The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire
Coutinho) With permission, I would like to make a statement on the
Prime Minister’s announcement on net zero. Britain has led the
world on tackling climate change. We have cut our carbon emissions
in half over the past 30 years. We have boosted our share of
renewables from just 7% in 2010 to almost half today. We have
delivered the second highest amount of recorded low-carbon
investment cumulatively across...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero ()
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Prime
Minister’s announcement on net zero.
Britain has led the world on tackling climate change. We have cut
our carbon emissions in half over the past 30 years. We have
boosted our share of renewables from just 7% in 2010 to almost
half today. We have delivered the second highest amount of
recorded low-carbon investment cumulatively across Europe over
the past five years. Of all the major economies, we have set the
toughest targets, and we have exceeded every carbon budget target
so far.
As we look forward to becoming a net zero economy by 2050, we
must ensure that our ambitions are practical and
achievable—achievable by industry, which is investing billions to
decarbonise; achievable technologically, as much of the green
tech we will need to hit our 2050 target needs to be scaled up;
and achievable for consumers, in particular for the millions of
households that are currently struggling to make ends meet.
We will not reach net zero over the next three decades unless our
plans for the future are pragmatic and viable. Only 7% of people
in the UK currently think that net zero is going to be good for
them and their family’s finances in the near term. In Europe, we
are seeing people push back at clumsy policy that is negatively
affecting our lives. It is clear that if we do not bring people
with us, we risk sacrificing the whole climate change agenda.
That is why the Prime Minister set out his plans last month for a
fairer approach to ease the burdens on hard-working people and
keep people feeling optimistic about net zero.
The Prime Minister’s approach includes giving people the
flexibility to choose a new petrol or diesel car until 2035;
removing the requirement that would have seen property owners
forced to spend up to £10,000 or more on energy upgrades; easing
the transition to clean heating; and raising grants under the
boiler upgrade scheme by 50%, to £7,500—that scheme is now one of
the most generous of its kind in Europe. The changes will allow
us to meet our international net zero targets while avoiding
disproportionate costs at a time when global inflation pressures
are challenging the finances of many households.
We are responsible for less than 1% of annual greenhouse gas
emissions. While our emissions are down 48%, America’s remain
unchanged and China’s are up by 300%. It cannot be right that our
citizens face punitive costs here when emissions are rising
abroad. As the Prime Minister said, the fear is that if we
continue to impose extra costs on people, we risk losing their
consent for net zero. I want people to feel optimistic about net
zero and connect that with jobs, investment and a sense of pride
in playing our part in a global challenge. By taking a more
measured approach, we will achieve our ambitious targets with the
public’s consent.
Meanwhile, we are spending tens of billions to transform our
energy security, and to boost renewables and clean nuclear power.
We are investing £20 billion to get our carbon capture and
storage industry up and running, with jobs supported in places
such as Humberside, Scotland and the north-east and north-west of
England. We will take carbon dioxide from polluting industries
and store it under the North sea. The UK can lead the world in
the provision of carbon transport and storage services, with an
estimated 78 billion tonnes of theoretical carbon storage
capacity in the UK continental shelf—one of the largest potential
carbon storage capacities in Europe.
We also have the largest operational offshore wind farm in the
world, and the second largest, the third largest, the fourth
largest and now the fifth largest, too—all delivered under a
Conservative Government. We will have enough wind to power the
equivalent of every home in Britain by 2030. We will generate
enough solar energy to power the equivalent of over 25 million
electric vehicle miles every hour by 2035. We are world leading
in our fusion technology and space-based solar projects.
Britain’s nuclear revival is well under way. Hinkley Point C in
Somerset will provide enough secure, low-carbon electricity to
power around 6 million homes. Sizewell C in Suffolk features the
most powerful electricity generators in the world, to power
another 6 million homes. We have launched Great British Nuclear
to deliver our programme and we have accelerated the development
of small modular reactors. Bringing all our work together is the
Energy Bill—the vehicle for delivering the energy strategy to
turbocharge British technology. It will liberate £100
billion-worth of private investment, scaling up green jobs and
growth, and make Britain the best place in the world to invest in
clean energy.
The most important announcement made during my tenure has been
about the grid. We must make sure that the grid infrastructure is
in place to bring new clean, secure and low-cost power to homes
and businesses. Four times as much new transmission network will
be needed in the next seven years as was built since 1990, so we
are bringing forward comprehensive new reforms to help green
energy expand faster. We will speed up planning for the most
nationally significant projects and accelerate grid connections
so that those who are ready can connect first.
Later this autumn we will set out our response to the work of
electricity networks commissioner Nick Winser, demonstrating how
we are going further and faster on grid, informed by his
recommendations on reducing the time taken to develop this
critical infrastructure for lower bills, energy security,
decarbonisation and economic growth. We will also set out our
plans to reform the connections process so that new electricity
generators and electricity users can be connected faster,
bringing more low-cost, low-carbon energy into the system and
connecting up new economic investment quicker. We will set out
the UK’s first ever spatial plan for energy infrastructure, to
give industry certainty and every community a say.
We have so much to be proud of in what we have achieved so far,
particularly the international leadership that we have shown in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Change Committee
has assessed that there is no material difference in our progress
to cut emissions by 2030 since its last report in June, yet the
changes we have made will make a real difference to the finances
of many households up and down the country. The Prime Minister’s
intervention means that we are now on a more secure path, because
it can command public support, taking the people of Britain with
us and delivering net zero in a practical, proportionate and
pragmatic way. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
8.13pm
(Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of her
statement. My only disappointment was that she did not read out
the multiple paragraphs defending the Prime Minister’s claim
about seven bins, which was in the copy sent to me. Obviously,
she was too embarrassed to defend it, because it was made-up
nonsense.
We profoundly disagree with the Secretary of State and the Prime
Minister when they suggest that the answer to the cost of living
crisis in our country is dither and delay on building a clean
energy future for Britain. It will not work and their approach
will make it worse. If you want the evidence, Madam Deputy
Speaker, just look at their previous failures. The ban on onshore
wind did not cut bills; it raised them. The slashing of home
energy efficiency—cutting the “green crap”, as they called it—did
not cut bills; it raised them. The fiasco of the offshore wind
auction last month did not cut bills; it will raise them. It is
not going too fast on climate that has caused the cost of living
crisis; it is the Conservatives’ failures that have left us
exposed to the worst energy bills crisis in generations. Rather
than learning the lessons, they are doubling down.
The definitive analysis of the recent announcements came last
Thursday from the Government’s own watchdog, the Climate Change
Committee. It said this:
“The cancellation of some Net Zero measures is likely to increase
both energy bills and motoring costs for households”.
Why did it say that? Let me explain. The Government now say that
landlords will not have to insulate homes, but as the CCC points
out, these regulations
“would have reduced renters’ energy bills significantly.”
Moreover, the cost savings would have outweighed any changes in
rent. Therefore, they are not lowering costs; they are raising
them.
On electric vehicles, the CCC says that
“any undermining of their roll-out will ultimately increase
costs.”
That is because the lifetime costs of EVs are already cheaper
than those of petrol and diesel vehicles. By 2030, the up-front
costs of EVs are forecast to be at parity with petrol or diesel
cars. Again, the Government are not lowering costs for families;
they are raising them.
When the Secretary of State dumps other targets, I have to ask:
who set these targets and then failed to take the action to meet
them? The Government did. Laughably, they say that this is about
long-term decisions. The biggest long-term cost that the British
people face is failure to act at the scale required to tackle the
climate crisis. The Secretary of State says again that the
Government are on track to meet their 2030 target, but their own
watchdog said in June that they were “significantly off track”.
It says—this is from last Thursday—that the Government have not
offered evidence to back their assurance
“that the UK’s targets will still be met.”
There is no evidence that they are on track to meet their
targets.
Perhaps worst of all, imagine being a business trying to make
decisions and invest in our country when they literally do not
know from one day to the next what the Government policy is.
Since the Prime Minister’s announcements, businesses from around
the world have said that, by backing off climate action, the
Prime Minister is turning his back on the greatest economic
opportunity of the 21st century. Meanwhile, the UK heads into yet
another winter where people cannot afford their energy bills.
There are still no proper plans for a roll-out of energy
efficiency, no plans to properly lift the onshore wind ban, and
no proper plan to get the offshore wind market back on track.
Finally, let me say to the Secretary of State that the consensus
on net zero has been hard-won over two decades. We have a duty to
debate it on the basis of facts, not falsehoods. I have to say to
her that it is deeply regrettable that she used her first major
public appearance—two weeks ago at her conference—literally to
make up complete nonsense about meat taxes, which I notice she
did not defend today, and for which frankly she was exposed on
national television. I say to her that it demeans her, it demeans
her office and it demeans public debate. The Government said that
they were going to move on from the premiership of , but people will be deeply
disturbed to find that that appears to mean dumping commitments
to net zero and keeping his peculiar relationship to the
truth.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response to my
statement. He raises a number of questions that I wish to
address. He mentions the prospect of the seven bins policy. He
has forgotten that he voted for it. The Conservatives, by
contrast, came to the good sense to course correct. He has taken
leave of his senses and forgotten what he has voted for in the
past.
On the question of dietary changes, the right hon. Gentleman
might like to speak to his shadow climate change Minister and
shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who both have pushed to
treat meat like tobacco in the past. The substantial point that I
would make is that we need to be practical about our net zero
policy and to make sure that we are having honest debates. We on
the Conservative Benches stand by our record. We are proud to be
the party that has decarbonised faster than any G7 country, and
it is regrettable that the Opposition cannot acknowledge that
achievement. We are proud that we have secured almost £200
billion of investment in low-carbon energy projects since 2010
and that we have helped to secure this country’s energy
independence by backing North sea oil and gas, protecting 200,000
jobs.
Can the right hon. Gentleman be proud of his record? He said that
we should sacrifice our growth to cut emissions and that we
should borrow £28 billion in his blind ambition for 2030. He
supported coal, before he changed his mind and is now against it.
He also said that growing our renewables sector to 40% was pie in
the sky, but in the first quarter of 2023, 48% of our power came
from renewable energy. He spent years at Gordon Brown’s side and
as Energy Secretary but did nothing to boost British nuclear in
his time in government, whereas we are forging a new path, with
every operational nuclear power station in this country having
started life under a Conservative Government. Members do not need
to take my word for it that our energy security is safer with us,
because just this weekend the owners of Grangemouth made it clear
that the threat Labour’s plans pose to the future of the
refinery, potentially putting thousands of jobs at risk, would be
a danger for energy security. Furthermore, we cannot allow oil
and gas workers to become the coalminers of our generation. It
has been said that Labour
“does not properly understand energy”,
with it being “self-defeating” and “naive”. Those are not my
words but those of the general secretary of the Unite union and
the head of the GMB.
Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman talks about uncertainty. If
he would like to give the business and industry certainty, he and
the shadow Chancellor need to sit down and agree how much money
they will actually spend—is it £28 billion or £8 billion? Is it
no new money, or is it what we heard over the weekend, which is
as much as £100 billion of new borrowing for GB Energy?
Conservatives will prioritise energy security. We are set on
delivering the most ambitious net zero targets of any major
economy, and we will do this all without forcing families to
choose between protecting their family finances and protecting
the planet.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
(Ludlow) (Con)
I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said about
the focus on the grid and accelerating grid access. I hope she
will be able to pick up on the report that my Committee is
undertaking on that subject and that we can contribute to her
deliberations. As she will be aware, I wrote to the Prime
Minister on behalf of the Committee in the week following his
speech, offering him an opportunity to put some flesh on the
bones of what his more pragmatic approach to achieving net zero
ambitions actually means. Will she confirm when my Committee can
expect to receive a reply to that letter? Will it include an
analysis of the impact of the trajectory of delivering net zero
on the five-yearly carbon budgets and, in particular, how the
announcement we have just had confirmed by the Transport
Secretary, who is sitting next to her, on maintaining the
zero-emission vehicle mandate will impact on that trajectory?
I thank my right hon. Friend and commend his long-standing work
on environmentalism; I have been privileged to work with him on
this before. I will be responding to him and I look forward to
coming to speak to his Committee in due course. We set out
unprecedented levels of detail in the analysis of how we are
going to meet the targets earlier this year. I also accept the
Climate Change Committee’s analysis, which is that the changes we
have made are not materially different in terms of achieving our
targets—we are absolutely committed to making sure that we do so.
As he rightly points out, the biggest announcement we have made
on achieving those targets is the one relating to the grid, which
will allow for much greater and quicker electrification of
society when it comes to the impacts of other proposals.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
There seems to be no level to which this Prime Minister will not
stoop in his pursuit of a culture war. Apart from the reactionary
brigade on his own Benches and the flat earthers, he has angered
many across the UK, from environmental groups to Tory donors and
even . These legal targets and
deadlines have been in place for some time and, accordingly,
businesses active in all these sectors will have had investment
and disinvestment plans in place for years. Reducing the UK’s
energy use by 15% by 2030 was a tough target, but we need tough
targets if we are to rise to the situation the planet faces.
What does the Prime Minister do when faced with difficulty? He
scraps the energy efficiency taskforce after just six months—it
is utterly embarrassing. If this Government were so worried about
the affordability of climate measures, why were they offering
less support than the Scottish Government for heat pump
installation, and why do they keep cancelling successive home
insulation schemes? Of course, all this follows the Tories
permitting a new coal mine, along with the Cambo and Rosebank
oilfields. Is the Secretary of State at all surprised that two
thirds of UK voters say that the Tories cannot be trusted on
climate change?
Scotland’s ambitions in this area are far greater and faster.
Scotland’s Net Zero Secretary, Màiri McAllan, said that the
Scottish Government had been
“blindsided by these announcements, with zero consultation in
advance”
and that it was an
“unforgivable betrayal of current and future generations”.
The Prime Minister’s reckless decision, combined with the United
Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, makes it extremely difficult
for Scotland to hit our targets. Last week, Scotland
transferred—it would be an export, post-independence—more than
400 GWh of renewable electricity to England. Many other wind
power schemes are in development, including the world’s biggest
at Berwick Bank, which will ensure that Scotland is one of the
world’s biggest exporters of clean green energy. We also have two
hydro schemes ready to go, if the Government were to put the
contractual agreements in place.
Scots often ask about the costs and benefits of this unequal
Union of ours. Many will now wonder if watering down our climate
ambitions or the obligations we committed to at COP26 is too high
a price to pay.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Let me be clear:
there has been no watering down of our targets. We have the most
ambitious decarbonising targets of any major economy, and we have
not changed those at all. We are resolutely committed to them. By
2030, we will have cut emissions by 68%; the US is planning to
cut its emissions by 40% and the EU its emissions by 55%. The
people of Scotland will be very proud that we are the most
ambitious major economy in the world, and we will work towards
that together.
We have worked with the devolved Administrations since the
announcement, and I am due to speak to my counterpart in due
course—I have been in correspondence with him. One of the biggest
things that we will do that will be helpful for the Scottish
people particularly, and that will bring benefits to the
renewable energy sector, is to improve the grid. Having spoken to
more than 100 investors, I know it is their biggest ask, and it
will be very positive, not just for Scotland but for the whole of
the UK.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee.
Sir (Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
Even before Dogger Bank comes on stream, the UK is leading the
world in offshore wind generation. I hope that in due course we
will also lead the world in nuclear generation. If we are to
charge up all those electric cars and power all those air source
heat pumps, we will need an awful lot of electricity at peak
times. We will also be producing a lot of electricity at off-peak
times. Does the Secretary of State agree that hydrogen will have
an important part to play in powering heavy vehicles and heating
homes? If we are to do that, we need to make sure that our gas
grid does not become a stranded asset, because we might need to
press it into service.
I thank my right hon. Friend and he makes an excellent and
correct point. While making sure that we grow our intermittent
energy sources such as solar and wind, we must also have a stable
baseload underneath that. He is right that hydrogen will play an
interesting role, and I am speaking to the sector about how we
can move forward. It is an exciting policy area and I will
explore it in many ways. We also have a trial on heating homes. I
pick him up on one point: we will be using gas for a long time.
Even the independent Climate Change Committee acknowledges that
we will still be using gas in 2050.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
We have another debate to follow. I will try to get everybody in,
but I will prioritise those Members who have not already asked
questions in previous statements or who did not get in. Brevity
would be much appreciated in both questions and answers.
(Brent North) (Lab)
I value the cross-party consensus that this country has enjoyed
for the past 20 years, which is responsible for some of the
strenuous targets that the Secretary of State has outlined.
However, I was disappointed by the Prime Minister’s statement
and, indeed, the tone of the Secretary of State’s remarks today.
In the spirit of cross-party consensus, will she set out a
hierarchy for the utilisation of the 10 MW of low-carbon hydrogen
that the Government have now committed to, so that the limited
supply of hydrogen power is delivered first to high-energy users
such as those in the steel, ceramics, glass and cement sectors
who need the extra heat that electricity cannot provide?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that hydrogen possesses
enormous potential when it comes to our industrial sectors. I
will be meeting many people from the sector tomorrow and will be
looking at that point very carefully, and I would be happy to
speak further with him about it.
(Chelmsford) (Con)
When the new Select Committee on Energy Security and Net Zero
first met, the first thing we did was to have huge roundtable
days with over 50 different stakeholders from the sector. Time
and again, those stakeholders talked about the tardiness of
getting planning approval and access to the grid, so I absolutely
welcome action that will deliver cleaner, cheaper and more secure
energy. I also get the point about needing carrots, not sticks,
for electric vehicles. In my constituency, those with driveways
pay only 5% tax on their electricity, but those who do not have a
driveway have to pay 20% tax. That is true all across the
country, so will the Secretary of State join me in pushing the
Chancellor for those carrots to be fair carrots?
My right hon. Friend is a huge champion of all environmental
issues, and I look forward to speaking to her Committee in due
course. It is really important that we have a just and fair
transition—that is exactly what the proposals we have set out aim
to do. She will know that tax matters are for the Chancellor but,
again, I would be happy to speak to her further about those
issues.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
Honestly, this statement takes Orwellian doublespeak to new
levels. It must have set some record for the largest number of
misleading statements in the smallest amount of space. I do not
know how the Secretary of State has the gall to stand at the
Dispatch Box and say that this is about easing the burden on
hard-working people, when she knows that all the evidence shows
that what has been announced will increase costs for ordinary
people.
For example, we have heard from the Climate Change Committee that
the changes when it comes to landlords and efficiency standards
in homes will cost renters an extra £300 a year. The Office for
Budget Responsibility is clear that, as a result of the changes
that are going to be made, our dependence on gas will cost us
more. If the Government really cared about hard-working families,
they would not be handing Equinor £3 billion to develop the
climate-wrecking Rosebank oilfield; they would be admitting that
what the Secretary of State is doing is ripping up the climate
consensus for short-term electoral calculation and populist
right-wing propaganda.
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, but if she had any
constituents living in properties off the gas grid, it would be
clear to her how worried people were about those policies. We
have given them this reprieve because we understand that putting
in some of those technologies, such as heat pumps, would have
cost them thousands of pounds—making sure that they had the right
insulation in place, for example.
Turning to Equinor, far from us paying that company money, that
is something that will pay tax into the Exchequer, unlocking
green investment and allowing people in the wider sector to
continue in 200,000 jobs across the economy. Those are jobs,
people and communities that we will need in the transition to
renewable energy, because they are the same people with the same
skills that will be used. It would be right for the hon. Lady to
talk to the people of those communities about this issue.
(Wokingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right that, in order for this to work,
green products need to be affordable and attractive. What study
has her Department made of the attractions of synthetic and
sustainable fuels as another option, compared with batteries?
They may be easier for many of these users.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question—we have spoken
about this issue before. We will be consulting on synthetic
fuels, in particular for aviation, and we are looking at
alternative fuels more widely, for example for rural homes. I
would be happy to keep up the conversation with him about our
progress.
(Vauxhall)
(Lab/Co-op)
In the words of my constituent Adam:
“In Vauxhall these climate policies would help local parents like
us to pay our energy bills this winter and keep our children safe
and warm. Without these policies children in London face a bleak
future as the climate crisis does irreparable damage to the world
around them.”
Like many other Vauxhall residents, Adam is deeply concerned
about the impact of the Government’s delays and about the world
we are leaving for our children. Does the Secretary of State not
understand that these delays run contrary to the aim of making
the lives of the next generation better than the lives that we
all enjoy today?
We do understand the importance of energy efficiency. In fact,
during our tenure we have raised the proportion of
energy-efficient homes from 14%, when we came to office, to 50%.
We are also spending £6 billion in this Parliament and a further
£6 billion up to 2028, in addition to the £5 billion that will be
delivered through the energy company obligation and the great
British insulation scheme. This is something that we are taking
seriously, and the hon. Lady can give her constituent that
assurance.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
Given that our total emissions are less than the increment in
Chinese emissions every year, my right hon. Friend is right to be
pragmatic about this. At present there are planning applications
for solar farms ringing Gainsborough totalling 15,000
acres—enough to feed the city of Hull every year—all based on a
fiddled application for a national infrastructure project. There
is currently a planning presumption against building solar farms
on land graded 1, 2 or 3a, but not 3b. But for a farmer there is
no difference between 3a and 3b land. Can we change that planning
presumption and build solar farms on top of factories and on grey
land, rather than taking good farming land?
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the need to
build solar farms in more appropriate places, which is why I
announced, in the last couple of weeks, that it would be easier
to build them on industrial rooftops, car parks and warehouses in
the way that he has described.
(Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State has suggested that many people have not
bought into the concept of net zero. Instead of seeing that as an
opportunity for leadership, the Government play into
misinformation about made-up taxes and the seven deadly bins. She
will be aware that Northern Ireland is already a laggard on
climate issues because the Assembly was collapsed just after it
had finally passed binding targets, and before it had taken any
meaningful action on issues such as retrofitting, planning for
renewables and transforming agrifood. Is she also aware that
Northern Ireland relies largely on the all-island single energy
market for our energy needs, and is she confident that her
Government are keeping up with their responsibility to ensure
that we match the standards of that market?
We care about climate change, which is why we have the most
ambitious targets of any major economy. That is what we have
delivered on to date, and that is what we will be delivering on
when we get to 2030 as well. As for the single electricity
market, I am familiar with that, and we talk to our Northern
Ireland counterparts regularly to make sure that it is working in
a way that benefits the Northern Irish people.
(Colne Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right: we must take people with us on
this journey to net zero. When it comes to incentivising people
in the take-up of electric vehicles, what more can the Government
do to broaden—or turbocharge—the provision of public EV charging
points by companies and councils?
The most important thing that we can do to turbocharge that is
get the grid working and look at both transition and
distribution, which is exactly what we are planning to do in our
responses to the Winser report. I would say to anyone who wants
to buy an electric vehicle that if that works for them they will
be able to do it, and nothing in our plans will change that.
(Bath) (LD)
The cheapest energy is the energy that we do not use. It is
unforgivable that the Government have cancelled the obligation
for landlords to upgrade homes to an EPC grade C rating by 2028
at the latest. A comprehensive home insulation scheme would
reduce bills and carbon emissions this winter. I am going to make
a proposal that might sound quite attractive to Conservative
ears, because it is about incentivising and tax breaks. Will the
Secretary of State consider allowing landlords to offset spending
on insulation against their income tax bills? That would benefit
tenants by enabling them to live in warm and comfortable
homes.
I set out earlier the amount that we are spending on insulation:
£6 billion in this Parliament, with a further £6 billion to 2028
and an additional £5 billion through the energy company
obligation and the great British insulation scheme. The
real-world reason for why we did not pursue that policy is that
it could have cost property owners up to £15,000, and we did not
want to put further pressure on rents at a time when families are
really struggling. With regard to the hon. Lady’s policy on
income tax relief, I suggest that is not necessarily the best
response, because a lot of landlords are pensioners and will not
necessarily pay income tax. However, we will continue to look at
everything we can do to ensure that insulation is properly
delivered.
(Rugby) (Con)
The announcement changed two key dates that were the subject of a
lot of work by the previous Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy Committee. Does the Secretary of State agree that in
terms of the preparedness of the industry affected and the
awareness of consumers, there is a contrast between the
automotive sector and domestic heating, with far more progress
having been made on the former, so there was a stronger case to
put back the dates on home heating than on the automotive sector?
Does she also agree that if we are to have power available where
it is needed for electric vehicles and to heat our homes, we need
to speed up the reinforcement of the electricity grid?
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s points about the grid.
Every single person in the sector I have spoken to has said that
the announcements we have made about the grid are the most
important made to date. In terms of electric vehicles, if the
prices get to a point where families want to adopt them, they
will do so. Nothing in our policy stops them. On domestic
heating, it is right that we have taken some space for households
that would not be suitable for such technology. He is right to
welcome the uplift on the boiler upgrade grant. I have spoken to
providers such as Octopus, which has said that it has seen a
fivefold increase in inquiries since we announced the policy.
(Stockton North) (Lab)
It was clear from talking to industrialists about net zero and
carbon capture last week that they were exasperated with the
Government’s start-stop approach to business, the snail’s pace of
decisions and, of course, the lack of clarity. The Chemical
Industries Association has reported declining production and said
that domestic demand remains low. It needs CCUS, its fellow
industrialists need CCUS and net zero needs CCUS. When will we
get some final decisions, or are those initiatives also under
threat?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to articulate the
potential of carbon capture and storage. Earlier in the year, we
set out the £20 billion package—a large package by international
standards. We have set out some progress, and we are working at
pace to ensure that we can set out more later in the year. He
talks about lack of clarity; if he is worried about that, I
gently say that he might want to look at his own party’s
position.
(Buckingham) (Con)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for
Wokingham (), synthetic fuels—by that, I
mean genuinely synthetic fuels made from green hydrogen and
atmospheric carbon capture, rather than biofuels or fuels from
waste—are net zero, because the amount of carbon at the tailpipe
is the same volume recaptured to make the next lot of fuel, yet
the myopic zero-emission vehicle mandate prevents the UK from
benefiting from synthetic fuels for our road vehicles. Will my
right hon. Friend show the same welcome pragmatism she has shown
to the rest of the agenda and revisit the zero-emission vehicle
mandate?
We have set out our position on the zero-emission mandate.
However, we are also looking at synthetic fuels. As I said, we
are consulting on them for aviation, and we can look at them more
broadly. However, we have set out the position on the ZEV
mandate, which has been widely welcomed.
(Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Given that the rowing back on the commitments towards net zero
came on the first day of the parliamentary recess, it looked an
awful lot like there was an attempt to avoid democratic scrutiny.
The Secretary of State has said that she wants to take people
with her. May I put to her a group of people she could take with
her by reversing some of these daft decisions: private renters.
When I meet families who are renting from private landlords,
particularly in the Marsh area of Lancaster, I hear that their
energy bills are far higher because of their doors and windows
and how their roofs are leaky and not insulated. That rowing back
on the standard in the private rented sector is costing families
more. Will she please look again at that?
I thank the hon. Lady, but that takes some gall when the Labour
party left the proportion of energy-efficient homes in this
country at 14% and we have taken it to 50%. I have set out the
multiple billions that we will be spending on insulation, which
is important to us. But, at the same time, asking families up and
down the country to spend £10,000 on updating homes would have
been passed on in rents and may have led to more shortages in the
private rented sector. That is something we absolutely must not
see at a time when families are struggling.
(Scunthorpe) (Con)
I too welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments on grid
connections; that is something I am concerned about and have
raised a number of times. Can she reassure businesses that may be
making investment decisions right now that, when she brings
forward her plans, those timescales will dramatically reduce? I
am not talking about reducing from the 10 years we have seen
reported to eight, six, four or even two years—I am talking about
a really serious reduction in practical timeframes.
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for all the industries in
her area. Our ambition is to tackle the challenge with the grid.
We will be setting out for the first time a geo-spatial plan,
looking at planning and looking at all the different connection
points to make sure we have an overall strategy for the country,
which will immeasurably speed up the connection process.
(Ceredigion) (PC)
September’s offshore wind auction failed to attract any
successful bids, a result that dealt a severe blow to hopes for a
floating offshore wind industry based off the south-west coast of
Wales. What reassurances can the Secretary of State offer that
lessons will be learnt from that auction process and that action
will be taken to ensure that investment in this new exciting
industry is secured in future?
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about offshore wind as an
exciting industry, which has done incredibly well under our
contracts for difference programme. We are looking at floating
offshore wind, and he will know the support we have put in place,
but I have been speaking to investors and stakeholders and will
be making sure that we look at some of the challenges the sector
faces.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
What role does she see for the concept of 20-minute
neighbourhoods in helping the United Kingdom to meet its net zero
targets?
The point of our proposals is to make sure that people have
choice, that we can bring people with us and that people can live
their lives in the way they want to. We can enable them through
decarbonising the power grid and giving them alternative options,
so we can make sure that we can get to our net zero targets in a
way that is practical and achievable for families.
(Strangford) (DUP)
At the Democratic Unionist party conference on Saturday past, the
Ulster Farmers Union, of which I declare I am a member, had a
leaflet on achieving net zero. Can the Secretary of State outline
how we will meet our international obligations in terms of net
zero with this rollback and how firms and farmers that have
already invested in green policies and procedures will be able to
compete with those who can go full steam ahead with older
practices and no incentives whatsoever to change?
We are not rolling back from our targets at all; I agree with the
Climate Change Committee’s assessment that there is no material
difference between the projections in June and the recent
assessments it made post the announcements. I welcome a lot of
the work that many of our farmers are doing to pursue
environmental goals. I have talked to many in my constituency who
are doing quite phenomenal things at a local level. They will be
supported by our agriculture policy, the landmark Agriculture Act
2020 and the Environment Act 2021 that we have brought forward in
recent years.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
Last winter the taxpayer covered around half the cost of British
people heating their homes. That amounted to exactly £39.3
billion of taxpayers’ money spent between last October and this
March. At the end of last year, 33% of properties with a loft did
not have loft insulation. How concerned is the Secretary of State
about the cost to future taxpayers of rowing back this
Government’s previous insulation plans?
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we spent £40
billion last year helping people with their energy bills, paying
on average half of people’s energy bills to support them through
that difficult time. On insulation, I would say that when we came
into power, 14% of homes were energy efficient, and now that
figure is 50%. We are spending £6 billion in this Parliament, a
further £6 billion to 2028 and £5 billion through the energy
company obligation and the Great British Insulation Scheme to
make sure that our homes are energy efficient.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Government’s belated recognition that net zero
policies are costing individuals in their pockets, costing jobs
and of course producing huge profits for the eco industry. But is
the Secretary of State not concerned that, by maintaining the
legal target for 2050, she hands a weapon to those who want to
use the judicial review mechanism either to delay or to stop
important decisions on airport expansion, new roads and oil and
gas licences—delaying even some of the policies that she says
today she wants to delay to save people money?
We are confident that we can meet those targets, and we see
opportunities in the transition ahead of us—we see jobs,
investment and opportunities to export British products around
the world. That is what I will focus on in this job to ensure
that we make the most of the energy transition and that it
benefits all parts of our country. We also want to do that in a
sensible way that protects families and household incomes.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Reclaim)
The Secretary of State is explaining that she is only slowing the
Government’s headlong dash to net zero because of waning public
support. When did the Secretary of State think that she was ever
going to maintain public support for policies that will make our
constituents poorer, colder and less free, while at the same time
allowing communist China to increase its emissions by more than
our total emissions in every year of this decade?
As I said, the climate transition presents huge opportunities for
this country and the people of this country when it comes to
jobs, investment and improving our energy security. That will be
the focus of my work in this role. However, we will do that in a
way that protects finances and families from clunky and clumsy
unimplementable policies.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement.
|
