Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Mar 2025 · Levelling-up Projects · Hansard source

  More

  4. What her plans are for levelling-up projects.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Levelling-up Projects · Hansard source

  More

  The provisional local government finance settlement for 2025-26 introduces changes to the previous methodology for the then levelling-up funding for categorising areas of priority need. The Rural Services Network has highlighted concerns and disparities that shift funding away from rural and coastal communities to urban areas. Can the Minister assure the House that any new funding formula will adequately address the unique challenges of rural and coastal communities? Will he commit to publishing the criteria by which future levelling-up funding decisions will be made?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The energy profits levy is expected to cause huge amounts of instability for North sea firms, driving away investment, driving down employment and driving businesses away from the North sea to invest abroad. Does that sound like stability, and if so, will it bring employment, economic growth and lower prices to the country, because it does not sound like the stability or investment environment that we are looking for?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  In Scotland, businesses are also battling with the business rates relief not being passed on in full by the SNP Scottish Government. Will the Member be putting pressure on his party in Scotland to pass on those reliefs in full, to help family businesses and businesses across our high streets in Scotland?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Bank Closures: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Bank Closures: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important and timely debate. I certainly spent a lot of my recess looking at banking hubs, especially in a town called Ellon in my constituency, which has recently lost its last bank. Ellon is a large town of over 7,000 people, and if the surrounding villages are included, it is getting up towards 11,000 people. However, it does not qualify for a banking hub. Link has not given its permission to have a banking hub, saying that there are not enough businesses in the town. It does not take into account, for example, the farming businesses, and the rural nature of the area, as we have touched on, is not taken into account in the criteria set out by Link. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the importance of “rural-proofing” the conditions that Link looks at to deliver a banking hub. I hope that this debate and the Minister’s response will put some pressure on Link to look more holistically at the rural environment when it comes to considering hubs, because places like Ellon need a banking hub.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. Yesterday, the farming Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), told a conference of farmers that farming is “not high on the pecking order”for this Government. Given the heartless family farm tax, will the Prime Minister say if his Minister is correct—yes or no?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies · Hansard source

  More

  The issue is the Labour Government’s rush to decarbonise by 2030, which means that this country does not have the capabilities to fulfil all the requirements to deliver on these projects. Until we do, we will always be reliant on overseas powers and people, such as the Chinese Government and Chinese manufacturers, to deliver what we need in order to decarbonise. Are the Government prepared and happy to sacrifice our national security and our energy security to reach that 2030 target?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. A month ago, the Prime Minister said that countries will be either AI makers or AI takers. Does the Secretary of State agree that by not attending the AI safety summit, the Prime Minister has given a clear indication that the UK will be an AI taker?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the regulations. The Opposition welcome the annual uprating of the measures for both the mesothelioma lump sum payments and the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act payments across England, Scotland and Wales, which is a position that Conservative Governments have taken on such measures. The regulations provide a 1.7% increase in compensation payments, in line with the September 2024 CPI inflation rate, and we are pleased to see the commitment to maintain their real- terms value. Mesothelioma, in particular, is a cruel and indiscriminate disease, with symptoms that can take decades to appear and with known links to asbestos exposure. By the time that many individuals receive a diagnosis, the condition has already advanced, leaving them and their families with little time to prepare. More than 2,700 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year in the UK, with most cases diagnosed in people aged 75 and over, and with men affected more commonly than women. Pneumoconiosis, too, remains a serious occupational disease, often affecting those in heavy industry, including coal mining, quarries and foundries. Given the long latency periods of the conditions, many sufferers find themselves unable to pursue civil claims against former employers, making Government schemes a crucial safety net. The compensation framework must remain fair, efficient and responsive to inflationary pressures. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the following, either now or in writing. First, how many individuals are expected to receive the payments in the next one, five and 10 years? I note the 1,940 figure for 2023-24 that was outlined. Secondly, what is the expected average payment amount that will be received? Thirdly, given the number of cases linked to historical workplace conditions, it would be helpful to understand the Government’s latest estimate for the long-term cost of the schemes to the public purse. Finally—I appreciate that the Minister touched on this, but I would be grateful for further explanation—although financial compensation is important, prevention remains paramount. Besides the work of the Department for Education and the DWP, alongside HSE, it would be helpful to have any further lines on how future cases could be prevented or revealed earlier, so that we can have foresight. While there is no statutory requirement to uprate the payments, we welcome that the Government have chosen to do so, as we did. The Opposition support the technical aspects and the policy intention of the regulations and welcome their implementation.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

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

• 10 Feb 2025 · Undersea Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

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

• 10 Feb 2025 · Undersea Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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