The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart) May I
thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as all the staff of this
House and colleagues across the House, for all your hard work this
year? I wish everyone a very happy Christmas. It was a privilege to
attend the summit in Dubai over the past two weeks. I was proud to
represent a country that has cut greenhouse gas emissions more than
any other major economy since 1990; that has boosted our share
of...Request free trial
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero ()
May I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as all the staff
of this House and colleagues across the House, for all your hard
work this year? I wish everyone a very happy Christmas.
It was a privilege to attend the summit in Dubai over the past
two weeks. I was proud to represent a country that has cut
greenhouse gas emissions more than any other major economy since
1990; that has boosted our share of renewable electricity from a
rather dismal 7% in 2010 to almost half today, while almost
entirely phasing out coal power; that has led the world in
mobilising green finance; and that is now ensuring that we bring
the British public with us on the transition to net zero, thanks
to the Prime Minister’s plans to protect families from
unnecessary costs and give people more time to adapt to
changes.
While we are on track, the world is not. The global stocktake
confirmed that emissions need to peak by 2025 and fall by 43%
between 2019 and 2030 to achieve the Paris goal of limiting
warming to 1.5°C. The current pace of global decarbonisation is
well behind that trajectory, and the urgency of the climate
challenge means that we cannot delay any further.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has underlined the importance of
transitioning towards renewables, which are less vulnerable to
price shocks. That is why our objectives throughout COP28 were
clear: we needed to agree urgent action to ensure 1.5° remains
viable as a ceiling, including trebling global renewables,
doubling energy efficiency and phasing out unabated fossil fuels;
and we needed to reform international finance to unlock the
trillions required in climate funding.
Today I am delighted to say that we have secured a final
agreement that supports those goals. For the first time ever, we
have a global agreement on a transition away from fossil fuels.
The agreement on fossil fuels builds and expands on the UK’s
leadership at COP26, which had the first reference to phasing
down coal power, secured agreements behind efforts to decarbonise
key sectors of the global economy and, most notably, saw the
proportion of global GDP covered by net zero targets increase
from around 30% to 90% during our presidency.
This week’s COP28 agreement is not perfect. We wanted to see more
action on coal, and on ending the construction of new coal power
plants in particular. Like some of the small island states, we
wanted greater clarity and fewer loopholes in the agreement. None
the less, this is a turning point. We are unifying the world
around a common commitment, listening to the islanders of the
Pacific and elsewhere, whose voices must be heard, and showing
that we are responding to the science by moving away from fossil
fuels and raising a torch to inspire action.
Throughout the summit, the UK made significant progress on
delivering that action, building on our legacy from COP26. We
were pleased to be one of over 130 countries to support the
global pledge to triple renewable energy and double energy
efficiency by 2030. As co-chair of the Powering Past Coal
Alliance, I was delighted to welcome 13 new members, including
the United States of America and the United Arab Emirates—all
committing to phase out unabated coal power. Through the Energy
Transition Council, we are working with developing countries via
our rapid response facility to help support them through the
energy transition.
We also announced £1.6 billion-worth of new international climate
finance projects, which will support developing countries to
transition to net zero and adapt to the impacts of climate
change, while also expanding green industries on a global scale.
We joined the UAE’s climate finance framework, which sets out new
principles to reform the global financial system, and we
announced plans to launch the climate investment funds capital
market mechanism to raise up to £7.5 billion over the next decade
for green projects.
However, we recognise that keeping global warming to less than
1.5° is impossible without urgent action to protect, sustainably
manage and restore forests. Following the historic agreement at
Glasgow to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030, the Prime
Minister made forests and nature a top priority for COP28. We
agreed £576 million to safeguard 10 million hectares of forests
and help half a million people in poor, rural communities, which
are the most vulnerable to deforestation. I joined Brazil’s
Environment Minister, Marina Silva, to welcome the Prime
Minister’s pledge of a further £35 million for Brazil’s Amazon
fund. That is on top of the £80 million we announced earlier this
year, making the UK one of the scheme’s top three contributors.
Finally, the new forest risk commodity measures in the
Environment Act 2021 will ensure that there is no space on our
supermarket shelves for products linked to deforestation.
However, that is not all. We secured the expansion of the
breakthrough agenda—our clean technology accelerator—to cover 57
members and seven economic sectors, representing 60% of global
emissions. Up to £185 million was announced for a
first-of-a-kind, UK-led facility to help countries across Africa,
Asia and Latin America to commercialise green technologies.
Essential commitments to support resilience included up to £60
million of UK funding for loss and damage—a significant outcome
of Sharm el-Sheikh, now carried forward into operation—an
agreement on the framework for the global goal on adaptation, and
an international green public procurement pledge to boost the use
of green steel, cement and concrete. The UK endorsed a bold plan
to triple nuclear power capacity globally, mirroring our domestic
strategy for nuclear to make up a quarter of electricity
production by 2050. There were also new partnerships with Brazil
supporting industrial decarbonisation and hydrogen transitions,
and a roadmap for the expansion of zero-emission vehicles in the
developing world, backed by major donor countries. The great news
is that British businesses will benefit hugely from all that,
because as the world decarbonises it will use British expertise
and skills as a springboard to realise the net zero
transition.
Just as the Prime Minister announced measures to ensure that we
bring consumers and households with us on the energy transition,
our negotiations at COP have been about bringing countries with
us, helping richer nations to set an example, encouraging the
biggest polluters to replace fossil fuels with clean energy and
working with developing nations to finance green growth. COPs
are, above all, about people and our long-standing, trusted
relationships with partners all around the world— from big
emitters to small island developing states—afforded us
significant influence. I am proud of the role that my team
played.
I pay tribute to the UAE presidency and Dr Sultan al-Jaber, who
acted as COP President, as well as a host of others, including
the High Ambition Coalition for its leadership jointly to deliver
this result. I was delighted that the UK was able to support a
strong delegation of international parliamentarians at this COP,
including the first ever pavilion dedicated to parliamentarians.
Despite this landmark agreement, and however successful the UK’s
record to date, we still have such a long way to go to finance
the transition and achieve our global ambitions, so the UK will
continue to encourage others to join the UK on a net zero pathway
in this critical decade and help deliver a just, prosperous and
secure future for all the peoples of the planet.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
12.06pm
(Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and, indeed, for his
regular commuting between Dubai and Westminster. Given that he
brought the last Government down over fracking, I think he did
not want a repeat performance, hence his return.
I welcome some of the key outcomes from COP28, including in
particular the commitments on renewables and, crucially, a
transition away from fossil fuels. That shows that the COP
process, however flawed and imperfect, can provide a forcing
mechanism for action by Governments. I pay tribute to the civil
servants in the Minister’s Department for their hard work.
Indeed, by a remarkable coincidence, the breakthrough in the
negotiations occurred in the 24 hours when the Minister came home
and they were left in charge.
But, for all the advances made, the truth is that the world is
still hurtling towards disaster, way off track for keeping 1.5°
alive. While we need an over-40% reduction in emissions by 2030,
we are currently on track for emissions not to fall but to rise,
and a temperature rise of approaching 3°. Even after the
agreement, that is the reality, so the question for the world in
the run-up to COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP30 in Brazil is whether
good words at COP28 are finally matched by actions equal to the
scale of the emergency.
These will be the defining two years in this decisive decade,
which will shape the lives of generations to come, so we need a
Government in the UK who will stop congratulating themselves and
using the UK’s record as an excuse for future inaction and
instead lead at home in a way that is consistent with what we are
demanding of others. The Minister complained about a lack of
action on coal at the COP, but the Government are opening a new
coalmine, watering down emissions targets, seeking to drill every
last drop in the North sea and starting a culture war on net
zero. That has sent a terrible message to business, investors and
other Governments; one that was heard loud and clear by people at
the COP.
Let me ask the Minister four questions about the Government’s
approach. First, the COP decision says that we need to
“transition away from fossil fuels” in line with the science. The
science is unequivocal: for us to meet 1.5°, we must leave the
vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. He is right that
many countries fear that some will seek to use loopholes in the
COP agreement to avoid that reality. Our Government are doing
precisely that: they say they want to drill every last drop in
the North sea. The International Energy Agency, the Energy
Transitions Commission, the Climate Change Committee and the
former president of the COP, the right hon. Member for Reading
West (Sir ), all say that that is
incompatible with the science. Can the Minister explain how he
expects to persuade other countries in the next two years that
they must leave their fossil fuels in the ground when he wants to
extract all of ours?
Secondly, on targets for 2030 and beyond, the COP decision makes
it clear that we need not just ambition but policies that will
meet those targets. However, the Climate Change Committee says
that we are way off track for our 2030 nationally determined
contribution. Can the Minister explain how he expects to persuade
other countries to have policies to meet their targets when
anyone can see that we are miles off meeting ours?
Thirdly, on finance, I welcome the contribution on loss and
damage, but does the Minister recognise the lack of confidence
that the Government will meet their promise to provide £11.6
billion of climate finance? Can he explain how he expects to
persuade other Governments to keep their promises on finance when
people suspect we will not keep ours?
Fourthly and finally, when the Prime Minister spends his time at
home describing net zero as a massive burden—which is what he
does—how does he remotely expect to persuade others, particularly
those in the developing world, that it is a great opportunity?
The Prime Minister claimed that nobody at COP raised with him his
dither and delay; I suspect that was because he was not there
long enough to hear the truth. His U-turns have been incredibly
damaging for our country.
The positive outcomes at COP came despite this Government, not
because of them. Britain needs a Government who will show climate
leadership again—not climate hypocrisy—to cut bills, deliver
energy independence, grow our economy and protect future
generations. In the next two years more than ever, the world
needs climate leadership from Britain. Is the truth not that
people at home and abroad have seen enough to know this
Government cannot provide the leadership that the world so
urgently needs?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I welcome
what he said about the overall COP result and the need to
celebrate it and build on it, and the fact that we need to ensure
actions match words in this critical decade. That was one of the
things we were wrestling with most, because new NDCs for 2035 are
being worked on now for announcement ahead of the Belém COP in
the Amazon in 2025, but it is in this decade that we need to bend
the curve further. It is absolutely right that we do so.
The right hon. Gentleman has focused on performance, and I am
pleased to say that this Government have met every single carbon
budget to date. The only major targets set on climate change in
this country that have been failed were—let me think—the target
of 10% renewables by 2010, set by the Government of which the
right hon. Gentleman was a member. The target of a 20% reduction
in emissions by 2010, again set by the Government in which the
right hon. Gentleman served, was also failed. Every single carbon
budget for which this Government have been responsible since my
then party leader became the first leader to call for the Climate
Change Act 2008 has been met. Our record is without parallel, and
I will not have it trash-talked down by the right hon. Gentleman,
whose record in government is so at odds with the words he
uses.
On oil and gas, we are a net importer. We are transitioning; as I
have set out, we are reducing our emissions faster than any other
major economy on this planet. None the less, according to the
Climate Change Committee, about 25% of our power will come from
oil and gas even in 2050. We will be using mitigation
technologies to offset that, but the idea that we should replace
domestically produced gas with imported gas with four times the
embedded emissions, when it will make no difference to our
consumption, is environmental nonsense. That is why we are
standing up for the 200,000 people who work in our oil and gas
industry as it transitions; it is why we support the £50 billion
in taxes that comes from that industry; and it is why we must
retain the expertise of people in the sector going forward. The
Labour party puts at risk our net zero transition—a transition
that it did not set out on properly when it was in government,
and that this Government are delivering on. As I said, we have
met all our carbon budgets to date.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s point about loss and damage.
I assure him and the House that we will meet our target of £11.6
billion in climate finance on the original timetable set out by
the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister came to COP, personally
committed and passionate about ensuring that nature and
forests—on which we have been a leader—were championed at that
COP. Hopefully, I will be able to give more detail about that
when answering other questions. As we move into the coming year
ahead of the Baku COP, we will focus on a new, collective,
quantified financial goal. The Prime Minister, with his focus and
expertise, will ensure that the UK is an absolute leader in
getting that right, amplifying the billions we have today into
the trillions we need tomorrow.
Sir (Reading West) (Con)
I agree that we saw significant progress at COP28, particularly
the agreement on transitioning away from fossil fuels in the
energy system. However, that agreement and all previous
agreements are literally just words on a page; they will come to
fruition only if all countries follow through in their domestic
policies.
The Minister talked about raising the torch to inspire others.
Once again, will he please review the plan to issue these annual
oil and gas licences, and consider whether they are consistent
with the international commitments we have made? Secondly, will
he ask our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to urgently review
the tax regime that gives significant subsidies to new oil and
gas projects? This is a matter of trust. The Minister talked
about the voices of the most climate vulnerable; they will be
listening and watching, and they want to see action, not just
from the UK Government but from every Government.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his efforts at COP26 in
Glasgow, including the significant measure on phasing down coal.
[Interruption.] Could the right hon. Member for Doncaster North
() be quiet for one second?
He did so little in government, and he has so much to say now—it
is quite a contrast, is it not?
Returning to my right hon. Friend’s serious and respectful
question on oil and gas licences, as I said, we are a net
importer. We are producing our own oil and gas to ever higher
standards, and I am proud of the North sea transition deal, which
has seen the industry work with Government to cut emissions from
production by 50% by 2030. My challenge back to my right hon.
Friend is this: in what way is there any linkage between
producing to ever higher standards and a falling level of oil and
gas? New licences simply allow us to manage the decline of a
basin that is expected to fall at 7% a year and to halve in a
decade, and will see us growing our independence from imports,
even with those new licences. That is why we are issuing
them.
On the issue of subsidies, our tax regime is set at 75% —among
the highest in the whole world. [Interruption.]The right hon.
Member for Doncaster North cannot win the argument when he is on
his feet, so he tries to do it when he is sitting down. If only
he had shown the same energy when he was in government, we would
not have had the woeful inheritance that we alone have had to
turn round. We are expecting £50 billion in taxes from the oil
and gas sector, and without new licences to allow for the
greening of the basin so that we reduce emissions, we would not
be able to ensure that each barrel of oil and production of gas
comes with a lower level of production emissions than it does
today. That is our ambition.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Coatbridge, Chryston and
Bellshill) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
At COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland became the first developed nation
in the world to commit funding to address loss and damage. Does
the Minister agree that loss and damage funding should be
prioritised to meet the needs of the communities that need it
most, and distributed in a way that does not add to the debt
burden of the global south? Scotland’s First Minister has
welcomed the deal, especially the new pledge of $700 million for
loss and damage, but of course, that still falls short of the
funding that will ultimately be required. What is the UK doing to
push for more funding down the line, and how much will it
contribute now?
The former president of COP, the right hon. Member for Reading
West (Sir ), made an excellent point. The
new agreement reached at COP28 commits all countries to
transition away from fossil fuels. We welcome that agreement, to
which the UK is of course a signatory. Can the Minister outline
how the UK Government’s plan to increase oil production in the UK
aligns with the plans to transition away from fossil fuels, and
how can we trust them?
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the success of the loss
and damage fund being operation-alised, but also to highlight the
fact that it does not match the need for the quantum of finance.
He asked me how we will be working on that. We have been
delighted to contribute £60 million, of which £40 million will be
going directly into the fund to help get it going. However, if we
are to get it to the scale we require, it is going to need more
than donor finance, which is why we have explored, and will
continue to explore, options for innovative financial flows. So
much of the change we have made there, even if there was an
opportunity for increased debt, would not be debt financeable
anyway, and that is why, as he said, we must make sure that those
who are most vulnerable are rightly dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the increase in production from oil
and gas in the North sea. We are not seeing an increase in
production; we are actually seeing production expected to fall at
7% a year. It is falling faster than is required globally. The
IEA says that countries should be looking for a 3% to 4%
reduction, and we will be reducing at 7%. As he knows, the UK has
cut its emissions more than any other major economy on earth, has
the most ambitious plans of any major economy to 2030 and, I
believe, is the only one to have put into law a 77% reduction in
the mid-2030s.
It is in that context, as we lead the world in reducing demand
for oil and gas, that, none the less, our dependence on imports
will grow. So it makes no sense whatsoever to see Scottish
workers thrown out of their jobs in oil and gas, while we simply
bring in imports from abroad with higher emissions, and lose the
very subsea and engineering capabilities that we need for
floating offshore wind, carbon capture and hydrogen. There is a
complete disconnect in this crazy opposition to the maintenance
of an already declining industry, which is fundamental to
delivering the energy transition. Even if I have little hope for
the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, who has always managed
to have inconsistent and incoherent thoughts in his head all at
the same time, I am hoping that perhaps the Scottish nationalist
party can come to its senses and support Scottish workers and the
energy transition.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I strongly welcome this statement. I congratulate the Minister
and my noble Friend on the negotiations, but also
officials such as Alison Campbell and many of the officials in
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who
played a blinder in working towards and securing the agreement. I
also want to pay tribute to the Minister for single-handedly
making it possible for so many MPs to attend COP28. I pay tribute
to him for doing that, recognising his previous presidency of
GLOBE International UK.
I would like to say to my right hon. Friend that I was
particularly proud of the mangrove breakthrough moment. I am
conscious that the combination of nature and climate going
together started very strongly in Glasgow and has accelerated.
May I seek assurances from my right hon. Friend that we will
commit to the £11.6 billion international climate finance
funding? I know we have already started spending some of that.
Will he also consider some of the approaches to things such as
saltmarshes, the UK’s equivalent of mangroves, to make sure that
continuing integration is part of our policy?
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. I also thank her
for her attendance at the COP and her continuing passion and
ability to communicate the importance of nature as a value in
itself, but also how, dealt with in the correct way, it is
complementary to development and to the maintenance of carbon
sinks. Nature, and making sure that an understanding of it is
central to our thinking, is so important.
My right hon. Friend thanked my officials, and she is right to do
so. When Dr Sultan al-Jaber made the historic announcement of the
UAE consensus, the central text of the various texts we agreed
was that on the global stocktake. Having thanked the two
Ministers who led the work on the stocktake, he immediately
thanked Alison Campbell and Mr Teo from Singapore for their
fundamental role. Our officials and my team were very much
involved in drafting and pulling together words, and I was
delighted to be supported by them as we met those from Saudi
Arabia to China, India and other partners. I pay tribute to all
those countries that, just like us, had to move from their
initial positions to find a consensus.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the presence of MPs. My first COP
was in 2005 in Montreal, and I remember feeling then that the
elected parliamentarians, who make the political weather, were
not properly accounted for. When I look back to that historic
Climate Change Act 2008, I am proud of the fact that my then
party leader, the noble , was the first party leader to
support it—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bristol East
() could just be quiet for a
moment, I was talking about parliamentarians. It was a
combination of Friends of the Earth working with Back-Bench
parliamentarians and a new green Conservative party, and an
early-day motion—an instrument here that is often looked at
askance—that triggered the Climate Change Act, which has been
significant not only for the UK, but for the world.
(Cambridge) (Lab)
One of the key themes at COP28 was food system transformation.
Given the Climate Change Committee’s damning criticism of this
Government’s failure to make progress on cutting emissions in the
agricultural sector, could the Minister tell us what changes he
expects to see in UK domestic policy as a result of the
agreements reached in Dubai?
Again, the UAE can be very proud of the fact that, among so many
other things, it really made sure that food was seen as an
important part of this COP. He is right that land-use issues,
agriculture and more sustainable agriculture are fundamental to
delivering net zero. Under both my right hon. Friend the Member
for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and her successor, we are working
very hard to do that at home, but we were also able to announce
at COP support for more sustainable agriculture and land use
abroad. He is absolutely right that this is an area on which we
must keep complete focus. We must make sure that we deliver in
that area, as in so many others, to pull together and maintain
our net zero pathway.
(Chelmsford) (Con)
In the very hot summer of 2022 almost 1,000 wildfires swept
through Essex. We are not immune from the real dangers of global
warming, so it was a huge honour to be one of the
representatives, from this Parliament’s Energy Security and Net
Zero Committee, at the COP recently. The rate of new solutions,
the rate of innovation and the rate of investment, as well as
this new agreement, do bring hope, but promises must be
delivered, and there is a gap between the science and the
promises. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must continue
to do all we can—locally, nationally and internationally—to close
that gap?
I thank my right hon. Friend, and it was good to see her out in
Dubai following up on so many of the issues, not least in
recognising the needs of the most vulnerable and the poorest
communities and countries around the world to ensure that they
are not left behind and that we do have a just transition.
My right hon. Friend highlights the fact that she was a
parliamentary delegate there, and we were proud to support GLOBE
International UK, of which the hon. Member for Brent North
() and I were previous chairs,
to provide the first ever parliamentary pavilion at COP28. I pay
tribute to Malini Mehra, who has headed up GLOBE. She came in
when it was in a troubled position for a promised maximum of six
months, and she is still there. She is committed to ensuring that
parliamentarians are armed with the information they need.
The answer to my right hon. Friend’s specific question is, yes,
absolutely. When we consider that the country that has
decarbonised most over the 31 years from 1990 to 2021 has reduced
its emissions by 48%—namely, us—and that the world, on a 2019
basis, has to cut by 43% by 2030, with many large emitters
pointing in the wrong direction, we can see that the challenge
and the gap are not to be underestimated. COP28, with the UAE
consensus, is significant, but there is so much more to do, and
it has to convert into real change if we are to bend the curve
further.
(Brent North) (Lab)
There is much in the Minister’s statement that I commend and
agree with, and in particular I reinforce his praise to our
officials who played such a significant part in the negotiations.
I regret the tone of some of his responses to colleagues, because
the cross-party consensus on this issue over the past 30 years
has been fundamentally important to the progress that we have
been able to make. The science is clear; the world’s Governments
are not. Those who are ready to deliver the transformation
required to win the war against climate change are now
considering whether the United Nations framework convention on
climate change process is capable of delivering it in time. How
long does the Minister think it will be before we see coalitions
of the willing, such as the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance,
imposing sanctions on those recidivist countries who are still
driving our world towards disaster?
On the coalitions of the willing, the world is changing, and the
EU has already legislated for a carbon border adjustment
mechanism for selected parts of industry, which will put up a
carbon tax or a carbon price at the border. There is a certain
intellectual inevitability about that if costs of production in
one country are not reflected in others, and ensuring that that
is done in a just manner is important. I would hate to look back
at COP28 and find that it was one of the last times that
countries around the world were able, on the basis of mutual
trust, to talk to each other and come to a common agreement. The
hon. Gentleman, who is highly experienced in this area, knows
just how tender—I am sure there is a better word. The hon.
Gentleman knows just how fragile the process could be if we do
not all step carefully and ensure that we carry people with
us.
(Copeland) (Con)
The commitment that 24 countries have made to triple nuclear
energy capability by 2050 shows that the world has woken up to
the most powerful, least land-taking, reliably proven net-zero
energy provision that we have in the world. That is testament to
my right hon. Friend, his Department and this UK Government, who
committed first to 24 GW. Will he join me in recognising that
without the world-class skills—I draw Members’ attention to my
entry in the register, because I am happily married to a nuclear
welder with 45 years’ experience—and the blue-collar workers and
nuclear operators working every hour, every day on sites across
the UK, we would not, and the world would not be in a position to
back atomic energy? Will he join me in commending Britain’s
energy coast, which recognise that for us to tool up, retrain,
train and recruit, we must regenerate nuclear communities, which
are often coastal communities? That is exactly what Britain’s
energy coast, and the energy coast business cluster, is doing so
well in west Cumbria.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her energetic, continual and
well-informed—not least by marriage—understanding of the nuclear
industry and its importance. I remember being at Sharm El Sheikh
and it seemed that the only people talking about nuclear were 95
youngsters from some tiny pavilion at the back, who were going
around promoting its importance. The science says that we cannot
get to net zero without nuclear, in the appropriate places and
with all the caveats. I remember saying to the incoming UAE
presidency that, given their success with their Barakah reactors,
and given the need to deliver nuclear and the UK’s determination
for a renaissance, surely all countries involved need to come
together and send a signal to the world, so that we are not
leaving teenagers alone to champion the importance of nuclear. We
as a country should step up loud and proud, and face down those
who oppose nuclear from an ideological perspective, because it is
so important not only to delivering net zero, but to delivering
so many jobs in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend
around this country.
(North Tyneside) (Lab)
Licensing aside, what sensible proposals does the Minister have
to offer hope to the 1,500 people living in my constituency, and
the other 200,000 people he referenced earlier, whose jobs depend
on oil and gas now, and who could power our clean energy future?
Offshore Energies UK estimates that if we get the transition
right, the workforce could swell by 50%. Where is his plan for
those workers?
I thank the hon. Lady. In her coded way—we all know there is an
election coming up—I suppose that is as far as she could go in
opposing the opposition of those on Labour’s Front Bench to
sustaining those jobs as we go through the transition. Those jobs
and that skillset will be required for the transition. If we pull
them and say that there will be no new licences or investment in
the North sea, those jobs will disappear or simply go abroad, and
that makes no sense. Along with Michael Lewis of Uniper, I
co-chair the Green Jobs Delivery Group, and we will be coming
forward with a green jobs plan in the first half of next year. It
is a transition, and as the hon. Lady will know, if she can
persuade those on her Front Bench to get off their ideological
opposition to something that is fundamental to the delivery of
the transition, as well as maintaining our energy security today,
I am fully behind her.
(Bournemouth East) (Con)
I, too, was at COP28, and I congratulate the UAE on what we have
all been achieving there. The Minister is right to underline what
Britain has done in moving from 7% to half of our energy
requirements coming from renewables. He is also right to say that
we are still behind the curve. We punched through a 1.5°C
increase from pre-industrial levels in July this year, and
climate change will soon overtake human conflict as a cause of
loss of life. We are familiar with the long-term targets of 2030
and 2050 that the Minister has mentioned, but they are a long way
off. Would it be wise to start introducing annual targets —a
yearly roadmap—so that we can see incrementally how we will meet
those long-term objectives?
Interestingly, my right hon. Friend takes us back to the days
before the Climate Change Act 2008 when, if I remember correctly,
Friends of the Earth was arguing for annual targets, and that was
the Conservative party position. Once the Labour Government
agreed to take the legislation forward, they realised, as did the
civil servants involved, that there needs to be a period over
which these things can be balanced out. I think their thinking
was right and that the five-year carbon budgets were right. We do
provide an annual report on our performance to date, but overall
we have to allow for things such as the pandemic and all sorts of
crises that come along. I think the architecture was right—I pay
tribute to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North and his
Government at the time—and it has withstood the test of time.
(Greenwich and Woolwich)
(Lab)
As we have heard, the global stocktake decision text that was
agreed in Dubai commits the parties to transitioning away from
fossil fuels in energy systems. Can I press the Minister to
clarify what the Government believe the implications of that
aspect of the agreement are for the UK? Will it mean that the UK
Government now have to accelerate action to reduce our dependence
on fossil fuels in what remains of this decade? If so, what new
measures will be needed? If not, are the Government really saying
that the COP28 agreement changes nothing for the UK when it comes
to fossil fuel usage?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is a good one.
Our nationally determined contribution and emissions promise for
2030 is for a 68% cut from the 1990 basis—far more than any of
our peers. We can be proud of that. It was set precisely because
it was, on the advice of the Climate Change Committee, aligned
with a pathway to net zero 2050. None the less, the hon.
Gentleman is right to say that we keep our policies under review,
and as that committee pointed out this year, there are still gaps
that need to be made up to ensure we deliver on that. We have
always managed to do so before, and I am confident we will do so
again. He is right to say that we should continually look at our
policies to ensure that they keep us there, whether or not that
deals specifically with fossil fuels. We are trying to move to
zero-emission vehicles. Today we have made an announcement on
hydrogen, with 11 projects being funded to produce green hydrogen
around the country. We are, step by step, across the piece,
putting in place the required policies. That means doing
everything within the window to keep ourselves in our
world-leading position, which is cutting emissions more than any
other major economy.
(Bosworth) (Con)
May I build on the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for
Copeland (), and congratulate the UK
Government on signing the statement on civil nuclear fuel
co-operation with the United States, Canada, France and Japan?
That statement to secure supply chains, particularly of uranium,
is so important, and the Government-led $4.2 billion of external
investment will go a long way to securing our energy side when we
need an energy mix. Does the Minister agree that that is exactly
what the UK needs, not only for its energy security, but to meet
its net zero targets?
My hon. Friend, as always, is well informed and insightful. We
were pleased, along with 21 other countries, to join NetZero
Nuclear, because nuclear has such an important part to play. As I
said in a previous answer, we need literally everything, and we
are pushing the envelope across the piece. By doing so, we are
developing technological solutions that will not only serve our
needs, but can be exported around the world for many years to
come.
(Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Minister is right that COP is about people and relationships.
I was also at COP, and heard first hand what country
representatives were saying about the recent actions and messages
coming from this Government, in stark contrast to some of what he
is saying today. The Prime Minister has spent recent months
wrongly telling the country that net zero is a huge burden,
rather than the economic opportunity of the 21st century. How can
he as a Minister go to developing countries saying that they must
seize these opportunities provided by net zero, given his Prime
Minister’s message at home?
As delightful and pleasant as the hon. Lady is outside the
Chamber, she is always challenging within it. The Prime Minister
remains committed. He has insisted on our commitment to net zero
and our 2030 nationally determined contribution, while ensuring
that we carry people with us. He was delighted to announce £1.6
billion of UK funding for new climate projects while at COP,
including £887.8 million of new and additional financing, with
other announcements focused on driving forward climate action on
forests, finance and net zero transitions. This Government are
walking the walk while ensuring and making no apology for the
fact that we seek to maintain the national consensus and carry
people up and down the country with us as we continue to lead.
[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Doncaster North insists
on giggling, but we are leading in the way his Government singly
failed to do before 2010.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
May I start by thanking the Minister? Politics aside, there is
much we can all agree on in the deal at COP. I would like to see
us go further in some areas, but I recognise that we have to
build a coalition, and I thank him for the work he has done.
However, it is about not just what we do, but what we say and how
we say it.
Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North
(), the way that the Prime
Minister recalibrated the Government’s policy in this area had
the opposite effect to the one we all would like to have seen. We
got the following headlines: “Sunak’s U-turns make net zero
harder” in The Guardian; “Could Rishi Sunak’s green review
threaten UK net zero?” on the BBC; “Sunak’s net zero backsliding
‘deeply damaging’ for Britain” in The Daily Telegraph; and
“Climate tech backers slam net zero retreat” in the
Evening Standard. Does the Minister not get that these messages
are heard across the globe? Will he go back to No. 10 and ask the
Prime Minister to be just a bit more careful in his language and
how he says things so that we can get net zero over the line?
In maintaining the public commitment to net zero, it was
important to say to people in my rural east Yorkshire
constituency, for example, who are off the gas grid and fearful
concerning heat pumps, that they would not see their boilers
ripped out when they did not think there was an affordable and
deliverable alternative. As the Prime Minister announced, we
combined that with a 50% increase in the heat pump subsidy level
to £7,500, and we saw a tripling of interest in the following
week. Words do matter, but there are many constituencies to talk
to. I look to the hon. Gentleman to help provide the proper
balanced and nuanced view. This country has cut its emissions
more than any other major economy on earth and we have more
ambitious plans going forward. The Prime Minister is behind net
zero. We must have a balanced discussion to show that we are not
inflexible. We are prepared to work with people and ensure we do
it in the right way.
(Vauxhall)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Minister said that we have to ensure we are not inflexible.
The reality is that a number of the policies and issues we are
discussing will have an impact on the next generation and the one
after that. Whenever I go into schools in my constituency, the
young people raise climate change with me. The reality is that
climate change is harming children’s rights and access to food,
water, healthcare and education. Does the Minister agree with
UNICEF on the need to build towards a climate change action plan
for children and young people by calling for an expert dialogue
on children and climate change to be held mid-year at the session
of the subsidiary bodies in 2024?
The hon. Lady is right to highlight children, who will inherit
the planet we leave behind. In the meantime, they are peculiarly
vulnerable to the negative impacts we are already seeing this
year, let alone those we will see if we get to 1.5°C or beyond.
She is right to highlight that. I cannot comment on the specific
question she raises, but I will make sure that it is heard on the
Treasury Bench and let her know as and when a decision is made by
the Government. She is right to say that, just as we must ensure
that the voices of the small Pacific island states and others are
heard, because they are so much on the frontline, the voice of
youth must be heard. I was pleased to meet youth representatives
at COP28. We must ensure that we look to the people who will
inherit the policies that we of a slightly greater age make in
this Chamber.
(Caithness, Sutherland and
Easter Ross) (LD)
I dare say that it might seem slightly implausible to people here
in the Chamber when I say that I worked in oil fabrication, but I
did, and the yard where I worked built some of the mightiest
structures in the North sea today. What the Minister says about
transitioning and redeploying skills is music to my ears and
those of my electorate. I long to see the day when offshore wind
structures are fabricated in the Nigg yard. However, there is a
problem, which is that since the auction, some costs have risen
by almost 40%. I suspect that the incentives will not be
sufficient to get the industry to where we want it to be to make
these things happen. Does the Minister recognise that, and does
he have any thoughts as to how it might be addressed?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, which, as
ever, is well informed and extremely reasonable. He is absolutely
right. I visited the port of Nigg. I was interested to see
nascent floating offshore wind work, fixed-bed offshore wind work
and oil and gas work, and I wandered into a hall where they were
making a large and sophisticated piece for Hinkley Point C,
extraordinarily. That was all at Nigg.
The hon. Gentleman gets to the point about financing and whether
the auction, which has been brilliant at lowering prices, has in
fact helped drive too much of the industry out of this country.
Behind the day job of transforming our generation, my passion
will be to see how, without following some others with
WTO-breaching local clauses, we can nudge and support more
industry here. That is why we are bringing in sustainable
industry rewards—non-price factors, in the jargon. We expect
those to come in from allocation round 7 onwards as we work to
make sure that we look after consumers first, while not missing
any opportunity to utilise, maintain and grow jobs here. On
offshore wind alone, our expectation—this is what the industry
says—is that we will go from around 30,000 jobs in the industry
today to more than 100,000 in the next six years. One of our
biggest challenges is finding those people, training them and
making sure we are ready to deliver them, as much as it is having
more done here.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for the positives in his statement
and the significant targets that the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland is setting to achieve our goals.
Some of the figures he has referred to are encouraging. I
wholeheartedly support help for poor countries, as he will be
aware. Will he outline the parameters of the loss and hardship
fund that has been mentioned as they pertain to ensuring that the
fulfilment of human rights obligations is in the requirements for
any award?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his as ever gracious question. One
of our disappointments—there were things we were disappointed
with in the UAE consensus—was the watering down of elements we
would have liked to see on human rights. He is right to highlight
that. We have always wanted loss and damage to focus on the most
vulnerable. The least financeable of all are people in an already
parlous economic position, often at low scale, who are under
threat from climate change. We hope that the funding that has
been created for loss and damage can complement adaptation
funding as well as mitigation work, and have climate justice at
its heart. We have to look after the weakest and poorest on the
planet. However unsympathetic the science, we have to ensure that
policy recognises the realities for people all over the world
|
