Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) I beg to move, That this House has
considered the role of local government in reaching Net Zero. I
thank the Members across the House who supported the application,
as well as the Backbench Business Committee for granting this
debate today, World Environment Day. The Government ignore at their
peril the vital role of local authorities in delivering net zero.
The Committee on Climate Change, the National Audit Office and the
independent...Request free trial
(Bath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of local government in
reaching Net Zero.
I thank the Members across the House who supported the
application, as well as the Backbench Business Committee for
granting this debate today, World Environment Day.
The Government ignore at their peril the vital role of local
authorities in delivering net zero. The Committee on Climate
Change, the National Audit Office and the independent review of
net zero all agree that the UK cannot meet its net zero targets
without local authorities. The CCC shows that local authorities
have influence over a third of UK emissions. The net zero
strategy puts the figure at 82%.
Local authorities determine what is built in our communities, how
we get from place to place, how we reduce our waste, and much
more. They are best placed to understand their communities and
deliver policies that fit their place. Those communities are let
down by a Westminster Government who prevent local authorities
from decarbonising their areas according to their need. Forty per
cent of people most trust their local authority to act on climate
change. That is much higher than the faith they place in central
Government or in business. It is time that the Government treated
local authorities as equal partners and gave them the funding and
powers that they need to reach net zero.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate.
On funding, does she agree that, as well as reversing the 13
years of serious cuts that are preventing local authorities from
greening elements of their areas, we need to move away from
piecemeal competitive funding for specific projects? Such funding
means that local authorities cannot plan for the long term and
waste a huge amount of time bidding against each other, rather
than getting the funding they need to roll out now.
I totally agree. The hon. Lady pre-empts what I will say later in
my speech. The competitive process wastes so much time and local
resources that could be spent on delivering projects.
More than 300 local authorities have set a net zero target and
declared a climate emergency, and 132 councils have net zero
targets of 2030 or sooner. Liberal Democrat-run councils have had
remarkable successes in implementing sustainable, green policies
against a backdrop of substantial barriers; they could do so much
more. My Bath and North East Somerset Council has become the
first in England to adopt an energy-based net zero housing
policy. That ensures that any new housing development is energy
self-sufficient and puts a limit on building emissions. My
council is also the first in the west of England to adopt a
biodiversity net gain policy. But such brave initiatives cannot
survive unless central Government are truly behind such
progressive policies and support rather than undermine local
authorities, particularly when it comes to planning applications
that go to appeal where developers get their way and do not build
the green buildings that we need.
Beyond Bath, the Liberal Democrat-run Cheltenham Borough Council
has implemented a green deal that has helped local businesses to
invest in solar panels and heat pumps, led by the Liberal
Democrat parliamentary candidate, who, I hope, will tell us all
about it once we have had a general election. In Richmond, the
Liberal Democrat council has been independently recognised by
CDP—a global not-for-profit charity that runs disclosure systems
and is regarded as the gold standard for environmental
reporting—as one of 123 cities and boroughs across the globe
taking bold environmental action.
In Stockport, Liberal Democrats successfully implemented the
Stockport schools climate assembly. That involved young people
from several schools coming together to learn about, propose,
debate and vote on climate action ideas. Their first ask was to
make sustainable and biodegradable period products more available
in schools. The council responded by creating a programme that
delivered funding and training to implement that. Stockport
Council has called on the Manchester Mayor to roll out such
school climate assemblies across the region. I will go further:
we should have them across the UK.
(Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Manchester
City Council has prioritised reducing its impact on the climate
with the ambitious target of zero carbon by 2038. Even though
that great work is happening, local authorities require more
support. Does she agree that, for effective and efficient net
zero plans to be met, the Government must make funding more
certain and long term?
I absolutely agree. We need councils to spread their wings and
deliver, but they cannot if they do not have the funding, which
must ultimately come from central Government. Local authorities
in Manchester, Bath and Brighton—wherever we are—should have the
freedom and the money to make their own decisions for their local
communities.
We Liberal Democrats recognise the importance of community
buy-in: we need to win hearts and minds to persuade people that
net zero projects are good for their communities. Only with
consent from our communities can we deliver the path to net zero.
That is why empowering local authorities as much as possible is
so vital. More and more power and decision making has been eroded
away from local government during the last decade—that must stop
and be reversed.
Local authority spending power has fallen dramatically since
2015, largely because of central Government grants being cut by
more than 40% over that period. Spending per person decreased in
real terms for 79% of local authorities between 2015 and 2022.
The less money local authorities have to spend, the less climate
action they can take. Although I welcome the Government’s recent
increase in local authority funding, it is far too late. UK100
has pointed out that the funding process from central Government
for net zero projects is “opaque, sparse, and competitive”. Even
the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has admitted
that it does not know how many grants there are. The competitive
tendering process whereby every local council rushes for a small
amount of money is completely inadequate when it comes to the
enormous task to deliver net zero.
(St Albans) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. In my
area, St Albans City and District Council has just won a
staggering £8.5 million from a Government fund to make homes
energy efficient and to reduce bills. That is the largest sum of
money won by any council of our particular size, but even that
will only go towards making 900 properties—about a fifth of the
council’s total housing—energy efficient. Does she agree that, if
councils were no longer forced to compete against each other time
and again, councils such as St Albans could go further faster,
because we know that our communities are champing at the bit to
get this stuff done?
I congratulate my hon. Friend’s local authority on getting that
amount of money, which is obviously welcome but is not enough. I
think the Minister will hear from across the House that the
competitive process is a real problem, because it wastes time and
money—money that could be spent directly on the projects
themselves.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
The reality is that we also have to talk about scale. York wants
73,000 heat pumps and 22,000 new connections to sustainable
district heat systems, and we have 44,100 homes that need
retrofitting and 24,000 that need microgeneration through solar
energy—all by 2040. If we do not scale up the funding, we will
never reach those targets.
We all need to grasp the enormity and scale of what needs to be
done. The ambition of central Government is just not big enough,
whereas I find that the ambition in local authorities is very
high and the will to deliver on that high ambition is much bigger
in local authorities than we currently see in central
Government.
In the updated net zero strategy, the Government agreed to
simplify the funding process. Local authorities have spent £130
million since 2019 simply on applying for competitive funding
pots—£130 million that could have gone into the projects.
(Bethnal Green and Bow)
(Lab)
Large-scale funding is required to address the scale of the
challenge facing local areas when it comes to housing and
bringing homes up to decent standards, and the hon. Lady is
absolutely right about ensuring that that is provided equitably
across the country. If we are serious about net zero, the
Government need to provide the appropriate funds to retrofit 19
million homes across the country, so that they can be up to the
necessary energy performance certificate standard and provide the
benefit of reduced energy costs to millions of households. That
is the kind of ambition we need, but it is lacking from this
Government. Does she agree that that is what the Government need
urgently to do?
I agree; I could not have put it better myself.
Let me return to the grants, which are currently rigid and tied
to certain areas, meaning that councils can end up with money for
projects that are not right for their communities. Not only have
we not got enough money; when we do have it, it is often not the
right sort of money, nor what our communities need. For example,
a council could receive money for additional bus lanes when
increased bus services would be preferred, or they might receive
money designated for e-bikes when such provision is not really
right for the needs of the community. Net zero grants must be
made more flexible to help local authorities to spend the money
on projects that work in their area.
The Government have spent more time blocking local authorities
than they have empowering them. Many councils I have spoken to
said the biggest barrier they face in implementing net zero
policies is central Government. Onshore wind is an example. Some
77% of people would support a new onshore wind farm in their
area—people know that renewables are the solution to our energy
crisis—but the Government’s effective ban on onshore wind has
denied communities this investment. Housing is another example
that has already been mentioned. The UK has some of the leakiest
homes in Europe. Net zero will remain a pipe dream in the absence
of a huge and comprehensive retrofit programme; we need to
understand the scale and we need the money to retrofit.
I am grateful that the hon. Lady is recognising the problems
around funding, but also around regulatory frameworks. She will
know that a report by UK100 has said that local authorities face
what they call “Kafkaesque” barriers to pursuing net zero, one of
which is in the area of transport. As she knows, the all-party
parliamentary group on the green new deal undertook an inquiry on
transport, concluding that we need local authorities to have the
powers and the funding to modernise their own local public
transport networks. Does she agree?
Indeed. Again, the hon. Lady pre-empts me; I will come to that
point in a minute. Local authorities need much more control over
what is happening in their local transport provision. The
situation is wholly inadequate. If we really want to provide an
alternative to motorised travel, we need good local transport and
bus services, but we do not have them. Local communities are
crying out for us to design and implement such services, but
local authorities must be key partners as only they have the
structure and relationships to deliver the programmes we have
discussed.
Let me return to housing. We Liberal Democrats have campaigned
relentlessly to get the Government to introduce higher efficiency
standards for new builds and not wait until 2025. It is
irresponsible to delay further and to hamstring local
authorities’ ability to raise standards, and it is ridiculous
that we are building homes now that will need to be retrofitted
in five or 10 years’ time. That is such a waste of time. Why not
regulate now to build the houses for the future? The chair of the
national Climate Change Committee has called this a “stunning
failure” by the Government to decarbonise homes, and I fully
agree.
Planning and listed building laws also contribute to our leaky
buildings. We Liberal Democrats run councils with some of the
most precious historic buildings and streetscapes in the country,
such as in my city of Bath. This is a blessing and a curse. We
represent some of the most beautiful areas in the world, but we
are often unable to retrofit and reduce the emissions of historic
houses and buildings. Currently, national planning policy puts
heritage concerns above climate concerns. That is
counterproductive. If councils are unable to retrofit these
properties and make them more energy efficient, many will become
uninhabitable.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is that of skills. We
simply do not have the skills supply needed to retrofit—whether
historic buildings or new builds—at the scale we need. It will
therefore be crucial to start injecting that focus on skills, but
we need to do that now to deliver in time.
Indeed. We need a Government who understand how this all fits
together. We cannot retrofit homes if we do not have the supply
chains or the skills, and we need to be talking to further
education providers and universities so that we get the skills
for the future. This all needs to come together, but there is
currently a deplorable lack of plan and vision. Again, local
authorities have understood that and are starting to have those
conversations. Central Government should really look to local
authorities and see them as equal partners.
In designing future planning policy, we need central Government
to give more weight to climate concerns so that local authorities
can make our beautiful buildings habitable and fit for purpose.
Planning legislation must also be bound to our climate change
legislation, so that climate change can take greater weight in
planning decisions. The Royal Town Planning Institute argues that
nothing should be planned without the idea first having been
demonstrated to be fit for a net zero future. This would solve
some other issues. For example, a major reason that renewable
projects can wait up to 15 years to connect to the grid is that
the planning approval process is not adequately focused on the
urgency to deliver net zero.
Local authorities are also constrained when it comes to managing
transport. Surface transport is the largest emitting sector in
the UK. The benefits of supporting active travel far outweigh the
cost. People walking, wheeling and cycling in 2021 took 14.6
million cars off the road, saving 2.5 million tonnes of
greenhouse gas emissions and avoiding more than 29,000 early
deaths. Independent modelling suggests that even if 50% of
vehicle sales were electric by 2030, car mileage would still have
to decrease by more than half if we are to limit global warming
to 1.5°. Investment in active and sustainable travel is therefore
essential.
Unfortunately, the decision to deregulate buses means that bus
operators run routes primarily based on profitability, which has
led to thousands of bus routes being closed. Between 2021 and
2022 alone, 1,100 bus services were cut, including 51 in the
south-west region. The Government must empower local authorities
to franchise bus services and simplify the franchise application
system, and they must also reverse the ban on local authorities
setting up their own bus companies. Only then can our bus routes
be determined by the needs of local communities, rather than the
need to make a profit.
Active travel is not prioritised when the Government decide what
infrastructure projects to fund. Instead, the Department for
Transport’s web-based transport analysis guidance model provides
funding for travel schemes that have a perceived economic
benefit, which means schemes that lead to higher volumes of
faster traffic. Councils have been told that money for an access
road to the city centre would not be awarded if traffic levels
decreased due to the reduction in economic activity. They have
also been told that a pedestrian crossing could not be
implemented due to the cost of delays to traffic. Those decisions
fly in the face of the need to really tackle the climate
emergency. Active travel schemes are usually built where they do
not require such appraisals by the Department for Transport, and
local authorities need to have the powers and financial control
to build them. Local authorities should have the power to access
transport funding using alternative justifications to those of
WebTAG, and WebTAG itself must be revised to increase the value
assigned to active travel projects.
Looking at all the examples, it is no surprise that we are on
course to overshoot our target level of greenhouse gas emissions
by twofold. We need local and national Government to work
together to give us the best chance of hitting net zero. We
Liberal Democrats propose that the Government establish a net
zero delivery authority. That body would oversee the delivery of
net zero, co-ordinate cross-departmental working, and facilitate
the devolution of powers and resources to local authorities. It
would co-ordinate national and local strategies and provide
information to central Government about how projects can be
delivered on the ground.
A net zero delivery authority would work with local authorities
and communities to engage with them about delivering net zero.
That work would primarily be carried out by local actors, with
the delivery authority providing leadership and trustworthy
information about the national decarbonisation effort. A similar
body was proposed in the Government-commissioned independent
review of net zero, but unfortunately the Government have not
responded positively to say that that is actually a very good
idea. I hope that the Government will look at it again—maybe the
Minister can give us a different answer from the one we heard a
few months ago.
Local authorities also need a sense of direction. To start with,
they need a statutory duty to deliver on climate change; unless
and until that happens, the issue will remain at the mercy of
local politicians. Climate change is massively underfunded within
local government because it is not part of local authorities’
core duties. Giving them that statutory duty would be a game
changer.
National Government and local authorities do not yet have an
integrated or systematic way to discuss, support and facilitate
local net zero delivery in the short or longer term. That must
change, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Although I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, I hope
that she will soon be concluding, because the guidance is that
she has 15 minutes for a speech such as this, and she has so far
taken 20.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I took many interventions, but I
understand that you want me to come to a conclusion, and I will
be finishing soon.
There needs to be a regular forum for feedback on the problems
that local authorities are facing. A net zero delivery authority
can help facilitate that. Local authorities up and down the
country stand ready to do more to tackle the climate emergency,
but often find themselves constrained by an over-centralised
Government. To make the net zero transition as efficient and
sustainable as possible, we must all pull in the same direction.
The latest research demonstrates that, when compared with a
nationally implemented programme, devolved climate action would
result in £160 billion of savings and wider returns of over £400
billion.
It is time that this Government acknowledged the huge potential
there is for local authorities up and down the country to deliver
net zero. The Government must see local councils as true
partners, and provide them with the proper resources and powers
they need in our path to net zero.
6.24pm
(North Devon) (Con)
Councils are indeed well placed to help communities get to net
zero, and they need to lead from the front with political
leadership and genuine, tangible change. While we recognise that
councils face real funding challenges at this time, the pandemic
has taught us the importance of collaboration between local and
national Government. Far too often, climate plans in response to
councils’ declared climate emergencies are just that: a plan. I
wrote about councils’ declarations of climate emergencies back in
August 2021, and not much has changed in far too many councils’
responses since that time. The “Cambridge Dictionary” defines an
emergency as
“something dangerous or serious, such as an accident, that
happens suddenly or unexpectedly and needs fast action in order
to avoid harmful results”.
By their very names, emergencies and crises invoke something of a
helplessness in many, as they seem to be someone else’s problem.
If we are to address climate change and achieve net zero, there
is a need for everyone to feel that they can take action now, not
wait for another long-winded plan.
Furthermore, our flag-waving Lib Dems who have run North Devon
district council since May 2019 took a full three years even to
produce a plan, and they continue to fail to reduce their own
carbon emissions and energy consumption or to incentivise
electric cars. To date, they have switched just one vehicle to
electric, as was announced with much fanfare in their press
release earlier this year, which stated:
“On Tuesday 18 April, North Devon Council took delivery of their
first fully electric asset, making a significant step forward in
their commitment to sustainability and reducing their carbon
footprint.
The new electric asset, Eco City Sweeper 2, will be used to keep
the streets of North Devon clean and tidy. It is equipped with
the latest electric technology and has a working time of six
hours on a single charge.”
Although I am delighted that it has arrived, I am not sure that
it is going to make the largest reduction in emissions, given
that it is replacing a man who did not create many. I appreciate
that our hard-working council officers have been very busy with
the pandemic and the projects that have fallen out since, and the
staff at the council do a fantastic job, but one would hope that
the lead councillor responsible for the environment could have
found a way to at least install some solar panels on the new
council building, or secure an electric bin lorry or two.
Time is of the essence, and we need not reinvent the wheel; we
should look where solutions currently exist and work to implement
them. UK100, which was referenced by the hon. Member for Bath
()—I thank her for securing
today’s excellent debate—brings together local authorities across
the country to devise and, crucially, implement plans for the
transition to clean energy that are ambitious and cost-effective
and that garner support. I have spoken at UK100’s events and seen
how effective its solutions would be. I am a big supporter and
urge others to join. Its knowledge hub offers excellent ideas for
how local leaders can work to hit net zero.
Declaring a climate emergency suggests that it is someone else’s
problem. We need climate action, and we must work together in
driving that action, rather than producing endless plans. If
councils need funding to deliver those plans, they need to speak
with their MPs and Government in order to detail how action will
be taken. I live in a village that is full of tourists at this
time of year, yet it is still many, many miles to the nearest
public electric charging point. The pace of change in Devon may
be marginally quicker at a county council level, but we do not
have many buses, so surely we are overdue at least a single
electric or hydrogen-powered one.
I hope that the hon. Lady will soon talk to the leader of her
district council and get some answers, but the problem of
electric charging is, of course, a central Government problem. It
is a centralised grid, and grid connections are so incredibly
difficult to achieve—that is the same for a local authority that
wants to put in more electric charging points as it is for
community energy projects. We share the concerns about those
projects. Does she not agree that the problem is with the
grid?
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. While I fully
acknowledge some of the concerns about the grid, living where I
do, I would suggest that that is not the reason why those
charging points are not going in. I have parish councils that do
not believe in electric vehicles and, to be completely frank,
that is holding back some of the roll-out. There is a lot more we
could be doing to drive through some of this change.
Having previously led debates in this place on decarbonising
rural transport and levelling up rural Britain, I fully recognise
how much harder some of these challenges are in a rural
environment, but some councils are leading from the front, as
UK100 is testament to. I just wish that any of the rural councils
in Devon were on that list. Indeed, I support UK100’s “Powers in
Place” report. I very much hope that the Minister will have had a
chance to look at some of its recommendations, particularly on
more strategic, needs-based long-term funding in a rural
environment.
The Conservative Government are a world leader in fighting
climate change, and we have introduced the legislative tools to
enable and encourage individual leaders and businesses to take
action. We as individuals, business leaders and councillors need
to get on and do what we can to make change, rather than
producing endless plans and PowerPoint presentations that do not
in themselves solve the problem. My door is open to any of my
councils who want my assistance in driving North Devon towards
net zero.
6.30pm
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath () on securing this debate and
on the email that she sent me, inviting me to participate in it.
She may well regret that invitation, because I want to raise a
few issues that need to be considered in relation to this
subject.
In Northern Ireland, the local government elections have recently
finished. For the past four or five weeks, I have been knocking
on people’s doors and speaking to them about local government
issues. Only one person mentioned net zero to me, and she
objected to the stance I took against some of the lunatic
decisions made by my local council in putting wind farms on some
of the most beautiful upland areas of East Antrim, where they are
visible from all around. One of the most iconic landmarks in the
area, Slemish mountain—it is where St Patrick is supposed to have
sat, surveying that part of North Antrim and then going out to
evangelise—is now blighted by what can only be described as
mechanical triffids, which have blotted the landscape. They are
not good for the environment: at one wind farm, 3 metres of peat
was taken off the mountain to put into roads and the foundations,
disturbing the wildlife and habitat, providing mincing machines
for birds in the future, and destroying the environment, probably
releasing tonnes of carbon in the process.
That was the only person who mentioned net zero: most people were
concerned about zero rate increases, zero tolerance of antisocial
behaviour and zero tolerance of people being allowed to dump
rubbish across the area.
I knock on a lot of doors all the time—not just at local
elections—and although not many people mention net zero in that
language, they do mention their energy bills. I wager that the
right hon. Gentleman did hear from people who talked about their
energy bills. Does he agree that urgent climate action is a good
thing not only to protect the planet, but to make people’s homes
warmer and to reduce their energy bills?
Ironically, the huge windmills that we see generating renewable
electricity, because of the method by which they are pegged, get
the most costly rate. For example, if the last unit of
electricity has been produced by gas bought at premium prices on
the spot market, that is the price that the wind energy companies
get for the electricity that they produce. Wind energy does not
reduce people’s energy bills, because that method inflates the
profits of the companies that do not have to pay for the
expensive fuel but can charge as if they were using it.
In answer to the hon. Lady’s point, of course there are other
ways and actions. One does not have to believe that net zero
should be a target by 2050, or whatever the year happens to be,
to see that it makes sense not to waste energy in people’s
houses. It makes sense to build houses that are energy-efficient.
No one is disputing that. The issue I am raising is that local
authorities are pressed for money. I listen to all the issues
raised about local authorities in debates in the House, and time
and again I hear about social care provision and its inadequacy,
education provision, policing, and special needs education. Given
the range of concerns in the House, the question is whether local
government’s priority should be seeking more grants to achieve
net zero—to provide more facilities and projects that aim towards
that—or the more pressing and immediate needs that people
experience day to day.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we tend to have a crisis
every winter, but increasingly we have a summer crisis in our NHS
and care sector, because of the health impact of heatwaves,
particularly on older people. Does he not accept that rather than
there being a trade-off between investing in the environment and
taking climate action and somehow investing in people’s social
wellbeing, the good initiatives are those that seek to address
both, which is precisely what we can do if we take the right
actions?
I do not want to get into the argument, because I know that you,
Mr Deputy Speaker, would probably ask me to stop, but I do not
agree with the association that the hon. Lady makes. I do not
believe that we have any more extreme weather today than we had
in the past. Of course we have had heatwaves and cold spells
before, and that tends to have an impact on some people’s health,
but there is no evidence that spending money on local authority
projects that blight the environment will save massive amounts in
healthcare.
Secondly, on the impact on individuals, let us just look at some
recent Government initiatives. For example, to help local
authorities that say they cannot meet their recycling targets, we
now have a levy on companies and food producers that will cost £4
billion, according to the British Retail Consortium. It will add
£148 a year to people’s food bills to give money to local
authorities—it is really a tax on the consumer—to help them
achieve their recycling targets. Is that likely to have an impact
on people’s health? When we have a cost of living crisis, is that
likely to be a reasonable use of resources? That is the kind of
expenditure that we are getting to facilitate some of the green
policies.
I do not regret sending the right hon. Gentleman an invitation to
participate in the debate, because only through debate can we
have these issues out. May I come back to something that he said
about our having had wildfires and floods previously? Does he not
look at the facts and statistics about increased wildfires,
floods and weather extremes across the globe? Scientists are
putting those facts down, clear for all of us to see. Does he not
accept that?
No, I do not, and nor does the evidence, which shows that the
number of people who have died in extreme climate events has
declined; it has fallen quite significantly during the past
century. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does
not claim that the suggestion made by the hon. Lady is
correct.
On the effects that local authority policies have had on people,
in London one cannot lift the Evening Standard without reading
about the impact that the ultra low emission zone is having. That
impact is not on the people who make such decisions, who are
usually fairly well-off. When we make decisions in the House,
many of the costs of those decisions do not impact on us, but
they do impact on low-income families, such as the people who
cannot afford the latest car and the people who cannot afford to
pay the £12.50 per day to come into the ultra low emission zone
in London. Again, we have to ask ourselves about pursuing this
policy in local authorities. Nobody could argue against some of
the things suggested today, but for many of the others there are
issues of expenditure. It is significant how many times in this
debate funding has been mentioned—funding that could be used on
other priorities—and it really is a question about where our
priorities lie. Who do we target the money for such services at,
and what impact does it have on people?
Although many Members say they want this—indeed, the former Prime
Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip
() used to talk about how he
wanted Britain to be the leading country in the world in reducing
carbon emissions and for it to become the Saudi Arabia of
renewable energy—the rest of the world, sadly, is not following.
That is significant, and this perhaps puts it into context: in
the first quarter of this year, China’s increase in carbon
emissions—not its total, but its increase in the first quarter of
this year—is equal to the total yearly carbon emissions produced
by the United Kingdom. When we put the fight against climate
change and reaching net zero in that context, we have to ask
ourselves, and I think many of our constituents will ask: why
impose additional costs on us? Why interfere in the decisions
that we make about how we travel, where we travel and the cost of
that travel, as well as about the cost of our energy and
everything else, when quite clearly those in the rest of the
world, and for very good reasons, do not?
When we consider that the average wage in Africa is $1,600 per
year while the average wage in the United Kingdom is £27,000 per
year, can we honestly say that the African countries now burning
record levels of coal—to produce electricity to obtain economic
growth and provide employment for the people who every year we
see coming to our shores because they are fleeing
unemployment—are wrong in making those decisions? If they are not
wrong, are we, by pursuing a policy obsession at every level of
government of reducing CO2—regardless of the cost for
individuals, especially for the less well-off—distorting
decisions?
6.44pm
(Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim
(). I say that because, in the
context of this debate, he is very anti and I am very for, so I
hope I will level things up in some way. First, to respond to
some his comments, I want to say that I support every method that
moves us towards net zero. In my speech, I will talk about some
of the health implications and about how citizens need clean air;
otherwise, we will suffer the consequences of not having clean
air. As well as speaking about that, I will present some
statistics, so I do hope that the right hon. Member will be
paying attention.
I am proud that it was a Labour Government under who passed the Climate Change
Act 2008. It set a legally binding target for the UK to reduce
its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, compared with 1990
levels; that was increased to 100% in 2019. Unfortunately, 13
years of Conservative Government have slowed progress. Since
2010, local authority funds have been stripped away, and that has
severely delayed and hindered what local authorities can do.
However, as we have heard, local authorities are ambitious for
change and for their communities. I will focus on how this
Conservative Government and Conservative councils can probably
learn a lot from the London Mayor and from Lewisham Council in my
area—if I can be so bold as to say so, which I believe I can.
In 2019, Lewisham Council led by example and became one of the
first local authorities in London to declare a climate emergency.
Its many achievements in delivering net zero include its climate
emergency action plan, which obviously covered schools, housing,
cycling, green spaces and so on, being rated as one of the best
in the country. Lewisham planted 25,000 trees between 2018 and
2023, and it has increased food waste recycling rates by 250%.
Lewisham Council is therefore stepping up and providing
leadership where the Government sadly are not. Lewisham’s climate
action plan is estimated to reach net zero for our borough by
2030, and it will cost a minimum of £1.6 billion. Against the
backdrop of the cost of living crisis and the hardship that
people are experiencing, the Government must resource local
councils so that they can deliver on the net zero plans.
The Mayor of London, , has also set a target for
London to be net zero by 2030. To do this, he is working to
achieve a target of over 2 million homes and a quarter of a
million non-domestic buildings being properly insulated. I also
support his action to extend the ULEZ. Right now, toxic air is
thought to contribute to the premature deaths of 4,000 Londoners
each year—that is 11 deaths a day. Those are 4,000 deaths that
could probably have been prevented. I remember hearing a
paediatrician at an event speak about particles in a new-born
baby’s lungs. It was astonishing, shocking and awful to hear that
CO2 emissions in the air have done this injury to a baby at such
an early stage in their life.
The hon. Member is making a powerful case, and I very much agree
with the point she is making about air pollution. I am sure she
will agree that things like air pollution hit the poorest
hardest—they are less likely be to be able to move away from busy
roads, for example. Whether it is air pollution, fuel poverty or
a lack of affordable public transport, all of these things hit
the poorest hardest, so in suggesting that there is somehow a
division between environmental justice and social justice, the
right hon. Member for East Antrim () is just plain wrong.
The hon. Member is absolutely right. I remember my child saying
to me, “Mummy, it’s really quite smelly here.” I said, “No, it’s
not,” but then I thought that I am not the same height as my
child, so I bent down and I could smell all the fumes coming from
all of the cars. It is awful, but this has an impact on
children’s health and wellbeing, and it has an impact on the
quality of air. We all have the right to breathe clean air, but
we need to make that possible, and it is the Government’s
responsibility to do so. These deaths are preventable, and that
is why we must act now.
I was pleased that last week, announced a major expansion of
the ULEZ scrappage scheme. It will cover more small businesses in
London, as well as London families receiving child benefit. There
is also more support for charities. To return to the point raised
by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (), poorer communities are
suffering more from polluted and dense areas, but families and
communities from diverse backgrounds are also experiencing more
pollution because of poverty. The Mayor of London has
consistently called on the Government to support the switch to
cleaner vehicles by funding a targeted national scrappage scheme,
or by providing additional funding to London, as has been done
for other cities across the country. The Government must also do
that for London; if they do not, they must say why. I hope they
are not failing to do so for political reasons.
It is clear that the Mayor of London and Lewisham Council are
miles ahead of the Government in delivering net zero, but I would
love to see the Government trying to outdo them and to hear from
them how they are trying to make that difference, rather than
making things harder. I urge the Government to rethink their
approach, and I look forward to their serious response on this
serious matter.
6.50pm
(Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I commend the hon.
Member for Bath () for securing it. Although
her speech took 20 minutes, every part of it was worth listening
to, and I agree with what she said and with the hon. Member for
Brighton, Pavilion ()—I am going to set a trend
in this House of us almost all agreeing on these things.
This issue is important to me, and I look forward to the
Minister’s response. I am sure she has grasped the importance of
this issue to many us in the Chamber and to my constituents. On
the doorstep during the council elections, this was an issue for
me. People told me that they are concerned that ice levels in the
Arctic and Antarctic are decreasing, about flood levels across
the world, and that the oceans are rising. They are aware of
climate change. Some people might not agree with that, but that
is certainly my opinion and that of many of my constituents.
I am pleased to speak in this debate. I have spoken in such
debates before and I stood alongside the hon. Member for Bath
when she was making those comments, and I was pleased to do so. I
agree that the contributions that local councils and communities
can make does not, and will not, go unnoticed. Why is that
important? Someone might think that what the council does is
small and minuscule—and yes, it might be—but all those small bits
come together to make the big picture change, and that is what I
see as the role of the council. In particular, I commend Ards and
North Down Borough Council in my constituency, as well as Lisburn
and Castlereagh City Council and Newry, Mourne and Down District
Council. There is such an important role for local councils and
governments to play, and that must be paralleled throughout the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure
that the devolved nations are not left behind. It is important
that we in Northern Ireland play the same integral role as that
referred to by the hon. Members for Bath and for Lewisham East
().
I also take an interest in what we can do as a country to support
our rural villages and towns to transform to net zero. Local
government has a huge role to play in that, which cannot be
ignored. My constituency of Strangford is heading in the right
direction in our contribution to net zero. Our council—my
council—is doing that already, and it is important to recognise
that we all have a role to play. I have been contacted by a
number of constituents from the village of Moneyreagh in my
constituency. An old, outdated bus shelter was in desperate need
of replacement. Translink, the bus company in Northern Ireland,
was great and was able to replace it with its new Insignia-plus
bus shelter. In addition, it is trialling solar power at that
location, in line with its new net zero carbon target. Someone
might say, “That’s a small part to play”, and perhaps it is, but
it is a big part when all the small parts are brought together
collectively.
I read recently that Worcestershire County Council—I am not
responsible for it—is installing new sustainable bus shelters in
Bromsgrove. They are powered using a combination of wind turbines
and solar panels, and they were the first shelters in the UK to
be 100% off grid. It is estimated that each shelter will save us
all—all the people in the world; all the people in the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—3.6 metric tonnes
of carbon over 10 years.
Last Friday, I attended an event in North Down that was looking
at the provision of offshore wind farms just off the constituency
of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (). I attended because I have a
deep interest in fishing issues, and I wanted to ensure that what
was being put forward would not impact on the fishing sector and
the critical fishing grounds out there in the Irish channel
between Northern Ireland and Scotland. I contacted the
Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation, the Irish Fish
Producers Organisation and other local fishermen to ascertain
their opinion about that project. I will be nudged and pointed in
the direction that the fishing sectors want me to go in, because
I understand how important the pelagic fishing and lobster
grounds are to them, as well as to some of the smaller crabmen.
The fishing grounds need to be preserved, so we must ensure that
all those things are in place.
As someone who represents a rural constituency, I have stated
that it is imperative that there is sustainable and economical
transport for our constituents who live in the countryside. We
need ideas for decarbonising public transport in more rural areas
where the population is more dispersed—we cannot ignore these
things; these things are real and happen all the time. As others
have said, we do not have the continuity or regularity of buses
that we should have in rural communities to incentivise people to
leave their cars and use buses. The Glider public transport
scheme goes all the way to Belfast, and the idea is to park and
ride, using the Glider bus. Those things are progressive and
helpful, and we cannot ignore them.
We have seen the expansion of green transport to protect and
preserve our atmosphere and environment. In Ballymena, Wrightbus
runs electric buses and is investigating the potential of
hydrogen. We must look at such things, because they are the
future. As someone of a certain vintage, I want to leave
something for my children and grandchildren, and ensure that they
have a world in which they can enjoy some of the things that I
have enjoyed for a great many years. We must continue to do this
as time goes by. In Newtownards, for example, people can charge
their electric cars at the shopping centre, but if they want to
go elsewhere in town, they cannot charge their cars. I know the
Minister is not responsible for Northern Ireland in its entirety,
but I have seen figures for the whole United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, and I have noticed that although
more people are buying electric cars, electric charging points
are not keeping up. If we are to incentive and encourage people
to buy electric or hybrid cars, we must ensure that the number of
charging points increases at the same level.
Councils can play a role in that. My council has responsibility
for that issue in my area, and I have asked it to push it
forward. Councils have a key role in prioritising charging
points, and we should not be reliant on private companies, which
may put charging points only in places that are of advantage to
them. I am not saying that companies should not do that, but why
do they want charging points in shopping centres? It is because
they want people to shop there. Why is the council not putting
charging points in the centre of town, and other places where
they could be accessible?
We have to incentivise and encourage things to make them happen
and to take the vision of a net zero transport network one step
closer to reality. I believe that it is, and this is a way of
doing it. Double-decker battery electric buses are 44% more
efficient grid to wheel, saving energy costs and carbon. That is
another example of how we are moving forward, together with our
councils, to make it happen. There is such an onus on net zero
and on meeting deadlines that incentives must be given to
encourage people to adapt. For example, Belfast, the biggest
council in Northern Ireland, has recently launched its first
climate plan, which describes the importance of the power of
genuine collaboration between local councils and Governments
regionally. Belfast City Council recognises that, along with Ards
and North Down Borough Council, Newry, Mourne and Down District
Council and Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. Indeed, all the
councils in Northern Ireland recognise it. The consultation is so
impactful because it lays out clearly and coherently that, even
though Belfast has only nine years of carbon available before it
breaches the Paris climate agreement, the economic gain from
decarbonisation will be immense, so we are certainly on the right
path for the future. As this debate is making clear, local
government can work towards net zero.
In conclusion, we cannot achieve perfection—I am imperfect—and it
is hard to achieve 100% in anything. It will also be difficult to
reach net zero, but we are on our way there. The devolved nations
have an important role to play in that. I encourage the
Minister—I am confident about the response that we will get
tonight—to have another look at the funding allocated to the
devolved nations, so that they have the funds to level up and
meet our net zero targets. That can only happen if we work
together. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a great believer
in the idea that, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, we are always better together. Let us help each
other, in all the regions, and make life better—for my children,
my grandchildren, and all my constituents.
7.00pm
(Wakefield)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report
on this topic in October 2021 made it clear that the UK will
struggle to meet its aim of reaching net zero by 2050 unless
central and local government work together. As a former
councillor, I know how important councils and combined
authorities are to delivering net zero. The Climate Change
Committee said:
“Local authorities have powers or influence over roughly a third
of emissions in their local areas”.
I have to say it felt a little as though the Government were
passing the buck when they estimated that 82% of emissions were
under council influence. They have never explained how they came
up with that figure. Despite their rhetoric, they have not
implemented any statutory targets for councils on this issue.
It is true that most councils have approved some net zero
commitments, or, like Wakefield Council, have declared a climate
emergency. In Wakefield, the Labour council has made climate
change a core function of its operations, and has a dedicated
team working on projects relating to it. It has invested millions
in replacing much of its fleet with electric cars and vans, and
work is well under way to replace nearly 45,000 streetlights with
LEDs, in order to reduce its energy consumption by 80%. Some
100,000 trees have been planted through a partnership with the
White Rose forest. The council is also looking at building solar
parks, which could provide renewable energy, enhance
biodiversity, give rise to training opportunities and provide
new, green jobs. The list of positive actions goes on. All that
is being done to drive the change necessary to become a
carbon-neutral council by 2030, and to help the entire district
to be carbon-neutral by 2038.
Not every authority is like Wakefield. Some councils have not
adopted proper plans, and that is holding us all back. I ask the
Minister: what are the Government doing to encourage more climate
change action plans? Labour recognises the important role that
local government has in this fight, and that is why empowering
our towns, cities and regions is at the heart of our plans. We
will consult on Gordon Brown’s commission on giving local leaders
more financial autonomy and longer-term funding
settlements—powers that the Local Government Association has been
asking for—to help deliver net zero. We will also transfer more
powers over skills, transport and planning to local leaders,
which would be a game changer. Councils will be at the forefront
of delivering Labour’s warm home plan; they will help to roll out
our street-by-street retrofit programme, which will not only
slash energy bills but help in our fight for net zero.
I am pleased that Wakefield Council is showing such leadership in
this area, having brought forward its climate change action plan
and backed it up with clear actions and investment. Now we need a
Labour Government who will not only talk the talk but deliver the
real change that we need, and give local government the powers
and support that it needs to accelerate net zero.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call to respond for the
Opposition.
7.04pm
(Bristol East) (Lab)
We know that the Government’s plan to reach net zero is totally
inadequate; that is the context for today’s debate. Thirteen
years of failure has left us exposed to higher bills, energy
insecurity, lost jobs and climate delay. As the Chair of the
Climate Change Committee—a former Conservative Cabinet
Minister—has said,
“This has been a lost decade in preparing for and adapting to the
known risks that we face from climate change.”
The right hon. Member for Kingswood () —another Conservative—found
in his net zero review that the Conservatives had failed on
nearly every aspect of net zero policy. How are the Government
responding? They have doubled down on fossil fuels, with billions
in taxpayer cash being handed out to oil and gas giants. They are
blocking the cheap renewable power that Britain needs; there is a
de facto onshore wind ban, and war-torn Ukraine has built more
onshore turbines in the past year than the UK. There is still no
response to Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. There is dither
and delay. There is no ambition and no urgency.
Thankfully, as we have heard today, local councils across the
country are doing their best, albeit with scarce resources. The
hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (), my hon. Friend the Member
for Manchester, Gorton (), the hon. Member for St Albans
() and my hon. Friend the Member
for York Central () talked about the need for
greater certainty and continuity of funding, and an end to the
piecemeal, competitive approach that sets one council against
another, and that can be unduly restrictive when it comes to how
money can be spent. The hon. Member for Strangford () gave a wide-ranging speech, as usual, which covered
everything from electric vehicle charging points to lobsters. My
hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East () talked in very strong terms
about the need to tackle air pollution, and set out what the
Mayor of London is doing on that front.
I thank the hon. Member for Bath () for securing the debate. I
share her pain when it comes to the cuts to bus services in our
region. I would imagine that she is having the same conversations
with the Mayor for the West of England as I am, about how we can
subsidise non-commercial routes. It is interesting that she
mentioned only Liberal Democrat councils when talking about the
positive contribution that local authorities can make. I will
make up for that by talking a bit about what Labour councils are
doing. I do not need to say more about Wakefield, because my hon.
Friend the Member for Wakefield () did a sterling job in
speaking about it.
I celebrate all local councils’ work to reach net zero. I
appreciate that the hon. Lady is going to make up for my not
mentioning Labour councils. I am sure that there are many good
councils across the political divide that are making good
progress on net zero.
I thank the hon. Lady for that, although she has eaten into about
30 seconds-worth of my saying nice things about Labour councils.
In Bristol, the Labour council set up a 20-year city leap project
in partnership with Ameresco—a £424 million public-private
investment in green infrastructure. It is groundbreaking. It is
helping Bristol to go carbon neutral by 2030—the same ambition as
Wakefield. Bristol will retrofit all our housing stock by 2030,
reduce our CO2 output by 140,000 tonnes, and create over 1,000
green jobs in the process. England’s biggest wind turbine will
open shortly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for
Bristol North West (). It is community-owned, will
provide low-carbon electricity to 3,500 homes, and save nearly
2,000 tonnes of CO2per year. It will mean that energy can be sold
back to the grid, and the money can be reinvested in local
communities.
I turn to Hull. There was a recent event in Parliament with the
aptly named “Oh Yes! Net Zero” campaign. It is a really good
example of collaborative local working; it involves 150 local
organisations that support the city’s efforts to reach net zero.
In Oxford, the Labour-led authority has been leading the way with
innovative solutions, particularly on battery technology.
Redbridge is home to Europe’s most powerful electric vehicle
charging hub, and a project called Energy Superhub Oxford
launched in July last year with the wider aim of decarbonising
the city, uses the latest in battery technology, and, for the
first time in the UK, infrastructure that links directly to the
national grid’s high-voltage network. I echo what was said about
the need to ensure that the grid has capacity to support local
innovative projects. To give one last example, in Liverpool,
there is a groundbreaking project: an agreement between the
Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the Korea Water
Resources Corporation to create what could be the world’s largest
tidal power scheme in the Mersey.
Taking a placed-based approach to net zero is vital in ensuring
that the opportunities from the transition start to finally level
up the towns and cities of the UK, as opposed to letting them
down as this Government have done. Around 95% of Britain’s
population lives in areas where the local authorities have
declared a climate emergency but, as has been said, councils and
combined authorities must be given the resources and powers they
need to act. As one contributor to the right hon. Member for
Kingswood’s net zero review put it:
“Net Zero achievements at local government level are in spite of
government, not because of it”.
That would change under a Labour Government, which would
recognise and value the role local authorities can play and the
immense difference local action can make. We would work in tandem
with local authorities to deliver our green prosperity plan of
capital investment. That would support the creation of hundreds
of thousands of jobs in every corner of the UK, doubling our
onshore wind capacity, tripling solar capacity and quadrupling
offshore wind capacity. It would be financed by Labour’s national
wealth fund, ensuring that, when investment flows into new
industries, in partnership with business, the British people will
own a share of that wealth, as happens in other countries.
Surprisingly, we did not talk much in the debate about
retrofitting homes. We have the least energy-efficient housing in
Europe. Millions of homes are going cold and premium-priced heat
is escaping through roofs, windows and walls. Labour’s warm homes
plan would upgrade the 19 million homes that need it, cutting
bills and creating thousands of good jobs for electricians,
engineers and construction workers across the country. It is
important to stress that this is about economic growth. It is
about a future industrial strategy. It is about jobs for the
future. It is about the prosperity of our local communities. And
it is about saving the planet at the same time. Local government
has a key role to play in that. I just hope the Government step
up and help it.
7.11pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security
and Net Zero ()
I welcome the opportunity to debate this incredibly important
issue. I thank all hon. Members from across the House for their
contributions, which have informed a very interesting and, at
times, lively discussion. I also thank the hon. Member for Bath
() for bringing this important
topic to the House.
The UK’s 2050 net zero target is a Government priority. The
transition provides huge opportunities for jobs, investment,
innovation and exports. The UK is already leading the world in
tackling climate change. Between 1990 and 2021, we cut emissions
by 48% while growing our economy by 65%, decarbonising faster
than any other G7 country.
Our local areas will play a crucial role in delivering net zero.
We agree that local authorities have great scope to influence
carbon emission reduction and many have strong ambitions in that
area. We can consider the transition a success only if its
benefits are felt across the UK. We know that we need local
authorities to drive action across a range of areas such as
planning, energy, housing and transport.
On the issue of planning, as an example, does the Minister accept
that the Government need to give powers to local authorities as
well? There are examples of local authorities trying to implement
green planning policies, but they find that their policies are
being thrown out by local planning inspectors because there is
not a net zero obligation at the heart of our planning process.
Does she agree that that is something the Government could do to
facilitate the action of many councils around the country?
I will come on to talk in a bit more detail about all the
Government’s plans, but we are confident that we are doing all we
can to achieve our net zero goals.
Local authorities are well placed to align net zero work with
local opportunities. There can be significant economic advantages
for local areas, attracting private sector net zero investment
and building local supply chains. They currently have a lot of
flexibility when they take action on net zero. My Government are
keen to ensure local authorities preserve that flexibility
because, as has been noted, each region and community may require
tailored approaches to reach net zero. So we do not believe that
a new general statutory requirement on local authorities to meet
net zero is needed. There is already a high level of local
commitment in the sector and our local government colleagues have
told us that a new statutory duty is not something they want.
The Government are already working closely with local government
to help deliver net zero. In the 2021 net zero strategy and net
zero growth plan from this year, we set out how local areas can
take action on a wide range of policies, including planning,
transport and energy, as part of our overall strategy to reach
the UK’s 2050 net zero target. More detail on how we will meet
net zero by working with local partners is set out in the
relevant sectoral strategies, such as the transport
decarbonisation plan from 2021. That covers, for example, how
emissions from different forms of public transport will be
reduced. The creation of the Department for Energy Security and
Net Zero helps to drive the overall delivery of net zero across
Government. The Department’s officials work with counterparts
across Government to co-ordinate action, working particularly
closely with the Cabinet Office and His Majesty’s Treasury. That
ensures net zero is prioritised in Government.
On working closely with local government on net zero, my
colleague , the Minister for energy
efficiency, co-chairs, with the Local Government Association, the
ministerial local net zero forum. It met in February for the
first time. Alongside that, there is an officials’ local net zero
forum, which has met four times to date. Both forums bring
together national Government and local government to discuss key
policy and delivery options on net zero. The Department funds
five regional local net zero hubs to help local authorities
develop net zero projects, focusing on attracting commercial
investment. The hubs have helped to develop innovative tools and
resources for local authorities, including Net Zero Go, an online
platform supporting clean energy projects, and SCATTER—setting
city area targets and trajectories for emissions reduction—which
is a tool to help local authorities standardise their greenhouse
gas reporting. Tools of this kind are supported by a wide range
of guidance from Government Departments and other sources. I
recognise the importance of co-ordinated action across
Departments, but given the range of actions recently undertaken
in this area, the Government do not think a net zero delivery
authority is necessary.
The Government have provided a great deal of funding for local
government to reach net zero. Through core settlement growth
funding, such as the shared prosperity fund and grant funding
from my Department and others, local authorities can meet net
zero goals flexibly, in a way that best meets their needs. We
have committed to explore simplifying local net zero funding,
where that provides the best results for net zero. We will
continue that work. One approach we are testing is using
devolution deals in England to pilot new approaches. We have
announced wide-ranging devolution deals with the Greater
Manchester Combined Authority and the West Midlands Combined
Authority. They include first-of-their-kind pilots to simplify
retrofit funding from 2025. We also established the UK
Infrastructure Bank, which has a lending facility of £4 billion
for local authorities at preferential rates and a technical
advisory service.
Communities also play a strong part in supporting our transition
to net zero. I am aware that in the constituency of the hon.
Member for Bath, the Bath and West Community Energy Group works
with local authorities in the area to support households to
access funding for energy efficiency measures in their homes.
Many communities work closely with local authorities to access
the funding and support they need, and the local net zero hubs
can help local authorities and community groups to work
together.
We already work in partnership with local areas towards our net
zero goals, with examples of local innovation across the United
Kingdom. By working together, I am confident that we can drive
green growth across the country and deliver our ambitious net
zero targets.
7.18pm
I thank all Members across the Chamber for their contributions.
Bar one, we are all agreed that the climate emergency is real,
and that local councils must become a real partner to the
Westminster Government.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am slightly
disappointed by her response. I hope that she takes to heart what
has been said this evening and persuades her Government that
local authorities need more power and resources. We need a
statutory duty for councils to deliver net zero. I hope that the
Government will look again at our Liberal Democrat proposals to
establish a net zero delivery authority.
|