back control of our energy”. I did not want to have to break this to the Government, but they are not fighting for working people or taking back control of our energy by actively closing down the North sea. Thousands of people are losing their jobs every month and our energy security is going down. The only way the Minister can remedy this is by removing the ban on new licences and scrapping the energy profits levy.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and other Conservative Members have asked last week and this week about the declaration of interests. Either it exists and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister does not want to say so, or it does not exist and he does not want to say so. Out of respect for this House, the public and the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, will he confirm now whether or not it exists?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the question from the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), offshore energy infrastructure needs to be protected. The strategic defence review did not specifically mention moveable assets such as platforms, floating production, storage and offloading units, or rigs. Can the Secretary of State confirm that they will be considered as part of our energy security, and what will the Ministry of Defence do to ensure their security now and in the future?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  When will the Government release Mandelson’s declaration of interest, and why is it not included in the documents released today?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  For months now, we have heard the Chancellor and other Government Front Benchers saying that we will be using oil and gas for years to come. Of course we will—no matter how much they want to wish it away, we will be using oil and gas for years to come, so we must secure our supply. In her meeting this morning with G7 Finance Ministers, did any of them say that banning new oil and gas licences in the North sea was a good idea? Are any of them banning themselves from accessing their own energy resources?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Energy Markets · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of his statement. Events in the middle east this past week have shown why it is so vital that the Government do all they can to ensure that UK businesses and households have a secure, reliable supply of dispatchable energy—a supply we can rely on. Affordable energy is vital, but just as important is security of supply. There was nothing new in the Secretary of State’s statement—no actions, just notes of some meetings—but there were and are actions that he can take, and he could take them now for both supplies and for bills. No matter how much the green lobby or the Secretary of State wish that the UK could end its reliance on oil and gas overnight, we cannot. Some 40% of the UK’s energy comes from gas, which is the UK’s single biggest energy source, and 24 million UK homes, and half a million businesses, are connected to the gas grid. Currently, 43% of gas used in the UK is produced in our North sea basin, which is a vital energy source. Every molecule of gas produced by the UK in the North sea is piped on to our shores and into our grid. The oil produced comes onshore either here or in Europe to be refined. It does not, and cannot, get caught in the strait of Hormuz or elsewhere. It is a secure supply of oil for the UK. Our North sea oil and gas sector has been, is, and should remain vital for our national security and be a national security resource for many years, yet it is a resource that the Government, and this Secretary of State, are actively trying to shut down. The GMB Scotland secretary has called his plans “delusional”, and mean that we are facing “the most destructive industrial calamity in our nation’s history—a disaster risking untold jobs, communities, even higher bills, and our energy security”. The North sea oil and gas industry and its workforce must be protected. The Secretary of State knows that that workforce, and those supply chains will, if still here, deliver the roll-out of technologies such as wind and nuclear in the future. The Secretary of State must overturn his ban on new oil and gas licences—will he? He must immediately give confidence to the industry that it has a future in the North sea by finally granting Jackdaw and Rosebank. What is taking so long? To kick-start investment, stem the accelerating fall in production, and secure the skilled workforce and supply chains, he must, with the Treasury, end the energy profits levy now. Nuclear is the UK’s route to energy security. Nuclear works in the winter, can run 24/7, and latest prices worldwide show that it can also be much cheaper. As the Secretary of State knows, our existing plants are nearing end of life, and the Government are stalling on actions to replace or renew new gigawatt-scale sites. They have ruled out large-scale nuclear at Wylfa, and dropped the previous Conservative Government’s 24 GW target. In light of current events, does the Secretary of State accept that not granting a new gigawatt-scale plant at Wylfa—arguably the best site in the country for a large-scale plant—was a huge missed opportunity? We are still waiting for the Government to accept recommendations in the Fingleton review, which will make nuclear cheaper and easier to build. When will the Secretary of State do so, and will he do so in full? I will touch briefly on the luddite approach to energy from the Scottish National party in Scotland. SNP Members try to talk a good game and sound as if they support energy workers, energy generation and energy investment, but that is an illusion. They have a ban on new nuclear, and still a presumption against new oil and gas. They are happy to coat the countryside with pylons, turbines and batteries, but they have no plan whatsoever for when the wind does not blow. Last year the Secretary of State signed a secret energy deal with China. He does not like it to be called a secret, but what other word can there be when he refused to publish details month after month, and only published them after sustained pressure from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State? It is no surprise that he wanted to keep it a secret. It is agreeing to co-operate with China—a known threat—on batteries, cables, inverters, and turbines, effectively giving a nation that is known to have interfered in numerous sovereign states, and that has placed kill switches in energy infrastructure that it has exported, access to our energy grid. That is at best foolish, and at worst reckless. Whatever we call it, it is another threat to our energy security. Businesses are struggling with sky-high energy prices, and households are bracing themselves for energy bills that may rise significantly this year. The Conservatives’ clean power plan would reduce bills by 20%. The Secretary of State could take action today, so will he adopt our cheap power plan?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Although we will rightly want to refrain from discussing too many details of a live espionage case, it seems, from media reporting, that the case goes beyond foreign state interference into local corruption. Will the Government today agree to publish a list of all meetings held between Bute Energy and the Government, both here in Westminster and in Wales?

• 4 Mar 2026 · China: Foreign Interference Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  China is a risk—we have so much evidence of that—yet the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has signed an energy deal with China for co-operation on batteries, offshore wind, cables and inverters. It effectively gives China access to our energy grid—that is a massive risk. Was the Security Minister consulted by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero before the deal was signed?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, we cannot ignore the events of recent days in the middle east and the impact on oil and gas prices and supply. However, those events make it more obvious why we should be preserving and making the most of the supply and production we have in the North sea. The oil goes into the European market—not through the strait of Hormuz—so it stays accessible, and the gas all comes into our networks in the UK. It is vital that we secure our own production, and the Minister surely recognises that the energy profits levy and the ban on new licences put that at risk.