Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The Scottish Conservatives have suggested that we should be prioritising Scottish-based students for medical places at university, because they are much more likely to stay in the UK and therefore contribute to our workforce. Would the hon. Gentleman support that to help the backlog and health services in Scotland?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Social Mobility: Careers Education · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this debate, and all Members for their contributions. I am, of course, very pleased to respond to today’s important debate on behalf of the Opposition. It is an undeniable truth that while talent is spread evenly across the UK, opportunity is not. We in the Conservative party take real pride in our record on expanding opportunity and social mobility to ensure that every young person, regardless of their background, no matter where they are from, has the chance to achieve their full potential and build the best possible career for themselves. More than 5.8 million apprenticeships across 700 occupations, from level 2 to degree level and backed by £2.4 billion by 2024-25, were started under successive Conservative Governments, giving young people the chance to gain real-world experience, to earn while they learn and to develop the skills needed to succeed in the workplace. We are equally proud of our achievement in the schools system. The Conservatives drove up school performance across the board, with 90% of schools rated good or outstanding at the end of our time in office, up from 68% under Labour. Under the Conservatives, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world. It was named “best in the west” for reading, and recently for maths, and it is in the top five globally for science. This transformation did not happen by accident; it happened because the Conservative party relentlessly focused on standards, rigour and ensuring excellence to help drive opportunity for all. We can contrast that with other places in the UK—for example, Scotland. Nowhere is the effect of a Government allowing ideology rather than evidence to drive education policy more obvious than in Scotland. After almost two decades of the SNP being in power, its failure to close—indeed, its unrivalled ability to increase—the attainment gap in our schools is a record that should shame the SNP. Every day, the impact of this failure is being borne out in the life chances of children and young people across Scotland. The attainment gap between the poorest and wealthiest school leavers is at a five-year high. Young people from the most deprived areas in Scotland are over three times less likely to enter work or further education compared with those in the least deprived areas. Across science, reading and maths, there is an average performance gap of over 90% between the top and bottom socioeconomic classes, and pupils from the poorest areas are 23% less likely to leave school with at least one national 5, increasing to 38% for highers. Scotland’s schools were once rated among the best in the world. We are now ranked 14th in Europe for reading, 30th for maths and 32nd for science. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said: “something, somewhere is going wrong in Scottish education.” That “something” and “somewhere” can be found in the ideology of consecutive SNP Governments at Holyrood. I return to the Conservatives’ record at Westminster. We encouraged every secondary school to have a trained careers leader, to make the most of available connections and to co-ordinate and integrate the careers programme throughout schools. We launched the new careers programme, offering young people strengthened careers advice that would see all year 8 to 13 pupils have at least six opportunities to meet a range of providers of technical education, giving pupils an understanding of the full range of opportunities available to them, including apprenticeships, T-levels and higher technical qualifications —not just the traditional academic routes. If social mobility is to continue to improve, there must be no drift on the education and skills agenda under the current Labour Government. However, we have already seen the Government cut the minimum duration of apprenticeships from 12 to eight months. They have also ended the requirement for adult apprentices to complete English and maths functional skills. There is a proposal to divert half of the apprenticeship levy into other non-apprenticeship schemes—a change that will halve the number of quality apprenticeships available to young people—and level 7 apprenticeships are to be scrapped, which has been described as a direct attack on social mobility. We should also be clear that careers education and facilitation of social mobility are not delivered in a vacuum; they depend on stable staffing, adequate funding and overall stability in the education sector. Changes to the national pay and curriculum rules in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill risk undermining the very autonomy that has driven improvement in some of the most disadvantaged communities. The tax on independent schools is projected to push up to 90,000 pupils into the state system, swelling class sizes and putting even more pressure on local schools already struggling to balance the books. The rise in employer national insurance contributions has hit schools and colleges hard. When she winds up today, I hope that the Minister will outline how schools can continue to provide meaningful careers guidance and prioritise maximising social mobility for their students when they are struggling to pay their staff overheads and manage rising class sizes. If we are serious about social mobility, as I believe all hon. Members present are, then careers education cannot be an afterthought. It must be embedded in the curriculum design, teacher training, local employer partnership and the national policy. The Conservative party will continue to champion opportunity and to support high standards, academic excellence and rigorous technical education. We will always stand up for the right of every young person to choose their path, find their passion and make the most of their potential.

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  The industries and business groups that are leaving the country quicker than any others are in the oil and gas sector. Investors in oil and gas—in the North sea, Aberdeenshire, and my Gordon and Buchan constituency—are fleeing the country at an astounding rate, taking investment, skills and jobs with them. We are losing a generation of investors, skills and skilled workers. What does the shadow Minister think we should do to keep those skills, that investment and those jobs in the UK?

• 14 May 2025 · Ministerial Code: Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  In early November, Mr Speaker asked the Secretary of State for Education in this Chamber to start a leak inquiry to find out why the announcement that tuition fees would be raised was first made to the press, rather than the House. It is now mid-May. Will the Leader of the House please update us on when that inquiry will report? Has it actually begun?

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State mentions depopulation in rural areas of Scotland and deskilling. North-east Scotland—as I am sure he is aware, because we have mentioned it more than once in this Chamber—is facing exactly that because of Labour’s policies on the North sea. Skills are being driven abroad at an unimaginable rate compared with the rest of the UK. We are depopulating and deskilling the north-east of Scotland because of Labour’s North sea oil and gas policies. Will he reflect on that or at least accept that that is the impact Labour is having on north-east Scotland?

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing the debate. To say that it is really important does not really do it justice; what we are seeing in the North sea—job losses, investment drying up and companies folding or choosing to end their UK operations—is not us being alarmist or pessimistic or over-exaggerating. As most of us in this room understand, although that is sadly not the case across the House, those are the cold, hard facts. Across the UK, approximately 120,000 people are employed in the oil and gas sector, of whom approximately half are in Scotland. The average oil and gas worker is in their mid-40s. This is their transition—not a future transition—and it matters now. In the UK, one in every 200 people is employed either directly or indirectly in the offshore energy sector, and that is significantly weighted towards oil and gas work. Those people work offshore on rigs and floating production storage and offloading units or onshore as geologists, geophysicists and petrophysicists and in our crucial supply chains. That increases to one in 25 across Scotland, about one in five in north-east Scotland and one in three if induced jobs are included. The impacts of a poorly managed transition will be felt not just in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire or north-east Scotland; the entirely of the UK will suffer. No other UK cluster has the energy capability of north-east Scotland—the skills, supply chains, university specialisms or experiences. If we in north-east Scotland lose our brightest, best, most innovative and most experienced energy workers in the transition from oil and gas to renewable energies, they will be lost to the whole of the UK. We must not pretend, or mislead ourselves and others into thinking, that transferring to renewable energies is in any way incompatible with continuing to produce oil and gas from the North sea. It is not. More than that, continuing to support our domestic oil and gas sector will only help any transition to renewables to succeed. Will we still need oil and gas for years to come? Yes. It seems that that point is largely uncontested, and the Government have certainly confirmed it. So why—I still have not heard a coherent answer to this—are they effectively ensuring that we do not have a viable oil and gas sector? Removing investment allowances, increasing and extending EPL levels beyond those for any other mature basin and banning new licences do not support the sector, help domestic supplies or protect jobs. OEUK suggests that 50% of domestic oil and gas needs could be supplied from the North sea until 2050, but only if there are policies to allow oil and gas to be extracted. Brent oil is today at $68 a barrel—almost half the $123 a barrel it peaked at in 2022, and below the EPL price floor of $71 a barrel. Why does the Minister expect North sea businesses to continue in the UK when they are being penalised for their product, despite the Government’s saying that we need it? As others have asked, how can the UK arms of multinational companies compete for funding and investment with energy sectors in other countries, which are so much more supported and encouraged and which offer far greater returns? When investment goes abroad, jobs follow, or are lost. It is that simple. I say it again: our oil and gas sector is vital to the UK’s energy transition. When I speak to people involved in or with the sector, the vast majority talk about timing. Timing is the most crucial thing in supporting the energy transition, and I would like the Minister to reflect on it in his remarks. For offshore wind, for example, the RGU Energy Transition Institute estimate is an increase from approximately 11,000 jobs in 2024 to 46,000 in 2025. On the face of it, that looks great—35,000 new jobs—but more or less all those jobs will come on stream post 2030, by which time, on the current trajectory of job and investment losses, we are expected to lose 60,000 oil and gas jobs, 50% of which will be in Scotland. No skills passport will bring those jobs back. That is not a fair or just transition; for north-east Scotland, it is a disaster waiting to happen. The issue is not just when the jobs need to come on stream; it is the type of jobs, as well as whether companies in the north-east will have remained afloat in the interim. At the moment, there are two main categories of jobs: the vast majority of our energy work is in operational activities, such as the day-to-day operations of the industry, while the remaining third—roughly—are in the capital expenditure, such as the building and manufacturing of kit. However, the manpower requirements for running and operating a rig far exceed those of, for example, a wind farm. Until the UK can increase its manufacturing base for wind infrastructure, allowing jobs to be created in capital work rather than just operational work, there is no prospect of transferring tens of thousands of workers from oil and gas to wind or other renewable energy sectors. Similarly, timing is vital if companies are to keep their order books, if not full, then at least ticking over with traditional oil and gas contracts—again, assuming that the Government’s policies are changed to support the sector—before offshore wind contracts truly pick up. I recently spoke to the chief executive officer of a supply chain company, who had very real concerns about a void in contracts, which the company would not be able to get across, in the next two to five years. What company can retain a workforce if it has no work? These companies are vital to the transition, and we cannot afford to lose them to an expediated, unmanaged decline of oil and gas. The RGU estimates that 80% of the oil and gas supply chain is transferrable to adjacent sectors, but the reality is that the supply chain will survive only if the transition is managed. If we run down production too quickly and before wind is effectively scaled, the capabilities and expertise will be lost. I end with a brief quote from the North Sea Transition Taskforce, which warns: “Unless governments act swiftly, there will be no transition; the old North Sea will fade away, along with the skills of individuals and the entrepreneurial skills of businesses in the North Sea supply chain.”

• 8 Apr 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As we have heard, clause 48 introduces a carve-out to the reporting duty. It recognises that not all sexual activity involving under-18s is a cause for alarm or state intervention. Specifically, it lets professionals refrain from reporting consensual sexual activity between older teenagers when they believe there is no abuse or exploitation at play. It is basically a Romeo and Juliet exemption. Sexual activity for under-16s is, as we know, illegal in law but without this clause, a teacher who learns of two 15-year-olds in a consensual relationship would legally be bound to report that as a child sexual offence. The clause empowers the teacher to use their professional judgment, but the exemption applies only where the reporter is satisfied that the relationship really is consensual and not appropriate to report given the circumstances. The bar for not reporting should be high. As a safeguard, the clause explicitly says to consider the risk of harm. If there is any indication of harm or imbalance, the duty to report remains. For example, if a 14-year-old girl is sexually involved with a 17-year-old boy, even if she says she has consented, a teacher or adult might rightly feel uneasy about the power dynamic and the possible impact of grooming. The adult might decide that it is appropriate to report in that case. On the other hand, two 14-year-olds would likely fall under the exemption. The exemption is not about condoning under-age sex; it is about proportionality. We know that in reality about one third of teens have some form of sexual contact before the age of 16. We do not want to criminalise young people unnecessarily or deter them from seeking healthcare or advice. For example, if a 15-year-old girl is pregnant by her 16-year-old boyfriend, without this exemption a doctor might feel compelled to report the boyfriend to the police. Clause 48 means that the doctor can exercise their judgment and focus on providing healthcare instead of a police report, as long as the relationship seems consensual and caring. That approach aligns with what many safeguarding experts recommend: to include a competent, consensual peer exemption so that mandatory reporting does not overreach. It mirrors, for instance, the approach in some Australian states where similar laws exist. Those states carve out consensual peer activity from mandatory reporting to avoid inundating child protection with consensual cases. Clause 49 is a twin provision to clause 48, addressing the fact that young people sometimes arrange sexual encounters with each other or share things such as intimate images. By the letter of the law, those actions can be offences, but it is not the intention of the mandatory reporting regime to treat those young people as perpetrators or victims of sexual abuse if it was consensual or equal. Clause 48 says that if a child is essentially facilitating a consensual act with another child of a similar age and there is no sign of harm or coercion, a professional is not obliged to report it. Clause 50 acknowledges that children are sometimes the ones committing sexual harm and that in certain cases, the best way to protect everyone is to allow those children to seek help rather than immediately branding them as criminals. In short, if a teenager confides that they have done something sexually wrong with another teen, a teacher or counsellor can handle that sensitively without jumping straight to calling the police—as long as everyone involved is over the age of 13 and there is no acute risk requiring immediate intervention. The guardrails are important. The exemption kicks in only if the other child involved in the incident is 13 years old or over. If a teenager admits harming a younger child who is 12 years old or under, that is considered so serious and a younger child so vulnerable that it must be reported. The exemption is not a green flag to do nothing, but it gives an option to not report to the police. The expectation is that professional judgment will take precedent. How does the Minister envisage that professionals will handle such disclosures in practice? Obviously, if a child confesses to something such as date rape, even if that is not reported to the police, the school or agency must ensure that the victim is safe and supported. How will those situations be monitored?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to reflect quickly on knife crime, and the Bill’s provisions on that. First, what are your comments on the clause to make it an offence to possess with the intent to cause unlawful violence? Do you think that is practically workable? How will that be enforced? More generally on tackling knife crime, what have you seen in your areas that has been good, bad or indifferent? Is there anything in particular missing from the Bill? Matthew Barber: An awful lot of focus in legislation goes on the type of knife being used—the talk about zombie knives and so on. Although I would not oppose the legislation that has been put in place to prohibit the use or ownership of those weapons, the reality is that the vast majority of knife-enabled incidents—whether that is robbery, theft or injury—are caused by kitchen knives, which we cannot realistically outlaw in our society. I think the use of intent and the ability to seize within private dwellings is really important. The police may be dealing with a suspect for an unrelated offence around drug possession, for example, and while they are in that property, they may see a stash of knives that are clearly likely to be used for criminal purposes—not for someone cutting their salad—yet they would currently be powerless to do anything about that, because they are being legally held in private premises. This is one of the things that I would put in that category of tying up some of the loopholes in legislation, which will not actually cost policing anything. At the moment we have police officers in situations where they cannot use current legislation to protect the public. More broadly, where we have seen success, certainly in Thames Valley and across the country where it has been done, it is that focus on the possession of knives that is absolutely vital. It is about a good use of stop and search, and making sure that we are focusing not just on the people who are already committing the dangerous offences of robbery and assault, but on getting the knives off the streets in the first place, recognising that possession itself is critical to enabling others to commit further offences. Roger Hirst: I very much agree with that. It has always been a difficult area, but I have never really understood why the previous legislation, and perhaps therefore this legislation, could not simply ban all bladed instruments that do not have a legitimate use in the environment in which they are found. We had a machete battle on Southend seafront last summer, which was extraordinary. None of those young people had any reason to be carrying a two-foot bladed instrument. In fact, why on earth were they allowed to buy them in the first place? The provisions around purchase over the internet need to be enforceable. It must be the case that people have to produce ID when they order it, and when it is delivered, to prove that they are over 18. But also, why are things like that available over the internet at all? Having talked to agricultural and nature groups, I know there is nothing that you can do with a machete that you cannot do with a billhook, and you are not going to take a billhook to a battle, so why not just ban machetes? That would really help. Also, with the way the Bill is phrased at the moment, the defence of saying, “I’m only carrying it for self-defence,” would effectively still work, because the implication is that you need to be going out with the intent to cause harm. I think if you are carrying it for self-defence, you are prepared to use it. I would ask the legal brains to think about a way of phrasing it to mean that the plea of, “I am only carrying it to defend myself,” is equally an offence, because that is something you can carry into a street fight. Emily Spurrell : On Merseyside, notwithstanding some really tragic incidents, we have actually seen knife crime going down. We have seen about a 7% reduction in serious violence, and particularly knife crime incidents. I think there are two reasons for that. First, there has been a huge amount of proactivity. We were the first force to pilot serious violence reduction orders, which have made a difference in terms of identifying the individuals who are routinely carrying knives and posing the threat that has been described. It has been helpful to monitor that. There was a previous question about prolific offenders; we have seen some good success with that. The flip side of that is public education and engagement, particularly with young people. We work with KnifeSavers to educate about the dangers of carrying a knife, and the fact that you are more likely to be a victim of a stabbing if you carry a knife yourself, even if you are doing it for protection. Through our violence reduction partnership, we have done some work to educate young people and help them to understand how they can get into that situation and what the alternatives are. There is a huge amount of work on education and prevention, which has to go hand in hand with all the enforcement activity.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I would like to look at the requirement to report where there is reasonable suspicion of child sexual abuse to, among others, local authorities. From your point of view, how do you think local authorities are set up to receive such reports? Do you think local authorities should get involved in that? Councillor Conway: I will read this is out, if that is okay, because—not that this is not all important—this really is an important issue. Child sexual abuse is obviously a horrific crime, and the LGA supports the mandatory reporting duty. We do, however, have several things to say that would make it more effective. We believe there should be training and support for those who work with children. Multiple reports, including by Ofsted and the Home Office, have identified a lack of skills and confidence among professionals in responding to child sexual abuse. A duty must not be placed on professionals without the accompanying training that will enable them to identify and respond to child sexual abuse effectively. We also believe that there needs to be support for victims, and that there can be a shortfall in dedicated support for boys, children from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled children. If this duty identified more victims of sexual abuse, obviously it would also be imperative that services are in place to provide appropriate support. On that, I would also highlight the pressure on children’s social care. The duty may result in an increase in referrals to children’s social care, as has occurred in other areas where mandatory reporting has been introduced, such as parts of Australia and America. Obviously this is in a context where spending on children’s social care has already increased by 11% in the last financial year to £14.2 billion. We believe it is absolutely vital that children’s social care is adequately resourced, to ensure that all referrals can be fully investigated, with the best possible support provided, including where children obviously need to be brought into care for their own protection. On safe spaces, we would add that there is a very fine line between creating a space of trust and then a space of reporting. Obviously local government sits at the heart of that. Councillor Garratt: I broadly welcome the duty to report. There are two concerns that I will raise. First, there does not seem to be—apologies if I have missed it—any sanction on anyone who does not carry out that duty. I question what kind of a duty it is if you can simply choose not to do it, with no ramification. Connected to that, if you think about the way this might happen in an organisation, the person who is making the report might in effect be in a whistleblower position, so what thought is given to any duty on the employer not to treat that employee adversely as a result of in effect blowing the whistle against things that the employer may wish not to have come to light? My third thing perhaps is a question. To what extent would this duty apply to voluntary or religious organisations? We have seen, unfortunately, more than one example of child abuse occurring in religious settings, where often there is trust and there is sometimes difficulty with anybody coming forward because of a sense of mutual solidarity that makes it difficult for people to want to step away and blow the whistle. Those are my three areas of concern. Is there a sanction for not carrying out this duty? Is there an obligation on employers to do something to protect the person? And would the duty apply to religious settings?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Knife Crime: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  First and foremost, I pay my respects to all those mentioned today who have lost their life due to knife crime, and to their families. Too many families and communities have been and are being torn apart by knife crime. I welcome the constructive, compassionate and collaborative approach that Members from all parts of the House have taken to the debate. This matter is far too important, and the impacts are far too devastating, for anything but a shared focus on addressing and reducing this most violent of crimes. We cannot allow ourselves to be back here in a few years with more names and more stories, but no meaningful progress. No family, friend or school should lose a loved one to knife crime, yet far too often, that is the reality. As others have done, I put on record my gratitude and admiration to our courageous police officers across the country who work tirelessly and fearlessly to help keep us and our communities safe. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this vital debate, and for its emphasis on knife crime among young people. We all recognise the prevalence and impacts of knife crime as a whole, but the nuances that affect young people are integral, and developing an understanding of this problem—both as it stands today and as it will develop in the future—is important. As my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said, the world that young people occupy is multilayered. It is a hybrid of online and offline, where boundaries merge, coercion persists and the reality of the consequences of actions are too often overlooked until it is too late. Young people are being exposed to things at a much younger age than ever before, and the impacts of normalising, and desensitising them to, crime and violence are still not fully understood. Although the number of hospital admissions for knife crime has declined from its peak, the figure remains far too high. We know the impact that knife crime has on young people, so we must work to get knives out of perpetrators’ hands. Thanks to research by the Youth Endowment Fund, we have a relatively clear picture of knife crime rates among young people. A small but by no means insignificant number of young people carry offensive weapons. In the last two years, 5% of the 13 to 17-year-olds surveyed admitted to carrying offensive weapons, 47% of which were knives. This illustrates that while only a minority of those involved in serious offences are knife carriers, their impact on communities is significant. Of course, that is a nationwide figure, and rates will be significantly higher in parts of the country where knife crime is especially prevalent. Over the past decade, a number of steps have been taken to reduce knife crime. Although violence against the person has decreased significantly since 2010, knife crime remains stubbornly high. This suggests that specific, targeted action is required to reduce knife crime offences, particularly among young people. Much-needed measures to close loopholes and introduce restrictions on zombie knives were put forward and passed under the last Government, and implemented by the current one. Additionally, I welcome the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that replicate those in the last Government’s criminal justice Bill by placing more stringent rules on knife possession and expanding police powers. Three key measures outlined in the Bill—the creation of an offence of possessing a bladed item with intent to harm, the increase in the maximum penalty for selling weapons to under-18s, and the power to seize, retain and destroy bladed articles—have all rightly been included. Increasing the penalty for those selling knives to under-18s is clearly a step forward in enforcing stricter laws and protecting young people. Ensuring that there are penalties for a range of weapons being used by young people is vital, as the police have highlighted that individuals use social networks specifically to advertise a range of weapons to under-18s. Stephen Clayman’s review provides a detailed assessment of the online sale of knives. I understand that the measures drawn from the assessment will be introduced as amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, so it would be useful to hear from the Minister what impact she believes they will have on knife sales. Does she expect a significant reduction in accessibility for those who currently acquire weapons online? When considering online sales, we must not be naive. Data shows that a significant number of weapons held by young people are kitchen knives, which, as noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, are widely accessible. As Members of different parties have highlighted today, engagement, prevention and police interventions are crucial tools in not only preventing individuals from committing crimes but protecting young people, who are far too often the victims of offences committed by their peers. Stop and search saves lives and must play a role in addressing and preventing incidents of knife crime, by disrupting and removing weapons from the streets. The police must have the necessary powers to prevent crime, because far too many lives are being violently cut short. Research published in the Oxford Journal of Policing found that attempted murders could be reduced by 50% through stop and search. Knowing that the police can stop and search is a powerful deterrent.

• 6 Mar 2025 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to speak in today’s International Women’s Day debate. I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing it. I want to use the opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution of Scottish women, and particularly those from my constituency and the wider north-east Scotland. When we are speaking about women breaking barriers, I need look no further than Methlick in Aberdeenshire, the birthplace of Dame Evelyn Glennie. Profoundly deaf from the age of 12, Dame Evelyn did not just overcome that challenge but revolutionised our understanding of how music can be experienced, feeling vibrations all through her body to become the world’s first full-time solo percussionist. With over 100 performances worldwide each year and having commissioned more than 200 new works, she has shown how determination can transform what many would see as a limitation into a unique strength. In Inverurie, the largest town in my constituency, we have Hannah Miley, who trained at the Garioch amateur swimming club before representing Great Britain at the London 2012 and Rio 2016 Olympics. What many do not know about her remarkable story, however, is that she spent her life training in a 25-metre pool rather than the Olympic-standard 50-metre facilities of her competitors, often sharing lanes with the public. She went on to become a Commonwealth gold medallist and now inspires the next generation of swimmers across Scotland. In the realm of science, Aberdeen’s Professor Dame Anne Glover stands as a testament to Scottish women’s intellectual prowess. Not only did she serve as the first chief scientific adviser in Scotland but she became the first chief scientific adviser to the president of the European Commission. Her pioneering work in microbial biosensors at the University of Aberdeen has placed our region at the forefront of scientific innovation. In agriculture, which is so important to my constituency, we see women taking ever more prominent roles. Jane Craigie from Aberdeenshire exemplifies that leadership as a co-founder of the Rural Youth Project, which connects young people with opportunities in agriculture. The skills and determination of women farmers are essential to our local economy and the future of Scotland’s agricultural sector. It would be remiss of me not also to mention Professor Lorna Dawson CBE, who is based in Aberdeen at the James Hutton Institute. As of 2025, she has continued her pioneering work in soil forensics and has helped to solve numerous criminal cases, advising police investigations across the UK. Professor Dawson was recently awarded the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s James Hutton medal for her exceptional contribution to earth and environmental sciences. Her work connecting soil science to justice demonstrates how expertise from our region is making a difference both nationally and internationally. Of course, it would be wrong for anyone on the Conservative Benches not to acknowledge the ground- breaking legacy of Margaret Thatcher, the UK’s first female Prime Minister whose determination to succeed in a male-dominated political world opened doors for women across the political spectrum. Her legacy continues to inspire women in politics every day. Finally, and most important to me, there is my mum, who was, as far as has been reported, the first woman mechanic on an all-weather lifeboat when she joined the crew of a station in Ireland in 1998. There really is nothing more inspiring—if not a bit scary—for an eight-year-old to watch their mum pull on her drysuit and head out to sea in gale force conditions. She would not forgive me if I did not emphasise the open-mindedness of the men on the crew who, almost 30 years ago, were willing and able to see her potential, not her gender. Just this morning, my mum told me: “I only became a mechanic because the crew were willing to give me a chance. Decades of tradition with fishermen took me to sea and allowed me to achieve it—particularly Tony the coxswain. If the crew hadn’t been so open-minded, I wouldn’t have become one.” Let us use this International Women's Day to reaffirm our commitment to empowering women and creating a more equitable future for all.

• 6 Mar 2025 · North Sea Energy · Hansard source

  More

  A really interesting line in the Minister’s statement shows, in my opinion, the Labour Government’s complete misunderstanding of the role of the North sea. She said that “the reality is that new licences…awarded in the past decade have made only a marginal difference to overall production.” However, that does not take into account the jobs they have supported, the tax intake that comes with them, and the skills, investment and expertise they have preserved and that will help in the transition to renewable energies. Is the Minister saying in her statement that she is actually willing to sacrifice all that to ideologically stop new licences in the North sea?

• 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.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you all for coming. I will aim my question at Mr Alton, but everyone can probably have a go. Mr Alton, you mentioned 15,000 potential closures, and Mr Lord just said 9,000 in Q1 next year. There was also a figure of, on average, 15 employees per pub. That brings us up to about a quarter of a million potential job losses, which will be across the board—not just full-time jobs, but part-time jobs, holiday jobs and starter jobs. It will have a huge impact. Has the sector, or have you, modelled where those are likely to fall, when they are likely to come and how they might be mitigated? Ultimately, what can be done to prevent those losses or to help those people move into other businesses across hospitality? Steve Alton: Some of that is already happening. Some people are already trimming their staff numbers down anyway to try to get ahead of this, so they have some degree of resilience. The real frustration is the reverse of what you just said: we pride ourselves on being the place that takes people in. We have some amazing charities in our sector that bring in people who are facing homelessness. We have placed over 600 of those individuals into hospitality, put our arms around them and given them a platform. They have already progressed to phenomenal levels of achievement within our sector. That is what is at risk. Equally, the part-timers are under scrutiny right now, because they are triggering a premium payment for the employer. Some of those individuals absolutely depend on that fixed-hours role, because it is the only thing that they can fit in versus their demands, whether childcare or others. It is heartbreaking to see some of those individuals already starting to lose hours and ultimately jobs, but that will come, in a way. That is just direct employment; we have to think about the supply chain as well. When you are looking at the multipliers and the real impact, I ask you to consider that foundational economic place that pubs prop up. Where are all the tendrils that go out into the community—all those connected jobs, from the butchers to the cleaners, the window cleaners and everything in between, that are sometimes hidden? Every job lost in a pub will be connected to multiple jobs in that community that are dependent on the demand that that pub drives. Again, the situation is deeply frustrating, because we know that the Government passionately want to get people back into work, and we are the answer to that. Right now, however, they are unfortunately limiting the potential of our sector to help with that issue. Kate Nicholls: When you look at the job losses in our sector, it is very difficult to strip out and identify the difference between the business rate changes that we are talking about versus the changes in NI. Steve is absolutely right that, for somebody on the minimum wage or just above at 20 hours a week, the effective increase in the employer’s tax on those jobs is 75%. That is where you will see hours cut and jobs reduced as a result of that change. You cannot just dissociate the two. That is why it is very difficult to model this and answer your question specifically about where we will see business failures versus job losses. Clearly, we are looking at—

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise that, which is why it is so important that we protect the jobs and the investment. The companies in our supply chain have the skills and expertise that will drive the transition, as will the investment that comes in, and that is why we need to keep them.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The fact that Apache’s announcement came within a week of the Budget speaks for itself when it comes to the question of the final straw that broke the camel’s back. As I was saying, the energy profits levy has the greatest impact on our local, home-grown businesses. It is turning the lights off in the very businesses that we should be supporting and championing. By removing investment allowances, the Government are forcing companies to scale back their North sea projects, thereby increasing our reliance on expensive imported energy from overseas. North-east Scotland is already leading the charge on renewable energy. We have hydrogen projects in development, wind farms off our shores, and expertise that could and should position us as a global leader on clean, renewable energy technologies. However, a rushed, ill-thought-out transition—to which the EPL contributes—will undermine our efforts. The skills of our oil and gas sector are precisely what we need in order to deliver a sustainable transition. The companies that will be penalised by this levy are the ones that we need to invest in green technologies. Just yesterday I met developers of floating offshore wind farms, and I asked them about the EPL. They hope that one of their projects will involve collaboration with an oil and gas field; the floating wind farm will help to decarbonise the rig, and in return, the oil and gas producer will help to fund the cabling back to shore. However, now they fear that the increasing and extended EPL will jeopardise the oil and gas company’s ability and willingness to invest. This Labour Government are turning what was a windfall tax into a permanent feature of our tax system, creating long-term uncertainty that will drive investment away from north-east Scotland. The energy profits levy is a blunt instrument, not a balanced strategy. The Government must listen to industry experts, local businesses, and communities like mine in Gordon and Buchan. We need a competitive, open business environment that attracts investment and will support our energy transition, while protecting jobs and supply chains and securing our energy supplies. The nation’s energy security depends on it.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  If I had time, I would focus on the increase in whisky duty, and the impact on our farmers and small businesses, but I will focus on the oil and gas sector, which is so crucial to the north-east of Scotland and my constituency. As expected, the oil and gas sector was a target for tax in the Budget. I welcome that first year allowances were retained, but other measures were announced that, although well trailed, will severely damage the energy sector. Whether it is increasing the energy profits levy by 3%, which will lead to a 78% tax rate on our oil and gas businesses, extending the windfall tax to 2030 or removing investment allowances, each will compound the investment difficulties facing the sector, and will impact investment and future jobs. The changes to the windfall tax and allowances will see the Treasury receive 83% of cashflow from oil and gas, with companies taking home just 17%. That is the highest share of any Government compared to other comparable offshore mature basins globally. The punitive taxation on our oil and gas sector puts current, real jobs and career opportunities in the north-east of Scotland at risk. Working people, who are the same people with the skills and expertise that we need for our energy transition, are not being protected by the Budget. The windfall tax and the removal of investment allowances also hit homegrown UK-based companies the hardest—the ones that have emerged and grown in north-east Scotland, and the ones that usually have an almost exclusively UK-based workforce. All their profits are subject to the windfall tax because their investments are all in the North sea. That is unlike multinationals, which can buffer the worst impacts of the windfall taxes with their overseas investments, so the changes are mostly hurting our homegrown businesses, which we should all want to protect the most.

• 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.

• 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.

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

  More

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