Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee that all
government policies should be subject to a ‘Net Zero Test’; and
what steps they intend to take in response.
(CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out
in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, over the last three decades the UK has achieved record
clean growth. Between 1990 and 2019, our economy has grown by
78%, while our emissions have reduced by 44%—the fastest
reduction in the G7. The Government recently set out the UK’s
sixth carbon budget, which would reduce 2035 emissions by 78%
compared to 1990. We have strong governance around net zero; this
includes two Cabinet Committees, one of which, the Climate Action
Strategy Committee, is chaired by the Prime Minister. We will
respond officially to the CCC report in due course.
(CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response and I
declare my interests as set out in the register. I was privileged
to be present to hear the speech of Special Presidential Envoy
John Kerry, in London this week. He spoke passionately of the
scale of the challenges the world faces and the urgency and
breadth of the action needed to avert catastrophic climate
change. Do the Government accept the need highlighted in the
recent report of the Climate Change Committee to put a climate
lens on all government legislation and all policy choices? Will
they show global leadership on this issue, in the run-up to COP
26 in Glasgow, by committing to a net zero test in their
imminent, I hope, net zero strategy?
(Con)
Well, as I told the noble Baroness in my Answer, we have really
strong governance around climate change. There are two Cabinet
committees, one established and chaired by the Prime Minister and
the second chaired by the COP 26 president designate. Of course,
we look at all policies and their impact on climate change.
The Lord Speaker ()
I call the noble Lord, . No?
I think we will go on to the next supplementary question. I call
the noble Lord, .
(CB)
[V]
Can the Minister confirm that, as stated in their response to the
Climate Change Committee recommendations, government policy that
flows from the Agriculture Act and the Environment Bill that
impacts on agriculture will take a holistic approach and take
into account the significant benefits that agriculture does and
will deliver, such as carbon sequestration in soils, crops and
plants?
(Con)
I agree with the noble Lord on the important contribution that
agriculture makes and will need to make in the fight against
climate change. Defra is looking at ways to reduce agricultural
emissions and is progressing its environmental and land
management schemes. It is also looking at other options to reduce
agricultural emissions, including some very innovative solutions
on the use of, for instance, methane-inhibiting food additives.
(Lab)
In Monday’s debate on transport decarbonisation the Minister
said:
“The more we can set out … what our expectations are, the more we
expect that development to increase.”—[Official Report, 19/7/21;
col. 26.]
The Government’s wish list is unsupported by effective plans for
action. A yet to be published report of the Science and
Technology Committee that deals with the means of transport
decarbonisation has stated that the Government’s actions do not
align with their ambitions to achieve net-zero emissions. What is
required is an independent office for climate responsibility,
which can assess the extent to which the Government’s actions
correspond with their stated objectives. Do the Government
recognise this need?
(Con)
I understand the point the noble Lord is making, but I would
refer him to the independent Committee on Climate Change, which
does many of the things he is suggesting. It was established by
the Climate Change Act 2008 and provides expert advice to the
Government on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As he
will have seen in its written reports, it is not afraid to point
out what it sees as any deficiencies.
(LD)
[V]
My Lords, could the Minister explain how the Government’s
proposed planning Bill will help lead towards his department’s
goal of net zero?
(Con)
Planning of course is extremely important, particularly in terms
of delivering net-zero buildings. The noble Lord will be aware of
the proposals we have to modify building regulations to reduce
the impact of new buildings.
(Lab)
[V]
This is the decisive decade for action and achievements, yet
behind the Government’s scatter-gun rhetoric there is only dither
and delay to key strategic coherency: the net-zero strategy, the
hydrogen strategy, the Treasury’s finance road map, and others.
Can the Minister confirm reports that another key strategy
document, the heat and buildings strategy, is further delayed?
According to Sky,
“Whitehall negotiations are stuck over how best to incentivise
the public to change to low-carbon alternatives”.
How will the different strategies combine to support the UK’s
climate change goals on both net zero and adaptation, along with
wider environment-related goals?
(Con)
The heat and buildings strategy will be published in due course.
I do not agree with the noble Lord that we are not doing
anything. I refer him to action we have taken recently: the
energy White Paper, the revised emissions trading system, all of
the announcements and investment to do with offshore wind, the
pledge to phase out new petrol and diesel vehicles, the transport
decarbonisation plan, and so on. Of course, there is always more
to do, but I do not accept the noble Lord’s premise.
(Con)
My Lords, I would like to congratulate the Government on their
achievements so far, with the fastest reduction in the G7. We
have two Ministers—one in the Lords and one in the Commons, my
noble and honourable friends—who are determined to help reduce
our emissions and achieve success for the environment. I agree
with the noble Viscount, , that an
independent assessment of the net-zero impact of policy is
important and I commend the work of the Climate Change Committee.
However, I hope the Government will continue to focus, for
example, on direct action, by encouraging institutional and
pension fund investors to invest in climate change mitigation,
and promoting a net-zero approach to investment portfolios rather
than asking officials to continue with a net-zero test in a way
that the family test has been more of a tick-box exercise.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for her comments and certainly agree with
her. As she is well aware, the trustees of occupational pension
schemes are independent of government; they are not bound by the
commitments we have signed up to. However, given the significance
of the financial risks posed by climate change, we expect all
investment decisions made by pension scheme trustees to take
climate change into account. As of 2019, trustees of pension
schemes with 100 or more members have been required to set out in
their statement of investment principles policies on stewardship
on an ESG, including climate change.
(CB)
My Lords, if this test was brought in, would it not help
government departments by giving them a very clear direction of
travel? It would cover the sorts of decisions we are still
wrestling with—Cambo in the North Sea and the Cumbrian mine—which
have somehow slipped through despite government ambitions to
reach carbon neutrality. This test could save future Ministers’
blushes. Can the Minister say what discussions have been had
about this proposal and whether he will advocate it to his
ministerial colleagues?
(Con)
We have not had any discussions about implementing this proposal
yet. We will respond to the Climate Change Committee’s
recommendations in due course. But we are looking at the impact
of climate change across all our policies. As I said, we have a
couple of senior Cabinet-level committees, one chaired by the
Prime Minister, which take all of these things into account.
(Lab)
[V]
My Lords, the Climate Change Committee sees local authorities as
having a critical part to play in achieving net zero. On 16 July,
the NAO revealed
“serious weaknesses in central government’s approach to working
with local authorities on decarbonisation, stemming from a lack
of clarity over local authorities’ overall roles, piecemeal
funding, and diffuse accountabilities”.
Does the Minister agree with its assessment that there is
“great urgency to the development of a more coherent approach”
and can he explain how the MHCLG, BEIS and other departments are
responding to this challenge?
(Con)
I do not agree with the noble Lord. Of course, local authorities
are critical in terms of delivering this agenda and I have many
meetings with them to discuss a number of the grand schemes for
which I am responsible. We have spent something like £1.2 billion
in dedicated funds given to local authorities through the local
authority delivery scheme and the public sector decarbonisation
scheme to help them in this job.
(LD)
My Lords, the Government’s remit to the Oil and Gas Authority is
MER, maximising economic recovery—also known as “drill every last
drop”. The Government’s continued support for this policy leaves
them open to applications such as the Cambo oilfield, which one
trusts they will turn down. May I ask the Minister how the MER
policy is compatible with our net-zero targets, given that
existing oilfields already in production will take us over our
agreed NDC?
(Con)
The independent Committee on Climate Change recognises that there
is an ongoing role for oil and gas, and we are working hard to
drive down demand and emissions. The updated Oil and Gas
Authority strategy includes a requirement for industry to “take
appropriate steps” to support the delivery of the net-zero
target—and, of course, we have put forward the ambitious
decarbonisation plan for the North Sea. With regard to the Cambo
field, Shell and Siccar Point have put forward a development
proposal seeking consent, with an intention to commence
production in 2025. This is not a new project; it was licensed in
2001 and 2004 and is going through the normal regulatory approval
process.
