Draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. As the Minister has outlined, the draft regulations set out provision for the continuation of the warm home discount in Scotland through to 2031. The Conservatives will not oppose them: with a few changes, they will simply extend to 31 March 2031 the current scheme, which ended on 31 March 2026. However, it will have escaped no one’s attention that today is 27 April—not 31 March, which was four weeks ago. Will the Minister address that apparent delay?

The Conservatives do not want to see anyone struggling to pay their energy bills or having to choose between heating their home and going cold. That is especially important in Scotland, where it does not need saying that the winters are very long and very cold. Some of my constituents in Gordon and Buchan and others across Aberdeenshire live in areas that often record low temperatures each year. However, we have some reflections on the mechanism by which the warm home discount helps with bills. At its core, it is a taxation-funded redistribution mechanism. It does not reduce the cost of electricity; it takes money from all taxpaying bill payers, including those who are struggling themselves, and redistributes it to a defined group. It does not make electricity affordable for everyone.

There is an alternative to the warm home discount, which could be implemented immediately if the Government so chose. The Conservatives’ cheap power plan would eliminate certain costs completely from electricity bills, instead of just moving costs around. It would do so for everyone: for those currently in receipt of the warm home discount and for those who are not, including those who are marginally above the threshold for the warm home discount and are therefore effectively paying more to support others while struggling to support their families or to pay their bills.

The Government came to power promising to cut energy bills by £300, but without a plan to do so. Today, bills are £73 higher than when Labour took office. In comparison, our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills by 20%, saving all households £200 and cutting electricity bills for businesses, without costing households a penny and without—

[The Chair]

Order. Can we come back to the motion before the Committee?

[Harriet Cross]

We can. This is an alternative to the warm home discount, Sir Desmond.

[The Chair]

Let’s talk about the warm home discount.

[Harriet Cross]

The warm home discount, as I say, moves bill payers’ and taxpayers’ money around; it does not reduce the cost, and it does not take money off bills. People are still paying it, but in a different place. People who can just manage are paying it for those who just cannot. It is an unfair mechanism that penalises those who are just above the margin. Although we recognise the importance of making sure that bills are affordable for everybody, that does not mean that those who can just pay should be penalised. That is why we brought in, and we support, the concept of a warm home discount to help make bills affordable, but there must be an alternative via the cheap power plan to ensure that we can help everyone.

I would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions. Why have the regulations only been put before us today, when the 31 March 2026 deadline has already passed? The Minister mentioned that the measure will cost £92 million. I believe that that is for the next five years.

[Martin McCluskey]

It is per year.

[Harriet Cross]

It is per year. Does that fall completely on the Scottish Government’s budget, or is it shared between the Governments of Westminster and Holyrood? Given that there is an alternative, via the cheap power plan, that would eliminate the costs rather than moving them, and given that the Government have already addressed some of the costs by removing some of the carbon taxes, why would they not go further and implement more of the Conservatives’ cheap power plan?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin McCluskey]

I thank hon. Members for their speeches. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan asked why there had been a delay in laying the draft regulations. The delay was because of continued negotiations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. At the outset of the discussions with the Scottish Government, there was ambiguity as to what was devolved and what was reserved; that took us some time to agree with the Scottish Government. Scottish Government Ministers then took some time to determine eligibility for the scheme. The reason that we are putting the draft regulations before the Committee today, rather than having done it before the 2022 regulations came to an end, is that we had to wait for the Scottish Government to decide what the criteria for each of the groups would be.

The hon. Member asked about the cost of £92 million per year. That £92 million is set by the Secretary of State within the part of the regulations that is reserved. That is proportionate to the overall UK figure; £92 million is the amount that goes to the Scottish Government. That is where the reserve power is. There is a UK-wide figure, so UK—in this case, GB—taxpayers will bear the responsibility for the cost of those bills across the country.

The hon. Member also spoke about the Tory cheap power plan, which I have read with interest. I have to say that it is quite thin on detail, and I would argue that some of the suggestions in it would probably bring about further instability within our electricity market.

Let me talk about some things that the Government have done in just the past few months. Our £150 warm home discount is offering targeted support to the most vulnerable people. There is also universal support, in the form of the 7% price cap reduction in the current price cap period. Last week, we announced the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which provides support for industry. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero also announced last week how we will go further and faster in our mission for clean power by 2030.

It is important to emphasise to hon. Members that the way to get our energy bills down permanently is through home-grown clean power that we control and can control the price of. It is not through continued exposure to volatile fossil fuels like oil and gas that at this very moment are leaving us exposed to volatile wholesale costs, which are still the largest part of each of our energy bills.

I can guarantee the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire that I have noticed no one in Speedos in Inverclyde. Even on the sunny banks of Gourock this weekend, there were certainly no Speedos on display, despite the warm weather. The hon. Member made an important point about the impact of rising energy bills on rural homes and businesses; he will know that provision has already been put in place for additional support for those who use heating oil, with over £50 million delivered by the UK Government and now a £10 million scheme in Scotland. We have always said that we will keep that under review. To my knowledge, the Scottish scheme is nowhere near exhausted, but we will keep under review the amount that might be required for additional support.

I also point the hon. Member towards the decisions in the Budget to remove costs from energy bills, which disproportionately reduce electricity users’ bills over those who have dual fuel, because most of the discount came from the electricity part of the bill. That will have made a difference. However, we also need to close the spark gap between electricity and gas. The action that the Secretary of State took last week, alongside the Chancellor, to move electricity generation to longer-term contracts for difference will help to close that gap. However, I agree with the hon. Member that there is still room for further measures in future.

As I mentioned, fuel poverty is a devolved matter in Scotland. The draft regulations, which we are making on behalf of the Scottish Government, will help more households in Scotland who are facing financial challenges or fuel poverty to receive support each winter, the time of year when support is most needed. This Government are ensuring that lower-income households benefit the most from energy bill reductions.

I should also address the point that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan made about redistribution. This is where we will probably find an ideological difference in our approach to support for the most vulnerable. The Labour party supports redistribution. We support the fact that those with the broadest shoulders are being asked to pay a little more on their energy bills for support—

[Harriet Cross]

Does the Minister think it fair that someone who is £1 or £10 over the limit will have to pay for someone who is £1 or £10 under the limit? This redistribution is penalising people near the limit to such an extent that those who are just outside it will end up worse off than those who are just inside.

[Martin McCluskey]

That is why we need a balance of universal and targeted support. Currently, through the price cap, those on dual fuel bills will be receiving an average reduction of 7%. Alongside that, we have targeted support for the most vulnerable people in society. I think that that provides us with the right balance to ensure that widespread support is targeted at those who most need it.

We acted in last year’s Budget by taking money off energy bills to tackle the cost of living. These significant changes to how energy is priced have ensured that energy bills have fallen by 7% for an average dual fuel customer paying by direct debit. Once again, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oil and Gas

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin McCluskey]

My hon. Friend is a real advocate for the industries in his constituency. The Minister for Industry is looking in detail at this and coming forward with proposals for industry to take us through this moment, as we deal with the situation in the middle east.

We are bringing forward the next renewables auction months after our most successful auction ever secured enough power for the equivalent of 16 million homes. Just today, we set out plans to make plug-in solar available in supermarkets so that more people can put a panel on their balcony or outdoor space and begin saving energy. We are also ensuring that heat pumps and solar panels will be standard in new-build homes.

The energy profits levy has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members across the House. Since its introduction in 2022, the levy has raised around £12 billion. As I said earlier, this revenue supports vital public services. As the Chancellor noted at the recent spring forecast, the energy profits levy will be replaced by the new oil and gas price mechanism in 2030, or sooner if average oil and gas prices over six months fall below the thresholds of the energy security investment mechanism. The Chancellor recognises industry’s calls for the EPL to be replaced by the mechanism, and wants to work with industry to provide certainty on the future fiscal regime while taxing the windfall profits of energy companies.

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

On the energy profits levy, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast last year downgraded the expected income from oil and gas by 40% between March and November, and by another 20% between November and March this year. By 2030, we are now expecting only £100 million from a sector that used to bring home billions. That is because of the EPL and the ban on licences. That is the impact that Labour is having on the oil and gas sector.

[Martin McCluskey]

The hon. Lady will know that this is a windfall tax on windfall profits. If there are no windfall profits, there will not be a windfall tax.

The motion calls for an end to the ban on oil and gas licensing. The Government have been clear that we will support the management of existing fields for their lifespan. That is why we have committed to introducing transitional energy certificates, which will enable some offshore oil and gas production in areas adjacent to already licensed fields linked via a tieback or in areas that are already part of an existing field. New licences to explore new fields would make no material difference to overall production and would run contrary to the science on tackling the climate crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

I believe that the Minister answered that question. Norway has a very different system, and it made different decisions about consumption, based on the faster and greater adoption of techniques and heat pumps. The dither and delay under the previous Conservative Government meant that we did not move forward and reduce consumption.

The truth is that expanding oil and gas production in the North sea—a mature basin from which we have already extracted 93% of resource—would do nothing to cut people’s energy bills, because any oil and gas extracted is sold on international markets to the highest bidder. Nor would it influence global prices, given that the UK can contribute only a tiny fraction of the global supply, even if new licences were granted. It would neither cut bills nor increase the security of supply.

Research by Uplift shows that fields licensed by the previous Conservative Government over 14 years have produced just over a month’s worth of gas to date. Energy security is national security; as long as we rely on fossil fuels, we rely on foreign dictators and petrostates. Trump’s national security report was clear: he will use his gas to project power, turning it on and off at will. The Conservatives and Reform have shown that when Trump says “jump”, they ask, “How high?” That is not energy security; it is energy surrender.

[Harriet Cross]

Just to confirm, is the Liberal Democrats’ position that they do not want new licences in the North sea?

[Pippa Heylings]

I can confirm that the Liberal Democrat position is not to support new fields for exploration in the North sea. Rather, we should accelerate our own home-grown clean energy, the price of which we control. Otherwise, our constituents will forever be at the mercy of a deteriorating world order.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am almost a little shocked to have to follow that, but I will do my best. It explains exactly why I do not understand Labour’s oil and gas policy. The unions do not understand its policy. The Tony Blair Institute does not understand its policy. The industry does not understand its policy. The renewables industry does not understand its policy. That is not because we cannot understand something; it is because the policy is absolutely crazy.

We have just heard that we will be using oil and gas for decades. We have just heard that that oil and gas has to come from overseas, but much less of it will need to come from overseas if we open up drilling in the North sea, if we get rid of the EPL and if we make the North sea a basin that companies can and want to invest in and drill from.

Jackdaw and Rosebank are prime examples that could be producing by the end of the year. Jackdaw could be powering 1.6 million homes, but the Government do not want it to. They would prefer to import from abroad, because then they can say that we are a country progressing towards net zero. They can say that their renewables ambition is kicking ahead. It does not matter about the jobs they are kicking or the tax being lost in the meantime. It does not matter about the £50 billion of investment or the £165 billion of economic activity that will be lost. The Government and the Secretary of State will have their headline. He will go down as the Secretary of State who managed to shut down the North sea and who got us off oil and gas. But it is a fantasy. It is never going to happen—it cannot happen.

Seventy per cent of the UK’s energy—not electricity, but energy—comes from oil and gas, and it will for many, many years. No matter how much the Government wish that we were not reliant on oil and gas, we are, and no matter how much the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) wishes that we did not need our own oil and gas, we do. We need our own oil and gas and we need oil and gas from abroad, and we will for a long time yet.

I care about the workers in the oil and gas sector, because those workers are my constituents. They are my friends and neighbours. They are the people who hold our communities together. However, this is not just about north-east Scotland. Every single Member of this House has constituents who work in the oil and gas sector and who will be listening to the debate today, worrying about their jobs and wondering why the Government are so determined to sacrifice their livelihoods in order to import more from abroad. When we meet workers in north-east Scotland, they do not talk about their jobs in the future; they talk about their jobs now. They worry about how their jobs are going to be protected and why the Government do not want to protect them. The apparent “Labour” Government—the Government who are meant to protect jobs—do not value oil and gas jobs.

[Richard Tice]

This is a critical question. Who is more dangerous to the British economy—the Secretary of State for Energy or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

[Harriet Cross]

I do not want to pick between the two, but as a double act they are dreadful for the UK economy.

From now and into the years ahead, the transition, which the Government are so dedicated to, will see the industry move away from Aberdeen, because the supply chain, which they know is so important to the transition, is sustained by the oil and gas sector. Production from the North sea decreased by 40% last year. That is not because of geology; it is because of the energy profits levy and the ban on licences.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that UK production in the North sea can never put us in a position like Norway, because Margaret Thatcher gave away our oil industry to private companies and we have no sovereign fund?

[Harriet Cross]

We need to import more than we produce, so why would we not produce to the full extent that we can from the North sea? I am sure that the hon. Lady, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, appreciates just how important the industry is to our constituents. As for the Scottish Labour Members of Parliament, I wonder whether they are sitting there wondering just what the Government are doing to their constituents.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Harriet Cross]

I would love to hear the hon. Gentleman justify it.

[Dr Arthur]

As ever, the hon. Lady speaks with great passion on this issue. She started by talking about Jackdaw. She must recognise that her party made a complete mess of that, which is why it is completely shrouded in uncertainty just now. She blames the Government and suggests that Labour is to blame, but it was her party, was it not? Is it not a quasi-judicial decision rather than a decision for the Minister?

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Net zero is a socialist dream, because it epitomises centralised control, Government interference in daily life and redistribution. When an idea becomes immune to scrutiny, it is precisely then that scrutiny is most needed. That definitely applies in the case of Britain’s rush to net zero, because in our haste, we risk undermining our economy, our energy security and, ultimately, the resilience we will need to face the future. Caring for the environment is necessary, reducing pollution is noble, and innovation in energy is essential, but pursuing an inflexible target at any cost without regard for the consequences is madness.

First, take the economic reality. The UK is attempting one of the most rapid energy transitions ever undertaken by an advanced economy. Entire industries are being reshaped or phased out, and energy systems built over decades are being dismantled in a matter of years. And who bears the cost? It is not abstract. It is households facing rising energy bills, businesses struggling with higher operating costs, and manufacturers deciding whether to stay in Britain or to relocate to countries with cheaper, more reliable energy.

[Harriet Cross]

The GMB Scotland secretary recently described Labour’s policies as “industrial calamity”. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

[Bradley Thomas]

We only have to speak to businesses across our constituencies, and they will tell us about the reality of the economic calamity caused by decisions taken by this Government and the costs bearing down on them.

The reality is that choices made by this Government continue to hollow out our industrial base, not because we lack skill or ambition but because energy, which is the lifeblood of industry, has become prohibitively costly. Energy security is not a theoretical concept; it is the difference between stability and vulnerability. It is the ability to heat our homes, power hospitals and keep the economy running, no matter what is happening anywhere else in the world. Yet at this moment, when we should be strengthening our domestic energy supply, we are choosing to restrict it.

That brings us perfectly to the North sea, which is one of the UK’s greatest strategic assets. Beneath those waters lie opportunity—reserves of natural gas that could provide reliable domestic energy for years to come—yet the Government are choosing to turn away from it. The argument often made is that extracting more gas contradicts our climate commitments and locks us into the past, but that overlooks a crucial fact: the UK will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come.

That is where the comparison with Norway becomes so instructive. Norway is often held up as a leader in environmental responsibility, and it has chosen not to turn its back on North sea resources. It has done the opposite: it has increased gas extraction, recognising both the economic value and the strategic importance of domestic supply. Norway understands something that we would do well to remember: energy independence is not at odds with environmental ambition; it underpins it. The UK risks increasing its dependence on imports, even as domestic resources remain available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter]

Current SNP policy on oil and gas is that there should be a proper assessment of each individual application. That is the normal licensing process. I would think most Members of the House would recognise that if a process is put in place, it should be applied rigorously and consistently.

[Harriet Cross]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Leadbitter]

No, I will not give way again because I do not have much time.

There are many reasons why we need to support oil and gas, not least protecting the workforce and not losing the skills. There are also numerous other areas where the Government are not making decisions quickly enough. On the transmission network’s use of system charges, Government policy has taken 18 to 20 months to come through, and it will be several more months before it is in place. That will be after the start of allocation round 8, which is being accelerated, and many companies in the North sea are saying that they will hold on and wait for AR9 before making an investment decision, because they want certainty. That lack of certainty, pace and pragmatism is preventing those jobs from being created and preventing a just transition.

I can apply the same point to Ardersier, which is in my constituency, and the proposal by a Chinese company, Ming Yang, which wants to invest there. I understand that the Government have reasons and things that they need to consider in this matter, but it has been on their desk for 18 months. A decision is needed to either move on to other investors or decide that there is a risk, so that we can mitigate the risk, let them get on with it, create supply chain jobs and have serious, high-skilled, high-paid jobs that will provide a just transition and a serious opportunity for North sea workers. That decision needs to be made sooner rather than later. We experienced an excessive delay in the run-up to decisions on carbon capture, usage and storage; it took forever to get there, and jobs have been lost because of that lost time.

Let me turn very quickly to consumer pricing. The Government have been waxing lyrical about price gouging by energy companies at the moment. The Government and previous Governments have been responsible for state-sponsored price gouging in the energy market, with the highest prices for electricity in Scotland. With that, I urge Members to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. The central premise of the motion simply does not stand up to any scrutiny.

Secondly, the Opposition want to talk about levies to pay for the cost of new clean energy infrastructure, but they conveniently forget that all energy infrastructure needs to be renewed and replaced. Wind, solar and nuclear are cheaper than new gas and oil infrastructure. We also need to improve our grid, and that has to be paid for somehow. Whichever way we cut it, we need to build that infrastructure and pay for it, but the Conservatives and Reform simply do not have an answer on how they would do that.

To be really clear, and to build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the skills of North sea gas and oil workers are absolutely vital in building and operating that new infrastructure. They have fantastic skills, and they need to be part of the clean energy transition.

Last week, I met a Ukrainian delegation as part of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. It described in very brutal and frank terms how Putin has used energy as a weapon of war and the severe impact that has had on the people of Ukraine. Ukraine’s previous reliance on gas had left it exposed to Putin using energy in this way, and its message was clear: the only way to get energy security and keep the lights on domestically is with home-grown clean energy, with distributed generation and storage, providing protection against Putin’s attacks and the wider geopolitical instability that we have seen.

The economic case for clean energy has been very clearly made. The arguments made by the Opposition in favour of continuing our reliance on oil and gas are nonsense. Let us not forget—

[Harriet Cross]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I would like to finish.

Finally, climate change in and of itself is a huge threat to our economic security, our physical health, the entirety of our wellbeing and the ability to feed ourselves. The Opposition say, “If we transition to clean energy, it will not make much of an impact”, but actually it will, because we are being global leaders. Every half a degree that we prevent in heating will save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.

We must do something; we cannot sit on our hands and do nothing, as the Opposition would like us to do. This Government are meeting the challenge of climate change, not with hair shirts or by trying to do without, but by building a better world. We are improving our quality of life, with cleaner air—we are not killing tens of thousands of people with dirty air every year—warmer homes and good clean energy jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

My reliance is on the evidence, which shows that 93% of recoverable oil and gas in the British parts of the North sea has already been extracted. Whatever does remain will be sold on the international market to the highest bidder, as many Members have already pointed out. If the proposals in the shadow Secretary of State’s motion were implemented, they would do nothing for energy security and nothing for jobs.

[Harriet Cross]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

No, I will not. I will continue for now.

What the shadow Secretary of State’s motion would achieve is the raising of a lot of money. When war inflates oil and gas prices, fossil fuel bosses cash in. Just five companies made nearly half a trillion dollars in the years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Of course, those obscene profits should be taxed through the energy profits levy, because nobody should be cashing in on conflict. Again, I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the attention of those who may be watching from home, to the proportion of donations from fossil fuel donors that go to certain politicians in this Chamber. The Chancellor said earlier today that she would crack down on price-gouging and profiteering, so I hope that this work will maintain the principles of the windfall tax in whatever shape it comes.

The Government have done good work in driving forward clean energy and banning new oil and gas licences, and I desperately urge them not to backtrack by approving Rosebank, although I understand that they will not be able to comment on that today. I am also deeply concerned about the fact that, despite officially banning new oil and gas licences, the Government are creating a whopping loophole by introducing the transitional energy certificates, aka tiebacks. This is allowing new drilling at a new site on a technicality, because it involves drilling a new well but, rather than installing a new rig on top of it, attaching it to an existing rig with a very long hose, so it is technically not “new”. Opening up new oil and gas wells now is indefensible when we know that every drop of oil and gas burned puts our future further at risk, so I cannot support a Government amendment that “welcomes” these tiebacks. I ask Ministers to assure me that, at the very least, scope 3 emissions will be considered when the Government are deciding whether to grant the transitional energy certificates.

Committing to renewable energy means change, and change can be unsettling, but if it is done right, the Government can ensure that it pays off for everyone. I have been campaigning for an energy jobs guarantee to support workers who are currently employed in the oil and gas sector to move into jobs in the green sectors. That could be done by ending the £2.7 billion a year in subsidies that the Chancellor hands the fossil fuel industry in tax breaks, and using that valuable public money to back workers rather than propping up an industry that is in terminal decline. Our dependence on oil and gas is making us poorer—that much is clear—and it is making oil companies richer. There is no future in fossil fuels, so I hope that the Ministers will give no ground to the reckless statements put forward today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

As a result of decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we are raising significant sums from the windfall tax. We do not agree with the Opposition parties that now is the time to abolish the windfall tax; we think that is really important revenue that can help many of our constituents.

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

We keep hearing the argument that it will take five to 10 years for new oil and gas to flow, and that therefore there is not point to starting new drilling, but the operators of Jackdaw and Rosebank say that both could be producing by the end of the year—it only needs the Secretary of State to approve that. Why is he denying the UK that supply of domestic fuel?

[Michael Shanks]

Those projects are continuing at the moment at the developers’ own risk. They are subject to a process, which the Conservative party will understand because this matter ended up in the courts under the previous Government. We are dealing with that process. Ultimately, none of those projects would take a penny off bills—that is the argument we are making. The Conservatives have no plan for bringing down bills; we have.

Climate Change

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing the debate and thank him for doing so. I recognise his concerns and those of others on climate change and its impacts, but I do—this will not be a surprise to anyone in this House—have a difference of opinion, especially when it comes to the actions we have taken and should now take, in particular with regard to our oil and gas sector, which I will come to later. But I will begin by looking backwards.

Under the Conservatives, the UK made more progress to cut emissions than any other G7 country—by 2022, cutting emissions in half compared with 1990 levels. Indeed, emissions were cut to such an extent that the UK surpassed the targets that countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and the US set for themselves for 2030. Under the previous Conservative Government, the proportion of the UK electricity generated by renewables increased fourfold, from 9.5% in 2011 to over 47% in 2023.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why is the hon. Member and her party proposing to throw out the framework that underpinned all the achievements that she is listing?

[Harriet Cross]

I will not skip forward a few pages of my speech now, but we will touch on that matter in the coming few minutes.

As I said, the things that we have done are notable. Between 2010 and 2019, the UK Government oversaw the planting of 15 million trees, and during our time in office, the UK was home to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest wind farms in the world. We—the UK—have done a lot, and yet the climate is still changing. That is not because there has not been enough ambition or enough action from the UK, and it is not because of a need to just go faster. It is because, first—and I know there will be wails about this—the UK contributes less than 1% of global emissions; and secondly, other countries have not been following our lead.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is the shadow Minister saying that because we cannot make a big enough impact globally, we should scrap our impact altogether?

[Harriet Cross]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we have made huge progress and yet others have not been following our lead, so why would we make our industry less competitive? Why would we ensure that investment goes down in our country just to virtue signal and for no one to follow?

We will look at what is happening today. To be very clear—I think this needs saying—disagreeing with the Energy Secretary’s approach to energy policy, and questioning the speed and cost of moving towards renewable energy, does not make one a climate change denier. That is tedious; it is a lazy argument made by those who want to close down the debate—those who believe that decarbonisation must always be the No. 1 priority, at the cost of all else. That is the inherent problem with the current debate on climate change and carbon emissions. It has become a pursuit of what is perceived to be the perfect response—the purist approach to the climate—over what is pragmatic and what is practical. It does not prioritise the public, prices, industry or energy security.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Lady is four minutes into her speech and she has talked about the reduction in emissions, which is largely the result of the dash for gas, which predated the last Conservative Government—actually, it happened under the previous Conservative Government. So far, she has talked about her opposition to what this Government are doing. She has not yet told us anything about what she thinks the next steps in taking climate action should be. Is she going to do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously keen to hear from me, which is great, but as he says, I am four minutes in and have taken three interventions; I think I still have a couple of minutes to form my argument.

I will first consider electricity. Our electricity is some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also some of the most expensive, and that is the issue. Making electricity the cheapest option will make it the preferred option. Making electricity cheap will encourage the adoption of electric vehicles and the electrification of home heating, and it will make the UK more attractive for businesses and for growth markets like AI. Cheap electricity will improve the cost of living for households across the country. That is why the Conservatives have a cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone—for households and for businesses. And how? By cutting the carbon tax, which is a tax that makes up a third of the price of our electricity.

But of course, as Members know, electricity only makes up about 20% of our energy mix. Oil and gas—at over 70% of that mix—remain central to our energy needs, and will for a long time. The Climate Change Committee’s projections include oil and gas in its 2050 net zero scenario. So why are the Government banning new licences for the North sea? Why are they taxing companies to such an extent that they pack up and leave? Climate change is a global concern, and therefore global carbon emissions must be considered. Why is the Secretary of State determined to run down our oil and gas production just to increase imports, which are four times more carbon-intensive than what is produced in the North sea? LNG imports have to be extracted, liquefied, shipped and re-gasified, rather than just being piped from the North sea directly into our gas grid.

Permitting Rosebank, Jackdaw and, down the line, Cambo will mean that the UK’s emissions from oil and gas, which we will be using in any case, will be lower—lower than if those reserves are left in the ground and instead we use more carbon-intensive imports. Based on science, emissions and the fact that oil and gas will still be needed in the UK for decades, no one can reasonably argue that replacing domestic North sea oil and gas production with imports is the right course of action. It is not—not for jobs, investment, growth, energy security or emissions.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that all that might make it cheaper for the oil and gas industry, but it will not make it cheaper for our constituents? Their bills will be the same wherever the gas is extracted; it is the oil and gas industry that might profit from it being extracted elsewhere.

[Harriet Cross]

I do not know whether there has been a misunderstanding of the title of the debate—it is on climate change, not the costs of bills. For climate change, we are looking at emissions; if we are focusing on emissions, we are focusing on where the carbon is produced. There is less carbon intensity in our domestic oil and gas than in imported oil and gas. I know that is not the message that the hon. Lady or others want to hear, but those are the facts.

Being wedded to domestic emissions targets while ignoring emissions produced elsewhere is causing the deindustrialisation we are seeing across the UK. Businesses in ceramics, refining, petrochemicals, oil and gas and many more industries are packing up and leaving the UK, not because their products are needed less, but because they are unable to sustain themselves here under the weight of industrial energy prices and carbon taxes.

[Carla Denyer]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Harriet Cross]

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?

Heating Oil Support

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin McCluskey]

I know that my hon. Friend has been fighting hard for his constituents in Northamptonshire during this crisis. We are topping up the crisis and resilience fund with this additional funding across England that will be available from 1 April. Local authorities in affected areas have received notification today of the additional funding that will be available to them, but they can also use existing means to distribute funds to those in crisis, without waiting until 1 April. The message to my hon. Friend’s constituents would be to contact their local authority today, and that more funding is coming on 1 April.

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

The Minister’s statement included what I am sure were some very sincere words. He said:

“Whatever the challenges, we will always support working people; we will always fight their corner. That is why we are…doing everything we can to take back control of our energy”.

I did not want to have to break this to the Government, but they are not fighting for working people or taking back control of our energy by actively closing down the North sea. Thousands of people are losing their jobs every month and our energy security is going down. The only way the Minister can remedy this is by removing the ban on new licences and scrapping the energy profits levy.

[Martin McCluskey]

Once again we hear a voice from the Opposition talking down the UK’s oil and gas sector. The North sea is not being shut down. [Interruption.] It is not being shut down; it is producing oil and gas today, and will play a role in this country for years to come. It is also important for Opposition Members to remember that not a single barrel of additional extraction from the North sea will reduce the price of energy in this country. It will not help any of our constituents with the cost of their energy.

Energy Markets

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of his statement. Events in the middle east this past week have shown why it is so vital that the Government do all they can to ensure that UK businesses and households have a secure, reliable supply of dispatchable energy—a supply we can rely on. Affordable energy is vital, but just as important is security of supply. There was nothing new in the Secretary of State’s statement—no actions, just notes of some meetings—but there were and are actions that he can take, and he could take them now for both supplies and for bills.

No matter how much the green lobby or the Secretary of State wish that the UK could end its reliance on oil and gas overnight, we cannot. Some 40% of the UK’s energy comes from gas, which is the UK’s single biggest energy source, and 24 million UK homes, and half a million businesses, are connected to the gas grid. Currently, 43% of gas used in the UK is produced in our North sea basin, which is a vital energy source. Every molecule of gas produced by the UK in the North sea is piped on to our shores and into our grid. The oil produced comes onshore either here or in Europe to be refined. It does not, and cannot, get caught in the strait of Hormuz or elsewhere. It is a secure supply of oil for the UK.

Our North sea oil and gas sector has been, is, and should remain vital for our national security and be a national security resource for many years, yet it is a resource that the Government, and this Secretary of State, are actively trying to shut down. The GMB Scotland secretary has called his plans “delusional”, and mean that we are facing

“the most destructive industrial calamity in our nation’s history—a disaster risking untold jobs, communities, even higher bills, and our energy security”.

The North sea oil and gas industry and its workforce must be protected. The Secretary of State knows that that workforce, and those supply chains will, if still here, deliver the roll-out of technologies such as wind and nuclear in the future. The Secretary of State must overturn his ban on new oil and gas licences—will he? He must immediately give confidence to the industry that it has a future in the North sea by finally granting Jackdaw and Rosebank. What is taking so long? To kick-start investment, stem the accelerating fall in production, and secure the skilled workforce and supply chains, he must, with the Treasury, end the energy profits levy now.

Nuclear is the UK’s route to energy security. Nuclear works in the winter, can run 24/7, and latest prices worldwide show that it can also be much cheaper. As the Secretary of State knows, our existing plants are nearing end of life, and the Government are stalling on actions to replace or renew new gigawatt-scale sites. They have ruled out large-scale nuclear at Wylfa, and dropped the previous Conservative Government’s 24 GW target. In light of current events, does the Secretary of State accept that not granting a new gigawatt-scale plant at Wylfa—arguably the best site in the country for a large-scale plant—was a huge missed opportunity? We are still waiting for the Government to accept recommendations in the Fingleton review, which will make nuclear cheaper and easier to build. When will the Secretary of State do so, and will he do so in full?

I will touch briefly on the luddite approach to energy from the Scottish National party in Scotland. SNP Members try to talk a good game and sound as if they support energy workers, energy generation and energy investment, but that is an illusion. They have a ban on new nuclear, and still a presumption against new oil and gas. They are happy to coat the countryside with pylons, turbines and batteries, but they have no plan whatsoever for when the wind does not blow.

Last year the Secretary of State signed a secret energy deal with China. He does not like it to be called a secret, but what other word can there be when he refused to publish details month after month, and only published them after sustained pressure from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State? It is no surprise that he wanted to keep it a secret. It is agreeing to co-operate with China—a known threat—on batteries, cables, inverters, and turbines, effectively giving a nation that is known to have interfered in numerous sovereign states, and that has placed kill switches in energy infrastructure that it has exported, access to our energy grid. That is at best foolish, and at worst reckless. Whatever we call it, it is another threat to our energy security.

Businesses are struggling with sky-high energy prices, and households are bracing themselves for energy bills that may rise significantly this year. The Conservatives’ clean power plan would reduce bills by 20%. The Secretary of State could take action today, so will he adopt our cheap power plan?

[Ed Miliband]

I will answer the hon. Lady’s questions in a moment, but first I say to her that the biggest question for this House and for the country is: do we learn the lessons of these crises? Half the recessions that have happened since the 1970s have been caused by fossil-fuel price spikes. We all face a choice: we can either learn the lessons of those crises and drive towards clean, home-grown power—to be fair, at some points, that used to be the policy of the last Conservative Government—or we can pretend that those lessons do not exist, and we can keep repeating the same mistake. I fear that since the general election, the Conservatives, having already moved halfway from learning that important lesson, have moved away from it fully.

That takes me to the answers to the hon. Lady’s questions. On nuclear, we are undertaking the biggest nuclear building programme for half a century. We are doing all the things the last Government promised and never delivered. Where were the Conservatives on Sizewell C? They said that they would have agreement on it in the last Parliament, but they did not; we are doing it. Where were they with small modular reactors? We are actually putting them in place. Yes, we will publish the details of the Fingleton review shortly, and it will be an important step forward in the regulation of our industry that the Conservatives never took.

The hon. Lady said that the North sea is an incredibly “important” resource, which is exactly what I said in my statement. We listened to the industry and took a pragmatic approach on tie-back to existing fields, which was welcomed by the industry, to keep our manifesto commitment of keeping existing oil and gas fields open for their lifetime. I want to pause on the point that she raised about new exploration licences. The truth is, as everybody knows, new exploration licences, particularly in the light of tie-backs, will make no difference to production. It is important to remember that on average it is 10 years from exploration to production.

Last year, an important report by the National Energy System Operator on the security of gas supply said that the biggest single thing that we could do for security of supply is drive towards a clean energy transition. The more we fail to do that, the more we are exposed, given that the North sea is a declining basin that has seen production fall by 75% in last 25 years, and that 70,000 jobs were lost under the Conservatives.

On the hon. Lady’s point about the windfall tax, the Chancellor says that she wants the windfall tax to end, but obviously she has to look at the current circumstances. I notice that the Conservatives have now disavowed their decision to introduce the windfall tax. The windfall tax has raised £12 billion since 2022 because of supernormal profits—the money that was going from our constituents into the pockets of oil and gas companies. It is all very easy to say, “We shouldn’t have done the windfall tax,” but the Conservatives did introduce it, and I think it was the right thing to do. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor listens closely to the industry, and was talking to representatives from the industry about these issues yesterday, but it is important to recognise those other issues.

On the environmental impact assessment process, we will follow the right process because we want to ensure that what we do is legally watertight and not subject to endless judicial review, and that is what the industry wants.

To return to my original point—

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Harriet Cross.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

“Our Governments seem stricken, almost delusional, in the face of onrushing disaster,”

and we are seeing

“arguably the most destructive industrial calamity in our nation’s history”.

Those are the words of the GMB’s Scotland Secretary about the Government’s determination to tax and regulate the oil and gas sector out of business. Does the Minister agree with the words of his union friend?

[Michael Shanks]

I recently had a useful meeting in Aberdeen, in which the GMB participated, about building up the future of the North sea. What I never hear from Conservative Members is any support for industries that will invest in the North sea in the future, and in the tens of thousands of jobs that will go with it. Perhaps at some point they should support the future in the North sea.

Warm Homes Plan

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend asks a really important question, and I congratulate Green Rose CIC on its work. We see organisations like that as central to this plan, and we are working with local authorities to give local people advice. I do not know whether this applies to Green Rose CIC, but we are also working on our local power plan, which will come out soon. It will provide opportunities for local community energy schemes, because community ownership is a big part of it. I see organisations like that, which really reflect the enthusiasm on the ground, as crucial to this plan.

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

My hon. Friend the shadow Minister asked whether or not Chinese supply chains—slave labour supply chains—will be allowed in the procurement of any part of the solar panels involved in this scheme, but the Secretary of State did not manage to answer. Can he please confirm that not a single aspect of this project will come off the back of slave labour supply chains?

[Ed Miliband]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that we inherited from the Conservatives—

[Harriet Cross]

That is not what I asked about.

[Ed Miliband]

I will get to the question. We inherited the system from them, and we have raised the standards in the solar road map through the solar stewardship initiative with the solar industry, we have raised the standards through GB Energy, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is working with colleagues across Government to ensure that slave labour is not used in the supply chain.

Offshore Wind

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

That is why the clean industry bonus is so important. We will be announcing more about this tomorrow, because it is going to lever in massive amounts of private investment, including in supply chains.

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

The Secretary of State mentioned the rollercoaster of prices. We obviously understand that gas prices go up and down, but they do come down. We are now stuck at the top of the rollercoaster he has talked about for 20 years. How is that going to reduce bills?

[Ed Miliband]

I just disagree with the hon. Lady. She is making a massive gamble on the future—she is gambling that gas prices will fall. We are giving this country the assurance that we can have clean, home-grown power and lower bills for good.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

In the consultation paper on the future of the North sea, the Government defined windfall prices as $90 a barrel for oil and 90p a therm for gas. Can the Minister tell me the prices of oil and gas today?

[Michael Shanks]

We have been really clear that the energy profits levy comes to an end in 2030. We have also put in place what the future of that scheme looks like to provide certainty for the long-term future. Of course, the energy profits levy was introduced by the hon. Lady’s party in government. We have been really clear that the energy profits levy comes to an end in 2030 unless the price floor is triggered in the meantime. If the Conservatives are in favour of scrapping the levy, they also have to say where the billions of pounds that it generates will come from in order to fund the public services that our constituents rely on.

[Harriet Cross]

Either the Minister does not know the current price or he does not want to tell us. Oil today is $62 a barrel and gas 72p a therm—up to a third lower than what the Government themselves define as windfall prices. Despite that, they are still punishing our oil and gas industry with massive windfall taxes. The cost is 1,000 jobs lost every month, production set to halve in the next four years and almost complete dependence on foreign imports of oil and gas by 2030. This Government are going to be responsible for the death of one of our most important industries. Will the Government now end the oil and gas supertax, scrap the mad ban on new licences and finally back the North sea?

[Michael Shanks]

There are a number of points that I would challenge in the hon. Lady’s question. First, the floor was set by the Conservative party in government and we have not changed it. Secondly, she talks about thousands of jobs lost every month. That is from an important study that was done by a university; it is not a reflection of what has actually happened in the last few months. Although I absolutely take seriously modelling like this, I think we do need to base it in the reality of what has actually happened. Every single job that is lost is of course hugely distressing for communities, but the hon. Lady should talk up the opportunities in the North sea. She says that we are talking down the North sea—in fact, it is her party that repeatedly talks down the opportunities for the future of the North sea in carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, oil and gas decommissioning work, and much, much more. She should talk up those opportunities and be ambitious for the future of the North sea, not talk it down.