Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman talks about ideological blocks. The oil and gas sector, as he well knows, is crucial to Scotland, especially to the north-east of Scotland. Allowing it to flourish and to be supported into the future will have just as much of an economic benefit. Will he reflect on that and perhaps have a word with his Front Benchers, to try to persuade them that supporting the oil and gas sector has benefits for the whole of Scotland and the UK, particularly at the moment, when we are suffering so much with economic growth?

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

  More

  Q I understand that James Lowman, the chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores, has written to the Chancellor following the Budget, and he described how 2025 will be a bleak year for small convenience stores, as they face over £666 million of additional cost. Will the Bill’s changes to the multipliers of domestic rates make a dent in that? Overall, will your convenience stores benefit from the Budget or be disadvantaged by it? How do those two things fit together? Edward Woodall: You are right that our estimation of the cost of the Budget was £666 million, and we wrote to the Treasury to set that out. As I said, I think the Bill provides more structure and permanency in the support for retail, hospitality and leisure relief. I cannot comment on how much it will do, because I do not yet know where the multipliers will be set, but I think there is an opportunity to make the investment environment for businesses better with this Bill. We are not just looking at one single relief; we are looking at it over a period of time and we have the opportunity to discuss how that multiplier is set. One way in which the Bill could facilitate that better is through the procedure for the setting of the lower multiplier, which is currently by negative resolution in the Bill documents. That might want to move to an affirmative resolution so that we can have a debate on whether it goes up or down in the future, so that we can have a closer discussion on those things.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Exactly. There must be a balance between production and demand—I will come to demand later. There is no point reducing our domestic production while our demand stays the same, because we will only fill the gap with oil and gas from abroad, which is produced with a higher carbon intensity in poorer working environments, where overseas jobs and investment will take precedence over investment at home. It makes no sense that while we are using oil and gas—the Minister himself confirmed that we will be for a while—we do not prioritise taking it from our own North sea domestic basins. New clause 3 also asks for a review on capital expenditure and investment in the UK. In Scotland alone, oil and gas contributed £19 billion of gross standard volume. In the UK, it contributed £27 billion. A 2022 report by Experian showed that for every £1 million of investment by the oil and gas industry, 14 jobs and £2.1 million of GVA are added. This industry is blatantly a net benefit to the UK and the Exchequer, and one in which we should encourage investment and capital expenditure, not an environment where the returns do not justify the risk of investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said, the OBR’s own figures show that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, and therefore production of oil by 6.3% and gas by 9.2%, because of these changes. We must ask, can the UK afford this? Maybe those were the parameters that the Exchequer and the Treasury are looking for, if they see them as allowable. But if that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact on the economy and jobs across the UK? The OEUK has put the projected drop in production down to a rapid decline due to underinvestment over the decade. Under new clause 3, we can assess the impact of the changes to the EPL and head this off to begin with because, as I said, it is important that while we have demand, we have production. It has been confirmed that we will need oil and gas in the UK for years to come, but through the changes to the EPL in the Bill, in particular clauses 15 and 16, which increase the EPL by 3% and remove the investment allowances, the Government are choosing to make our homegrown domestic energy sector so uncompetitive that current investment falls away and future investment is no longer on the cards. We cannot afford to lose investment because, as I said, it will drive the transition. It is so important that it is protected now, to help us bring the transition forward quickly and efficiently into the future. Clauses 15 to 18 were introduced without adequate consultation on the impact assessment. New clause 3 simply asks for proper scrutiny of their impact. If the Government are confident in their approach, why resist a responsible request for transparency? My Gordon and Buchan constituents, and people in Scotland working in the oil and gas sector and across the UK, deserve to understand how these changes will impact their livelihoods.

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

  More

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

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Some 17,047 pensioners in Gordon and Buchan will lose their winter fuel payment following today’s vote by the Labour party, but this decision for my constituents shows that they are being let down by their Governments at Holyrood and at Westminster. The Labour party is choosing to let them down by cutting the winter fuel payment, and the SNP is choosing not to pass on Barnett consequentials. In north-east Scotland, winters are longer and harsher than in most of the country. Our temperatures often fall below minus 10°C for a sustained period, and in recent years it has not been unusual to have had minus 20°C in Aberdeenshire. The winter fuel payment is not a luxury for our pensioners; it is a lifeline. This is the Labour party’s choice. As much as it would like to explain that choice away, it has chosen to cut the winter fuel payment, and it must face what that means. Labour’s choice means that our pensioners now have to make their own choices, so Labour’s choice has become a pensioner’s choice. Perhaps most shocking of all is Labour’s breathtaking hypocrisy on this issue. In 2017, Labour Members on these Opposition Benches had their own research showing that cutting winter fuel payments could lead to almost 4,000 excess deaths. They then vehemently opposed any changes to what they called that “vital” support. What has changed? Have pensioners suddenly become more resilient to the cold, or has the Labour party simply abandoned its principles to fund its own political choices? Many pensioners in my constituency still rely on solid fuels such as oil, so once a year, going into winter, they fill up their tanks. Payment for that will be coming shortly—before November, and way before next year and any pension rises. How will those pensioners afford to fill their tanks and heat their homes in the months to come?