Energy

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

I beg to move amendment (b), to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and insert:

“welcomes the extension of the Warm Homes Discount which this winter will provide £150 off energy bills for 2.7 million more families, taking the total households supported to around six million; regrets that the previous Government’s failed energy policy resulted in the worst cost of living crisis in generations; supports the creation of Great British Energy, to take back control of the UK’s energy system and provide energy security; notes that the Government is delivering the biggest nuclear building programme in decades, kickstarting Sizewell C nuclear power station, backing small modular reactors and investing in fusion power; further welcomes the consenting of enough clean power to provide power for more than 7.5 million homes across the country; also welcomes that the Government is bringing forward a plan for the North Sea’s energy future, and the creation of tens of thousands of jobs in nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen and renewable industries as a result of the Government’s clean power mission; and recognises the Government is putting the UK back in the business of climate leadership, for energy security today and the protection of future generations to come.”

For too long the British people have paid the price for a broken energy system and an over-reliance on imported fossil fuels. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the wholesale price of gas went spiralling, and as a result our typical energy bills nearly doubled in the space of a year. This was a direct result of successive Conservative Governments refusing to invest in clean, home-grown power while leaving our electricity grid to wither. In recent years, millions have struggled with fuel poverty, and many still face enormous debts today. Their failure was a disaster for family finances, business finances and public finances.

As we head into another winter, the effects of this are still being felt by the many, but we must be honest: this was neither unexpected nor unavoidable. Since the 1970s, half of the UK’s recessions have been caused by fossil fuel shock. The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about our energy security, but instead of making us stronger and more secure, their policy of complacency, dither and delay left us completely reliant on petrostates and dictators to keep the lights on.

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

I was just wondering whether the Minister remembers what else happened in 2022, around February time, that might have impacted gas prices.

[Martin McCluskey]

I have mentioned the war in Ukraine in 2022, but this was not a crisis caused only by the war in Ukraine. It was a crisis caused by 14 years of under-investment—as I just said there, it was dither and delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin McCluskey]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will carry on arguing for jobs across the UK, but particularly in Scotland and not all in Cornwall.

I will make some progress on my speech. Even in the face of rapid progress across the country, some, including many on the Opposition Benches, still cling to the status quo of stagnation and decline. Those who suggest that we should simply generate more electricity and generate more electricity with gas, leaving billpayers across Britain—

[Harriet Cross]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Martin McCluskey]

If she will allow me to make progress, I will allow her to intervene. Those would leave billpayers across Britain to deal with the consequences. The reality is, as the shadow Secretary of State must know, that with our ageing gas fleet, half of which is more than 20 years old, in any scenario we would need to invest in rebuilding our power system. The truth is that replacing old gas plants with new ones would be significantly more expensive, and those costs would be met by consumers while also leaving us more exposed than ever to the global price of fossil fuels, over which we have no control.

[Martin McCluskey]

The hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress.

The data shows that solar and onshore wind remain the cheapest power sources to build and operate in this country. When faced with a choice between investing in new, expensive gas and increasing our reliance on unstable fossil fuel markets, or the alternative of clean, home-grown energy controlled by Britain, creating jobs for Britain, bringing investment to Britain and powering Britain, really, there is no choice at all.

[Harriet Cross]

The Minister just referred to the oil and gas sector as “the status quo” or something that we should be moving away from. Does he also mean the 100,000 jobs supported by that sector, the millions in investment and the billions that we get in revenue from that sector? Which part of that does he not support and which part of that does he not want to protect while we transition to new energies? It sounds to me like he wants to shut it down tomorrow. Those are my constituents, the local economy in my area and energy security for the country. He seems to be very willing to get rid of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Clearly, this country faces an affordability crisis. People cannot afford their energy bills or their housing bills, and that means more than just not being able to pay the bills—it means that they are losing faith in us in this place, because democracy is no longer delivering for them. We Labour Members want cleaner and cheaper energy, to ensure that people can afford their bills and do have faith in us, but there is another reason. The decisions we make now in this place will live on for decades—for generation after generation. The carbon we emit between now and 2050 will live, not just with us, but with our great-grandchildren and their grandchildren. It is so important that we get this right at this moment.

The motion tabled by the Conservative party backs expanding North sea oil and gas. That would not make our energy cheaper, and perhaps more importantly, it would not make us more secure. The Conservatives talk about a cheap power plan. They were in power for 14 years. We had the most expensive energy bills in the G7, with the highest inflation, because they left us dependent on natural gas—and what do we see today? Exactly the same plan all over again. Natural gas is setting our energy price for 98% of the time. It drove 80% of the increase in the wholesale cost, with 50% of the wholesale cost driving the increase in energy prices. How on earth can the Opposition today want us to relive and repeat those mistakes over and over again?

Let us talk about North sea oil and gas in particular. Taking all of it out, as the Opposition are proposing, would leave five years-worth of supply—and then what will we do? What will we invest in then? We will be dependent on natural gas over and over again. That is exactly why we invest in the future. Moreover, the North sea gas bill is twice as expensive as those in the middle east, so it does not even make economic sense.

[Harriet Cross]

Projections show that if we fully utilised the oil and gas in the North sea we could cover half our energy needs up to 2050, so there is a lot more in there than five years-worth, but even if it were true that there was only five years-worth, why would we be increasing our imports to cover it? Why would we not be using what we have, given that we will be a net importer for years to come in any event? Why are we closing down the North sea if, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it will all be gone in any case? It makes no sense.

[Dr Sandher]

The gasfields that the hon. Lady is talking about are geologically unstable, and it is not even clear whether we can get them out. Only 20% of the reserves of the gasfields that we knew of in 1997 are left—and when we get to 2050, what will we do then? That is precisely why this Government are investing in clean, home-grown energy that is cheaper and more secure for the future, and we know that is the case because the Conservatives used to believe it too. You used to believe in net zero. You used to believe in the Climate Change Act. Look at how much you have changed. It is a deep shame.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon]

I declare an interest, as the UK’s largest ground source heat pump company is based in my own constituency. I am a big advocate of ground source heat pumps, and I am hopeful that the Government will come forward with plans, particularly for social housing, to support that sector. My hon. Friend makes very valid points.

The opportunities in Cornwall would be scuppered without the likes of the round 7 allocation, and thousands of green job opportunities would be quashed. Opposition parties need to wake up. This Government are committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels, because to do so means that we will break free from the shackles of the wholesale gas price. We can control supply, and in doing so we will reduce domestic and business energy bills, rather than continually being exposed to the whims of the likes of Mr Putin. I know that some Members—maybe they are not here at the moment—quite admire Mr Putin, but this Labour Government, and, I suspect, those who are paying through the nose for Putin’s whims and the previous Government’s failure to invest, do not.

Talking of ideology, I must ask this question: what is it about the oil and gas-backed, climate change denying opposition parties that make them feel so threatened by the green energy transition?

[Harriet Cross]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Perran Moon]

I will not give way because of time, and I know that other Members are still to speak.

Opposition Members’ constituents will not thank them for blocking access to sustainable, low-cost energy, and Ministers know that we on this side of the House fully understand and support the transition, with interventions such as the warm home discount, which I do applaud. I urge Ministers to continue to ignore the siren calls and to pursue the path to long-term, cheap renewable energy, lowering bills and regenerating areas such as Cornwall that were long abandoned by the Conservatives. The previous Government lost the plot on energy, but this Government are taking back control of our energy industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to recognise the importance of the industry in his constituency. Vestas is a key part of the UK’s wind supply chain. The Isle of Wight is already a successful centre for wind blade manufacturing and research and development. I can assure him that we are doing everything we can to work with partners and right across Government on the proposal, and that includes the agreement in principle between Vestas and the Government to support the factory’s repurposing to make onshore wind blades, saving 300 jobs.

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

Energy companies of any kind, whether oil and gas or renewables, need certainty to plan to invest, whether it is onshore or offshore. The Government’s consultation on the North sea’s energy future closed on 30 April, almost six months ago, and the industry is still awaiting an outcome. The only guidance on timing on the Government’s website is to

“Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback.”

The ongoing delay is causing huge uncertainty for sectors of all types of energy investment. Can the Minister confirm when the outcome of the consultation will be published with a date or a week, not a vague timescale?

[Michael Shanks]

On the substance of the hon. Member’s question, we launched the future of energy in the North sea consultation with a detailed set of questions, which we are analysing at the moment. We will publish the response to that as soon as possible, but I am sure she will understand that we want to make sure we have it absolutely right. I have engaged with industry to tell it about the timeframes for that throughout the process.

Let me just say one thing. The hon. Member talks about uncertainty. What could be more uncertain than the Leader of the Opposition coming to Aberdeen and talking down the investment in offshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture—the very thing that will retain the supply chain in the north-east of Scotland? Uncertainty is what the Conservative party brings to this.

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

First, I think the hon. Gentleman is misjudging the mood of this question, which is about workers affected by redundancy. I hear nothing from him on those workers who are hearing the news this week. On his point, we assessed a number of bids for the business as a going concern. None of those bids were credible, which is why the official receivers made the decision to cease refining. Some bids are interested in parts of the site for a range of different things, but I am not party to those bids. They are commercially sensitive bids that will be assessed on the basis of how many jobs can be retained and the industrial opportunities on that site, which is what we are driving forward. I would just say to him that spreading nonsense and rumours, either in this House or on social media, does absolutely nothing to support the workers on that site.

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

I have listened closely to the Minister’s answers, and he is rightly highlighting the importance of the jobs and the redundancies, but I think we need to be a bit clearer and more open with people about what the new jobs in the renewables sector that the Minister refers to are about. These jobs are not comparable to a lot of the ones that will be lost in the oil and gas sector. A lot of them are not full-time jobs; a lot of them are part time or temporary jobs during construction phases. We are losing a huge number of workers across the country, and we will continue to do so because of the Government’s policies on oil and gas and the speed at which the sector is being demolished. Can the Minister please outline directly to these workers across the country, whether at Prax or in the north-east, how their jobs will be supported into the future? I am talking about comparable full-time jobs, not just the temporary ones.

[Michael Shanks]

A key objective of this Government is to deliver good, well-paid trade-unionised jobs, and we have been driving that forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been pushing on trade union recognition, partly to ensure that terms and conditions in the clean energy industry are as good as those in, for example, the oil and gas industry. We will continue to push on that, and we have already had some successes.

I gently say that the investment going into clean energy that is delivering thousands of jobs and will deliver tens of thousands of new jobs across the country comes against a backdrop of opposition from the Conservatives on Great British Energy in the north-east of Scotland delivering those jobs. We are also announcing today the final investment decision on Sizewell C—10,000 jobs are being created in nuclear after years of dither and delay by the hon. Member’s party. We are getting on with doing this, and we will do everything we can to ensure those jobs are comparable on terms and conditions and pay. I say to her that if she wants these jobs to be created, she should support some of the policies that will deliver them in the first place.

State of Climate and Nature

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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?

[Ed Miliband]

We have to get our use of imported gas down, and that is why we have to build clean energy infrastructure. This is what the Conservatives just do not seem to understand. If they go around the country opposing our clean energy infrastructure, it keeps us stuck on fossil fuels for longer—and look where that took us: to the worst cost of living crisis in generations.

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the impact of high electricity costs across industry. Since we came to office we have been doing everything possible—through the industrial strategy, and through other work that my colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade have been doing—to try to drive down energy costs, and we are doing wider work across the energy system to deliver clean power by 2030, and to bring down bills and reduce the volatility in bills that affects too many households and businesses throughout the country. We are looking at all the possible options, and I have said to the refinery sector that we are willing to look at all the schemes on a case-by-case basis. There is no easy answer to many of these questions, but we will, for example, consider eligibility for the industrial competitiveness scheme following the consultation that will open shortly, and it will be reviewed in due course.

I understand that the question relates to how fast we can move on some of these matters, but we need to ensure that we get this right, and we are doing everything we can, where we can, to move faster with some of the decisions.

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

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

[Michael Shanks]

I should avoid straying into taxation policy, which is not in my brief. However, I will say that we are doing everything we can to issue a speedy response to the consultation on the future of energy in the North sea, which is all about how we strategically plan the future of oil and gas in this country to ensure that we are building up the future industries at the same time as supporting existing oil and gas supply chains and jobs, and we are moving that work forward.

Let me be clear about what the official receiver does. The official receiver is in post with statutory duties, but that is not in the same bucket as nationalising an industry. It would not be right for the Government to underwrite failing businesses, but we have a responsibility to ensure that an active refinery is wound down in a way that is safe, or that we can find a buyer to continue it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I will be careful about what I say in this particular case and on the specific application for obvious reasons. We will be publishing guidance very soon on how the scope 3 emissions—the end-use emissions —will be assessed. Any developers with any projects that wish to reapply will then be able to do so. Each project will go through a regulatory process and be considered on its individual merits.

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

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

Energy Grid Resilience

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think we can all stop that now.

Centrica operates the Rough gas storage site, which provides about half of the UK’s current gas storage capacity. Centrica stands ready to invest £2 billion of its own capital to redevelop Rough into the largest long-duration energy storage facility in Europe, capable of storing both natural gas and hydrogen, which would improve resilience and protect customers from price spikes. To unlock this £2 billion, the company needs assurances and clarity from the Government, not least over regulatory support and a workable cap and floor mechanism. Will the Minister set out what progress has been made in discussions with Centrica to develop this cap and floor mechanism? Given that the Government can make decisions quickly when they choose to, as we saw with British Steel, why has a decision on this mechanism been allowed to drag on for months?

[Michael Shanks]

I congratulated the hon. Lady yesterday on her remarkable marathon; I think she ran it two hours faster than I did, which leaves considerable room for improvement on my part, but congratulations to her again. She is right to raise this point, and I have answered questions on it before. I have met Centrica on several occasions to discuss various things, including that proposal, but it is a commercial matter for Centrica to bring the proposal to us. The Rough storage facility, which we last talked about in this House a few months ago, was mothballed for a number of years under the previous Government. We are looking in the round at the role it could play in energy security and at the value-for-money arguments. We want to ensure that value for money for the public is protected alongside the security of energy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the huge amount of private sector investment that is coming in with clean energy. This is why, in the industrial strategy, clean energy is one of the growth-driving sectors where we have seen 10% growth in the economy. We are also seeing hundreds of thousands of jobs, which the Conservatives now seem determined to oppose. We will introduce the clean energy of the future, and that is why we are pushing for clean energy by 2030. That will bring down bills, give us energy security and create really good quality jobs.

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

12. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the resilience of the national grid against the potential disruption of offshore energy infrastructure.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

Before I answer the hon. Lady’s substantive question, I want to offer her my huge congratulations on smashing to smithereens on Sunday the previous record held by a female MP in the London marathon.

Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network with diverse sources of supply. The national energy system operator can balance the system in a wide range of scenarios, including potential disruptions to offshore infrastructure.

[Harriet Cross]

The UK currently has about 15 GW of offshore wind capacity, which supplies about 17% of our energy. In order to reach the Government’s 2030 targets, this will have to increase by three times to 40 to 50 GW in just five years, and to achieve that we will have to rely on Chinese wind infrastructure and technology. What specific risk assessment have the Government carried out into the impact of this exposed vulnerability and reliance on China for what will be a significant amount of our energy supplies?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not comment on individual investment cases, but in every single case the Government make an assessment and we look at the national security implications seriously, just as the Conservatives did when they were in government. I would just gently say that the reason the supply chains in this country are as weak as they are is that they were underfunded and under-invested for years by the Conservatives. There could have been a decision, at the point when they took ambitious steps to move towards clean power, to build the supply chains here, but they chose not to do so; they chose to tow things into our waters instead. We are reversing that, but it cannot happen overnight.

North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing the debate. To say that it is really important does not really do it justice; what we are seeing in the North sea—job losses, investment drying up and companies folding or choosing to end their UK operations—is not us being alarmist or pessimistic or over-exaggerating. As most of us in this room understand, although that is sadly not the case across the House, those are the cold, hard facts.

Across the UK, approximately 120,000 people are employed in the oil and gas sector, of whom approximately half are in Scotland. The average oil and gas worker is in their mid-40s. This is their transition—not a future transition—and it matters now. In the UK, one in every 200 people is employed either directly or indirectly in the offshore energy sector, and that is significantly weighted towards oil and gas work. Those people work offshore on rigs and floating production storage and offloading units or onshore as geologists, geophysicists and petrophysicists and in our crucial supply chains. That increases to one in 25 across Scotland, about one in five in north-east Scotland and one in three if induced jobs are included.

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.

OEUK suggests that 50% of domestic oil and gas needs could be supplied from the North sea until 2050, but only if there are policies to allow oil and gas to be extracted. Brent oil is today at $68 a barrel—almost half the $123 a barrel it peaked at in 2022, and below the EPL price floor of $71 a barrel. Why does the Minister expect North sea businesses to continue in the UK when they are being penalised for their product, despite the Government’s saying that we need it? As others have asked, how can the UK arms of multinational companies compete for funding and investment with energy sectors in other countries, which are so much more supported and encouraged and which offer far greater returns? When investment goes abroad, jobs follow, or are lost. It is that simple. I say it again: our oil and gas sector is vital to the UK’s energy transition.

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.

Similarly, timing is vital if companies are to keep their order books, if not full, then at least ticking over with traditional oil and gas contracts—again, assuming that the Government’s policies are changed to support the sector—before offshore wind contracts truly pick up. I recently spoke to the chief executive officer of a supply chain company, who had very real concerns about a void in contracts, which the company would not be able to get across, in the next two to five years. What company can retain a workforce if it has no work? These companies are vital to the transition, and we cannot afford to lose them to an expediated, unmanaged decline of oil and gas.

The RGU estimates that 80% of the oil and gas supply chain is transferrable to adjacent sectors, but the reality is that the supply chain will survive only if the transition is managed. If we run down production too quickly and before wind is effectively scaled, the capabilities and expertise will be lost. I end with a brief quote from the North Sea Transition Taskforce, which warns:

“Unless governments act swiftly, there will be no transition; the old North Sea will fade away, along with the skills of individuals and the entrepreneurial skills of businesses in the North Sea supply chain.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this critical debate and for her compelling speech, in which she laid out the situation in her constituency in terms of the number of job losses and the increasing poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) did later, she also talked about the loss of skilled workers and jobs to overseas countries.

Managing the transition from a North sea dominated by oil and gas to a North sea with a future for commercially viable renewable energy is critical to the UK’s reaching its climate targets by 2030. The North sea can have a new and bright future if we get things right, which will enable us to strengthen our energy security, reduce skyrocketing energy prices for our households and businesses, secure the UK’s global leadership in floating offshore wind and, importantly, rebuild our manufacturing and port capacity while delivering transitional skills, pathways and jobs for the highly skilled workers and for the thousands of people currently employed in the supply chains for oil and gas.

We Liberal Democrats are opposed to the new oilfields at Jackdaw and Rosebank, and we want the Government to commit to the winding-down of the oil and gas industry, as was agreed among all countries at COP28. The reality is that new drilling will not provide jobs or protect workers in a declining basin.

[Harriet Cross]

It is estimated that Jackdaw could provide 5% of the UK’s gas needs. Would the hon. Member, and the Liberal Democrats, prefer that we imported that LNG from elsewhere instead?

[Pippa Heylings]

As I consistently said during the debate about the new oilfields at Jackdaw and Rosebank, none has provided the jobs predicted, which were all offshored to Dubai. On the gas dependency that we have talked about, it is critical that we make sure that we have homegrown energy so that we can take Putin’s boot off our necks. That is the way.

After 50 years of intensive extraction, the North sea is now an ageing and expensive basin. The transition away from oil and gas production is already under way, with reserves in terminal and irreversible decline. Jobs in the UK’s oil and gas industry have more than halved in the past decade: 227,000 direct roles have disappeared, despite the issuing of 400 new drilling licences and record profits for the major oil companies. Moreover, losses in supply chains far outnumber those in the industry. That is neither fair nor just. We must act now to ensure that the transition ahead supports the workers and communities who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross so eloquently said, have powered Britain for generations, and ensure that they are not left behind.

The future of the North sea can be bright: we boast some of Europe’s best sites for renewable energy. Our current installed capacity of 50 wind farms already accounts for about a quarter of global offshore wind capacity, and our offshore wind potential surpasses our projected energy demand, making it key to our energy security. However, the Liberal Democrats have always been clear that the only way to create long-term, secure jobs is to invest in supporting workers to transition into clean energy industries. The unjust transition of the oil refinery at Grangemouth is a clear illustration—a warning of what happens without early Government intervention and investment, showing that such decisions cannot be left to industry alone.

What jobs are we talking about? We are talking about new jobs within the new manufacturing supply chain and our own domestic green energy supply chain. The UK has consistently failed to seize the full economic benefits of our leadership in offshore wind. As we have heard today, the vast majority of Britain’s offshore wind capacity is owned by foreign companies, and the typical North sea turbine still contains three times more imported material than UK-made content. We need to make sure that our turbines are manufactured here and that our port capacity, in both manufacturing and fixed and floating offshore capacity, is enabled, or that will also be given to other countries. That could create an estimated 23,000 good green jobs, both directly and through supply chains.

Onshore Wind and Solar Generation

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

In just four short weeks, people across England will go to the polls to determine the future of their local communities. At that same time, the Labour party seeks to impose on those very same communities vast new energy infrastructure: huge solar farms and wind turbines with blade heights of 180 metres to 200 metres, destroying swathes of England’s green and pleasant land and going against the wishes of local people. As ever, only the Conservative party is standing up for those communities, and only the Conservative party believes that people in those communities should have a say over their local area. Labour would silence those communities, choosing to impose rather than to seek consent. In four weeks’ time, voters across this country will have that choice before them.

The order provides a route to approval for onshore wind that entirely bypasses the consent of local communities and empowers the zealotry of the Secretary of State to impose infrastructure irrespective of the concerns of local people.

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

In my constituency of Gordon and Buchan, the Suie and Correen hills are subject to a planning application for a new onshore wind farm. There is also concern that, because of that, there will be new pop-up infrastructure next to it, whether substations or batteries and so on. One project leads to another and then to another—it overtakes local communities, it means that local landscapes and local businesses change, and there is an impact on farming, too. Does my hon. Friend agree that such projects cannot be looked at in isolation? This has to be about their holistic impact across the board, not just about the individual scheme, one at a time.

[Andrew Bowie]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, living, as we do, in the north-east of Scotland and seeing around us the huge increase in energy infrastructure planned for rural communities over the next few years—it is quite daunting. It is therefore no surprise that there has been such vociferous campaigning against the plans, whether those for wind turbines, pylons, energy substations or battery storage facilities, all of which are in the pipeline for our communities. That is why there is such a pushback there and also such concern across many of the communities that will be affected by the change in England over the next few years. That is why we oppose the SI before us.

In their first week in office, the Government approved three solar farms across Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Rutland, against the wishes of the local communities. Today, the Minister seeks to go further still. In increasing the threshold for solar, he pushes for the development of giant solar farms. To be eligible for sign-off by the Secretary of State, solar farms have to be 100 MW in capacity. Currently, the largest—Shotwick solar park in Flintshire—is 72 MW. The change signals a free-for-all for giant-scale solar, and the instrument brings onshore wind over a 100 MW capacity into the NSIP scope. In Lancashire, that means Scout Moor II being in the Secretary of State’s gift to approve. Calderdale wind farm, with 65 turbines covering 9 square miles, is planned for Yorkshire and will be built on grouse moorland and farmland. In Lincolnshire’s prime agricultural land, the breadbasket of England, this means a potential onslaught of proposals, despite the county council’s opposition to large-scale plans.

I know how much this means to local communities—my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) has also made this point. I represent a constituency that is being subjected to vast swathes of energy infrastructure, and over the next few years approval will be sought for a whole host of new plans that will indelibly change a landscape that people are proud and happy to live in right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

We are living in the shadow of the former Conservative Government’s failure to invest in renewable energy and insulate our homes. Those failures have contributed directly to an energy crisis that has left households struggling with soaring bills and businesses facing crippling costs. The majority of people polled in this country want to see more action on climate change and saving our planet, not less.

The Liberal Democrats are unwavering champions of renewable energy. Now more than ever, we need to strengthen our home-grown energy security and stop our dependency on despots such as Putin. We welcome the lifting of the effective moratorium on onshore wind, which we have long called for. That was an extremely short-sighted and irresponsible Conservative policy. The planning changes that they made in 2015 and 2016 introduced a de facto ban in England, resulting in a loss to our manufacturing and local economies. The project pipeline for onshore wind shrank by over 90%, and less than 40 MW was consented to and became operational in the intervening period.

[Harriet Cross]

The supply chain is important for the roll-out of onshore and offshore wind, and the oil and gas sector supply chain will be crucial, but it is being worn away by the rush to end our use of North sea oil and gas. Does the hon. Member agree that preserving that supply chain, and ensuring a managed transition from North sea oil and gas, will be vital to any roll-out of onshore and offshore wind?

[Pippa Heylings]

We are absolutely and critically supportive of a just transition in the North sea, to move off fossil fuels alongside and parallel to our increased use of renewable energy.

It is therefore right to reintroduce onshore wind into the nationally significant investment regime, ensuring that there is a level playing field with other generating technologies such as solar, offshore wind and nuclear, which are already assessed under that regime. The motion also raises the threshold for solar projects deemed nationally significant from 50 MW to 100 MW. In one way, that increased threshold will help to prevent poor land use, given that the previous threshold incentivised developers to put in an artificial cap of 49.9 MW, which led to 40% of proposals coming in at that level. Increasing the threshold in local planning decisions also means that biodiversity net gain will be required of solar farms, ensuring that, where they are approved, they are nature-friendly. It will also give local voices a greater say in determining the location and suitability of large-scale solar projects up to 100 MW—that is important.

However, local decision making about large-scale solar cannot happen in a vacuum. We need a joined-up approach that balances the need for food security, energy infrastructure, new homes and nature recovery. That is why we welcome the Government’s launching of consultations on both the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plans, which together should determine the most strategic energy mix, how much solar we need, at what scale and where best to locate it across the country.