Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  Too often when we debate energy in this place it becomes tribal very quickly. Members are either in favour of oil and gas or renewables—there is no room for nuance. We need renewables, we need nuclear, but we also need oil and gas. Many Members have spoken about the cost. Cost is one element, but supply is vital, because oil and gas makes up three quarters of the energy we need every day. It is the energy we need for the 24 million homes and over 500,000 businesses that still rely on oil and gas. Oil and gas is needed in industries such as pharmaceuticals and petrochemicals. The energy independence Bill assumes that just by calling it energy independence we are suddenly not dependent on oil and gas. That is not true, and that will not be the case far into the future because we have not developed the systems to move us away from oil and gas as quickly as we needed to. Look at our nearest neighbours in Norway, a country that many people rightly think has its energy system done correctly. There are five flights a day from Aberdeen to Norway, taking skilled workers from what was once the oil and gas capital of Europe to work in the industry there. Norway has just said that it is going to open up three more existing gas fields, and has announced a licensing round for 70 new licences. Norway incentivises drilling because it recognises how important oil and gas is to its energy security. Would any Member on the Government Benches like to tell me that the Norwegian Labour Government, by increasing their use and export of oil and gas from the North sea, are making Norway less energy independent? No, of course they are not. It is the UK Labour Government that are making the UK more dependent on Norway for our gas—we send £20 billion to Norway for the privilege of using the same gas from the North sea—and more dependent on liquefied natural gas from Quatar, America and Mexico. That LNG is liquefied, transported and regasified before it can be used here, so is less good for the environment. Moving on to jobs, I will never understand how anyone can sit on the Labour Benches and not understand the importance of protecting jobs in the oil and gas sector. The Government mention new jobs in renewables. There are new jobs in renewables, but they are not coming on stream fast enough, they are not comparable, and they are not for the same skillsets. Some of those jobs are transferable, but loads are not, and the highly skilled people who have secured our energy security for the last few decades are the ones who are going to struggle to transfer. If Labour wants to say it is happy to sacrifice those jobs, those livelihoods and the communities those jobs live in—particularly in the north-east of Scotland—it can do so, because that is the message it is sending. Those skilled workers are moving abroad and taking with them the skills that will help us with our energy security and energy independence. Labour talks about price a lot. We understand that the price of oil and gas goes up and down; that is understandable. Contracts for difference allocation round 7—AR7—signed us up to higher prices for 20 years. We have committed to paying those high prices for 20 years, which are higher than what oil and gas has been for the past few years. [ Interruption. ] I do not need wails; I appreciate that oil and gas is high at the moment, but it is not always high. It has been low— [ Interruption. ] The Minister for Energy says that that is the issue, and it is the issue if we look at one time horizon. Over the past few years, has oil and gas been low? The gas price has been low, the oil price has been low, and yet we still use it. We are sacrificing jobs in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland and sacrificing our energy security just to deliver green energy, because that is all this Government want to focus on. This Government should be looking at what our neighbours in Norway are doing and seeing how it is seen as a truly energy-independent country because they are still using their oil and gas, because they know they need it—their energy systems and their country are not set up not to use it. The UK is not either. We need it, we must use it, and we should be drilling all we can from the North sea—starting today.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Higher Education: Freedom of Speech · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that update. The scheme is long overdue, but of course it does not go far enough. Let us take, for example, the case of Brodie Mitchell, who was suspended from Royal Holloway for a spat at a freshers fair. Under the new guidelines, he would not be able to complain directly to the Office for Students. Why is that?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Higher Education: Freedom of Speech · Hansard source

  More

  16. What recent progress her Department has made on implementing the complaints scheme provided for in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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

  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.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Place-based Employment Support Programmes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) and congratulate him on securing this important debate. Getting people into work should be a core priority for any Government and I know Members across the House share that view. I, and the Conservative party, wholly believe that work is the best route out of poverty. Work brings independence, dignity, opportunity and the ability for people across the country to provide for themselves and their families. It gives meaning and purpose, and has real, proven mental health benefits. That is why successive Conservative Governments have put in place a lot of employment support schemes. The restart scheme was one example. Launched in 2020, it gave tailored, intensive support to jobseekers who were often in need of more support. I appreciate that the current Government recognise the challenges of joblessness and that there is a genuine desire to tackle the problem. Whether through local authorities or the private sector, there are many ways of attempting to improve employment outcomes and get people into work. There is a clear difference between broader national schemes and localised place-based approaches. It is clear that employment challenges in Carlisle, for example, are very different from those in Cardiff and that tailored, localised support can be a more effective way of helping people in those areas to gain meaningful, lasting employment. The JobsPlus scheme—started by the previous Conservative Government—is an example of that, and has been mentioned a few times already this afternoon. The scheme was inspired by the response to problems in the United States, and has been carried out in the UK through social landlords, and convened and organised by Communities that Work. These pilots were carried out in a diverse range of areas, such as Swale in Kent and Toxteth in Liverpool, as a useful road test for a scheme that would show how it would work in different parts of the country. The evaluation last autumn, written by the Institute for Employment Studies and Learning to Work, said that there had been “positive early indications that the JobsPlus model could be implemented effectively in the UK”. There is, of course, a long way to go. We hope for the success of place-based employment schemes and for each area to see an uptick in employment. There are hard-working and committed people in communities across the country who are doing their utmost to improve the life chances of others. Effective wraparound support is essential in tackling those complex barriers to work that so many of our constituents are facing in their own communities. We certainly know that a one-size-fits-all approach from Whitehall is often not the answer, and that devolving power down to local people and local decision makers can be the best way to achieve real, tangible progress and outcomes. However, we recognise that core principles apply to helping people throughout the country when they are trying to get a job. We must also guard against a postcode lottery, where some areas have a good level of support and others are, quite frankly, left behind. There is a clear balance to be struck, and I would like the Minister to explain how she will make sure that it happens. I would also be interested to hear the Minister’s view on private sector involvement. From my perspective, relying on state interventions alone does not work, and we will need to unleash private enterprise, particularly small and medium sized enterprises. One of the current problems in the British economy, and, indeed, in our jobs market, is that businesses of all sizes and in all communities do not have the confidence to hire in the current economic and regulatory environment. The Minister does not need me to repeat the impact on jobs of the Government’s decisions on things such as hiking national insurance or the Employment Rights Act 2025. I hear the impact from my constituents, and I do not believe that the Minister and others on the Government benches do not hear the same things too. A thriving economy and business confidence really is the best way to boost employment across the UK. That simply is not the case at the moment, with job vacancies down and unemployment up from 4.2% when the Government came to power in July 2024 to 5.1% today. There are 700,000 university graduates who are out of work and on benefits, and nearly 1 million NEET young people. These are sobering numbers and will impact on the constituencies and constituents of every Member in this room, across the length and breadth of the country. They impact people now, but also into their futures. Those numbers put a huge pressure on employment support programmes, and often overwhelm them. We want employers to feel comfortable in hiring people, not to impose hiring freezes because they are concerned about the state of the economy. I will briefly focus on my constituency, as others have today. I often talk in this place about the oil and gas sector and the impact that policies are having on jobs. Employment, particularly locally in north-east Scotland, is wholly reliant on the oil and gas sector. Every other sector and industry is related to it: hospitality, taxis, shops, and the housing market. Regardless of whether people support oil and gas or whether people believe in the energy transition, policies in this sector are having an impact on jobs. No other constituency in the country is seeing as many job losses in a single sector as we are across north-east Scotland. If this were happening in any other Member’s constituency, they would not be sitting silent; they would be fighting for the employment and future of their constituents. That is what I am doing, and it is what must be done if we are to ensure that place-based employment support is not needed in Aberdeenshire to the extent that it would be if the oil and gas sector were allowed to collapse. I certainly welcome robust place-based employment support, but I call on the Government to link it with broader economic changes that allow businesses to flourish and encourage them to take a chance on younger people and those currently out of work. I thank the Minister in advance for her response and the hon. Member for Southport again for securing this debate.

• 17 Dec 2025 · INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth · Hansard source

  More

  First, like everyone else, I welcome 500 jobs having been secured, but 500 jobs a fortnight are being lost from the oil and gas sector because of this Government’s policies. The Minister has spoken about the supply chain, but those jobs and skills in the supply chain are being lost and will not be there for the transition because of the energy profits levy. The Government have defined what a windfall is. There are no longer windfall prices or windfall profits, but there is still a windfall tax. When will the Government get rid of the windfall tax to protect the supply chain, the oil and gas sector and our vital industries?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  No, I do not agree, because that is factually untrue. Investment in green technologies, including carbon capture, EV charging point roll-outs, wind and solar, is being driven by our oil and gas companies. They will stop investing in green technologies and our domestic supply if we tax them into the ground, and that is exactly what the EPL is doing. The Labour Government have kept the EPL, which means that our oil and gas companies are being taxed at 78%, which is more than is faced by any other mature basin in the world. They also removed investment allowances, ensuring that our oil and gas companies are the most uncompetitive when they are trying to invest in the North sea. As a result, the companies and the skills that we need for the transition are moving abroad. Across the UK, we are losing tens of thousands of North sea jobs. That impacts every constituency. Do not think it is just north-east Scotland that is impacted; every single hon. Member in this House has oil and gas worker constituents—energy workers—who are losing their jobs today because of the Chancellor’s choice last week to keep the EPL. That impacts everybody.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, absolutely. Many flights that take off from Aberdeen are full of workers who are leaving north-east Scotland for Norway, taking their skills and taxable income with them. Norway welcomes the opportunity for investment in its energy sources. Norway drilled more than 30 new exploration wells in its North sea this year. We drilled zero. That is not because the North sea is different on either side of the boundary line, but because of the United Kingdom’s fiscal and regulatory regime. We are banning ourselves from our own resources. We are making it so financially unviable to get at our own resources that we are becoming more and more reliant on other countries for our energy security. That does not make sense. Even if we come at the issue from a green angle and pretend that we are helping the climate, imports are more carbon intensive. We are bringing more carbon-intensive energy, which we need, into the UK. The Government love telling us that we will need oil and gas for years to come. We will, but we will not be using UK oil and gas for years to come. We will be using oil and gas from Norway, Qatar, Mexico or America, and we will import it at a huge carbon cost, and at a huge cost to the Treasury through loss of tax, other revenue and investment. Offshore Energies UK states that £50 billion of investment will be lost because of the EPL being kept in place. That £50 billion could go to a huge number of schools, roads or NHS projects, or it could fill any deficit that we have, but no, it is being left, because the ideology of this Government is to run down our domestic oil and gas sector. When I am out having constituency meetings in north-east Scotland, I spend most of my time listening to people who are worried about their jobs. They are worried about when—not if—their job will be lost, and where they will get another one. There are no new jobs in the oil and gas sector. They are not being created. When a job is lost in north-east Scotland, or in any other constituency with oil and gas jobs, there are no replacement jobs. Our skilled workers are moving abroad. That expertise and those skills—the ones that will drive the transition and keep our communities together—are moving away. One of the most cynical things that the Government did on Wednesday last week, when they chose to keep the EPL, was to release their consultation results for the future of the North sea. They thought that the people of north-east Scotland were so dim, so stupid, that they would not realise that keeping the EPL in place was going to have a destructive impact. They thought that they could wave a little flag with “North sea future plan consultation” written on it, and it would distract us, but guess what? We are not distracted. We know that it does not matter how many tie-backs are allowed, or whether we rename a licence as a certificate; that will not make any difference when it comes to how long the North sea lasts, because we do not have the fiscal regime to make it viable. I met representatives of a large oil and gas producer on Friday—I am sure that no Government Members did, because they do not actually engage with the sector or listen to it.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Devolution sounds like, and should be, a fantastic opportunity. It should bring decisions closer to home with policies that fit the uniqueness of local areas and communities such as mine, where accountability and impact are more closely linked. That is the theory but in practice, certainly in Scotland’s case, the reality is very different. Devolution has become a fight for power—for the power, but not for the responsibility—and it has become about pushing party and personal ideology rather than what is actually best for the public and the businesses which we are meant to serve. Since 1999, we have seen so much power, indeed more power than any other devolved nation in the world, devolved to Scotland, or more specifically, as others have mentioned, to Holyrood, because that is where in Scotland devolution ends. What we see in Scotland is a level of bureaucracy, red tape and top-down decision making that stifles any opportunity for devolution to properly trickle down to benefit all regions and communities across Scotland. We can look at the evidence. In Scotland, 53% of planning decisions appealed to the Scottish Government are overturned by Ministers; in England, by contrast, local decisions are upheld 70% of the time. On policing, the SNP merged eight regional police forces into one nationalised central body. In doing so, it scrapped local police boards run by local councils and replaced them with a single national authority appointed by, and accountable to, Scottish Ministers. The result is that since its creation over 140 stations have closed, creating what the Scottish Police Federation has itself called policing deserts and an “almost invisible policing presence” across great parts of the country. There are also of course endless examples of devolution putting our businesses at a disadvantage compared with others across the UK, including on business rates. Business rates are devolved and when the last Conservative Government introduced 75% rate relief for hospitality south of the border, that was not replicated in Scotland. Businesses in Scotland had to wait years for a similar relief, which, when it was finally introduced, was less generous than elsewhere. In education we have seen years of decline in Scottish standards. In 2006, Scotland proudly had students who were the best in the UK at maths. But now, after years of the SNP curriculum for apparent excellence, our PISA score has plummeted by 35 points and we are trailing well behind England. That is a generation of young Scots being failed by the SNP. Why in Scotland, after almost 20 years in office, has the SNP seemingly been so content to let education standards slip and slip while over the past decade, when Conservatives were in government at Westminster, we saw standards and international rankings rise south of the border? Why, other than for the need to just do things differently, would we not look at the rising standards elsewhere in the UK and think for just one minute that maybe for the sake of the next generation of Scots we could learn from what is happening elsewhere in the UK? There is also a huge amount of incoherence between different policies in devolved areas. Pensioners in Scotland with an income of £35,000 are considered to have a low enough income to be eligible for the winter fuel payment, which of course is welcome after Labour decided to balance their books on the back of our poorest pensioners, but how does this square with the SNP Government considering workers on a salary as modest as £30,000 to be wealthy enough to be taxed more than those in the rest of the UK? Was devolution really set up as a vehicle to see teachers and doctors and police officers based and working in Scotland taxed more and taking home less pay than those doing the same job in the rest of the UK? For devolution to be considered a success, we should be able to see it and feel it, but even objectively these benefits are very hard to find. I know there have always been those saying and pointing out that we get things for free, like free prescriptions or certain bus travel or university education, but these are not free; they are taxpayer-funded—funded at the expense of something else and funded at the cost of higher taxes for people and businesses across Scotland. The Scottish Government are receiving from the UK Government over £2,500 more per person to spend than is the case in England. Why then are our outcomes not streaks ahead of those south of the border? Why is our education system failing children? Why are universities almost at the point of collapse? Why is life expectancy lower in Scotland and our drug deaths the highest in Europe? Why are NHS capital projects being paused, including the Ellon health centre in my constituency? There is chronic underfunding and under-investment in our roads, including the A96 and the A90 in Gordon and Buchan. Scotland’s employment rates are lower than those in the rest of the UK. Why are local authorities on their knees due to a lack of funding? If devolution had been made to work for Scotland, it would surely be at least equal to the rest of the UK in all those regards. If successive Scottish Governments had focused on their job and on actual devolved competences, maybe—just maybe—Scotland would have outperformed the rest of the UK, but it has not. Why? Because since devolution, successive Scottish Governments have not wanted to take the responsibility as well as the power. They have preferred to point fingers to cover their own incompetence, rather than hold themselves accountable. If what I describe had happened, or even begun to happen, over the last 25 years, maybe devolution could be seen as a success for Scotland. Until that does happen, I struggle to accept that it has been.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Energy Profits Levy: North-east Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely the case—my hon. Friend is completely correct. We are forgoing so many opportunities in the North sea to secure energy for our country and safeguard the skills and jobs that we will need for the transition. There are endless opportunities that, for some reason, we are willing to leave under the North sea. That brings me to my second question for the Minister. Does the Treasury recognise the damage that the EPL is doing to the North sea? We know that the decline in the North sea did not start with the EPL—it is a mature basin—but the EPL is accelerating that decline. Its ripple effects go far beyond the energy producers themselves. The supply chain is haemorrhaging jobs. Hunting in Aberdeenshire laid off 143 employees; Wood Group cut 200 jobs last year; Belmar Engineering entered liquidation this year, with 48 redundancies; Beam in Westhill collapsed, with 100 jobs lost; Well-Safe Solutions cut about 45 jobs; and Harbour Energy has cut 250 jobs, which is 25% of its onshore workforce. I keep coming back to the words that the Chancellor said when Harbour Energy announced its job cuts earlier this year and cited the EPL as a principal factor. She said that this was just “a commercial decision by one company”, but the list I have given—which is not exhaustive—is evidence that that is not the case. It shows that the Chancellor either does not understand, or does not want to understand, the impact the EPL is having. As I am sure other Members do, I regularly visit companies in the north-east of Scotland whose order books for offshore work have completely dried up, forcing them to adapt their business models to other sectors just to keep afloat. Many of those companies do not know whether they will be here in 12 months’ time. They are not hiring, they are struggling to justify investments, and in many cases, they can do nothing more than hope for a change in Government policy. These companies are owned, grown and run by some of the most innovative and entrepreneurial people I have ever met. They are not afraid of branching out or trying new things—they have done so for their whole business careers—but they are being backed into a corner and are running out of options. The irony is that this policy is failing on its own terms, in shrinking the very economic activity that it seeks to tax. The Office for Budget Responsibility originally forecast that the energy profits levy would raise more than £65 billion between 2023 and 2028, but the revised forecast is £21.1 billion. We are on track to miss the target by £44 billion, and revenue from the EPL fell from £4.2 billion to £2.7 billion between 2022-23 and 2024-25. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures show that revenues from oil and gas production were down 27% last year. When did the Treasury last carry out an impact assessment of the EPL’s impacts on production, jobs, economic activity and tax receipts? Have those assessments been revisited following those recent HMRC figures showing the downgraded forecast? Forecasts show that the policy could ultimately cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue by 2050. We have reached the point where the level of taxation means less money. The Government are taxing the North sea so heavily that tax revenues are being lost. We cannot tax jobs that no longer exist, we cannot tax production that no longer exists and we cannot tax businesses that no longer operate in the UK. There is something else that the Government are ignoring. From the early 2030s, the Treasury will face a £2 billion to £3 billion cost each year in decommissioning rebates, a decade earlier than expected. The premature shutdown of fields, driven by the EPL making them too unviable to continue, makes that liability ever more imminent. The policy is also undermining our energy security at a time of global instability, suppressing domestic oil and gas production and increasing our dependence on foreign imports. We are now 42% dependent on energy imports. By 2030, it is projected that our reliance on imported gas will increase to 80%, and our liquefied natural gas imports have increased by 40% in the past year alone. Those changes are partly down to geology, but the decline is accentuated by the punitive tax regime for companies operating out of the North sea. Estimates suggest that there could be 7.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent remaining in the North sea that could be recovered with the right investment. We could cover half our energy needs to 2050 with North sea reserves. If we drive investment away, we will leave that resource untapped, only for imports from elsewhere to cover them. That is a huge loss of economic opportunity for the north-east of Scotland and the UK as a whole. That brings me to my final question, and I will soon conclude. Will the Treasury please commit to de-linking oil and gas pricing in the energy security investment mechanism so that both commodities are assessed on their individual market conditions? Time is running out, and that is not an exaggeration. Every month of inaction means another thousand jobs gone. Every delayed investment decision means less energy security for Britain. Every skilled worker who leaves to go overseas is one we will struggle to get back when we need them for the energy transition. I and, more importantly, the oil and gas sector have four questions for the Minister. First, when will the consultation outcome be published? Secondly, does the Treasury recognise the damage it is inflicting? Thirdly, when was the last impact assessment carried out by the Government? Fourthly, will the Government de-link oil and gas in the energy security investment mechanism? The north-east of Scotland has powered Britain for 50 years. We have contributed hundreds of billions in tax revenues. We developed expertise that is renowned around the world. We have so much more to offer to meet the UK’s current and future energy needs, but only if we are given the chance. Scrapping the EPL is a vital part of that chance.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Energy Profits Levy: North-east Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we want to keep the workers that we have, and the skills and expertise that they have developed, in north-east Scotland because they are of huge value to north-east Scotland. They will not stay in north-east Scotland out of virtue but only if the jobs are there for them and it makes economic sense for the companies to keep them there. That is not what is happening at the moment, and we are losing a crucial asset to our energy transition at an extraordinary rate.