Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member so much for giving way so gladly. I have visited universities recently, too, and they also point to the real-terms cut in funding from the Scottish Government having a real impact on their budgets. In the interests of fairness, will he reflect on that too?

• 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?

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

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 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?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that, but if Palestine Action is using pyrotechnics against people who are escaping an attack by that organisation, that is intent. If it intends to damage Royal Air Force property and Ministry of Defence property by sabotaging RAF jets at Brize Norton, that is intent. It is showing intent as well as the other organisations. These groups do not share our values. They do not respect our country. They do not care about our way of life and they show no regard for the safety of our citizens. On the Conservative Benches, we are proud of the actions taken by previous Conservative Governments to strengthen our counter-terrorism framework. We gave our police and security services the powers they needed to confront evolving threats, and we welcome and support the Home Secretary making use of the same powers today. As the Minister said, proscription is a vital tool and a strong deterrent, but it is only a part—albeit a very important part—of what we need to do to keep our country safe. On its own, it is not enough. It must be followed by enforcement. We will, of course, be watching closely to ensure the police have the resources and the backing they need from the Labour Government to do just that. As the Minister and I have said, the first job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. We, as the official Opposition, will always support the Government in that aim. The activities of these organisations have clearly met the threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act, and we on the Opposition Benches are very happy to support the Government in their aims today.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for his speech and for bringing this important and very necessary measure to the House. I also thank him for the briefing I was provided with earlier today. Let us be clear what these measures are and are not about. Do we support free speech? Yes. Do we support the right to protest? Yes. Do we support freedom of expression? Yes. However, the very freedoms that make our democracy what it is are exactly the freedoms that the groups we are considering are putting at risk, which is why this order is needed. The groups we are discussing—Palestine Action, Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—have nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate protest. They would not be facing proscription if they were demonstrating peacefully, respectfully or legally, as so many groups and organisations across the country do and must continue to be able to do freely. These groups have chosen a different path entirely, and for that reason this action is rightly being taken against them.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  The right to protest is a hugely important part of our democracy. We support the right to protest and the right to free speech. We do not support a right to commit criminal damage or to intimidate or threaten the public, but that is exactly what these groups are doing and why they are quite rightly being proscribed. We must be clear-eyed about the broader threat landscape we face. Terrorism remains one of the most serious threats to our national security. Whether it comes from international networks, those radicalised online or extremist groups operating on our soil, the threat is real and evolving and it must demand our constant vigilance. Our security services work tirelessly day and night to keep us safe. They have disrupted countless plots that the public will never know about, but we cannot be complacent. The nature of terrorism has changed—from sophisticated networks to lone actors, from physical attacks to attacks on cyber networks, and from foreign battlefields to our own communities—and our response must evolve accordingly. We should reflect on what terrorism is. As defined by the Terrorism Act 2000, it occurs when an action’s “use or threat is designed to influence the government…or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and…the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.” The full list of actions are detailed in the Act, but they include serious violence against a person, those that endanger life or health and safety, and those that seriously damage property. Proscription is not a step taken lightly, but it is a strong and necessary tool that the previous as well as the current Government have used and should use to protect the public, and to ensure that our police and security services have fuller access to the resources they need to keep the public, our institutions and our way of life safe. No one could hear the Minister’s description of the actions of Palestine Action, MMR and RIM and consider them to be those of peaceful, legitimate protest groups.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q9. This time a year ago, farmers and many others across the country were about to go to the polls, perhaps to vote Labour for the first time because they took the Prime Minister at his word that he and his party would never leave farmers in the background again. Within weeks, however, that trust had been completely shattered by the family farm tax. Farmers know how devastating that tax will be, the industry knows how devastating that tax will be, we on the Conservative Benches know how devastating it will be, and more and more of the Prime Minister’s own Back Benchers do, too. Following the U-turn on winter fuel payments, following the U-turn on grooming gangs, and following the many, many U-turns on welfare payments yesterday, will the Prime Minister now tell farmers up and down the country when it will be their turn for a U-turn and that he will scrap the family farm tax?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  The Government stood in to secure British Steel, citing national security and protecting jobs; now they are standing in to support Prax Lindsey, citing the need to protect energy security and workers. As the Minister knows, tens of thousands of jobs and many, many companies in north-east Scotland are nearing a cliff edge because of the Government’s policies. To prevent the need for another eleventh-hour standing in by the Government, will he now support the North sea by ending the energy profits levy and allowing new licences there?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Keeping our country safe is, and must be, the first duty of any Government. That comes with decisions and choices that Governments must take to keep their citizens, our country and our way of life safe. That is why we Conservative Members support the Bill. It is much needed to close a recently created loophole that must be addressed, as Members from across the House should agree. The issue tackled by the Bill arises from the Supreme Court’s decision in N3 v. Secretary of State for the Home Department 2025. The Court held that if a person successfully appeals against a deprivation order, or if the order is withdrawn, they are considered never to have lost their British citizenship. That means that even where the Secretary of State intends to challenge such a decision through further appeals, the person’s citizenship is automatically restored in the interim. In practice, that could allow individuals to return to the UK or renounce another citizenship or nationality before the Home Office has exhausted the appeals process. The Supreme Court judgment created two vulnerabilities: an unlocked door through which dangerous individuals could return; and an escape route, allowing terrorists to regain citizenship, fly back to Britain and then renounce other nationalities to become untouchable. The Government’s own assessment identifies specific risks: immediate re-entry attempts; terrorists becoming stateless to block future action; and foreign states interfering in our security measures. The Supreme Court’s interpretation has created a situation that is unprecedented among our allies. The United States, Canada, Australia, France and the Netherlands all maintain revocation of citizenship throughout appeals. Until the February ruling, Britain’s framework operated effectively. Now, because of the judgment, we face a unique vulnerability that no other comparable democracy tolerates. Removing citizenship is quite rightly considered to be a serious step—one that is not taken lightly or without thorough consideration. The seriousness of such decisions is reflected in the fact that it is the Secretary of State who personally decides whether, based on public good and safety, an individual should be deprived of their British citizenship. The Conservative party absolutely agrees with the importance of having the power of deprivation of citizenship in order to preserve national security. It is a power that has been used sparingly but necessarily, with previous Home Secretaries rightly depriving more than 200 individuals of their citizenship for being non-conducive to the public good. These individuals risk undermining not only our security, but our society at large. British citizenship is a privilege, not an unconditional right. Those who choose to shatter their bonds of loyalty through terrorism or heinous organised crime forfeit their right to carry a British passport. That is why successive Conservative Governments never shirked from using those powers against terrorists plotting to kill our citizens, or against members of the Rochdale grooming gangs for their sickening abuse of vulnerable children. That is why we are happy to support the Government in their attempts to close this loophole today.

• 24 Jun 2025 · China Audit · Hansard source

  More

  The UK Government are still considering Mingyang as a credible supplier for turbines for the Green Volt offshore wind project, and the SNP Scottish Government have given Mingyang priority status for a factory to build turbines based in Scotland under their strategic investment plan. Both say to me that neither Government are taking seriously the threat that China poses to our energy supplies. China is, at best, unreliable and, at worst, hostile and should be nowhere near our critical national infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State finally rule out Mingyang being a permitted supplier for energy infrastructure in the future or at least give us a date for when we will hear a decision?

• 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.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. On the one hand, abortion would be decriminalised for women; on the other, restrictions on her ability to access that same procedure in a safe, controlled and supportive setting would remain. We must be careful not to create a law that has unintended and potentially harmful consequences, especially for those it is designed to help, and especially when those who are likely to rely on it are likely to be in a state of stress or distress. New clause 1 raises many questions. Is it tenable to legalise all but full-term abortions in England and Wales, but not in other parts of the UK? What would be the legal implications if a woman in Gretna travelled 10 miles across the border to Carlisle to have an abortion after the 24-week limit that is in place in Scotland? Under new clause 1, how do we monitor such abortions that occur outside a healthcare setting? How do we ensure that mothers’ physical and mental health is protected and supported? And what happens to the once-delivered foetus, if the abortion is outside a healthcare setting? As we have heard, new clause 20 goes further than new clause 1 in many respects, so many of the same concerns apply. New clause 106 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham would mandate an in-person consultation before a pregnant woman was prescribed medication to terminate a pregnancy. This new clause is not about making abortions harder to access. An abortion should, of course, be readily available to those who need and want it, and of course abortion medication should be easily accessible during the appropriate stages of pregnancy, but this new clause is about the safety of the mother and the unborn child. Face-to-face appointments are commonplace for patients with a wide range of medications and conditions, particularly when new medications are being prescribed. A private, in-person consultation allows a doctor to be as sure as they can be that the woman is acting of her own informed free will, and ensures that her mental state is assessed and understood. It also reduces as much as possible the likelihood of medication being misused or abused. Telemedicine, while it has its place, can never be a replacement for the patient-doctor relationship developed during face-to-face appointments. It has serious shortcomings. There have been many cases where abortion medicine has been misused following telemedicine, and there have been many more hospitalisations of women following the use of telemedicine. However, I stress that not all of these cases will be down to misuse; we should all be aware of that. New clause 106 does not attempt to restrict access to abortions, and I would not support it if it did. Instead, it would act as an important safeguard to protect women from emotional trauma and physical harm.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In recent weeks and months in this House, we have become familiar with votes of conscience. The amendments that I shall speak to—new clauses 1, 20 and 106—are also matters of conscience. Although I am responding for his Majesty’s official Opposition, Conservative Members will have free votes, so the views that I express will be my own, and I fully recognise that there may be Conservative colleagues who disagree with me. I recognise that the hon. Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) tabled new clauses 1 and 20 with the very best of intent. I have no doubt that all Members who signed them did so with the objective of supporting and safeguarding the rights of women, and I can unequivocally say that I share those aims, as do my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who have also spoken. However, I do not believe that new clauses 1 or 20 achieve the safeguarding of women that Members seek. Views on abortion do not have to be absolutist. Being pro-choice is not incompatible with being pro-life when the foetus is at a stage at which it is inherently viable. Believing that women should have autonomy over their bodies does not negate the need for a system that safeguards women from physical and emotional harm. As we have heard, new clause 1 would ensure that pregnant women were not criminalised for accessing an abortion during their pregnancy. It would, however, retain the law relating to the provision of abortion in healthcare settings as it stands. Effectively, a woman in England and Wales would legally be able to abort an unborn child by her own means up to the moment prior to a natural birth, but a healthcare professional would be breaking the law if they tried to help her do so outside the 24-week limit.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all the Members who have made contributions to today’s debate. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for bringing the debate before the House, giving Members a chance to speak about their and their constituents’ experiences of, and with, the Windrush generation. As noted by the then Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, in a letter to MPs, those first arrivals on the Windrush were expected to make a genuine contribution to addressing the UK’s post-war labour shortages. The story of the Windrush generation that followed is both troubling and inspirational, with many accounts of exceptional resilience and the overcoming of adversity. I want to be very clear: it is important that we acknowledge when the state fails its citizens. The treatment of some Windrush citizens was an unacceptable failure that successive Governments must own. That is why the previous Conservative Government apologised unreservedly and took decisive action. It was critical that the last Government established the compensation scheme. Over £100 million was granted in compensation to those affected, with over £93 million having been paid out, and that figure continues to rise as more claims are settled under this Government.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that. Television, drama and even radio and other non-visual means can show the story in a lot better light than anyone making a contribution at this Dispatch Box or in this Chamber. Seeing these things in real life, in colour and out in the streets is the way to bring them to life and to make sure that we recognise every day how the community is completely entwined in our society. The 80th anniversary in a few years’ time will be another opportunity to commemorate the enduring impact of this generation and to encourage further works from those in the creative industry who play such a vital role in shaping the public consciousness. Although today has been chosen as an appropriate moment to hold this debate in advance of Windrush Day on 22 June, commemorations need not be limited to anniversaries or milestones. I am confident that those involved will continue to highlight and educate others about the vital role that individuals played, their resilience and their ability to overcome adversity. More broadly, today allows us to reflect on the Windrush generation’s contributions to our institutions, industries and, importantly, our communities. It is worth remembering that HMT Empire Windrush was transporting dozens of Caribbean passengers who had served as RAF airmen—many returning from leave and others rejoining the service. Many more from this generation and their descendants would go on to serve our country in our armed forces. That is in addition to the countless individuals of the Windrush generation who helped build and sustain the NHS, particularly when post-war UK had an acute workforce shortage. That is not to mention the enormous contributions across so many other fields, including science, education, social work, business and countless others. I acknowledge the Government’s ongoing work to address the injustices that occurred in the Home Office. There are still claims to be resolved and payments to be made, and challenges remain in overcoming the consequences of past errors. We cannot change the past, but we can ensure that the schemes established by the previous Government continue to deliver for every eligible person. I welcome the fact that Patrick Vernon and Baroness Benjamin and others campaigned for a Windrush Day. It has given us all the opportunity to focus on the stories of those who came to this country and contributed so much, sharing how they came to Britain, how they were shaped by it and how they have helped shape it in turn. That is vital. As such, I thank Members for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents in the debate.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I think that Windrush and other scandals that have plagued our society are a stain on the UK. Whether the cause was, as the hon. Member said, a few bad apples or any other reason, the fact remains that we have to take action to address the issue that was created. We must ensure that those who were affected are compensated, that those who were affected and cannot be compensated are recognised, and that measures are put in place so that it cannot happen again. That is what I am interested in. I was not here in the last Parliament—that is not an excuse, but all I can do is my very best to ensure that injustices are not repeated in future. As I was saying, the compensation scheme has paid over £93 million, and that figure continues to rise. We hope the Government will continue to ensure that those settlements are paid. However, as we look forward to this year’s Windrush Day, while we must reflect on and learn from past injustices, we should also reflect on and honour the contributions of this remarkable generation. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who chaired the Windrush Commemoration Committee, spoke in a parliamentary debate about the importance of celebrating the positive aspects of Windrush Day. While for some, that name will forever be associated with scandal, I welcome the efforts of communities and members of the Windrush generation to reclaim it in a positive light. Many campaigners want the term “Windrush” to represent, not the scandal, but the vast and very many contributions made to the UK by this generation. As His Majesty the King noted when meeting members of the community on the 75th anniversary of the ship’s arrival, this was an “indomitable generation”. He said: “History is, thankfully and finally, beginning to accord a rightful place to those men and women of the Windrush generation.” A critical element of that recognition is commemoration, and—as we have heard—we should be grateful for the work of Basil Watson, whose magnificent national Windrush monument stands as a powerful tribute to the community. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) reflected, its location at Waterloo means that thousands of people pass it every day, a constant reminder to those departing or arriving at the station. When the decision was made to locate that monument at Waterloo, officials said that the decision was taken because it was where thousands of Windrush pioneers first arrived in London before starting new lives across the UK. For many members of the Windrush generation, Waterloo was not the end of a journey, but the beginning of a new life in this country and of the many contributions that they would go on to make. A former Minister at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government captured the essence of the monument: “Basil Watson’s sculpture perfectly captures the spirit of Windrush. In it we see the strength, hope and expectation of those who arrived with little and yet gave so much.” Of course, that statue—while symbolic—is only one part of the broader support provided. As Members will recall, in 2020 the previous Government launched a fund to support community-led initiatives celebrating Windrush Day. That funding was intended to enable projects across England to commemorate the Windrush generation and their descendants. It formed part of a wider effort to recognise the Windrush generation’s lasting contribution to British society, and I am pleased to see that the funding continues in 2025, with 30 projects supported under the current grant scheme. I understand that the Government have dedicated £4.25 million in funding towards honouring the Windrush legacy. In addition, while the Government have a vital role to play, the 75th anniversary also saw a wide range of private contributions, from events and exhibitions to documentaries, articles and much more.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Employment Costs · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, Scotbeef announced the closure of its abattoir in Inverurie in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, with 90 job losses and another blow to agriculture in north-east Scotland. It blamed rising costs. In April the increase to national insurance contributions came in—a huge tax rise on businesses—and the Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that 109,000 jobs were lost in May, which was the highest monthly figure in five years. It cannot be a coincidence that that happened the month after the NICs increase. How is the Minister’s Department supporting businesses and jobs in sectors such as agriculture, which are having to deal with huge cost increases because of his Government’s decisions?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Employment Costs · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps he is taking to help reduce employment costs for employers.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Rosebank Oilfield · Hansard source

  More

  Cabinet Office guidance states that Government Departments should aim to publish a response to a consultation within 12 weeks of the consultation closing. The consultation on environmental impact assessments closed on 8 January, which is 22 weeks ago tomorrow. When will the Department publish the guidance, because it is causing delays to projects in the North sea today?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about regional growth, but in north-east Scotland we see only cost and decline under this Labour Government. Let us take the oil and gas sector. Labour policies will cost almost 35,000 jobs by the end of this decade, and £150 billion in economic income by 2050. The UK-EU deal will cost fishermen in Scotland £6 billion. Two thirds of Scottish farmers will be impacted by the family farm tax, with 48% of farms halting their investments, which again hits the rural businesses that would be supplying them? Can the Minister name a single policy that this Labour Government have introduced that benefits regional growth in north-east Scotland?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Town Centre Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  Towns and villages across north-east Scotland, such as Aberdeen, and Inverurie, Kintore and Ellon in my constituency, will all need regenerating in future if the Secretary of State’s Government keep decimating the oil and gas sector. The best thing his Government can do for the north-east of Scotland is allow new licences and cut the increase to the energy profits levy. Will he commit to that? Otherwise, more and more money will need to be put into north-east Scotland to regenerate our towns in future.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  While it is welcome that the SDR refers to the need for more routine protection of subsea cables and pipelines and of maritime traffic, there is no specific mention of the same commitment to the protection of North sea oil and gas platforms, rigs and floating production, storage, and offloading vessels. They are just as important to our energy security, which is our national security, and there could be much more catastrophic consequences if they were attacked. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those structures will be included in any plan for the routine securing and protecting of critical national infrastructure?

• 2 Jun 2025 · UK Visas and Immigration: Processing Times · Hansard source

  More

  New research shows that foreign nationals are claiming almost £1 billion in benefits each month. We now face the highest number of asylum claims ever recorded—up another 9% since Labour took office. Meanwhile, the 42,000 appeal backlog at the end of 2024 is projected to more than double to almost 100,000 by the end of this year. The Home Secretary herself has admitted to the media that her White Paper would cut immigration by just 50,000. This is utterly inadequate. Without real deterrence and stricter measures, the visa processing delays will only worsen, so will the Minister commit to two concrete measures: implementing the previous Conservative threshold of £38,000; and introducing a legally binding annual migration cap that actually delivers accountability?

• 21 May 2025 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the official Opposition as we consider the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2025. As Members will be aware, the instrument proposes an increase to the Government’s resource borrowing limit from £1,779.351 million to £1,834.303 million, and the capital borrowing limit from £3,050.316 million to £3,144.519 million. This represents an uplift of around 3.1% for both limits, which is in line with the annual inflation adjustments in previous years. This is not the first time that this House or its Committees have considered such an order. These annual increases have become a routine feature of the fiscal framework between the UK Government and the devolved Administration in Scotland. This is process is familiar, but that does not mean that we should treat it as a routine exercise. What we are considering today is the capacity for the Scottish Government to borrow funds and, as in this place, that comes with significant responsibility, not just to the Treasury but to the people of Scotland—our constituents. To be clear, the UK Government, under successive Conservative Administrations between 2010 and 2024, consistently recognised the importance of providing the Scottish Government with the appropriate tools to manage their finances. These borrowing limits are not arbitrary figures; they are designed to strike a balance between providing flexibility for the Scottish Government and maintaining fiscal discipline across the UK. The annual uplift ensures that the real value of these borrowing powers is preserved in the face of inflation. However, greater borrowing levels must come with significantly greater scrutiny and far more robust accountability. It is simply not sufficient to approve increases year on year without requiring clear, transparent accounts of how the borrowed sums are being spent. It is the role of this House, and particularly of those of us representing Scottish constituencies, to ensure that every penny borrowed on behalf of the Scottish people is spent wisely and for the benefit of our communities. Currently, there are mechanisms in place for this oversight—the UK Treasury and the Scotland Office provide some level of monitoring—but, frankly, given the sums involved and the track record of the Scottish National party Administration at Holyrood, we must ask whether those are enough. There is a pressing need for improved transparency and much more detailed public reporting on how the Scottish Government allocate and spend these funds. Regular independent audits and clear public reporting are essential steps towards rebuilding public confidence, which has been sorely tested in recent years. This is not a theoretical concern. Questions have been raised about the efficiency of capital projects overseen by the Scottish Government, with serious doubts about the value delivered for the substantial sums invested. From the delays in ferry services, to millions spent on a climate review to excuse the SNP failing to deliver the dualling of the A96, to ongoing issues with the NHS, the public have witnessed too many examples of funds being allocated to projects without clear, demonstrable outcomes. The Scottish people expect to see real, tangible improvements in infrastructure, public services and their local economies, and they deserve transparency about how these funds are being spent. While we acknowledge that the SNP Government have significant devolved powers, they have too often fallen short of the standard of fiscal transparency that the people of Scotland have the right to expect. This Government, therefore, should consider what specific checks and balances they will institute to ensure that the increased borrowing is used efficiently and effectively. It is one thing to increase the borrowing capacity, but it is another to demonstrate that those funds are being used to create tangible improvements in communities across Scotland. The previous Conservative Government consistently sought to improve transparency and accountability in Scotland’s financial dealings, and we should expect the same from the Labour Government. It is crucial that this House remains an active participant in scrutinising the Scottish Government’s financial decisions. While we do not oppose this order, recognising its routine and necessary nature, I urge the Government to use this moment to strengthen the systems of oversight and reporting that accompany these powers. The people of Scotland—those in our constituencies and beyond—deserve nothing less than the highest standards of accountability. They deserve to know that their money is being used in the best way possible, and that the Scottish Government are prioritising projects that bring real benefits for our communities.