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.

Great British Energy Bill

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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.

It is an unbelievable situation that we find ourselves in, but we are getting used to this sort of behaviour from the Government. We have seen the heartless policies that they have implemented since they came to power, whether that is the family farm tax, the tax on jobs that is putting people out of work, or taxing children’s hospices, which the Government have voted for this afternoon. By not supporting Lords amendment 2, the Government are effectively saying that they are happy to turn a blind eye to modern slavery across the world. That is something that Conservative Members cannot possibly support. Until July last year, those in the Labour party were happy to promote their morals, but it seems that those morals were left in front of the last door they knocked on in July.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

I think I have made it clear that there are ongoing conversations about that, and that we take national security incredibly seriously when we consider investment decisions. On what the hon. Member said about producing more oil and gas here for our own use, I think he needs a lesson in how the energy markets work—there is no guarantee that it would be used here.

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

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?

[Kerry McCarthy]

It sounds very much like the hon. Member is making the case for an industrial strategy that ensures that we can match demand with supply. That approach was particularly missing from the previous Government.

Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend touches on some of the key questions that we asked in the consultation, which closed just a few weeks ago and to which we had a significant number of responses. The Supreme Court’s judgment requires us to look at some of the tests that he mentioned—particularly whether there are offsets or mitigations—and we will announce how we will put that into effect in due course.

On the guidance that comes from the consultation, we have only just closed the consultation and are working as fast as possible on the results from that. However, applicants for consents will absolutely have to take account of the scope 3 emissions. It will be for them to outline in their applications how they intend to mitigate any impacts to achieve such consents.

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

We have already seen that if Rosebank does not go ahead £6.6 billion-worth of investment and 2,000 jobs will be lost. Those 2,000 jobs are really important to us in the north-east of Scotland. They are there for sentiment and for confidence, and they are also to show that we have a future. At the moment, it feels like the north-east is being sold down the river and that any opportunity we have is being lost because the Government are so ideologically committed to moving away from oil and gas now, as quickly as possible, and not to doing that when it is right. Are the Government still committed to jobs and security in the north-east of Scotland? It does not feel like that, living up there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend asks a really important question, which Members from right across this House will agree with. The situation we have inherited from the last Government is that Germany has almost twice as many renewables jobs per capita as Britain, Sweden almost three times as many, and Denmark almost four times as many. Through a combination of Great British Energy, the national wealth fund and a clean industry bonus, we are making sure that we do not just build offshore wind in this country, but reap the huge industrial opportunity from it.

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

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Court of Session’s judgment on Rosebank and Jackdaw was to do with their consents, not their licences? When he comes to consider his decisions on those consents, he should do so on the basis that these are existing, not new, licences.

[Ed Miliband]

That is an individual planning case, so I will be careful about what I say. What I will say to the hon. Lady is that the last Government made an unlawful decision, according to the court. We are going to follow due process.

ECO4 and Insulation Schemes

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: building the supply chain and the workforce will be critical to delivering the pace and the scale of our ambition. We are already putting in place training schemes to build up the next generation of installers, and we are working with local and regional government on how to build our supply chain. A key part of the warm homes plan will be working with a range of organisations from local to national level to build the supply chain and ensure that, through that, we are delivering quality jobs that pay a decent wage. This is a big opportunity. There is an opportunity for consumers, but we also believe that this is good for the economy, including particular local economies, and working with local and regional government to ensure that we realise that is a priority.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement, in which she confirmed that the 39 suspended companies are suspended from providing new solid wall insulation under the scheme. Are they also suspended from providing other sorts of insulation, such as external, loft and cavity wall insulation?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have suspended the 39 companies, and under Government schemes they will not be doing any work on solid wall insulation. The vast majority, particularly those installers that TrustMark believes are risky, are prohibited from doing other work. Where we have evidence that some of the companies are delivering loft insulation, for example, and other measures to standard, they are allowed to do that, but we are keeping this closely under review. TrustMark is looking at the 39 companies constantly, and there is a big onus on the requirement on those companies to deliver and remediate the work in order to be able to any further work.

Gas Storage Levels

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right that as well as building an energy system that will deliver generation capacity for the future, we need to work as fast as possible to reduce demand. Part of that is about moving away from gas to heat pumps. That is important not just for our energy system and climate, but for individual households in reducing their bills. We already see a huge shift in the uptake of heat pumps across the country. There is, of course, much more to do on that if we are to reach our target, but the Government are committed to that, and it is important for households right across the country. I echo his points on insulation. Those in fuel poverty are more likely to live in houses that are cold. The more we can do to create warmer homes—that is what the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), is doing—the better for everyone.

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

Last week was the coldest week of the winter. Also last week, 41.9% of our energy mix was gas and just about 25% was wind. We have heard about issues with gas storage, and the Government are penalising the oil and gas sector by extending the windfall tax, not allowing new licences, and removing investment allowances. It feels like this Government are not taking our energy security seriously. Can the Minister reassure the House that that is not the case, and that he will engage with our oil and gas companies to ensure that we are secure in our energy today, despite what they are trying to do for the future?

[Michael Shanks]

I can give that assurance. Indeed, every month I have been in this job, I have been in Aberdeen, meeting oil and gas companies to discuss the issues. We are not going to agree on everything, but I have been very clear that there will be a long future for oil and gas in the North sea. Yes, we absolutely have said that we do not want to issue any new licences for new fields, but we will not revoke any existing licences. That means that there will continue to be work in the North sea for a long time to come.

I repeat that it is categorically untrue that our electricity or gas supplies have been at risk over the past week. We have robust systems in place, and they worked exactly as they should. Consumers lost absolutely no supply over the last few days, nor will they in the weeks and months ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

But it is not my legacy—do not worry.

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

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?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I suggest that the hon. Lady actually reads the report. On page 77, the NESO sets out in black and white the system costs of a clean power system, and then what it calls

“Bill components resulting from clean power pathways”

and “Other bill changes”. The total impact in 2030 is to reduce electricity costs by £10 per megawatt-hour. Of course, as the NESO says, it is for the Government to make the policy choices to reduce energy bills—which we will—but it is absolutely clear that our clean power plan will reduce system costs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I know well my hon. Friend’s constituency—it is next door to mine—and both wind farms she mentions. She says quite rightly that, for all the expansion in those technologies over recent years, very few of those jobs, particularly in manufacturing, have been in this country. We will do everything we can, through Great British Energy and the clean industry bonus we have announced today, to grow our domestic supply chains, build industry in this country and win jobs for Britain.

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

Last week, just days after the Budget, Apache announced that it would exit the North sea by 2029. It said:

“The onerous financial impact of the energy profits levy…makes production…beyond 2029 uneconomic.”

What assessment have the Government made of the impact of those policies on current jobs in north-east Scotland, and how will Great British Energy compensate for the loss of those jobs?

[Michael Shanks]

We are working with industry in the north-east of Scotland to ensure that this is a just and prosperous transition. We have announced our next steps of responding to court judgments, and a consultation is open at the moment. We will have more to say about that in the months ahead. The hon. Lady must recognise that if she wants to see investment from Great British Energy, she might actually have to support its creation in the first place. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways; either they want a public energy company to invest in the jobs of the future—

Great British Energy Bill

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore appreciate why Conservatives are so concerned that the plans coming forward from the Labour Government will do exactly the same to north-east Scotland if this is not handled properly?

[David Chadwick]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. De-industrialisation has been happening for a very long time across the United Kingdom, and we are yet to see a real industrial strategy that would restore the wealth, prosperity and jobs that used to exist across our industrial areas in the entire United Kingdom.

Wales stands ready to play its part in powering the United Kingdom once again, but this time Wales would like to experience the tangible benefits from these projects. In my constituency, Llangattock Green Valleys has the ambition to develop plans for a large, community-owned renewable energy scheme to supply premises in the Crickhowell region. The scheme will have a mix of technologies, such as solar, hydro, wind and storage, to give a year-round supply of energy. It will be developed from the start in consultation with the community. It will be managed by the community and the profits will benefit the community itself.

We Liberal Democrats are firm believers that this is exactly the model of community ownership that will provide communities with security and prosperity well into the future. It is for this reason that I urge all Members to support amendment 5 and ensure that the Bill puts the principle of community ownership at the very front and centre of what the Government are trying to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

To finish, let me say that it is not too late for the Government to do the right thing: speak with Unite the Union and listen to what it says, and engage and negotiate with Ineos to deliver a proper and true just transition, and to keep Grangemouth working until the new industrial cluster is ready at the site.

[Harriet Cross]

There are few areas of the country that are as reliant on, and therefore as vulnerable to, the energy industry as my constituency of Gordon and Buchan and wider north-east Scotland. It is because of this that I want the Government’s energy strategy to be a success. Indeed, my constituents need it to be a success. However, that is why I have severe reservations about the Bill and why I believe that we must view the Great British Energy Bill not in isolation, but alongside the Government’s wider energy strategy.

I begin by considering the public money involved—the £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money going into Great British Energy. Labour has cited international examples, such as France’s EDF, as inspiration for Great British Energy, but let us examine EDF’s recent history, which reads like a cautionary tale of state intervention gone wrong. In 2022, the French Government were forced to fully nationalise EDF, costing €9.7 billion, and in 2023, they had to inject another €13 billion. That huge expenditure of taxpayer money did not even solve EDF’s problems; the company now faces debts exceeding €64 billion. Therefore, is £8.3 billion of investment into Great British Energy realistic?

Let us move on to Labour’s wider energy strategy—perhaps there are assurances there that can help mitigate the apparent inadequate funding. Let us not forget that the UK will be using oil and gas for years to come, which is not disputed. The expectation that we should get this from our domestic oil and gas supplies should not be controversial, yet our energy security is being put at risk through the Government’s actions and words. Jobs and investment in Gordon and Buchan and across north-east Scotland are being lost, and a home-grown energy transition is being made ever more difficult. It is incoherent to pump public money into the energy sector, while at the same time scaring away private investment from the very companies that will be vital to the energy transition, whether by announcing that there will be no new North sea licences, extending and increasing the windfall tax or removing investment allowances.

Offshore Energies UK has warned that expected tax changes could see investments in UK projects by oil and gas producers fall by about £12 billion by 2029. Last week, Reuters reported that a North sea producer is looking to sell stakes in its North sea assets and relist on the US stock exchange. The same article quoted the chief executive officer of TotalEnergies, who said that his team had halted exploration in the basin, and that:

“With this political landscape, even if you find something you’re not sure you can develop it… The situation in the UK is very problematic.”

The CEO of Deltic Energy also announced plans to cut spending, telling Reuters:

“The clear message from key investors was ‘do not invest in the UK’.”

That is just a snapshot, but it puts the Government’s £8.3 billion into context, alongside the other decisions that they are making.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Does the hon. Member accept that my constituents and hers have earned energy security for this country for the last two generations, and will do so in the North sea for another two generations?

[Harriet Cross]

I certainly hope that we will have the opportunity to do so, but as I am setting out, the Government’s proposals for the North sea in respect of taxation and cutting down on licences do not guarantee that. As much as I and the hon. Member want and need for that to be the case for our constituents, we cannot guarantee it. That is why it is so important that we get the transition right.

The Bill must include consideration of the impact on the public. Communities such as Leylodge and Kintore in my constituency face unprecedented infrastructure pressures. Those communities have seen a 3 GW hydrogen plant, an expanded substation, multiple battery facilities and new pylons. What are their statutory protections? What assurances are there in the Bill that certain communities will not be over-saturated with an unsustainable amount of infrastructure?

Before the election, the Labour party claimed that GB Energy would reduce household bills by £300. Since then, Ministers have not repeated the promise and have not explained when or how it will be achieved. I am sure that the Labour Government would not want us to think that that promise was simply a headline-grabbing figure before an election, so I look forward to their clarifying that commitment and voting for our amendments on that figure.

Let me move on to the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. We hear that GB Energy will create 650,000 jobs—apparently, 69,000 of them will be in Scotland, which, if delivered, would be welcome—but as is the running theme in this Bill, we do not have sufficient detail to offer even a grain of certainty to comfort those whose jobs are on the line now. Existing oil and gas and supply chain businesses in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the north-east need a timeline so that they can plan their business and workforce. How, when and where will jobs be created? What kind of jobs and skills will be required?

Of course, we now have certainty that one job will not be coming to Scotland, as we hear that the CEO will be based in Manchester. Is Aberdeen a headquarters in name but not in nature? We already know that there will be satellite sites in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Which other executive management jobs will not be based in Aberdeen? We in north-east Scotland are not buttoned up the back, so will the Minister confirm today that Aberdeen is still the headquarters for GB Energy—and I mean that in no other way than the meaning that the general public would understand?

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.

GB Energy will not generate energy, but it cannot instead generate mass redundancies across north-east Scotland. As has been mentioned, the Bill gives the Secretary of State extensive power to dictate what is in the strategic statement, and he has given himself the huge responsibility of ensuring that GB Energy delivers its aims. The work of the existing energy industry, and of communities such as Gordon and Buchan, must be taken into account. If it is not, the transition to cleaner, greener energies will be less efficient, less affordable and less possible. As such, I sincerely ask that the Secretary of State prepares the strategic priorities in a timely manner, taking account of stakeholders in the industry, the impacted communities, the current jobs and skills, and the existing businesses that are the bedrock of our future energy generation.

Because the Bill gives us all but no clarity on what is going to happen, the strategic statement—which we are all waiting for—is going to be the key document in dictating whether it will or will not be a success. As I said at the start of my speech, I want it to be a success; I want the UK to be a clean energy superpower, just as we are, and always were, an oil and gas superpower. If we get this right, that superpower status will drive the economy and jobs of the future. We cannot allow investment to be lost, because that means that investment in new technologies will be lost.

If we lose the expertise, the supply chains and the private investment because of the way this Bill is handled and how GB Energy is handled—there is no guarantee that private investment will stay in the UK just because GB Energy has been created—we will look back at this time and wish we had done things differently. I really do not want to be in that situation, because it is my communities in Gordon and Buchan and in north-east Scotland who will suffer the most.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

In a debate like this, it is important for Members to ensure that they link their contributions to the amendments we are addressing. I call Polly Billington.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy]

I have to say that, whoever is the winner of the Conservative party leadership contest, I am not sure legislating for the creation of 650,000 jobs is the direction in which they will be heading. I do not believe we can legislate our way to job creation; I believe that is done by introducing an industrial strategy, something that was so lacking in the last 14 years.

[Harriet Cross]

Does the hon. Member appreciate that the issue is not legislating for jobs but the lack of accountability in the Bill?