Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I commend my hon. Friend—since he has been in the House he has raised lots of issues on behalf of the farming sector in his constituency. Some of those are issues that need to come directly to Ministers, so that we can take action on them, and this is one of them. We are very keen to make sure that the SPS agreement is negotiated in a way that really works for farmers in the UK, but I would also apply that to any free trade agreement we were to sign up to. I am very keen to ensure we get good deals for British farmers, and as I say, we will always, always, always defend farming standards and food standards in the UK. Those are not negotiable in free trade agreements.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Farm profitability in the UK is incredibly low. As we know, for many farms it is less than 1%. Reports show that a poorly negotiated and poorly implemented sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could see a 10% hit to profitability for our arable farmers. That will have a trickle-down impact across the whole agricultural supply chain, impacting many businesses UK-wide. How is the Minister’s Department working with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that our arable farmers and the supply chain are not impacted?

[Chris Bryant]

We have regular conversations and at every stage, we are trying to ensure that we get the best possible deal that works for UK farmers. I just say gently to the hon. Lady that I was a Member in this House, representing a Welsh seat with many Welsh farmers, when the previous Government struck the deal with Australia and New Zealand. Welsh farmers, both in my patch and elsewhere in Wales, were absolutely furious, because it did not seem to consider their needs for a single instant.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership today, Ms Furniss. I commend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate.

The North sea oil and gas sector is of critical importance for the many of my constituents who work in the sector. Businesses across the north and north-east of Scotland—and far beyond—either directly operate facilities or provide specialist services and a very substantial supply chain. The oil and gas industry lost 70,000 jobs under the previous Conservative Government, and it continues to lose them under the current Labour Government. It is a complex challenge, and there are far too many people who, like the Tories, are backing full-scale oil and gas extraction with little to no focus on renewables or, like Labour, have a full-on focus on renewables while forcing the decline of the oil and gas sector and ongoing mass job losses. Neither of those extreme positions provides a solution to the challenge. While we must strive to substantially reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, there will still be a need to use oil and gas for many years to come.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Can the hon. Member confirm the SNP’s position on this issue? Does it unequivocally support new licences in the North sea?

[Graham Leadbitter]

The SNP backs new licences with the normal environmental assessments and everything that goes with that, which, the hon. Lady will understand, is part of the regulatory process that the previous Conservative Government also followed. Every Government would have an appropriate regulatory and licensing regime.

The roads infrastructure, the foundations of installations, the fuels currently relied on by vessels transporting offshore wind towers and turbines, and even composite turbine blades rely heavily on oil and gas production. More significantly, the skills required to deliver the renewables revolution that will be at the heart of Scotland’s industrial economy are the same skills currently utilised in oil and gas. Those who wish to force the decline of the North sea without creating renewable jobs will do to the oil and gas communities what the Tories under Thatcher did to our coal and steel communities. That would be unforgivable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

It is wonderful to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate, and I welcome my great friend—now my hon. Friend—the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) to this place; he has been by my side pretty much from the day I joined the party, and it is fantastic to finally have him here alongside us, particularly in this debate.

I have spoken a lot about oil and gas, particularly North sea oil and gas—UK continental shelf oil and gas—in this place, because it is so important. We cannot overestimate just how important it is to Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and north-east Scotland, and the by-election result in Aberdeen South is a testament to that. We are not naive; we do not think that 50% of Aberdeen South voters suddenly have a huge love of the Conservative party—although I am sure they will eventually—but this was a referendum on oil and gas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South put the point across perfectly that we must protect the sector and its jobs, the tax and investment that it returns, and our energy security.

I have been knocking on doors in Aberdeen over the last four to five weeks, and the number of people I spoke to who have lost their job is tragic. They are very willing to talk about the job they had and the struggle they now have of finding a new one. Many of them are looking to move away because there is not a replacement job in Aberdeen. Many of them have young children, who will also have to move away. That is ruining friendships, it is ruining the future skills of Aberdeen, and it is changing the demographics of our region.

This does not have to happen. We do not have to run down the North sea as quickly as we are. The Government do not have to ban new licences—that is a choice. The Government do not have to keep the energy profits levy—that is a choice. The Government do not have to keep delaying on Rosebank and Jackdaw—that is also a choice, and it is a choice that they keep making the wrong decision on.

Once we get a new Prime Minister and undoubtedly, we hope, a new Energy Secretary, those choices will be different, because the public want the position to change: three quarters of the public support North sea drilling and North sea production if it means we will import less. The stats show that if we maximise production from the North sea, we could be using only 6% liquefied natural gas by the mid-2030s. On the current trajectory, we will be using 46% LNG. Again, that is a choice that this Government are making. LNG is more carbon-intensive, so it is worse for reaching our climate goals; it costs a huge amount of money; and it is supporting foreign jobs, not UK jobs. Again, those are all choices that the Government are making. It is up to them to change direction. I am delighted by, and very grateful for, the number of Labour Back Benchers who are here today and who tell me in private that they want the Government to change their position, because they recognise that there is a pragmatic path and we need to be on it.

The impact is not only directly on jobs in the oil and gas sector. I have met hauliers and people who work in other industries in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, such as cafés and other hospitality businesses on the high street, who have seen footfall and trade decrease because of the decrease in the oil and gas sector. This impacts everybody, and not just in the north-east of Scotland.

[Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)]

Yesterday we had the AGM of the all-party parliamentary group for the British offshore energy industry, of which the hon. Lady is a member, and I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) will join us on it. Does she agree that the effect of these job losses is nationwide—not just in Scotland but across the whole of the UK, including the north-east—and the people of Aberdeen have amplified how people feel across the country? Does she also agree that if the very biggest companies pull out of the North sea altogether, as they are looking at doing, that would have an even more devastating effect?

[Harriet Cross]

The hon. Member—I call her a friend—is a huge champion for this sector and her constituents, and she is completely correct: these job losses impact everybody and all our constituencies, so we should all care about what is happening to the sector.

This is not just about the big producers or operators; it is about the supply chain, too. Companies in the supply chain are UK-wide, and they must be protected UK-wide. They are also vital for the roll-out of other renewable technologies and nuclear. Without the supply chain, our future energy security will be so much poorer —we will have less energy security.

Adura has submitted the additional information that is needed on Rosebank and Jackdaw. I appreciate that the Minister will probably say something about “quasi-judicial”, but can he make the commitment that there will not be any unnecessary delay? The decision does not have to be delayed for a new Prime Minister or a new Energy Secretary. These companies and the industry need confidence; they need to know that the projects will go ahead as soon as possible.

The Government’s decision to write the ban on new licences into law via the energy independence Bill is an absolute kick for the sector. They had already said they would ban new licences, but the decision to put that ban into law drains any confidence that investors might have in the sector. Will the Minister think again and not include that awful policy in the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Uma Kumaran]

I will not give way; I will continue.

I am making the case for growing clean industries, ensuring that British workers are at the heart of the cutting-edge change that every country is now facing, for the jobs of today and the future.

Workers need a credible transition plan, which means proactive planning, serious investment and putting their voices first. That is exactly what this Government are doing. This is about ensuring workers’ jobs and livelihoods so that they can pay their bills, rents and mortgages. These are the challenges that people are facing now. We are not talking about hypotheticals; people have bills to pay now, this month and next month. This is not a hypothetical scenario or an abstract discussion; we must take workers with us.

We cannot allow the pipe dreams peddled by those with vested interests in fossil fuels to blind us to the realities in front of us. This is an industry already in decline. We know what a botched industrial transition looks like.

[Harriet Cross]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Uma Kumaran]

I will not give way; I will continue.

We also know what success looks like. Countries in the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, ranging from Denmark to Costa Rica, are committed to ending reliance on oil and gas, so this issue is already being discussed globally.

I find it interesting that Conservative Members here are passionately making the case for oil and gas today, because it was their Government that presided over an unmitigated collapse in jobs in the oil and gas industry. Half the jobs in the North sea disappeared in the last decade under a Conservative Government. We did not hear anything from the Conservatives at the time, so let us remember why so many of them are talking about oil and gas today. They are masking what they are saying as standing up for workers, but the truth is that they are fighting climate deniers on their own Benches and Reform’s climate sceptics on their right. They are using the industry as a tool in their own political fights here.

[Uma Kumaran]

I will not give way; I will carry on.

The case that I am making is backed by science. We heard earlier that a 1% increase in global warming would be catastrophic. We are already seeing extreme temperatures. The news right now is that France has just hit 44°, we have sweltering temperatures in Britain, and people are pooh-poohing the idea of a 1% rise in global temperatures. They continue to deny the reality of the climate crisis. Yes, this debate is about jobs, energy security and our future, but it is also about protecting the planet from the present and very real threat of climate devastation. The simple reality is that North sea production is not compatible with Britain’s climate commitments.

[Harriet Cross]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Uma Kumaran]

I will continue.

Rosebank could produce the equivalent of 70% of the UK’s annual emissions of carbon dioxide. That is not compatible with the UK’s international climate obligations; they are international agreements, but they are obligations. These are treaties that we have signed up to and they reflect the deeper moral case that every country has a part to play in ensuring that we meet the global call to action.

I want to take this opportunity to urge the Minister to continue along the path that the Government are already on and do everything in their power to continue to limit the expansion of fossil fuel production. That includes ensuring that Rosebank does not happen.

We cannot abdicate responsibility at this vital moment. New oil and gas production in the North sea is not a solution. It will not bring down our constituents’ bills, it will not meaningfully diminish reliance on imported gas, and it is not delivering prosperity. However, it will risk further climate disruption, which is destruction that can never be undone.

The solution is not inaction. It is a plan for a future that backs British workers, believes in British industry and ingenuity, and backs a transition to renewable energy sources. That is everything that we should be focused on delivering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right on that point, and I will come to it in a moment because it is the main thrust of my speech.

I will start with what my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) said and also welcome Donald MacKinnon into his place. I know he will be a strong advocate for the western isles. My hon. Friend rightly recognised that this is about a sense of identity. Yes, it is about a job and a pay packet at the end of the month, but it is also about a sense of belonging to an industry that many people have worked on in incredibly difficult circumstances for a long time.

Since I came into this job as Energy Minister two years ago, and as a Scottish MP and someone who has friends and family working offshore right now, I have always said that getting the transition right for those workers is central. We have seen too many failed economic transitions in the past, so we have to learn the lessons from that. As hon. Members have made very clear today, we must also see the huge potential that comes from the projects that we need in the future, not least in the supply chain that will build many of the projects that we need as part of our transition to clean energy. That will come from those very workers, so it is hugely important that we put them at the centre of all of this.

We also have to recognise that this did not somehow just start happening in July 2024. We have been in a period of transition for decades now. A third of jobs in the industry have been lost in the past 10 years, and we cannot accept that failed status quo any more. Burying our heads in the sand and ignoring the realities of the need for us to fund this transition properly will not protect a single job, nor will it create a new one. Nor will abandoning the sector entirely and turning off the taps as others would seek to do. I notice that this is yet another energy debate where no Green MPs—who have the most extreme positions on this issue—have bothered to turn up.

It must never become a binary conversation. The North Sea Future Board, which I chair, has just produced a statement on what we are seeking to do to drive forward this transition. That says that, at the heart of it, that transition is not about one industry being pitted against another. It is about stewarding the future of the North sea through collaboration and through managing all the opportunities that come, as well as an obligation to work together. There is always rightly a lot of heat in these debates, but I honestly believe that underneath it all there is a lot more consensus about the need, not for one or the other, but for all the energy that we can get and for all the jobs that come from it.

I will briefly say what our position is on the North sea. Gas has been flowing into this country for more than 60 years and is continuing to flow into this country 24/7. I was pleased to be at Bacton gas terminal a few weeks ago to see the skilled work that they do to manage up to a third of this country’s gas. It will continue to be a vital resource for decades to come, but it is also a basin that has been in decline. The most accessible oil and gas has been extracted. Production has been in decline for a quarter of a century, and it reduced by approximately 75% between 1999 and 2024. That did not begin in July 2024.

[Harriet Cross]

On that basis, why do the Government feel it necessary to ban new licences? The Minister says that production is declining, so why do they need to ban them?

[Michael Shanks]

Because we want to steward the future of the basin and have a strategic plan that industry can get behind. Very few of the licences that have been issued in the past few years have come to production, so they are not the route to that, but the process had so far not had clarity from the Government. That is why we said what we said on licences.

The second part of our manifesto commitment, which is often ignored in this conversation, is that we will continue to manage existing fields over their lifetime. We are not rescinding any licences—we are not saying that new production could not come forward in existing licensed fields—or rescinding any projects that currently exist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar made a point about the importance of tiebacks. This is the pragmatic approach that industry has called for, recognising that the most economically viable route to sustaining the fields is to have a tieback to an existing field that produces new oil and gas. That maintains the critical infrastructure and supply chains, as well as prolonging jobs. That is what industry called for, and that is the pragmatic approach we took in the North sea future plan.

Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

The whole purpose of the debate is to emphasise that economic growth matters. In the last full year in which the Conservatives were in office, economic growth stood at 0.4%. In the first full year of this Government, it was 1.4%. The hon. Lady should be apologising for the state in which she left the economy, leaving us to pick up the pieces.

This growth has been driven by an activist, interventionist Government who back British business—a Government who are not afraid to roll up their sleeves and make the big calls when big times demand it. From Jaguar Land Rover in the west midlands to Ineos in Scotland, Agratas in the south-west, Tata Steel in Wales, and Harland & Wolff across the United Kingdom, we step in to invest, modernise and protect British industry when necessary. We step back by reducing unnecessary regulation when that is possible, and step up to modernise our critical national economic infrastructure where that is vital: supporting the third runway at Heathrow that the Conservative party curtailed; expanding the Oxford-Cambridge corridor where the Conservative party hesitated; backing Northern Powerhouse Rail which the Conservative party cancelled. This Government have confirmed £45 billion of funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail to upgrade lines east of the Pennines and to bring forward a brand-new route connecting Liverpool and Manchester.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

That was a great list, but what was missing from it was the oil and gas sector, and specifically the £17 billion of investment that was lost as a result of the Government not scrapping the energy profits levy and the £50 billion of investment lost because of their ban on new licences, and other hostile policies. Will the Secretary of State reflect on those, and on the damage that the Government are doing to growth not only in the north-east of Scotland but in the United Kingdom as a whole?

[Peter Kyle]

This Government have invested in industry up and down the country, from Agratas in the south-west, where we are investing in gigafactories, to Ineos in Scotland. We are investing in the industries that are keeping our country going, and we have put growth into the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride]

That is a rather unfortunate example of doubling down or continuing to dig, if I may say so. Also, the hon. Lady’s comments pale in comparison with Andy Burnham’s comments in the New Statesman, where he said:

“We’ve got to go beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets”.

He also suggested that defence spending should lie outside the fiscal rules, as if spending and borrowing to defend our country were a different form of borrowing from any other borrowing that this Government might entertain. He is not so much the king of the north; he is more like King Canute, sitting in his chair on the sand, dressed in his football kit, trying to push back the tide of the bond markets and saying things like, “You’ve got to fall in line” as the waters lap at his ankles and we all ultimately get swept away. It is ludicrous.

The King’s Speech included a holiday tax that will increase the cost of the most budget holidays in this country, clobbering people who have saved up hard and just want to make some memories with their children. We also have the nationalisation of steel, which seems to be just some kind of political sop to the left on the Labour Benches.

The Government are also going to put a stop to new oil and gas exploration. This is lunacy, when we are importing gas from Norway that is extracted from the same basin. We are also importing liquefied natural gas, formerly from Qatar and now predominantly from the United States, which has four times the carbon footprint compared with if we had extracted it ourselves using our own resources. All that energy security blown, all those jobs destroyed and all that tax revenue forgone, simply because of the ideological madness of the Labour party.

[Harriet Cross]

The shadow Chancellor is completely right to reflect on the plight of the oil and gas sector under this Labour Government: 1,000 jobs are being lost in the sector every single month, which is affecting all our constituents, not just those in the north-east of Scotland. Does he share my dismay that a Labour Government do not take that more seriously?

[Sir Mel Stride]

I do indeed. I have been up to Aberdeen, met my hon. Friend and heard at first hand about the economic effect this is having. It is utter madness. If we have an opportunity in government, we will put that right.

I have already mentioned benefits. There was nothing of any substance about welfare in this King’s Speech. There was nothing about the defence investment plan. Where is it? It was promised back in September.

Then we have the regulating for growth Bill—an oxymoron if ever there was one. “Regulating for growth” says all we need to know about this Labour Government. They know nothing about the economy, nothing about job creation and nothing about businesses.

UK Steel Strategy

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend speaks to many different sectors and industries, all of which we have stepped in to support since coming into office. We are investing in their modernisation and putting them on a sustainable footing for the future. He asks me to redouble my efforts—I have redoubled my efforts every day in this job. He will see from how my Department and I acted when Jaguar Land Rover had its hour of need and when Grangemouth needed support and investment, and from today’s steel strategy, which I announced on a visit to Port Talbot just yesterday, that this is a Government who seek to modernise and to protect where necessary, but always to invest in the future.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

What assessment, if any, has the Department made of the impact that moving from blast furnaces to arc furnaces will have on our virgin steel capabilities? The Minister for Trade, who did the morning round, seemed to accept that it would mean our virgin steel capabilities being undermined.

[Peter Kyle]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that all grades of steel that are needed by the British economy will be available post transition.

Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Scotland’s contribution to energy security and net zero.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and a privilege to lead this debate on a matter that will have such an impact on Scotland’s economy, our cost of living and our national security. Let me be clear at the outset that Scotland plays a disproportionate role in keeping the lights on across Great Britain, and it is leading the way in the shift to clean power.

The evidence is clear: the House of Commons Library noted that in 2024, clean power made up 90% of the generation in Scotland. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has published figures showing that Scotland produces significantly more energy than it consumes, and that it transferred 17 TWh of excess energy to England in 2024. In terms that we can all understand, that is enough energy to power every home in London for two years.

That production benefits us all—it supports energy security, making us resilient to international events, and helps to decarbonise the grid for everyone—but there is a problem that we cannot ignore: despite that enormous contribution, too often Scots do not see a fair share of the benefits in good jobs, local investment or lower bills. The case that I want to make today is simple: Scotland is delivering, so the UK’s policy and delivery machine must now match that pace with fairness, infrastructure and security. The North sea is the place to start.

The Scottish Affairs Committee set out the stark reality: in 2024, oil and gas production reached a 21st-century low—about 75% below the 1999 peak. Decline is not an abstract theory; it is measurable across Scotland. The workforce impact is already significant. The Library notes that there were 121,000 direct and indirect jobs supported by the oil and gas industry in 2023—a 51% fall compared with 2014. If workers leave before the clean energy pipeline reaches its potential, we will lose the skilled labour that is vital to a successful transition.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I completely agree that the oil and gas sector is vital, and that we must secure the workforce in our energy industries, but I would like some clarity on the Liberal Democrats’ position. My understanding is that they support Labour’s ban on new licences, and that they had a manifesto pledge to backdate the energy profits levy. Is that still the Liberal Democrats’ position on the North sea?

[Susan Murray]

The Liberal Democrats are keen that we move to a source of green energy. We are calling for the energy profits levy to be looked at again, as it was introduced as a windfall tax in particular circumstances, when there were very high profits.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

Thank you, Dr Huq. There is genuinely nothing I would rather do on my birthday than answer an important Westminster Hall debate on this topic. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be here—cake to follow.

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray)—that beautiful constituency on the other side of Glasgow from my own—for introducing this important debate, and it is a pleasure to see so many members of the Scottish Affairs Committee to the Chamber. As an alumnus of that Committee in the last Parliament, it is a pleasure to see it continue to go from strength to strength. As a proud Scot, I reflect many of the things the hon. Lady said about the contribution that Scotland has made to Britain’s economic past, and the critical role it plays at the moment and will continue to play in the future. I will return to that theme later.

I also want to reflect on the fact that it is the strength of us working together across the United Kingdom that has driven much of the investment into Scotland to make these projects a reality. I will come back to that point later because I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will appreciate that, if nothing else.

I want to reflect on some general points, and then I will come briefly to each of the points the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire made, because they are all incredibly important and things we are working towards. On the general argument about what the Government are trying to achieve, we are trying to tackle the energy trilemma—the question of security, affordability and sustainability—by driving as quickly as possible towards clean power. Our target—our mission—of achieving clean power by 2030 is partly about how we get off fossil fuels, and the past few days have demonstrated why that is so important in an uncertain world. It is also, as the hon. Lady rightly said, about how we take the industrial opportunity that goes along with that. How do we get the good jobs and industrial opportunity to go with it?

[Harriet Cross]

Of course, we cannot ignore the events of recent days in the middle east and the impact on oil and gas prices and supply. However, those events make it more obvious why we should be preserving and making the most of the supply and production we have in the North sea. The oil goes into the European market—not through the strait of Hormuz—so it stays accessible, and the gas all comes into our networks in the UK. It is vital that we secure our own production, and the Minister surely recognises that the energy profits levy and the ban on new licences put that at risk.

[Michael Shanks]

I was going to come on to the North sea later, but let me do that now, because the hon. Lady raises important points. Yes, our domestic supply is important—particularly the gas that goes straight into the pipes around the country—and it creates jobs for thousands of people in the industry, many of whom I have got to know over the past 18 months. However, it is also important to know that it has been in decline for a long time, with a 75% reduction in production between 1999 and 2024. Although it continues to play an important role, we have been a net importer since 2004, and that will only continue in the years ahead. Yes, we should continue to support domestic production, and it will continue to play a part for years to come, but our long-term energy security does not come from fossil fuels in the North sea.

Returning to the points the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire made about the North sea, she asked whether we could pull together a plan for the North sea transition. We did that and published it at the end of last year. The North sea future plan is a fantastic read, and I encourage everyone to read it. It seeks, for the first time, to bring together projections on the future of the North sea, skills and workforce planning, and the opportunity that comes from renewables.

We need to look at both sides of the North sea. It has been hugely important for 60 years, producing oil and gas, and it will continue to be important for decades to come. Equally, we need to build up industries that have been important in recent years but that have not grown as much as we would like, and where we have not seen as many jobs as we need. So there is a workforce plan. A North sea future board has also been set up; it met for the first time in Aberdeen in January, and it will meet again in the coming weeks. It is about driving forward actions—not talking about the transition, but working through the solid things we now need to do to make it a reality.

I am conscious of time, and I want to pick up on a number of points. On new nuclear, we absolutely see nuclear as a critical component of the clean power plans of the future. It will be the backbone of a clean power system and will deliver energy security in uncertain times. We need to build nuclear faster, which is why we will respond in due course to the Fingleton review on how to improve regulation. As the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire outlined, we have also invested in the first small modular reactors at Wylfa in Wales.

I genuinely hope we will see a change of Government in Scotland in May, to one that will look at the opportunities that come from nuclear. I had the great privilege recently of visiting Torness and meeting workers who have worked there for 20 or 30 years in good, well-paid, highly skilled jobs—jobs that Scotland is currently missing out on because of an ideological block from the SNP, which we have to remove so that we can build the power we need.

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 General Committees

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

This order is crucial in ensuring that businesses are not penalised for the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic. By correcting historical activity levels to account for reduced activity during covid-19 lockdowns, we ensure fair treatment for operators whose operations were disrupted through no fault of their own.

The order updates our efficiency benchmarks to reflect current industry performance and further drive decarbonisation: an essential goal that we must continue to pursue to protect our planet for future generations. The order also enables our carbon border adjustment mechanism to work effectively by phasing out free allocation where appropriate, ensuring a level playing field between domestic producers and imports. This is sensible housekeeping that supports both our climate ambitions and our industrial base, at a time when it is urgently needed.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Does it support the ambition of reducing bills?

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I think, actually, that when we fix some of the problems around climate change, like investing in energy infrastructure and making sure that we take the true cost of business, that will eventually bring down bills. At the moment, Conservative Members seem to be saying that they do not want to account for the cost of climate change, which is maddening, considering their previous position.

INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. It really is astonishing how the previous Conservative Government and the SNP Government in Scotland were prepared just to stand by and let the refinery at Grangemouth close after having been given data for years and deciding not to do anything about it at all. He rightly mentions the supply chains, and the multiplier of jobs in the supply chains is much greater. We recognise that this is a good investment for the taxpayer, not just to secure the vital product that we need in our chemicals and defence industries or because the ethylene plant is important in its own right, but to spread the economic benefits through the supply chains in Scotland and beyond.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

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?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for the announcement. I think that is something that we can share across the whole House. I would just reiterate the point that the Government recognise the importance of the oil and gas sector. Of course it is important to the UK, to the people who work in it and to local communities as well, but we also recognise that the North sea is a declining basin. We have taken the actions, through our clean energy jobs plan and our clean energy initiatives, to ensure that we secure the supply chains for those clean energy jobs here in the UK. Again, this is a marked contrast between this Government and the previous Conservative Government, who were proud to boast of the UK being the largest market for offshore wind but enabled those jobs to be located in Denmark and other countries around the North sea. We do not think that is acceptable. That is why we are bringing the jobs here and helping workers to transition into those industries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Energy sovereignty and energy security are vital, and gas will play an important role in that for years to come, but our domestic production is falling because of this Government’s policies. Imports of liquefied natural gas are up by 40% this year, and domestic production is meant to get to 25% by 2030. We must support domestic production, and to do that the Government must scrap its policy of an increased energy profits levy and open up new licensing. When will the Government do that, and when will they support jobs, investment and domestic production from the North sea?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Lady is right: domestic production is important, which is why we have said that for decades to come, oil and gas will continue to be part of our energy picture in the UK. The number of imports has been increasing for a long time—it is not a recent trend. The North sea has been in transition for decades, and we must build up the energy that comes next. On her specific question, we consulted on what the future of the energy profits levy will look like. It comes to an end in 2030, and it is a matter for the Chancellor at the Budget. On the future of the North sea generally, we had a wide-ranging consultation, including on the future licensing position, and our pragmatic plan will be published in the coming weeks.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend earlier to discuss some of these issues in detail, and I am pleased that he has raised the issue of apprentices. I raised that personally with the chairman of the company earlier today, and I have established that there are approximately six apprentices involved. It would be usual in this situation for those apprentices to be found positions in local industry, and that will certainly be a priority. With only six apprentices, I do not think it will be a problem. Local industry tends to respond very rapidly in these situations, and of course it is a priority for us to ensure that those apprentices can continue their apprenticeships.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Exxon has said that the plant’s closure

“reflects the challenges of operating in a policy environment that is accelerating the exit of vital industries, domestic manufacturing, and the high-value jobs they provide.”

When are the Government going to take responsibility for the decisions that they are making? We see no prospect of energy prices reducing, while the ethane supply from the North sea is reducing at a huge rate. That is leading to these job losses and it will continue to lead to more and more job losses across Scotland, as the Minister knows, until policy decisions are changed and until the North sea is supported.

[Chris McDonald]

I am aware that that is what was reported in the press, but I actually spoke to the chairman of Exxon earlier and asked him specifically whether he could confirm that. He told me that there were a few issues, including the availability and cost of feedstock and the efficiency of the plant. He also said that without the $1 billion investment, he could not see a future for the plant in those circumstances.

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that huge opportunities are coming. I have said that we should be proud of the history of oil and gas, and we should also be really proud of what the industry is doing to transition into the future. We need to do much more to ensure that jobs are delivered now, but certainty and confidence that the plan is not going to change overnight is critical for how we get private sector investment into the UK to deliver on those jobs. That is also why it is so important that we look at skills in the round.

I have to say that, despite the outbursts today, the SNP in Holyrood and the UK Government are working closely on ensuring that the skills opportunities are delivered. Would I like that to go further? Of course I would, and I hope we will have a change of Government and can make that happen. This only works if we have a serious approach to recognising the challenges, building the jobs of the future and ensuring that people can take advantage of the opportunities right across Scotland.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

We urgently need to restore confidence and stability in our oil and gas sector, or we will be here again and again as more and more businesses suffer and more and more jobs are lost, whether in my constituency, across north-east Scotland, in Scotland as a whole or in the UK as a whole—there are oil and gas and energy jobs everywhere in the UK. The future of Petrofac’s 2,000 skilled and expert staff, as well as the indirect jobs that rely on them, are now at risk and reliant on Petrofac being able to find a buyer for its North sea assets. Does the Minister think that the job of finding a buyer has been made more or less likely, given that the Government have created, in the industry’s words, “the most unstable fiscal” environment “in the world”?

[Michael Shanks]

I have enormous respect for the hon. Lady, but I have to say that this is not the day to be talking down this particular company. She can make the wider points about this Government’s policy—I totally recognise that—but this is a hugely important moment in which not to undermine a successful and growing company. We need to ensure that the suppliers, related companies and customers of Petrofac continue to support that business, because as of today it is operating as normal. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that that continues to be the case. We are working closely with the company to ensure that that outcome is delivered—the hon. Lady is right to mention the wider impact—but those 2,000 jobs and the supply chain jobs that rely on them have continued as normal today, and any suggestion to the contrary is just not correct.