Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) (Urgent Question): To ask the
Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to
provide a response to the High Court ruling that the net zero
strategy is unlawful. The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and
Climate Change (Greg Hands) Over the past three decades, the UK has
driven down emissions by more than 45%— the fastest reduction of
any G7 country. We have one of the most ambitious carbon-reduction
plans in the...Request free trial
(Bristol East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy to provide a response to the High
Court ruling that the net zero strategy is unlawful.
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change ()
Over the past three decades, the UK has driven down emissions by
more than 45%— the fastest reduction of any G7 country. We have
one of the most ambitious carbon-reduction plans in the world,
pledging to reduce emissions by at least 68% by 2030 and by 77%
by 2035, compared with 1990 levels, before of course reaching net
zero by 2050. Our track record speaks for itself: the UK
overachieved against the first carbon budget and exceeded the
second by nearly 14%. The latest projections show that we are on
track to meet the third carbon budget as well.
In its judgment on the judicial review of the net zero strategy,
the High Court found that Government had not complied with
Climate Change Act 2008 in relation to some specific procedural
issues and the level of analysis published as part of the
164-page net zero strategy. I stress that the judge has made no
criticism about the substance of our plans to meet net zero,
which are well on track. Indeed, even the claimants in the case
described the net zero strategy as “laudable”. The independent
Climate Change Committee described the net zero strategy as
“an ambitious and comprehensive strategy that marks a significant
step forward for UK climate policy”
and as
“the world’s most comprehensive plan to reach Net Zero”.
We are now considering the implications of the Court judgment and
deciding whether to appeal. As we do this, our focus will remain
resolutely on supporting people in the face of globally high
energy prices and on boosting our energy security. Our recent
British energy security strategy—launched by the Prime
Minister—which puts Great Britain at the leading edge of the
global energy revolution, will deliver a more independent, more
secure energy system and support consumers to manage their energy
bills.
Let us be clear: we are here because the High Court has ruled
that the Government’s net zero strategy is unlawful and is in
breach of the Climate Change Act. The Climate Change Committee,
which the Minister cites, said only a few weeks ago that the
Government
“will not deliver Net Zero”
on current projections. Not only have the Government failed to
set out the detail of how they will reach net zero, but Ministers
cannot even do basic maths, because, as the High Court made
clear, adding up the emissions cuts in the strategy will leave a
5% shortfall. How embarrassing that his Department must be
dragged to court to hear what we have known for months—that the
numbers simply do not stack up.
This week has made it clear why we have to act now. The country
has suffered through a sweltering heatwave causing fires across
the country and infrastructure failure. But at a crucial time,
this Government are directionless and collapsing in on
themselves. The High Court has ordered that a revised strategy
must be presented by next March. That will be under a new Prime
Minister. Yet the current candidates have made their views on net
zero clear. One has spent two years in the Treasury blocking
climate action that might have saved the Government this
embarrassment; the other wants to scrap green levies.
So forgive me if I have little faith that the situation is set to
improve—but it has to. We need to insulate millions of homes to
slash emissions and bring down bills. We need a green sprint for
renewable energy to wean ourselves off expensive fossil fuels.
Labour will deliver that, and more, with our £28 billion climate
investment pledge. That is what the public want and what the
planet needs, so will the Government get their act together, meet
their legal obligations, and finally deliver the green future
that we need?
I thank the hon. Lady for that set of questions. Let me first
stress that the net zero strategy—I have it here—is a very
comprehensive document with pages and pages of annexes as well.
It would be well worth all Members re-reading it today. It is a
comprehensive plan for meeting our climate targets, outlining
measures to move to a green and sustainable future. The Court
found that we had not complied with the Climate Change Act only
in relation to specific procedural issues and the level of
analysis published as part of the strategy. The judge agreed that
it did not need to contain measures with quantifiable effects to
enable the full 100% emissions reductions required.
[Interruption.] We are talking here about a strategy for the next
28 years. Inevitably, there will be some evolution in the
strategy, and inevitably there will need to be some flexibility
in a strategy with a 28-year timeframe.
The hon. Lady asked about the Conservative leadership candidates.
In all the hustings that I have been to—and I think I have been
to almost all of them—all the candidates made strong commitments
to meet net zero, including at the hustings chaired by her near
neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood ().
When it comes to net zero and climate change, I am not going to
take any lessons from Labour, which is the party that said in
1997:
“We see no economic case for…new nuclear power stations.”
That has set us back decades. There is a reason why 11 of our 12
power stations are coming off-stream before the end of this
decade: the decisions, or non-decisions, by the last Labour
Government, who increased our dependence on gas from 32% to 46%
of our electricity generation—which could only have cheered
Vladimir Putin. On energy efficiency, we inherited a position
where 14% of properties in this country were rated A to C. We
have increased that to 46%. When we took office, renewables made
up only 7% of our electricity generation mix. That is now at 43%.
So I am going to take no lessons from Labour. It is this
Government who are taking the tough decisions, including on
Sizewell yesterday, and moving forward on renewable energy and
nuclear—not any of the Opposition parties.
Mr Speaker
We now come to SNP spokesperson . [Interruption.] I am sorry.
I did not think anybody was standing. I call .
(Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did wonder if I had managed to catch
your eye.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Government, whoever
leads them after the summer, will remain committed to the net
zero by 2050 target, given that, as he rightly said, in
successive hustings, all candidates confirmed their commitment to
maintaining that target? Will he also confirm that the UK oil and
gas companies are at the forefront of driving forward the energy
transition through so many different initiatives, such as carbon
capture and storage, which will be so important to the St Fergus
gas terminal in my constituency?
My hon. Friend is correct. He is always a strong voice for all
the industries in his constituency, whether they be traditional
oil and gas or those making the transition to carbon capture,
utilisation and storage, hydrogen and so on. All these
technologies will be crucial. The Climate Change Committee itself
has said that carbon capture, utilisation and storage is
“essential” to the achievement of our net zero goals. We remain
on course to reach net zero by 2050 as a world leader,
particularly under the COP presidency of my right hon. Friend the
Member for Reading West ().
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokes- person, .
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
The judge ruled that the Minister could not have “rationally”
reached the conclusions he did or made the decisions he did as a
consequence of his lack of information in making the policy. If,
as the judge ruled, the Minister could not have “rationally” made
his decisions, on what irrational basis did he make them?
What confidence has the Minister that his Government’s climate
policy can be fixed when both candidates for his party's
leadership are at best lukewarm on climate issues, and at worst
willing to sacrifice net zero? The Foreign Secretary said this
morning that she would scrap the green levies, for example.
It is estimated that Scotland is missing out on 2,500 green jobs
owing to the languid pace at which the UK Government are
developing the renewables sector. Does the Minister agree that
the UK Government should devolve financial powers to Scotland so
that the Scottish Government can push forward renewables and
clean technologies where the UK Government have failed to do
so?
In 2020, the Met Office conducted a hypothetical thought
experiment to determine what the weather would be like in 2050 if
climate change accelerated as expected. Several of those
projections are coming true now, 28 years early. Does the
Minister not agree that it is vital for our plans to fight
climate change to be up to the job, and that the next Prime
Minister must remain completely committed to that fight?
It is entirely wrong to say that any of the candidates to be the
next Prime Minister are lukewarm on climate issues. On the
contrary, the commitment to net zero from all the
candidates—well, both the candidates in the last round—is
absolute. I am a little surprised by the Scottish National party
at times: this is the UK Government who brought COP26 to Glasgow
and brought it to the attention of the world, and all that the
SNP has done in the last year is snipe from the sidelines.
The hon. Lady mentioned jobs. There are already 430,000 people
across the United Kingdom working in low-carbon businesses. The
British energy security strategy will increase the number of
clean jobs in the UK, supporting 90,000 jobs in offshore wind,
10,000 in solar power and 12,000 in the UK hydrogen industry by
2028. I think it is about time the SNP got behind our energy
transition—supporting, for example, the move to nuclear power,
which is a key part of decarbonised electricity generation—and
got behind what the UK Government are doing on behalf of the
people of Scotland, as well as the rest of the UK.
(Sleaford and North
Hykeham) (Con)
I attended nearly all the hustings as well, and I was pleased to
hear all the candidates support the net zero target and express
their commitment to climate change. One of the challenges that we
face, however, is the fact that the homes of people in rural
areas are less likely to be well insulated and less likely to be
easy to insulate. Furthermore, we have no mass transit
systems—which, indeed, would be impractical in most rural
areas—so we rely much more on fuels for our cars. What can the
Minister do to ensure that, as we move towards climate change as
a country, we do so in a way that does not penalise those in the
countryside most financially, but spreads the risk and the
penalty evenly?
My hon. Friend is a continuous and doughty champion on behalf of
her rural constituents, and she has raised with me previously
issues relating to properties that are off the gas grid and the
costs of heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas. I am looking at
these matters very closely, and have held roundtables both with
Members of Parliament and with the industry. I urge her to
engage—in fact, I am sure she has already done so—with the trade
body, the UK & Ireland Fuel Distributors Association, which
will make a strong case that there is a competitive market there.
Obviously prices are high—driven by the high global prices of
energy, particularly oil—but a price cap, for example, would be
an inappropriate means for those companies to use.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the commitment of this
party and this Government to net zero is absolute, and one of the
strongest in the world.
(Leeds East) (Lab)
Oil and gas giants have driven the climate crisis, yet one
Cabinet Minister banked £1.3 million from an oil company while a
Back-Bench MP, and another has accepted £100,000 from a firm run
by an oil trader. I will be tabling a Bill to kick oil and gas
money out of politics. Is it not time we did just that?
That is a familiar refrain from the hon. Gentleman, and he
ignores a lot of evidence that those same companies are big
contributors to our world-leading renewable energy programme. We
have Europe’s largest installed offshore wind capacity, we are
moving into tidal, we are increasingly moving into onshore wind
and we are ramping up our solar ambitions. A large part of our
hydrogen production and our carbon capture, utilisation and
storage is being done by energy companies. I look forward to
seeing whether the Labour Front Bench supports his Bill.
(North East Fife)
(LD)
The Climate Change Committee has warned that the Government are
on track to cut only 40% of the emissions required to reach the
2050 net zero target. The reality is that the Secretary of State
for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is not sufficiently
senior to co-ordinate the Government’s net zero response. Does
the Minister agree that, perhaps as part of the evolving strategy
he has described, we should have a Department and a Secretary of
State for climate change, as there used to be, so they can be
held accountable for delivering on that net zero target?
That is a slightly curious question. The hon. Lady said the
Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
was insufficiently senior to take the decisions, but she then
appeared to propose halving the size of his Department, which
would probably make him less senior.
On the hon. Lady’s central point about the net zero strategy,
this country remains on course to deliver net zero by 2050.
Nobody ever said it would be straightforward or easy. The
strategy set a 29-year path at the time of publication, and we
are on good course. I have every confidence that the strategy
will be the blueprint as we move forward.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
I do not recall so much complacency oozing from the Government
Front Bench in a very long time. I do not know about the
Minister’s background, but when I studied economics, I was
impressed by what John Maynard Keynes said:
“In the long run we are all dead.”
I believe the heat over the last few days means that 2050 will be
too late for much of our population. We have to revise the target
and move faster. There are some good things coming, but there are
still so many closet climate change deniers in the Government and
in the country. It is about time they opened their mind to the
fact we now have to move faster and firmer.
I am afraid to say that is an extraordinary attack, even by the
hon. Gentleman’s standards. Actually, this Government were the
first to introduce a net zero target. At COP26, we saw our Prime
Minister and our COP President leading the world on action
against climate change—action that others now seek to copy.
(Brent North) (Lab)
The UK has the lowest tax take in the world from offshore oil and
gas. Even with the temporary energy profits levy, the tax take
will still be six percentage points lower than the global
average, and the new investment allowance announced by the
Government will compensate companies 91p for every £1 they spend
on new oil and gas projects. Will the Government look carefully
at the fiscal regime and abolish the obscene subsidy that is
distorting investment into outdated fossil fuels instead of new
renewables, which do not qualify for that investment
allowance?
I return to what I said earlier. The situation we inherited from
the last Labour Government is that renewables provided only 7% of
our electricity mix; it is now 43%. When it comes to oil and gas
taxation, the Government’s energy profits levy—the hon. Gentleman
will know this, as I very clearly remember him debating it in the
Chamber—is set to raise £5 billion this year, which is
considerably more than the tax proposed by the Labour Front
Bench, which he backed.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
I just remind the Minister that it was Labour’s Climate Change
Act that called for those targets to be set—in section 4.
However, it seems that this Government were asleep at the wheel,
knowing that there is a 5% deficit in terms of being able to
attain—this is what the judgment said—their net zero target.
Therefore, the Government’s inaction has led to the decision of
the courts. The Government’s inaction is also leading to the
absence of a new green deal for York. We have been promised that
by his Department, which supports 4,000 jobs and the upskilling
of 25,000 people with a new green deal, yet the Minister has not
come forward with the money. When are we going to get that?
I was referring to the adoption of net zero, of course, which was
by this Government in 2019. I answered a question earlier about
the jobs being provided through our action on climate change and
our move into renewable energy, which I would hope the hon. Lady
supports. The hon. Lady suggests that this Government and this
party are not taking the tough action that we need and not
putting the money there, but we have pledged £30 billion to
combat climate change over this spending review. That is a
considerable sum and a considerable political commitment by this
Government.
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch
and Strathspey) (SNP)
The High Court ruling that the Government’s flagship policy on
climate change is unlawful is a clear warning that this UK
Government are not doing enough on climate change. They should
embrace that criticism and do something about it urgently, but
instead they try to dodge it. The Minister mentioned the Climate
Change Committee. It has said that nuclear will take too long;
there needs to be a rush for electricity through renewables, and
carbon capture and storage needs to be developed more quickly
too. Why are the Government lagging behind and not taking this
advice to deal with this important issue?
As I said, we are considering our options in the aftermath of the
Court ruling, but let me deal with some of the substance of what
the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is saying that nuclear will take
too long. The SNP has been opposed in principle to nuclear power
since its very existence. So on the one hand he is saying he does
not want it, but on the other hand he is saying it is taking too
long. That makes no sense at all. The hon. Gentleman will
remember that on the very day we published the net zero strategy
we also announced the programme to move forward with carbon
capture, utilisation and storage—we are on good track there.
On renewables, the whole of the UK is taking part in our huge
move into and boost for renewable energy. Scotland is a vital
part of that, which is why we have announced the first ever tidal
contracts in the contracts for difference regime, as well as the
first floating offshore wind deals. We are making sure that the
whole of the UK benefits from our offshore wind assets,
including, for example, in the Celtic sea between Wales and
Cornwall, as well as off the north-east coast of Scotland, the
North sea and the Irish sea.
(Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman’s response to this
debate, because the summary of the findings highlights that the
net zero strategy
“did not reveal that the quantitative analysis put before the
Minister left a shortfall against the reductions required by
CB6”.
Does the Minister agree that this House should have known that
and also known how the Government planned to mitigate that? Are
they not embarrassed that they felt that they could hide such an
omission from this House, where we hold them to account?
We have to understand the context, which is setting out where 95%
of emissions will come from in carbon budget 6. CB6 covers the
years 2033—not 2023—to 2037. If we were to have gone back 30
years and asked, “How will we do our emissions over the next 30
years?”, I venture to suggest that that would not have been an
entirely accurate exercise. I think that 95% is very credible for
CB6, which covers 2033 to 2037. It is worth pointing out again
that the court judgment was on this very narrow aspect—it is not
about the net zero strategy as a whole. It sounds as though the
hon. Lady has read part of the net zero strategy, and I strongly
commend that she goes through the whole thing in more detail.
(Gateshead) (Lab)
The Minister refers back to the Labour Government in 1997. Can I
just point out to him that that was 25 years ago, and that for
the last 12 years his Government have been in power. So in those
12 years, what has been done to rectify this particular problem,
apart from possibly one of the major things: a moratorium on
land-based wind generation, which has been a complete and utter
disaster from that perspective? Has the Minister been asleep at
the wheel, or is he only just remembering 1997 now, not in
2010?
The Opposition cannot have it both ways. The hon. Gentleman is
saying that he is going back to decisions made by the last Labour
Government 25 years ago, but somebody else in the Opposition has
said that new nuclear will take too long. It is worth thinking
for a moment about the connection between those two. One of the
reasons why 11 of the 12 nuclear power plants in this country are
going off generation over the course of this decade is the
failure to make the decisions in the 1990s and the first part of
this century to replace them. He will be delighted to hear—he
will have been in the Chamber to listen to this—that we have
rectified that by approving Hinkley Point C and yesterday
announcing the planning approval for Sizewell C, and also through
the strong numbers in the British energy security strategy to
move forward to 24 GW of nuclear by 2050. It is this Government
who are making the tough decisions that were ducked by the
previous Labour Government.
(Brentford and Isleworth)
(Lab)
There are two zero-emission policies that the Government could
adopt to comply with the High Court’s request for a deliverable
plan. One is a zero-emission home strategy. Since this Government
have been in power, 1 million homes have been built without those
standards in place, which makes a huge contribution to carbon
outputs. The second is onshore wind, as my hon. Friend the Member
for Gateshead () has already mentioned. Why have the Government not
taken on board the carbon savings that we could have if a
significant amount of new growth in onshore wind could be
invested in?
When it comes to wind, I just do not know what would satisfy the
Opposition. We are No. 1 in Europe when it comes to our offshore
wind capacity—[Hon. Members: “Onshore wind!”] I hear Members
shouting about onshore wind. We have even more onshore wind than
we have offshore wind. When it comes to energy efficiency, it is
worth pointing out that when we took office only 14% of homes in
this country were rated in bands A to C—the most energy
efficient. We have increased that to 46%—a trebling of
energy-efficient homes—and we have allocated £6.6 billion in this
Parliament for energy efficiency. So I would say that we have
answered the hon. Lady’s questions and we have raised them, in
terms of the capacity of offshore wind, onshore wind and energy
efficiency.
(Blaydon) (Lab)
The Climate Change Committee recently said that the Government
had credible plans to reduce only 39% of UK emissions and that
the UK was not on track to meet net zero. Now the High Court has
said that the net zero strategy is unlawful. Is it not simply the
case that the Government need to grasp the nettle, accept
responsibility and just get on with making those detailed plans?
When will the Minister do that?
The court did not say that the net zero strategy was unlawful; I
refer the hon. Lady to my earlier remarks. The Climate Change
Committee praised this Government for the moves we have made on
electricity decarbonisation. As I say, we are a world leader in
this space, and I think she should show a little bit more pride
in the efforts that the country is making, including off the
coast in the North sea near her constituency, and also in our
efforts on electric vehicles. There is a great deal for us all to
take pride in across the whole country in terms of our net zero
strategy and decarbonisation.
(Glenrothes) (SNP)
This week, Conservative Members have given both a full vote of
confidence and an enthusiastic standing ovation to a Prime
Minister who deliberately missed an emergency Cobra meeting to
plan for the heatwave emergency because he was away playing at
“Top Gun” with the RAF—playing the part of Maverick, I
understand. How can anyone take seriously the climate change
credentials of a party that so wholeheartedly supports a Prime
Minister who, like some latter-day Nero, chooses to fiddle with
his joystick while London burns?
Well, I do not know quite where to start. I am not sure whether
there was really a question embedded there. [Interruption.] Now
that I have the hon. Gentleman’s attention, let me say that it is
about time that SNP Members started to talk to the Scottish
Government, with whom, I have reason to believe, they may have
some influence, about why they have an ideological opposition to
new nuclear. Nuclear is absolutely the way to provide the
baseload zero-carbon energy for the future. Why is his party, and
the Scottish Government, fundamentally opposed to it? His time
would be spent more usefully on engagement with them than on
watching what the Prime Minister was up to at the weekend.
(Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will agree that we need to strike a balance. Will he
outline how he intends to address concerns in the agri-industry
sector in Northern Ireland about the fact that livestock numbers
in Northern Ireland would have to halve if we are to meet the net
zero target by 2050? That would put 113,000 jobs at risk. Can he
outline the steps that will be taken to ensure that the demands
being made will not have that result?
I always welcome questions from Northern Ireland. In my previous
job at the Department for International Trade, I enjoyed greatly
my interactions with the Ulster Farmers Union, with the hon.
Gentleman, and with colleagues on behalf of agriculture in
Northern Ireland. It is an important sector for the whole
country. We are making sure that Northern Irish agriculture can
access markets around the world. I would be delighted to pass on
his comments to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, though obviously agriculture is devolved to Northern
Ireland. On trade in particular, we will make sure that Ulster
farmers can access markets.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
Calculations have been made to quantify the emissions cuts that
will result from the policies in the Government’s strategy. The
cuts do not add up to the reductions required to meet the sixth
carbon budget; there is a 5% shortfall. That is equal to 75
million tonnes of CO2, which is nearly the total amount of
emissions in a year from car travel in the UK. What measures will
be implemented to ensure that in future, calculations as crucial
as these are informed by those with expertise, and are checked
thoroughly before they are relied on in national policy?
To put this in context, what the hon. Lady describes as a 5%
shortfall is not, if I read the judgment correctly, a doubt that
the Government can reach the target; it is simply a criticism of
why we had laid out only 95%, rather than 100%, of the measures
that are needed. I remind her that we are talking about carbon
budget 6, which is for the years 2033 to 2037. There is a
reasonable case—it was made by the Government in court—for saying
that it is commendable that they could outline 95% of the journey
that we are intending to make in 11 years’ time.
|
