• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Harriet Cross's Speeches In Parliament Related to Climate

We've found 29 Parliamentary debates in which Harriet Cross has spoken about climate-related matters.

Here are the relevant sections of their speeches.

• 15 Sep 2026: Fracking Ban

  17:09

  After that very long intervention, we finally got to the point. We are not opposed to net zero; we are opposed to a 2050 net zero target, which makes the country weaker and poorer and costs jobs, particularly in my constituency in north-east Scotland.

  [Source]

• 24 Jun 2026: North Sea Oil and Gas

  10:03

  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.

  [Source]

• 24 Jun 2026: Climate Change

  This is incredibly frustrating. Scrutiny is not the same as climate change denial. Asking questions on behalf of our constituents, industries, households and businesses that will front the costs of this measure is not climate change denial. Will the hon. Member and the rest of the Labour Members here recognise that?

  [Source]

  18:29

  First, this budget allows for 37% of our energy consumption by 2040 still to come from oil and gas. The Climate Change Committee itself is allowing for oil and gas to be included in our energy mix into the years to come. On that basis, why are the Government still committed to banning new licences in the North sea? Why are they still committed to the energy profits levy? Why are they still stopping the permitting of Rosebank and Jackdaw? All that will do is increase our imports of more carbon-intensive oil and gas, which is not good for the climate, economy or jobs in the UK. That point can also be found in the impact assessment.

  China is not putting these costs on businesses or households, and it is not closing down its domestic industries. China is opening 50 to 70 GW of new coal every year. It has almost 1,200 coal-fired power stations, which it is using to export its renewables technology to us—it does not make sense. China is responsible for over a third of global emissions, and we are responsible for 1%. We are not making a difference to global climate change by impoverishing our businesses, industries and households. We said that we wanted to lead, but there is no point in leading if nobody is following. The key players are not following.

  [Source]

  18:31

  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) was returned on 50% of the vote because of the people who actually feel this. The jobs of the residents of Aberdeen South and north-east Scotland are being lost, daily and monthly, because of the rundown of the oil and gas sector and because of the eco-zealotry of this Government, who want to hit their net zero target faster than anyone else. That is the reality, and it is costing jobs and livelihoods.

  We are missing so many opportunities. Who is going to invest in AI and data centres here when we have four times the electricity costs of the US? They just will not, as there is no incentive. Driving down our agriculture to hit a net zero target is madness. We need food, which I hope is not controversial, but all we will do is import more. All that driving down the amount of our agriculture will do is free up more land for the Government to put solar panels on, which might help them with their target, but it is not going to help with our food production, and nor will it help our rural communities.

  [Source]

• 19 May 2026: Energy Security

  15:49

  We are sacrificing jobs in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland and sacrificing our energy security just to deliver green energy, because that is all this Government want to focus on. This Government should be looking at what our neighbours in Norway are doing and seeing how it is seen as a truly energy-independent country because they are still using their oil and gas, because they know they need it—their energy systems and their country are not set up not to use it. The UK is not either. We need it, we must use it, and we should be drilling all we can from the North sea—starting today.

  [Source]

• 14 May 2026: Getting Britain Working Again

  I completely agree that we must protect British industries such as steel and oil and gas refining—they are all vital. The carbon tax is a reason why these industries are declining and moving overseas. From what the hon. Member is saying, it feels like he agrees that we should get rid of the carbon tax. Is that correct?

  [Source]

• 27 Apr 2026: Draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026

  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?

  [Source]

• 24 Mar 2026: Oil and Gas

  14:33

  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.

  [Source]

• 19 Mar 2026: Climate Change

  15:08

  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.

  [Source]

  15:11

  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.

  [Source]

  15:11

  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.

  [Source]

  15:16

  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.

  [Source]

  15:16

  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.

  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?

  [Source]

• 18 Mar 2026: Fuel Duty

  Refining is a vital part of the production of petrol and diesel for our vehicles. The UK has a very good record on refining, as we are net exporters of petrol from our refineries, but in the last two years alone, two refineries—a third of the UK’s refineries—have been lost, and our capacity is going down. That is not least because of the carbon tax, which has nearly doubled under this Government. It has made refining in the UK more difficult, putting industries under pressure and ensuring that the de-industrialisation of the UK under this Labour Government continues.

  As a result of the ban on new licences, we are also exporting jobs. The skilled workers in the oil and gas sector who produce our oil and gas and contribute to our fuel security will move abroad. They have the skills and are valued workers, yet other countries value them more than we do in this country. The Government’s policies show that. One thousand jobs a month are being lost, and billions in tax revenue is being lost. Billions in investment is being lost, which I know the Treasury Front-Bench team know very well following their recent meetings with the sector. The Government—either because of their own ideology or the one being imposed on them by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero—do not want to use our own natural resources. They would prefer to import, at huge financial and environmental cost and at the cost of work and jobs, in order to satisfy themselves that they are reaching a target that they imposed on themselves.

  [Source]

• 16 Mar 2026: Topical Questions

  Further to the question from the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), offshore energy infrastructure needs to be protected. The strategic defence review did not specifically mention moveable assets such as platforms, floating production, storage and offloading units, or rigs. Can the Secretary of State confirm that they will be considered as part of our energy security, and what will the Ministry of Defence do to ensure their security now and in the future?

  [Source]

• 4 Mar 2026: China: Foreign Interference Arrests

  China is a risk—we have so much evidence of that—yet the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has signed an energy deal with China for co-operation on batteries, offshore wind, cables and inverters. It effectively gives China access to our energy grid—that is a massive risk. Was the Security Minister consulted by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero before the deal was signed?

  [Source]

• 11 Dec 2025: Oil Refining Sector

  16:09

  Rian Chad Whitton has produced a fantastic report for the Prosperity Institute in which he explains in detail how high energy costs and carbon taxes are crippling heavy industry in the UK, but particularly our refineries. We spend a lot of time in this House talking about electricity—as we should, because our electricity prices are the highest in the world, and this Government are locking us and our constituents into higher prices for longer in the upcoming allocation round 7 auction—but what we often miss in our debates is that only a small proportion of our current energy consumption is from electricity. The vast majority of it comes from other fuels such as natural gas, and that is particularly true for our heavy industry and refining sector.

  When refineries use natural gas to produce their products, they are subject to a carbon tax on every unit of CO 2 they release. Refineries have no choice but to use natural gas, because no other fuel can do the job that natural gas does in their processes. Many other countries charge a much lower carbon tax, or—when it comes to our competitors for refined products, such as in the US, India or the Gulf—charge no carbon tax at all. The carbon tax imposed on our industry through the emissions trading scheme makes it significantly harder for refineries to do business in the UK, increases costs for consumers and makes our industry less competitive.

  Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it; they can listen to the UK chair of ExxonMobil, which runs the Fawley refinery in Southampton. At the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee recently, he said:

  In his report for the Prosperity Institute, Rian calculates that at Prax Lindsey, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, the cost of the carbon tax alone amounted to 120% of the operating profit. How on earth can any refinery survive in that environment?

  Things would be bad enough, but Ministers are not intent on making them even worse. Their decision to align the UK carbon tax with the EU’s more expensive one has increased the price that our industry pays by about 70% in the space of just a year. Why are they doing this? Ministers talk about EU alignment as if it is inevitable, but it is not. They control the market. They choose how many allowances they release. They could choose not to align with the EU and keep control of our own carbon market.

  Increasing the carbon tax is a political choice that is already causing production costs to soar at refineries in Pembroke, Fawley, Stanlow and the Humber, and that has increased the cost of everybody’s electricity bill, too. Labour Members should know that electricity bills have increased by £2 billion this year alone because of the Government’s choice of alignment. The carbon tax is charged on gas-fired power generation too, and it is passed straight through to our constituents in wholesale electricity prices. That is exactly why the Conservatives have said that we will axe the carbon tax as part of our cheap power plan, to cut everybody’s electricity bills instantly by 20%.

  The soaring carbon tax is crippling the refining sector. Will the Minister explain how refineries are supposed to survive when the Government are planning to increase the carbon tax between now and 2050? Is it the Government’s plan to have a carbon tax of £147 a tonne in 2030, as set out in the National Energy System Operator report? If not, will she disown her party’s claim that the NESO report shows that the clean power 2030 plan is achievable? Will the Government scrap their plan to align with the EU carbon tax scheme, which would lock us into ever higher carbon prices with no control? Will the Minister commit to increasing the number of free allowances given to the refining sector to shield it from at least some of the burden?

  Refining is viable only when the raw product to refine is abundant and cheap. We cannot run a refinery on warm words about net zero and promises of green jobs that never materialise. We need crude oil and natural gas, so let us consider what is happening to the domestic oil and gas sector under this Government. Production is down, and falling at an accelerating rate; the cessation of production and decommissioning is being brought forward; investment is going overseas; 1,000 jobs a month are being lost from producers, operators and the supply chain, and no exploration wells were drilled in the UK North sea last year, for the first time since the 1960s. Why is this happening? Because the Government have banned new licences and continue—choose to continue—to keep the energy profits levy and tax UK oil and gas production at a higher rate than any other comparable basin. How can UK companies possibly compete when paying tax at 78%? There are no longer windfall prices or windfall profits, so why are companies still having to pay windfall taxes?

  [Source]

• 1 Dec 2025: Budget Resolutions

  One of the most incoherent, damaging and destructive decisions that the Government took last week was not to scrap the energy profits levy. The levy will destroy our oil and gas sector, as the Government have been told by so many sources, including the industry itself, the renewables industry, the unions and Offshore Energies UK. The Government know exactly the impact that keeping the EPL will have on jobs, investment, our supply chain and our transition to cleaner renewable energies.

  [Source]

• 14 Jul 2025: State of Climate and Nature

  16:20

  Those of us who advocate for the North sea oil and gas sector are not climate change deniers. We are realists who understand that we will need oil and gas for years to come; that we would be replacing our domestic supply with imports that have four times the carbon intensity; that China emits in 10 days what we emit in a year; and that we will not transition to cleaner energy if we make ourselves poorer. I recognise what today’s report says, but does the Secretary of State accept that increasing our use of imported gas will only make us more carbon intensive in the future?

  [Source]

• 23 Apr 2025: North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

  09:53

  The impacts of a poorly managed transition will be felt not just in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire or north-east Scotland; the entirely of the UK will suffer. No other UK cluster has the energy capability of north-east Scotland—the skills, supply chains, university specialisms or experiences. If we in north-east Scotland lose our brightest, best, most innovative and most experienced energy workers in the transition from oil and gas to renewable energies, they will be lost to the whole of the UK.

  We must not pretend, or mislead ourselves and others into thinking, that transferring to renewable energies is in any way incompatible with continuing to produce oil and gas from the North sea. It is not. More than that, continuing to support our domestic oil and gas sector will only help any transition to renewables to succeed. Will we still need oil and gas for years to come? Yes. It seems that that point is largely uncontested, and the Government have certainly confirmed it. So why—I still have not heard a coherent answer to this—are they effectively ensuring that we do not have a viable oil and gas sector? Removing investment allowances, increasing and extending EPL levels beyond those for any other mature basin and banning new licences do not support the sector, help domestic supplies or protect jobs.

  When I speak to people involved in or with the sector, the vast majority talk about timing. Timing is the most crucial thing in supporting the energy transition, and I would like the Minister to reflect on it in his remarks. For offshore wind, for example, the RGU Energy Transition Institute estimate is an increase from approximately 11,000 jobs in 2024 to 46,000 in 2025. On the face of it, that looks great—35,000 new jobs—but more or less all those jobs will come on stream post 2030, by which time, on the current trajectory of job and investment losses, we are expected to lose 60,000 oil and gas jobs, 50% of which will be in Scotland. No skills passport will bring those jobs back. That is not a fair or just transition; for north-east Scotland, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

  The issue is not just when the jobs need to come on stream; it is the type of jobs, as well as whether companies in the north-east will have remained afloat in the interim. At the moment, there are two main categories of jobs: the vast majority of our energy work is in operational activities, such as the day-to-day operations of the industry, while the remaining third—roughly—are in the capital expenditure, such as the building and manufacturing of kit. However, the manpower requirements for running and operating a rig far exceed those of, for example, a wind farm. Until the UK can increase its manufacturing base for wind infrastructure, allowing jobs to be created in capital work rather than just operational work, there is no prospect of transferring tens of thousands of workers from oil and gas to wind or other renewable energy sectors.

  [Source]

• 22 Apr 2025: British Steel

  In her statement, the Minister celebrated the fact that this is not the end of British Steel, and we all welcome that, but Labour’s policies very well could be the end of domestic oil and gas, whether it is the extended windfall tax, removing investment allowances or no new oil and gas licences. We are walking towards the end of our domestic oil and gas sector, which has proven so beneficial to us across Scotland and the UK, all the while offshoring our emissions and relying on, at best, unreliable and, at worst, hostile states such as China to supply our renewable energy infrastructure. Taking the example of British Steel, is it not time to reverse Labour’s headlong rush towards ending oil and gas in the North sea and to rely on our domestic supply for as long as we can, to help our energy security into the future?

  [Source]

• 25 Mar 2025: Great British Energy Bill

  I appreciate that a number of Members still want to speak, so I will keep my comments short. The Government’s refusal to support Lords amendment 2 shows the absolutism of their net zero and energy policies. The amendment is not only sensible but morally correct, and in voting against it, the Government are signalling that their ambition to reach net zero trumps everything else. Can that really be correct? If we cannot support those who are suffering from modern slavery, what are we doing? Is the rush to net zero really worth that?

  Net zero is intended to prevent people on this planet from going down a route towards a planet that is not inhabitable—that is what we have been sold. What are we saving the planet for, if not to enable people to work in a safe, secure way? We cannot sacrifice that; we cannot condone forced labour by selling our morals to China in order to rush towards net zero. The Uyghur Muslims in China do not have a safe, secure place to work. They are oppressed, and by not supporting Lords amendment 2, the Government are supporting that oppression. We have rightly condemned slavery in the past. The Government have rightly condemned past slavery, but they are now happy to condone forced labour in China.

  [Source]

• 6 Mar 2025: North Sea Energy

  12:37

  However, that does not take into account the jobs they have supported, the tax intake that comes with them, and the skills, investment and expertise they have preserved and that will help in the transition to renewable energies. Is the Minister saying in her statement that she is actually willing to sacrifice all that to ideologically stop new licences in the North sea?

  [Source]

• 12 Feb 2025: Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies

  The issue is the Labour Government’s rush to decarbonise by 2030, which means that this country does not have the capabilities to fulfil all the requirements to deliver on these projects. Until we do, we will always be reliant on overseas powers and people, such as the Chinese Government and Chinese manufacturers, to deliver what we need in order to decarbonise. Are the Government prepared and happy to sacrifice our national security and our energy security to reach that 2030 target?

  [Source]

• 17 Dec 2024: Warm Homes Plan

  11:56

  The Secretary of State, the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Consumers have all said in this House that the National Energy System Operator’s report shows that the Government’s 2030 target will lower energy bills. However, the report itself explicitly says that it does not do so, and the chief executive officer of the NESO told the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee last week that it “did not set out” to determine “what bills are for consumers.” Will the Minister explain those inconsistencies and take the opportunity to correct the record?

  [Source]

• 28 Nov 2024: Fishing Industry

  Our fishing grounds—we are seeing something similar with our farmland—are becoming ever more crowded, with increased pressure for space and with competing and often incompatible uses of the marine environment leading to spatial squeeze. About 37% of the seas around Scotland are now in one of the 240 offshore or inshore marine protected areas. The industry also has to be mindful of the “Will they, won’t they?” potential for highly protected marine areas. Coupled with the expansion of offshore renewable energy, such as wind, tidal and wave, that means that the space for fishing in our offshores is shrinking faster than ever.

  Fishing is currently excluded from about a third of Scottish waters. Back in the year 2000, the figure was only 1%, so we can see the scale and pace of change. Yes, we need renewable energy and we need to protect the marine environment—important sites such as Forvie in my constituency show that—but we also need proper consultation on how the fishing industry may be increasingly impacted. Generations of expertise relating to fishing, spawning grounds and species movement must be considered when other decisions are taken. The incoming competing pressures in our seas must not be prioritised over fishing or to the detriment of the fishing industry. The current balance does not feel equitable, despite the value of fishing in producing healthy, sustainable and low-carbon food, contributing to our food security and supporting thousands of coastal jobs around the country.

  [Source]

• 27 Nov 2024: Finance Bill

  17:29

  I will speak about the impact of the Government’s changes to the energy profits levy on people and businesses in my constituency, and on the UK as a whole, in terms of the energy security the Government are meant to ensure and the Government’s ever-more ambitious decarbonisation targets, which are being put at risk.

  [Source]

  17:29

  North-east Scotland is already leading the charge on renewable energy. We have hydrogen projects in development, wind farms off our shores, and expertise that could and should position us as a global leader on clean, renewable energy technologies. However, a rushed, ill-thought-out transition—to which the EPL contributes—will undermine our efforts. The skills of our oil and gas sector are precisely what we need in order to deliver a sustainable transition. The companies that will be penalised by this levy are the ones that we need to invest in green technologies. Just yesterday I met developers of floating offshore wind farms, and I asked them about the EPL. They hope that one of their projects will involve collaboration with an oil and gas field; the floating wind farm will help to decarbonise the rig, and in return, the oil and gas producer will help to fund the cabling back to shore. However, now they fear that the increasing and extended EPL will jeopardise the oil and gas company’s ability and willingness to invest.

  [Source]

• 29 Oct 2024: Great British Energy Bill

  The funding may not be sufficient, the overall energy strategy is incoherent and there is no clarity on the delivery of jobs or any mention of £300 energy bill savings, but surely the Bill offers certainty to the very industry that will deliver the energy transition. That brings me to the strategic statement. One thing that we know for sure is that we do not know all we need to know about what GB Energy will do. As a result, the uncertainty will continue. For communities such as mine in Gordon and Buchan, and for businesses, supply chains and those working in the existing energy industry, that is profound. We need to know how those communities will be brought with us in the transition—if it is, indeed, to be a just transition.

  [Source]

• 8 Oct 2024: Great British Energy Bill (First sitting)

  09:46

  Juergen Maier: Our core focus will be on renewable energy that is not derived from fossil fuels, to be clear. However, there are obviously energy sources that are part of the transition, and the Bill so allows. Clause 3(2)(b) refers to

  “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels,”

  [Source]

  10:01

  One of the issues in a just transition is that you replace public and private structured, high-quality jobs with jobs that are flimsier, more fragile and more temporary. If GB Energy can be a champion for long-term, durable relationships with its workforce—and that is how you want the energy sector to go—that is your best bet for having the jobs promise to replace those that have to be removed due to the climate impact.

  The other part is about what could be done in the Bill, although it will not necessarily protect jobs—Mike is right; the Bill itself cannot entirely protect individual jobs. In our submission, we suggest that there could be an amendment to the strategic priorities section and that the statement of strategic priorities should have regard for a just transition, job equality and job creation. It should be embedded as a core part of the statement so that, when the Secretary of State sits down to prepare it, they go, “Okay, part of what we are going to put in here is about a just transition, job equality and job creation.” That is a possible amendment.

  [Source]

  10:35

  Q We have heard a lot about public investment and the importance of private investment for meeting net zero. Is there anything in the Bill that encourages you that the amount of public investment going in will attract the amount of private investment that is needed? We have to take this Bill in the round with other energy policies coming forward. How does it sit alongside those in ensuring that we continue to attract private investment into the energy sector?

  [Source]

• 8 Oct 2024: Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting)

  14:43

  Q The aim of GB Energy, among other things, is to decarbonise the grid. The 2030 date has been thrown around. Practically, in terms of timescales, no matter what happens with GB Energy, the Crown Estate and land leases, it would not impact the Crown Estate’s ability to bring more wind farms online by 2030. What is in the Bill at the moment that can bring on the transition and help to decarbonise?

  To put it another way, we have delivered 12 GW of generating capacity in 25 years and if, as informed by the Climate Change Committee, we are to move up to 125 GW of generating capacity by 2050, that means we need a five to tenfold increase in the next 25 years. What we do in the next few years is incredibly important to ensure that we are laying the foundations for that to be a successful deployment.

  [Source]

• 7 Oct 2024: Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

  The Secretary of State will know that investment in these CCUS projects would not be possible without the private investment generated from our oil and gas companies. In the light of that, of him again confirming his policy on no new licences and of other policies that are set to close down the North sea, how will he ensure that that private investment continues so that more CCUS projects come forward in the future?

  [Source]

• 5 Sep 2024: Great British Energy Bill

  We need a balanced approach. We are not against the energy transition, and we recognise that the transition will take time, but rushing it could have severe consequences for communities such as mine in Gordon and Buchan. We are after net zero, not absolute zero. They are different things, and we do not need to banish oil and gas from our energy mix immediately in order prematurely to be on the road to net zero.

  [Source]

• 26 Jul 2024: Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower

  13:03

  However, I am going to focus on the key issue for my constituents and those across north-east Scotland, and that is the oil and gas sector: the jobs, expertise and investment that we will be putting at risk if the Government rush towards their green energy agenda. No matter how much the Minister may wish otherwise, we cannot and will not have a green energy revolution without the existing oil and gas sector, its skills and, crucially, its funding. The companies that make their money from oil and gas developments now are the key investors in our renewable energy sector and carbon capture projects—that is undeniable. We must make the UK an attractive place to invest in all energies in order to attract and keep multinational companies here, and to keep them investing here in the future. We have to draw only a very short line to realise that if we dismiss, alienate and penalise the traditional oil and gas parts of energy companies, the boards of those same companies will turn their backs on the UK for more sympathetic and attractive investment opportunities elsewhere. We would lose not just the current investment in oil and gas, but the potential for investment in renewable energy.

  Does the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero or the Minister expect that we will have stopped using oil and gas by 2030? Of course not, so why are we banning new oil and gas licences and cutting off our own domestic energy supply? Why are the Government happy to see tens of thousands of home-grown jobs put at risk, and why are they happy to increase our reliance on imports of oil and gas produced with a higher carbon footprint from more volatile markets overseas? If there is a reason other than simply to fulfil their narrative of being a “green energy superpower” I am yet to find it.

  The UK, thanks largely to Aberdeen and the north-east, has long been an energy superpower—an oil and gas superpower. That status, built over half a century, has led to the energy sector’s skills, expertise, companies and workforce being honed and housed in north-east Scotland—not just the subsurface and technical skills of the likes of geologists and engineers, but, crucially, the experts in supply chains. Those will be vital to the renewable energy projects of the future. Our workers in the oil and gas sector know how to deliver huge, multinational, high-budget projects—exactly the skills that will be needed to deliver the Government’s green energy revolution. Again, the Government risk losing those crucial skills by moving too fast and not planning for a jobs and skills transition alongside the energy transition.

  [Source]

• 19 Jul 2024: Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

  12:41

  The energy sector powers Aberdeenshire, from direct jobs and high-skilled employment to the associated services and hospitality sectors that rely on it. To the people of Gordon and Buchan and the north-east of Scotland, the debate on the future of the oil and gas sector is not really about energy security, markets or net zero; it is about our jobs and our livelihoods. It is about knowing that we have secure employment for the years to come and that our children will not have to move away to start their career, or that the bottom will not fall out of our local economy. I cannot imagine that any hon. Member would sit here and allow their constituency’s key employment sector to be run down or conceded, and I will not do that either.

  [Source]

See all Parliamentary Speeches Mentioning Climate