• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Jonathan Reynolds's Speeches In Parliament Related to Climate

We've found 59 Parliamentary debates in which Jonathan Reynolds has spoken about climate-related matters.

Here are the relevant sections of their speeches.

• 14 Sep 2026: Speciality Steel UK

  The right hon. Member will understand that I will not comment on matters pertaining to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, but stick to the considerable number of issues in the domain of BIST. He specifically asked about cost. The cost for the official receiver is ?11 million a month, which is in the main to meet the payroll cost of the more than 1,200 members of staff that the sites employ. That is what we have done to date, and it is what we will continue to do.

  [Source]

• 17 Jul 2025: Topical Questions

  10:24

  This has been a year of real achievement for the Department for Business and Trade. From holding our record-breaking international investment summit, which saw £63 billion committed to the UK, to intervening decisively to save British Steel’s Scunthorpe site and all the shipyards at Harland and Wolff, we have safeguarded thousands of jobs. We have reformed the Competition and Markets Authority, changed the zero emission vehicle mandate, altered the remit of the Low Pay Commission and introduced the Employment Rights Bill.

  [Source]

• 17 Jul 2025: Industrial Strategy: North Wales

  I thank my hon. Friend warmly for his question. I am excited about this. The strategic sites accelerator will prepare and accelerate sites for development by using Government tools, such as land acquisition, planning certainty and infrastructure support, to overcome existing barriers to investment on sites. It is designed to create jobs, to attract investment and to support our industrial and net zero priorities. It will work alongside other initiatives such as the connections accelerator service, which will streamline grid connections for major investment projects. It is about going faster, being bigger and being more ambitious for new investments, such as those that could come to my hon. Friend’s area. I can tell him that the Office for Investment is working jointly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Ofgem to take this vital work forward. I expect capital to be deployed initially under this programme in 2026-27.

  [Source]

• 23 Jun 2025: UK Modern Industrial Strategy

  16:42

  The shadow Secretary of State attacked net zero. That is a mistake. Why would we turn our back on billions of pounds of investment and all the benefits it could bring? In particular, becoming a country that is not so reliant on volatile foreign gas prices is an obvious thing that we would not want to turn our back on. He seemed to announce a new Conservative position of opposing CBAMs, which deal with carbon leakage and create a level playing field. I am surprised by that, because the previous Conservative Government were strong advocates of them.

  [Source]

  14:30

  On the substance of the hon. Member’s question, he is categorically wrong. Look at what we are proposing for clean energy and what that means for Scotland. Look at the new supercomputer in Edinburgh and what that means for tech and digital. Look at the creative industries and the brilliant opportunities there. Look at the ambition on net zero and all the opportunities for investment in Scotland while cutting industrial energy bills.

  Of course, there are parts of the strategy that respect the devolution settlement, as we would expect. Skills is something we can only address in England. The money has gone to the Scottish Government for whatever they want to do to take that forward. That is just the nature of a national industrial strategy that respects the devolved settlement. Independence would be ruinous for the economy. It would shed Scotland’s renewable energy potential from the customer base in England. I believe that at the time of the independence referendum, the SNP wanted a UK energy market anyway. If the hon. Member was being honest and candid, he would recognise that there are things that come from the massive strengths of the Union, come what may. This is a strategy that speaks to building on those opportunities for every bit of the United Kingdom, especially Scotland. Scotland’s economy could be described by the eight high-potential industrial strategy sectors in this document, so let’s have a bit of optimism and hope for Scotland.

  [Source]

  18:28

  It is important for colleagues to understand that the modern industrial strategy published today provides a tool through which other non-economic Government Departments can filter their own policy decisions, in a way that is consistent and to the benefit of UK business. For instance, the Home Office will publish its exemptions to the more restrictive skilled worker visa in relation to what the sectors set out in the strategy need and, for the first time, decisions will be made through that lens. My hon. Friend mentions a specific piece of work by colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on the workforce strategy, to which they are committed. I do not have a timescale for that, so I will ensure that I or colleagues write to him about it. The prize here is genuinely joined-up Government. To be frank, the preparation of the strategy has not always been easy, but it is the kind of consistent approach to policy, competition and competitiveness in the UK that is very important.

  [Source]

  18:40

  I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She has already heard me outline the eligibility, and the foundational role that ceramics plays in the strategy and the support it can receive. She is also right that we have committed to the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme review that the industry wanted. We should all recognise that the ceramics sector faces more challenges with decarbonisation than some other sectors, and we have to be a supportive partner in that, particularly by recognising some of the technological limitations that currently exist. As I said in answer to a previous question, we have to look at where we are—perhaps we have higher emissions from a sector, but where is that sector internationally? Would it be in our interest to see those emissions exported abroad and emissions as a whole go up? I do not think it would. That is the approach I will always take to the ceramics sector or any other sector to ensure that we are doing the right thing, both for the climate and for British jobs and British industry.

  [Source]

• 1 May 2025: Topical Questions

  10:26

  I can absolutely give that assurance. I have had meetings about this issue just this week. We are ambitious for the just transition for Grangemouth and recognise the issues not just with the refinery but with the polyethylene cracker. We will get to work and set that meeting up.

  [Source]

• 3 Apr 2025: UK-US Trade and Tariffs

  12:39

  I thank the hon. Member for his words on the automotive sector. On the ZEV mandate that he references, it was a policy of the previous Government to be clear. We inherited that policy. The consultation we have opened with our colleagues in Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Transport will look at that in the context of a fall across all European markets in automotive production and demand, and this incredible entry on to the world economy of increased Chinese production, which is a challenge for all of us. He will also know that the automotive sector is very much an export-led sector—we export 80% of what we make—and all our key markets have the transition policies in place towards electric vehicles, so if we did not make that transition, we would not have a product to sell in those key markets. We have to work with industry to do it, but we also have to recognise that what we inherited from the Conservative party was not working. That is why we opened the consultation, and we will publish the response very soon.

  [Source]

  11:14

  The hon. Gentleman asks a specific question about the regulatory environment we inherited. I cannot pre-empt the publication of the consultation, which has just finished, but he will be aware of comments I have made publicly about changing that to reflect different circumstances. He will not have to wait long for the outcome to be published, and I can tell him that the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and I are aligned on ensuring that we get the regulatory environment correct for the future.

  [Source]

• 13 Mar 2025: Small Business Support

  10:13

  My Department has a very strong relationship with the ceramics sector through the Energy Intensive Users Group. We have regular meetings with that group, and I would also like to mention the British Ceramic Confederation and our old friend Rob Flello, who is a strong voice for the sector. There are many challenges for the ceramics sector, not least decarbonisation, but on the subject of consumer protection, it is firmly against UK consumer law for firms—wherever they are located—to give consumers false information, such as through fake product markings. We have strengthened the regime in this regard, with new enforcement powers for the Competition and Markets Authority coming into force next month, but I will of course get my hon. Friend any meeting she requires.

  [Source]

• 17 Dec 2024: Progress Towards a Modern Industrial Strategy

  We also set out our vision to create a pro-business environment, support high-potential clusters across the country and deliver growth that is supportive of net zero, regional growth, and economic security and resilience. I continue to work closely with the Chancellor and my Cabinet colleagues to ensure we make it simpler and easier for business to invest, thrive and grow.

  [Source]

• 27 Nov 2024: Stellantis Luton

  12:40

  Although this announcement is not what we wanted or what we worked towards, we must not mischaracterise this. It categorically does not signal a retreat by Stellantis from the UK. The plans announced by the company will also see it investing £50 million as it consolidates manufacturing at its Ellesmere Port plant in Cheshire. Hon. Members will know that Ellesmere Port is the UK’s first all-battery electric vehicle plant, and Stellantis’s decision to bring production of the Vivaro electric van to there is welcome. We will of course continue to work closely with the company on next steps of the consolidation process, including the proposal to offer affected workers a relocation package to take up roles at Ellesmere Port. The investments being made at Ellesmere Port and elsewhere demonstrate that there are real opportunities for UK manufacturing as part of the move to zero emission vehicles, but the transition has to be properly managed. That requires a Government who are on the pitch—something that the car industry finally has in this Government.

  The Government are determined to support automotive companies as they revamp their production lines, adjust their business plans, and develop the technology needed for the next generation of zero emission vehicles. These cars and vans are greener, cleaner and essential to our net zero ambitions. Roughly 30% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions come from cars, vans and lorries. To tackle that, and wean our country off imported fossil fuels, we need zero emission vehicles, but the Government are resolute that the transition must be done in partnership between Government, industry and of course consumers. That is why the Secretary of State for Transport and I are listening closely to the concerns of the automotive industry and the wider sector about the transition to electric vehicles, and about the Conservative party’s zero emission vehicle mandate.

  We held a roundtable earlier this month to hear directly from major automotive companies, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the charging sector, and in response we will shortly fast-track a consultation on our manifesto commitment to ending the sales of new pure petrol and diesel cars by 2030. We will use that consultation to engage with industry on the previous Government’s ZEV transition mandate, and the flexibilities in it, and we will welcome the industry’s feedback as we move forwards. We want to do everything that we can, together with industry, to secure further investment in the British automotive sector, now and over the long term. That is why in the Budget the Chancellor committed £2 billion to research and development and capital funding to support the zero emission vehicle manufacturing sector and supply chain.

  The closure of the Luton plant by Stellantis is a bitter blow to our car industry, to Luton, and to the workers who made Vauxhall a world-class brand, producing world-class cars and vans, but we must not lose sight of the fact that those vehicles will continue to be designed and built here in the UK, at Ellesmere Port. That matters to me, and it matters to the Government. When I say that decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation, I mean it. Winning the race to net zero and having a world-leading automotive sector must go hand in hand. We must never undermine the transition, as the previous Government did, but we will be pragmatic in ensuring that regulation and incentives are working as they should. Contrived cultures wars are not what the industry needs; instead, it needs a partner in Government ready to look at the practical solutions that are necessary. We stand ready to do that, and I commend this statement to the House.

  [Source]

  12:48

  I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, including for the exchanges that we had in the Committee evidence session yesterday. He is right that because of the position we inherited—the issues with the flexibilities in the policy and the fact that no domestic producer is on track—the transfer he described is effectively the problem. That is why I say that decarbonisation cannot mean deindustrialisation. It is precisely what we inherited that we are critiquing. We do not want to undermine the transition in the way the previous Prime Minister did—anyone in industry in the sector could tell Conservative Members how disastrous that was—but we need to give a breathing space, and ensure that the policy has none of the perverse incentives that he described.

  [Source]

  13:25

  I cannot make an announcement on the plug-in grant as that is not covered by the Department for Business and Trade, but I confirm to the hon. Member that across the Government, whether in the Treasury, the Department for Transport or the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, we are all united in wanting to make the transition a success, and we are willing to listen to hon. Members like herself and to industry about the policies that are necessary to do that.

  [Source]

• 23 Oct 2024: Regulatory Partnership for Growth Fund

  Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult (OREC)

  [Source]

• 14 Oct 2024: The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy

  To unlock this growth, the strategy will focus on tackling barriers in our highest potential growth-driving sectors. In doing so, the industrial strategy will create a pro-business environment and support high-potential clusters across the country. It will also support our net zero, regional, and economic resilience and security aims. We are prepared to tackle the critical issues head-on and make the choices required to kickstart investment.

  [Source]

• 11 Sep 2024: Port Talbot Transition Project

  12:35

  Steel is essential to delivering on our net zero goals and building the next generation of green infrastructure, and I know that Labour Members are passionate about that. That is why, under our steel strategy, we intend to use the Procurement Act 2023 to drive economic growth and account for social value in the things that the Government buy and the projects we commission. Work is already under way to increase the role of steel as we build our manufacturing base.

  [Source]

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and to you, Mr Speaker, for your very skilful introduction. He is right to talk about that wider business environment, and specifically asks about the carbon border adjustment mechanism. We have inherited this situation of the UK being out of line with the EU. Obviously, because our carbon prices are lower, there is a potential carbon barrier to UK exports to the single market. I can tell him that we are looking at that. The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a key part of a wider policy environment that must deliver decarbonisation, which is not deindustrialisation. We must recognise that the current policy environment is not doing that in the way that any of us would want.

  [Source]

  13:09

  The right hon. Gentleman will know that this has long been a campaigning issue of mine. I have talked repeatedly about the relationship between decarbonisation and the potential for deindustrialisation, and the policy environment in this country not being fit for purpose to deliver that. On the wholesale electricity prices of energy-intensive industries, for most of the time under the previous Government the UK’s prices were wildly uncompetitive. There was some movement, as he knows, with the supercharger policy near the end. More can be done, and there is an even more exciting longer-term position that we could get to. He will have to wait for the Budget, and maybe the spending review, for some more detail on that, but this issue has to be an essential priority for the competitiveness of the UK. We have to recognise that a lot of the industries that we will transition to are very heavy users of electricity—not just clean steel, but for instance gigafactories. This will be a key tool in the future that we have to do better on than we have in the past 14 years.

  [Source]

  I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for his support for what we have announced. Having a competitive environment is an absolutely key issue. I am already having extensive conversations with the Chancellor and key Cabinet colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, about the way to do that not just in the short term but in the longer term, when we will clearly have a significant renewable energy base. There are a lot of exciting options available, including in how we use some of that capacity in areas of low consumer demand. I can tell him that that is a key priority for getting this right in future.

  [Source]

• 11 Sep 2024: Tata Steel and UK Steel Strategy

  The Government know this is the start of a journey towards a greener future for the steelworks in Port Talbot—reducing the site’s carbon emissions by as much as 85% a year. However, decarbonisation should not mean deindustrialisation. As part of the agreement the Government will be working with Tata Steel over the coming weeks and months to consider business cases for further investment and job creation opportunities.

  Steel is essential to delivering on our net zero goals and building the next generation of green infrastructure, which Members know this Government are passionate about. It is why, as part of our steel strategy, we intend to use the new procurement Act to drive economic growth and account for social value in the things Government buy and the projects we commission. This work is already under way to increase the role of steel as we build our manufacturing base.

  [Source]

• 5 Sep 2024: Topical Questions

  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that question. The policy to which he refers—the zero emission vehicle mandate—and its penalties as we ramp up to the phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles is actually a Department for Transport policy of the previous Government. We supported it, because there is no point in having an objective to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles without a corresponding ramping up of regulation to do that.

  [Source]

• 5 Sep 2024: Industrial Strategy

  09:44

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Teesside is a hugely exciting part of the country. There is so much to be proud of there, and so much to be excited about for the future, because of its advantages and the offer that it can make. He asks about green jobs. I have said many times that decarbonisation cannot be deindustrialisation; that is very important. We must recognise that the policy mix that we have inherited is not the right one for delivering decarbonisation, so changes will have to be made. For any business at any level, skills and access to talent in the labour market will always be the foundational issue. We work very closely with our colleagues in the Department for Education. The creation of Skills England and a better link between the skills system and immigration are key parts of that. Moreover, changing the apprenticeship levy to the growth and skills levy, which we co-designed with business, shows that we are addressing this agenda in a comprehensive way for the step change that is required to make our policy a success.

  [Source]

  09:50

  My hon. Friend is not a new colleague, and her advocacy of the automotive sector, particularly given her constituency interest in Stellantis, is well known and welcome. This was a challenging area, particularly for her constituency, that we inherited. The previous Government had neglected engagement with the business. Since we took office, we have had extensive engagement with Carlos Tavares and the Stellantis team. The journey that the automotive sector has to go on for decarbonisation presents challenges, and there is a challenging picture across all of Europe, but the neglect of the previous Government has ended. Not only am I closely engaged on the issue, as are my ministerial team, but so is the Secretary of State for Transport, particularly in relation to the zero emission vehicle mandate—a key area of policy for the business. We will continue that work, and I will continue to keep my hon. Friend, and any other local MPs, updated, as we have done to date.

  [Source]

• 29 Jul 2024: Free Trade Agreement Negotiations Programme

  This Government are committed to developing a trade strategy that will drive economic growth. Our approach will be underpinned by rigorous economic and geopolitical analysis, and will align with our industrial strategy, support our net zero ambitions and enhance our economic security. The strategy will be critical to forging a new partnership between an active state and dynamic open markets, both in the UK and overseas. It will also reflect our ambition to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU.

  [Source]

• 23 Jan 2024: Protecting Steel in the UK

  17:10

  That this House recognises the need to decarbonise steel production; appreciates the pride that local communities have in their historic steelworks; regrets that the Government has pushed through plans for decarbonising steel in the UK which will result in thousands of steelworkers losing their jobs and risk leaving the UK as the first developed country in the world without the capacity to produce primary steel; further regrets that the Government has failed to produce an industrial strategy which could have included a plan for the whole steel sector; believes that primary steel is a sovereign capability and is therefore concerned about the impact that the Government’s plans could have on national security; also believes that steel production can have a bright future in the UK; therefore calls on the Government to work with industry and workers to achieve a transition that secures jobs and primary steelmaking for decades to come; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to report to Parliament by 27 February 2024 with an assessment of the impact on the UK of the loss of primary steel production capabilities.

  Labour has secured this debate today because this is a hugely important issue. It is important not just because the future of the Port Talbot steelworks is integral to communities across south Wales—I know that many hon. Friends will be making that case passionately—but because it speaks to a much bigger challenge that we face as a country: how to decarbonise heavy industry in a way that is effective for our climate objectives and fair for our communities.

  The Opposition believe that the Government’s push to decarbonise the steelworks at both Port Talbot and Scunthorpe, in a way that guarantees large job losses and has no support from the workforce or unions, risks irrevocably damaging working people’s trust in the opportunities the net zero transition could bring. We believe that it is a calamitous mistake for the UK to become, under the Conservatives, the first major economy in the world without the ability to make our own primary steel.

  [Source]

  17:34

  I agree with that case. That is why this is such an important issue for Parliament to consider. I always acknowledge that there are parts of it that are difficult. Decarbonising industry is an urgent priority, but in some cases the technology is uncertain or expensive. It is my contention, however, that getting it right is more important than doing it quickly or necessarily at the cheapest cost. To state the obvious, we can decarbonise anything by shutting it down. The cheapest path will likely always involve outsourcing most of our industrial production to other places. If we do that—it is the Government’s plan for Port Talbot—we will spend millions of pounds, and we will see huge job losses and global emissions rise as we effectively offshore our emissions and then claim that is progress. That would be a fundamental political mistake with potentially enormous ramifications for the future of the transition to net zero. We should know that from our own past.

  The decision of this Conservative Government to hand over half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money to make thousands of people redundant is quite simply a bad deal. It is a bad deal for workers, a bad deal for taxpayers and a bad deal for the future of our industrial sovereign capability. Worse than that, it sends a message that decarbonisation effectively means deindustrialisation. I put it to Conservative colleagues that if net zero becomes a zero-sum game for working people, that risks the very support that we need to achieve the transition. There must be public consent for the transition, and that requires our economy to benefit from better jobs and better opportunities. This is the real politics of getting net zero right: it is not imaginary meat taxes or made-up claims about seven bins but whether the transition is just and fair and delivers something for Britain’s workers. The Government’s plans so far are simply none of those things.

  The race to decarbonise is a race for jobs and prosperity, and this could be a hugely significant time for steel. As the Minister knows, I have many criticisms of Government policy, and I believe that we have weak business investment, weak productivity and weak growth as a result. I recognise that the Port Talbot site is in a challenging financial position, but the Government have already recognised that uncompetitive energy prices need tackling. We have procurement rules in place that are seeing significant steel content from the UK in infrastructure projects, and we are getting close to carbon border adjustment mechanisms both here and in the EU, which will be a major development. CBAMs in particular will likely completely change the economics of the UK steel industry. There is no reason to believe that the UK cannot have a vibrant steel sector, so to make this irreversible decision now, when the policy background is clearly improving, seems odd indeed. Better options are on the table; anyone claiming otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

  It does not have to be this way. We cannot afford to blow this opportunity, repeat the mistakes of the 1980s and leave regional inequality entrenched—we can still see those scars. That is why I always say that, under Labour, decarbonisation will never mean deindustrialisation. I want green steel, and I believe that the workforce are our greatest asset in delivering that. Any real plan for green steel must cover the whole industry. It must be open to all technology that is available, and it should fundamentally be a story of new jobs, new opportunities, new exports and renewed British economic strength, rather than outsourcing our emissions and pretending that that is progress.

  [Source]

• 23 Nov 2023: Autumn Statement Resolutions

  Take HS2, which is a national embarrassment: billions of pounds wasted, businesses let down, regeneration plans lost, and a flagship Government policy that goes overnight when Parliament is not even sitting and is unable to ask the most basic of questions by way of scrutiny. Or take the phasing out of new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030. There was a major announcement on the headline date, one not made at the request of business, that hugely undermines investment certainty, but without a corresponding change to the rest of the policy environment—the zero-emission vehicle mandate—that leads up to 2030. Therefore they lose the certainty and credibility of keeping the target, but do not gain any flexibility from moving it either. Businesses say to me time and again that they cannot rely on a word any Conservative Minister says, and they are right. What businesses need is a real industrial strategy that gives them certainty and co-ordination. They need real commitments on planning, to get Britain building again. They need politicians who are willing to say, “We need new homes and infrastructure, and we are willing to commit our political capital to deliver it.” They need reform of the apprenticeship levy, so that they have more flexibility over skills and training. They need a better trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union than the one we have at present.

  [Source]

• 9 Nov 2023: Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower

  15:41

  As we heard the Gracious Speech, we realised that the Government’s programme is not only incredibly thin, but completely incoherent. It was a speech that promised record investment in renewable energy, just weeks after the Prime Minister abandoned climate leadership and dropped key targets for the transition. It was a speech that promised a more competitive Britain, without acknowledging the huge increase in red tape facing so many of our exporters, for which this Government are responsible. It was a speech that promised long-term decisions, just days after the country’s flagship long-term infrastructure project was cancelled. Most of all, it was a speech that offered no change, despite the Prime Minister himself saying that after 13 years of Conservative Government, change is essential. On that score, he is surely right. This Conservative Government over the last 13 years have been one of the least successful in British history, and now we know that this latest Prime Minister will fail on his own terms, because he is only offering more of the same.

  I admire the Prime Minister’s candour about his own party’s record over the past 13 years. Our public realm is literally crumbling, we have the lowest business investment in the G7, we have had over a decade of poor economic growth, people are struggling to pay their bills, we are not getting the basics right—we are short of houses and infrastructure—and we face big and complex challenges like net zero and charting a course to a prosperous post-Brexit future. All those things require the very best of Government. We need a Government who come to this House with urgency and passion, courage and ambition; a Government who want to work with industry and workers to get the transition right; a Government who will put the interests of working people ahead of the hobby-horses of their own Back Benchers; and Ministers with vision, drive and determination. But that is not this Government, and it never will be.

  The subject of today’s debate is making Britain a clean energy superpower, and Britain could and should be that clean energy superpower. We are entering an age that will be dominated by offshore wind, solar, nuclear and carbon capture, and we have several competitive advantages that should make us the envy of the world. We genuinely have the potential to do things that no other country could do, but that is not going to happen by accident. We need to deploy political and economic capital to make it happen. The Climate Change Committee says that there is a policy gap that amounts to a fifth of the emissions that need to be reduced to meet the 2030 target, yet I think only one Conservative MP even mentioned that in the debate.

  Many of my Opposition colleagues made excellent speeches, which I want to reference. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) lamented that the UK is no longer showing leadership on this issue. He talked about the need to decarbonise buildings and pointed out correctly that the Government’s retreat on energy efficiency standards for domestic properties, particularly in the private rented sector, will cost people money. That was one of the most glaring points where the Prime Minister got it wrong in his speech.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) talked about how the King’s Speech was completely incongruous with the reality of the problems that the UK faces, and about how the energy and net zero agenda is fundamentally an opportunity—on that she is surely right.

  [Source]

  16:09

  Owing to the importance of this issue, I must add something to the record. As the Minister and the Secretary of State know, electric arc furnaces are not the only way to decarbonise the steel industry. There are examples around the world of the use of ammonia and hydrogen in what is known as the direct reduced iron process, and other technologies are under way. Are we to be the first developed country to lose the capacity to make virgin steel? That appears to be Government policy, but I am not sure that the Minister could deliver the necessary votes for that on her own side of the House. I think she should clarify whether it is indeed Government policy, because she would not say so during yesterday’s exchanges on the urgent question.

  [Source]

• 8 Nov 2023: British Steel

  12:20

  Most of all, I reiterate to the Minister that decarbonisation cannot mean deindustrialisation; we cannot simply outsource our emissions to other countries, call that progress and expect public support for the transition. A real plan for green steel must be open to all technologies, it must be industry-wide, and it should be a story of new jobs, new opportunities and British economic strength. Sadly, this announcement seems very far from that.

  [Source]

• 18 Sep 2023: Tata Steel: Port Talbot

  I know the Minister will come back to say that more jobs were at risk. I have heard the Government’s line that all the jobs would have gone entirely, but she must be honest: it is absurd even to countenance the UK being the first major economy not to have a domestic steel industry. The UK steel sector is already much diminished compared with when the Conservatives came to power. The transition to green steel should be about more jobs, not less. It should be an optimistic, exciting moment for steel communities, but instead this has caused anxiety and anguish. I say genuinely to Government Ministers and to all on the Conservative Benches that if they allow decarbonisation to become associated with Thatcher-style job losses, it will risk the legitimacy and political support for net zero in a way that courts disaster. Is levelling up not a tacit admission by the Conservative party that the scars of the 1980s deindustrialisation cut so deep that we still feel them today?

  The plan that Labour put forward for green steel was industry-wide, comprehensive and transformative, and it was designed to secure major economic dividends for the UK. We cannot secure the future of UK steelmaking with sticking plasters. We cannot do it on a plant-by-plant basis, and we cannot do it without the workforce behind us. This should have been such a positive announcement. It should have been about creating jobs, strengthening national capabilities and showing that we can do decarbonisation in a way that works for working people. I say to every single steelworker out there that it is clear that they will only get the bright future that they know is out there when they get a Labour Government.

  [Source]

• 20 Jul 2023: Tata Group Gigafactory Investment

  Finally, can I ask the Minister about industrial energy prices? So much of the transition to net zero requires more competitive industrial prices than the UK currently has. We know that has been and is a material factor in the deal, so can the Minister say whether a precedent has now been set that will have consequences for other sectors, such as steel, if deals are struck for their decarbonisation? In conclusion, I repeat my welcome of this announcement. I welcome the Government’s conversion to Labour’s way of thinking. I hope it is a sign of many more good things to come.

  [Source]

• 12 Jul 2023: Automotive Industry

  13:04

  I agree with part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I agree about the whole-system analysis: many parts of the decarbonisation journey that industry will need to take on will be a much bigger question than simply unplugging one form of old fossil fuel technology and plugging in another. For instance, the steel industry will have to think about scrap if it is to make the conversion to electric arc furnaces; and if we are to move towards synthetic fuels, we will clearly have to look at where the feed stocks are coming from.

  However, one of the most defining features of the past 13 years—I say this without any kind of partisanship—has been a series of very ambitious targets from this Government in areas that relate to decarbonisation, but with no real means to deliver them. That target is then pulled away, and confidence in the British state to decarbonise falls apart. I am thinking particularly about the famous “cut the green crap” comments from the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, regarding home insulation. When we talk about changing existing Government policy, we should not underestimate just how little confidence the international business community has in this Government’s promises at times. Broadly, the approach has been very ambitious targets but with no means to actually deliver them, which undermines the case.

  [Source]

  13:05

  We know that a breakthrough is needed, and we would use our plans to make Brexit work to ensure that the rules of origin work for British manufacturers. We cannot achieve a compromise without working with our partners in Europe, and I believe that only Labour can be that good-faith partner. Our plan to invest in battery capacity, alongside compromises on the rules of origin, is the sensible way forward to meet our climate objectives and trade obligations and retain our industrial base.

  We will make the UK a clean energy superpower by 2030, with net zero carbon electricity lowering costs for the UK car industry by no longer leaving UK industry prone to the volatility of international gas prices, alongside better grid connections and planning reform to ensure that “made in Britain” does not become a thing of the past. That is the prospectus for action we need. Right now, this country needs some optimism. The mantra of this Government—that this is as good as it gets—is as depressing as it is wrong.

  [Source]

• 16 Mar 2023: Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

  16:31

  As we have heard, this Budget has come at a time of profound importance for the country. Many Members have said that too many of their constituents are not just struggling to afford the little things that make life worth living, but finding it a stretch to afford the basics. We see every public service squeezed to breaking point. Frankly, very little in this country is working as it should. At the same time, there is an urgent need to proceed with net zero, and win the prize of the jobs and industries that will sustain our economy for generations to come. Acknowledging these challenges is not talking Britain down; it is facing reality head-on.

  [Source]

  Crucially, the Budget comes at a time when we can no longer put off the major decisions on net zero, because our competitors are pulling ahead. The Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and the Net-Zero Industry Act in the EU have radically affected the relative competitiveness of the UK, which is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) made particularly well. When it comes to climate change and the chance to reindustrialise parts of Britain, we are presented with the fierce urgency of now.

  At the top of that list is that Labour believes that this country needs an industrial strategy, one that is not about picking winners; an industrial strategy means having a plan to keep Britain competitive in the global race. This Government have a curious mix of big state, top-down targets and a kind of total libertarianism in how to deliver them. For example, it is Government policy to force residential and commercial property to meet higher standards in just four years’ time or be removed from the market; to decarbonise home heating; and to phase out petrol and diesel vehicle sales in just seven years’ time. But the Government are not on track to meet any of those targets because there is no plan to deliver any of them. Just to retain our existing automotive industry we will need 10 battery gigafactories, but we have one. Germany has 10 times that capacity, and every day we fall further behind, more jobs and industries go elsewhere.

  [Source]

• 25 Nov 2022: Electricity and Gas Transmission (Compensation) Bill

  10:27

  The right hon. Member gave a detailed account of how these matters have affected his constituents. He was right to say that the proposals are of national significance. That is because the debate comes at a time when this country faces several converging emergencies: the energy bills crisis is impacting deeply on millions of families and businesses across the country, the energy security crisis has been exposed by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and, of course, on the climate crisis, the UN tells us that we are on course for 2.8° C of catastrophic global warming.

  Those crises all call for a sprint to renewable and nuclear energy. That is why the Labour party has set out our plans to make Britain a clean-energy superpower by 2030. I think we all agree that that is also the best way to keep energy bills low, tackle the climate emergency and create good jobs for the future. Achieving that mission is not just about building more kit—more nuclear plants, wind turbines or solar panels—but about establishing storage capacity to manage peaks in energy demand, new ways of balancing the grid and, most of all, very comprehensive improvements to our electricity infrastructure to expand the grid to new sources of energy. That is why the Bill is particularly relevant and important.

  [Source]

  10:35

  We need more clarity, leadership and direction from the Government. We do not need a Prime Minister who has to be dragged to COP27, an Environment Secretary who opposes solar energy or, frankly, a windfall tax that gives enormous, untargeted tax breaks for fossil fuel investment. Taking these matters seriously, and taking seriously the concerns that Members have articulated today, is essential, because achieving this is not just about new electricity or gas generation but about planning reform, new contracts for difference and the regulatory environment. The Bill sheds light on how we can bring local people on that journey.

  [Source]

• 25 Oct 2022: Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

  15:10

  The hon. Member makes a very good point. Unfortunately, we know that the Government do not like independent assessment of their choices. They believe that they can simultaneously deliver the promises made on net zero and bring back fracking. Some independent verification would be very welcome indeed.

  [Source]

• 22 Sep 2022: Energy Prices: Support for Business

  10:04

  May I ask the Secretary of State what, specifically, the review after three months will be looking at and what the criteria will be for determining whether to extend the support? Secondly, how will the taxpayer be protected from energy traders inflating prices, knowing that the Government will be picking up a substantial slice of the costs come what may? Thirdly, what support will the Secretary of State be offering to businesses in the long term to protect themselves from rising energy costs through efficiency measures and the transition to renewable energy?

  [Source]

• 18 May 2022: Achieving Economic Growth

  18:24

  In contrast, our position is that our economy can and must do better. We believe that the UK needs greater investment in net zero. We believe that we need a real reform agenda on such things as business rates. We believe that we need a modern industrial strategy that provides a route for every business and worker in this country to fulfil their true potential.

  [Source]

• 11 Jan 2022: Topical Questions

  There was a lot of talk from the Secretary of State, but no answer. However, let us take up the point that he made. Earlier, one of his Ministers gave me an answer about UK steel production. The Secretary of State talks about net zero, but that cannot be achieved by exporting UK industry and jobs. We have pledged £3 billion of investment in steel, which would match fund pilots in hydrogen in place of coal and joint fund investment in electric arc furnaces. Domestic steel is essential to net zero; it is relevant to levelling up because it provides the jobs and the wages in many parts of the country; and it relates to Brexit because our producers now pay higher tariffs than companies in the EU to export to the US. Net zero, levelling up and Brexit amount to the Government’s entire agenda, so Secretary of State, again—

  [Source]

• 11 Jan 2022: Reducing Costs for Businesses

  I am absolutely adamant that great British industries such as ceramics, glass and steel must have a future, but I recognise that that will not happen without political commitment. Many of us here are from places that take real pride in our industrial strength and heritage, and there has to be a future for these industries not least because, although their domestic carbon footprint is high, if we compare them with foreign competitors they are usually among the most efficient in their class. We cannot attempt to hit net zero simply by letting industry, emissions and jobs go overseas. That is why we have proposed a £600 million contingency fund to support energy-intensive industries, and we have laid out a plan for green steel, promising to fund pilot projects using hydrogen instead of coal for production and to joint-fund new equipment so the sector can grow.

  [Source]

• 13 Dec 2021: Subsidy Control Bill

  20:56

  I do not believe in corporate welfare; it is not the Government’s job to bail out firms that are not viable or to distort fair competition in markets. But I do believe that there is a huge role for the Government in partnering with industry to meet our national objectives, particularly on net zero. A good example of where that support is needed is our energy-intensive sector, which has a significant carbon footprint domestically but which compares favourably to the same industries in other countries when international comparisons are made. I want to see from the Government a coherent and effective strategy to use the powers in this Bill to support these industries because, without that, all we will do is offshore our emissions by making these sectors uncompetitive. At present, we have a Government who are willing to intervene, but whose approach is best described as completely scattergun. I know some Conservative Members are converts to economic intervention, but they have skipped the part where that intervention needs to be driven by purpose, rather than short-term political expediency. Michael Heseltine put it best when he said that the Government appear to have “no coherent approach” and the Prime Minister is just

  In many ways we will not be able to judge the success or not of this legislation until we have learnt more about how the Government intend to use it. Quite simply, the Government must do better. If they had taken our amendments, and those of other colleagues here today, on board, that would have substantially improved what we are being presented with on Third Reading. It would have given us greater transparency to show where public money is going and a commitment that any subsidies help the UK achieve the net zero targets, and ensured that the nations and regions have the powers they need to make the new regime a success. It is a real regret that those amendments are not part of the Bill, but I hope members in the other place will take these arguments up.

  [Source]

• 4 Mar 2021: Income Tax (Charge)

  I wanted the Government to live up to their rhetoric and offer young people a real guarantee. Young people have suffered so much in the crisis, so let us take the action needed and make sure that no young person is out of work or education for longer than six months. We should promise young people an offer of education, employment or training and link those jobs and training to the challenges the country faces on social care, the NHS, schools and climate change. Time spent on furlough should count towards that limit, so that we do not see the long-term scarring that we know comes from periods of sustained economic inactivity. We could use the money already allocated to employment programmes. We could reform the apprenticeship levy to complement that and spend the money this year and next, when it will be most needed.

  [Source]

• 16 Nov 2020: Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

  I will not address this in detail because I will have my own opportunity to do so, but I make it very clear that the amendment does not enforce or mandate pension funds to be net zero. It would ensure that they have an investment strategy, including a stewardship strategy, that is consistent with those objectives. It is drafted specifically to address those concerns and hon. Members have nothing to worry about in that regard.

  [Source]

  00:00

  The Opposition did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading, and it is not our intention to vote against Third Reading later. We agree with the broad aims of the Bill and believe that it adds a series of worthwhile improvements to our pension system. However, we have continually sought, as is the role of the Opposition, to improve the Bill further to make it the best legislation that it can possibly be. On Second Reading, I laid out how we wanted to achieve this, with additional measures to protect pensions, people and the planet. Although there was thoughtful debate in Committee, it is disappointing that the Government removed some critical parts of the improvements that were made in the Lords. That is why we have brought back two groups of amendments today, as well as seeking a new amendment, which is an opportunity to make a historic step forward in tackling climate change. I will address each in turn.

  Finally, I have spoken about protecting pensions and protecting people, and now I want to talk about protecting the planet. Our colleagues in the Lords worked hard with the Government to bring in requirements in the Bill on the assessment and disclosure of climate risk in pension investments. This is an historic step: the first time it has ever been included in UK pensions legislation, and we all should and do celebrate that fact. However, we know that, with the climate emergency getting even more serious, it is possible to go even further. Amendment 16 would allow regulators to mandate occupational schemes to develop a clear investment strategy that is aligned with net zero greenhouse gas emissions at the pace the science demands.

  The Paris agreement of 2016, which committed to efforts to limit global warming to 1.5° was a groundbreaking and critical step forward in global co-operation to beat climate change, but I believe we do not do enough to explain to the public and our constituents that the changes we need will only be delivered by starting to influence how vast amounts of private capital are allocated, alongside direct Government decisions on, for instance, decarbonising power and transport. I have to say that I would have thought that argument would garner more sympathy with Conservative Members of Parliament.

  UK pension funds represent trillions of pounds, and steering more of that towards our climate goals, yes, would be radical, but this amendment is not just about where capital is allocated. It is about the stewardship that we need to see from all asset managers over the companies they have investments in. This is not a divestment amendment; nor does it limit the choices available to fund managers. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) said that the ESG data is patchy, and he is right, but he will appreciate that asset managers demanding better data have been a fundamentally important driver in making that better, and the E—environmental—is actually the most robust part of ESG data. It does not make sense to me to say that the data exists for the Government to issue a green bond, but not for a pension fund to formulate a Paris investment strategy.

  We, as the Opposition, ask the Government to deliver a green economic recovery from the pandemic by investing to support the creation of at least 400,000 new jobs, but achieving progress on climate change demands change in every part of our economy, and despite what we have heard from Government Members today, the industry is already showing us what is possible. Aviva, one of the UK’s biggest pension providers—it supports this amendment—has recently announced that its auto-enrolment default funds will aim to achieve net zero by 2050. That is £32 billion of capital, which is actually going beyond the scope of this amendment. In October this year, the BT Pension Scheme set a goal of net zero by 2035 for its entire portfolio, worth £55 billion. There is also a great deal of good practice in public sector DB schemes, such as the Local Government Pension Scheme.

  In addition, the investment case makes this simply the right thing to do. The Department for Work and Pensions has itself acknowledged that considering the financial impacts of climate change is consistent with fiduciary duty. Pension funds are long-term stewards of capital. What could be more long term than the sustainability of our environment and our economy? These two objectives simply do not conflict. As is said in an excellent comment piece in The Daily Telegraph today—that in itself is a sign of the times—it

  I reiterate that this is not about the Government dictating to pension funds about when and who to invest their money in, and we are not seeking to compromise trustee independence. It is simply about putting a strategy in place that considers their role in meeting our climate objectives. Trustees can maintain their total discretion over what strategy they choose to achieve that goal. Furthermore, this proposal is designed to allow the Government the flexibility to guide schemes via regulations to ensure that trustees have a strategic plan to become Paris aligned over a period of time. Any measures resulting from this amendment would be subject to extensive consultation with market participants, so that their design could take into account what works best for schemes of different types and sizes. This is written to be as accommodating as possible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House last week and outlined his ambitions to make the UK a leader in green finance. It is true that we have been lagging behind our European counterparts for many years when it comes to green bonds. As the shadow Economic Secretary in the last Parliament, I made that point frequently, and I was often given reasons why we could not do that similar to those we have heard today against amendment 16. I am tempted to say that if we wait until the end of this Parliament, even this amendment may well become Government policy.

  With the new US Administration poised to rejoin the Paris agreement in 2021 under the new leadership of President-elect Joe Biden, I put it to the House that we can make this an even more historic week for tackling climate change by passing amendment 16 today. That is why we seek to include it in the Bill.

  [Source]

• 7 Oct 2020: Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

  00:02

  All that brings me to the contents of the Bill. First, I want people to know that their pension savings—their assets—will directly contribute to the future they want for themselves and their family. I am immensely proud of the work that my Labour colleagues did in the other place—much of it behind the scenes—to put climate commitments for pension funds into UK legislation for the first time ever. This is not just lip service, but genuine commitments, formalising the requirements of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures and enshrining a commitment towards the Paris agreement for trustees and managers of occupational pension schemes. That is fundamental to tackling the climate emergency, and it is a vital contributor to the health of pension funds. The long-term prospects of fossil fuel companies have implicit risks, and it is only right that those risks are taken into consideration as part of the financial responsibility that schemes have towards their members.

  The Bill also contains the blueprint for the pensions dashboard, one of the most long-awaited policy initiatives in history. We want to future-proof that dashboard, so that one day people can see in black and white an easily understandable measure that tells them how exposed to climate risk their retirement portfolio is. I know that the industry wants to make sure that we learn to walk before we start to run, and that the creation of the dashboard in itself is no small proposal, but I want us to be as ambitious as we can. Frankly, there is no time to waste when it comes to the climate emergency.

  [Source]

• 23 Apr 2019: Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

  16:39

  Dealing with the climate emergency will require us to ensure that billions of pounds are invested in low-carbon technologies. Most of that money will come from the private sector, and must be invested in heat and transport technologies in particular. The money is there, but for it to be invested at scale will require certainty.

  [Source]

• 9 Jan 2019: Draft Investment Allowance and Cluster Area Allowance (Relevant Income: Tariff Receipts) Regulations 2018

  Understandably, the Opposition are supportive of the economic contribution of the oil and gas sector and the jobs and tax revenue that it provides; as the Minister said, it is a major national asset. However, our constituents will be interested to know the Government’s rationale for offering a further tax break to the oil and gas sector at the time of transition to a low-carbon economy and when concerns about climate change are so acute. The Minister will be more than aware that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report published in October 2018 showed that we have just 12 years left to make unprecedented changes to prevent global warming from increasing above 1.5°.

  People want to know what tax incentives are being promised to the renewable energy sector to encourage further infrastructure development in cleaner technologies. Fiscal policy is intrinsic to driving the transition to a greener, low-carbon economy. This change appears to be a move in the other direction, and I think that people would benefit from hearing from the Minister some of the rationale that lies behind it.

  [Source]

• 8 Jan 2019: Finance (No. 3) Bill

  New clause 7 relates to clause 90 on establishing an emissions reduction trading regime. It would require the Government to review the expected effect of the carbon emissions tax on the UK’s capacity to meet internationally agreed climate targets. There has never been a more critical time to take urgent action on climate change to avoid environmental catastrophe. The report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in October 2018, shows that we have just 12 years left to make unprecedented changes to prevent global warming increases above 1.5° C. Our exit from the European Union must not be used as an excuse to step back from action on climate change. Worryingly, clause 90 contains one of the Bill’s very few passing references to environmental issues, and our review, proposed in new clause 7, would ensure that the Government are held accountable for making progress on reducing emissions without using Brexit as an excuse for stalling.

  [Source]

• 4 Dec 2018: Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fifth sitting)

  09:25

  It is clear that this allowance encourages businesses to mitigate their environmental footprint and is designed to help the UK transition to a green and low-carbon economy. It is therefore disappointing that at a time when, as we have already discussed in this Committee, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that climate change is at the point of becoming irreversible, the Government would choose to end such an effective relief.

  Despite the positive steps that national Governments are taking all over the world to get citizens to recognise and limit their personal carbon footprint, businesses clearly have a role to play, too. We feel that the best way is to incentivise businesses, making it worth their while to use energy-saving and water-conserving technologies through tax relief. Taking away first-year allowances with little notice would only further alienate business at a time when we all need to do what we can to transition our economy to deal with the realities of climate change.

  From the Opposition’s perspective, the change appears to be little more than a rebranding exercise designed to take an effective relief—first-year allowances—away and simply redirect that revenue into the Chancellor’s new fund. It is far from the radical industrial strategy that the UK needs to ensure that businesses and citizens are equipped to deal with climate change and the evolving energy market.

  The reality is that the changes made by the Government in clause 32 appear to be revenue-led. They put the short-term priorities of the Treasury ahead of the UK’s long-term obligation to tackle climate change. Rather than empowering businesses to do their part and invest in energy-saving and water conservation technologies, it appears likely to deter them. We cannot see the logic of that. If the Government are sincere in their desire to create a better-targeted and more effective relief, they need to offer the Committee further details about the supposed industrial energy transformation fund to replace first-year allowances. If the Committee is being asked to endorse that change, let us have all the details first.

  [Source]

  09:42

  I am listening carefully to the Minister, but if the increase in the annual investment allowance replaces the first-year allowances or mitigates their loss, it seems that there is no fiscal incentive to invest in energy-efficient or climate change-relevant technology. The Opposition believe that we should try to operate the policy as a fiscal instrument to direct investment into the technologies that we need, but I do not see that described in the Minister’s answer.

  [Source]

  09:57

  The transition to a decarbonised, clean and smart economy will offer the UK many advantages, particularly considering how tech-savvy and early adopting much of the UK population is. The Nissan LEAF is the most-sold electric vehicle in the world. I say with some local pride, as someone born in Sunderland, that Sunderland has been the sole producer in Europe of the Nissan LEAF, creating over 50,000 vehicles. Of course, electric vehicle and hybrid production in the UK has provided a £3 billion trade surplus.

  [Source]

  09:59

  My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle raised a key issue about business rates. We must aim high to ensure workplace charging infrastructure is as widespread as possible. We should compare how this might evolve with the uptake of solar panels. A change in valuation methodology meant that some institutions had a 400% increase in their business rates after they deployed solar technology. That runs counter to everything we all want to incentivise. Why would we penalise those who lead the charge? In such a generous package of capital allowance for businesses, it is difficult to see why any Government would build a tax disadvantage into the system for users of renewable or climate change-solving technologies. That is not simply our view. That point has been heavily put across by trade associations, including the Solar Trade Association, which launched a fairly scathing attack on Budget 2018.

  [Source]

• 29 Nov 2018: Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fourth sitting)

  ‘(9) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review on impact of the amendments made by this section on CO2 emissions from plant and machinery operated in the United Kingdom.

  This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of this Clause on CO2 emissions from plant and machinery, and report on those changes by the end of the tax year 2019-20.

  [Source]

  15:39

  According to the Government’s own statistics, published in March 2018, carbon dioxide emissions from the business sector accounted for 18% of all emissions in 2017. While there has been a laudable 41% drop in carbon dioxide emissions from the business sector since 1990, we all know that we have to do more, as quickly as possible, to achieve the change that is so urgently needed to avert climate catastrophe. I therefore urge all Members to vote in favour of these amendments, to give us the information we need to get a clear picture of the impact this will have on business, industry and the environment.

  [Source]

• 19 Nov 2018: Finance (No. 3) Bill

  21:17

  It is worrying that making provisions for collapsing out of the European emissions trading scheme and all the benefits and economies of scale that it brings is one of the scant mentions of green issues in this Finance Bill. Our exit from the European Union cannot be used as an excuse to take a step back from action on climate change, as was outlined starkly in the report published last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As I highlighted in my Second Reading speech last week, we are already lagging behind our European counterparts on green finance, as they are forging ahead with sovereign bond funds and mandatory climate disclosure laws. Our new clause would ensure that the Government were held accountable for making progress on reducing emissions, without using Brexit as an excuse to stall.

  [Source]

• 12 Nov 2018: Finance (No. 3) Bill

  22:09

  There was a lively exchange on the environment. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that, given the potential catastrophe we face—as outlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report published in October—this Finance Bill is unsatisfactory. I sat in Mansion House in June, listening to the Chancellor promise that the UK would be leading the way on green finance, but we have yet to see any tangible evidence of the Government’s intentions on the statute book. We are lagging behind our European counterparts, which already have mandatory climate disclosure laws, and those that have issued their own sovereign green bonds. This just does not seem to be a priority for the Government.

  [Source]

• 14 Jul 2016: Topical Questions

  10:28

  Does the Minister agree that scrapping the Department of Energy and Climate Change could only be taken as a signal that the new Government attach less significance to these important issues?

  [Source]

• 24 Mar 2016: Zero Emissions

  10:03

  Since 2010, the Government have presided over a sharp reduction in the number of households receiving energy efficiency measures. Does the Secretary of State agree that meeting a net-zero emissions target will require a step change in the Government’s energy efficiency polices? If so, when might we see that?

  [Source]

• 3 Feb 2016: Fuel Poverty

  Energy efficiency is the way that we can address climate change while keeping bills affordable, and of course it is far cheaper than any new generation that we could bring into the system. What does that mean? It means sorting out the simple stuff that needs to happen—cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, draft-proofing and modern windows. Energy companies are quite good at getting that out the door and into households, and they have gained considerable expertise in Government policy over the past few years. But energy efficiency also means addressing the very difficult stuff, such as solid wall insulation. Half of all fuel-poor homes in the UK require solid wall insulation, and a Government programme is required because it will never be economical for householders to make such large investments themselves.

  There should eventually be a degree of compulsion. Measures such as cavity wall insulation and loft insulation are effectively still free under Government programmes. Given our climate objectives, there has to be a point where we say to people, “If you want to move house, you’ve got to have these programmes in.” They are effectively free; it is just a matter of getting them out the door.

  [Source]

• 2 Feb 2016: Energy BILL [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

  If the Minister is worried about the impact of electricity subsidies on billpayers, she must get the briefing on how we will hit the heat target. To do so through the renewable heat incentive alone would require a budget in excess of the entire budget for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The Minister will not save money by cutting back on this important area. She will almost certainly incur a much bigger liability for the taxpayer unless she can tell us that we are on track for our heat and transport targets, but we all know that we are not.

  [Source]

• 18 Jan 2016: Energy Bill [Lords]

  It is true that there has been a set of long-standing opponents of wind energy in the Conservative party, and the industry might reasonably have been expected to anticipate that. I would say that there must be due regard to sunken costs, and amendments were made in the Lords that reflected the need to protect investor confidence, but they have been disregarded by the Government. For much of the time, especially when we talked about the price freeze proposed by Labour during the last Parliament, “investor confidence” were buzzwords for Conservative MPs. Frankly, in looking at such provisions, they seem to have deserted such a case. It must be acknowledged as factually true that if the cheapest form of renewable energy is scrapped, bills will increase. It is hypocritical to have one set of provisions for renewable energy and a completely separate set of provisions for fracking: if one set is good for one sector, it has to apply to all of them. That is the kind of inconsistency or incoherence that many people find frustrating.

  Having dealt with those two parts of the Bill, I cannot help but use the rest of my speech to lament the issues and the sectors that have been missed, and to lament the missed opportunity that the Bill represents. The first such issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) mentioned, is energy efficiency. The Government’s record on energy efficiency is frankly abysmal. It has cost thousands of jobs, made fuel poverty worse, made bills worse and has hindered our ability to tackle climate change. Whatever form of generation people favour—there are cases for different forms and there is certainly a need for a mix covering almost everything—such generation will be expensive, and I would say that not getting the most efficient use of the energy we already have is a scandal. In our access talks when we were in opposition, we looked at all kinds of things—from short-term measures we could bring in to emergency legislation to extend some obligations on energy companies—because we are going to need the jobs we have lost if we are to have any hope of hitting our targets and keeping bills low.

  The second missed opportunity is carbon capture and storage technology, which, broadly, is essential to any of our plans. We know that it works, and the UK could be a world leader in it. Frankly, it is worth a punt: we should put some money into it. But we are all left wondering whether any financial support at all will be available from the Government for carbon capture and storage. This is not just about electricity, but a principal means by which we can decarbonise industry. It seems tragic for the Government to have retreated from that area.

  The last thing I want to mention is low-carbon heat. I try to get it into all debates, because if we are talking about hitting our targets or about trying to tackle climate change, heat is as important as electricity. Frankly, big political decisions need to be made during this Parliament if the UK is to make any progress whatsoever in this field. I still believe that we are nowhere near making such decisions, but we cannot wait much longer before starting that process.

  In conclusion, the Bill has many worthy provisions, but it does not feel in any way as if it tries to meet the challenges in the UK energy market today. There is a sense that that is no longer a priority for the Government, when it should be a major one, not just because of the international climate change agreement that we made in Paris, but because of jobs and energy security in the UK. The right policies are available—policies that would simultaneously cut bills, tackle fuel poverty and cut emissions. My hope is for a much greater level of ambition from this Government and subsequent Governments.

  [Source]

• 25 Nov 2015: Clean Energy Investment

  In addition, no assessment of this country’s clean energy investment needs can be properly made without proper consideration being given to energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is the only way to decarbonise our electricity and heat supply while also making sure that bills are affordable. On that issue in particular, the record of both this Government and the last Government is absolutely appalling.

  I will say something specific about heat policy because frequently, and understandably, clean energy investment is devoted to conversations that are simply about electricity generation. However, heat policy is in many ways much more challenging—in fact, it is certainly more challenging— than electricity policy when we consider how we will meet our climate change targets while still giving people the security of supply that they need.

  That is because low carbon heat requires us to heat our homes in different ways, and we have to choose from three broad options. First, we can electrify the heat load, but that is very difficult to do because the seasonal demand for heat is so strong. Secondly, we can build heat networks in new-build, but again that is difficult to do because there is less consumer choice with that option and, frankly, to retrofit heat networks is very expensive indeed. Thirdly, we can stick broadly with what we have at the moment, which is the gas grid, but seek to decarbonise some of that gas through green gas, anaerobic digestion and other technologies, and we can also make our boilers even more efficient in the future.

  [Source]

• 20 Oct 2015: Paris Climate Change Conference

  At this rate, it will not matter who gets on the plane to Paris, because when they get there the UK will be a laughing stock as a result of this Government’s lack of commitment to tackling climate change. We are haemorrhaging jobs in the solar industry and in the insulation sector, and all because of a lack of Government policy. How can Foreign Office Ministers do their job if we are not taking the right action at home?

  [Source]

• 21 Jul 2015: Public Transport (Greater Manchester)

  Of course, the true test of a region’s public transport success is whether it manages to decrease the number of car journeys taken—something that Greater Manchester has not yet achieved. The benefits of this are obvious, not least in terms of emissions and air quality, about which, as the shadow climate change Minister, I care a great deal. We should want people to get out of their cars and on to public transport, both for leisure and for commuting purposes. Greater Manchester did attempt this in a rather crude way with a proposal to bring in a London-style congestion charge back in 2008. The proposal was put to the people of Greater Manchester, and to say that it was overwhelmingly rejected would be an understatement, with 79% of votes cast being against bringing it in. I always smile when we talk about the Scottish independence referendum and it is suggested that it is difficult to make the case for voting no. That was not our experience in Greater Manchester with the congestion charge proposal.

  [Source]

• 25 Jun 2015: Paris Climate Change Conference

  Will the Secretary of State give us her assessment of the importance of Britain’s membership of the EU to our achieving a successful outcome at the Paris climate change conference? Following on from what she has just said, is she keen to see Europe agree an even more ambitious reduction in greenhouse gas emissions than the 40% already announced?

  [Source]

  I welcome those words from the Secretary of State, but she did not appear to want to make the specific commitment to a 50% reduction in Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions. She will, of course, be aware that our domestic interim target of a 50% reduction by 2025 is already tougher, so does she not agree that it would be in our best interests, as well as those of the EU, to commit now to tougher action?

  [Source]

• 17 Jun 2015: Bangladesh

  I want finally to make brief mention of climate change. Most people in this country who consider the challenges are aware that Bangladesh is particularly vulnerable. Today, there is a lobby of Parliament on climate change on the theme “Speak up for the love of”. Bangladesh produces 0.3% of global emissions, but it is one of the countries most at risk from rising sea levels. The Ganges delta has 230 rivers, and there are 160 million people living in an almost completely flat area one fifth the size of France. A sense of justice and equity, regardless of what side of the political divide we are on, will tell us that there is a need to do the right thing this year in this Parliament to tackle the situation.

  People often ask about the consequences of climate change, and they need to realise that it will affect not only countries such as Bangladesh, but the UK. It will create refugees and problems of food supply and food security. There will be huge knock-on effects for this country as people go to places where they have relatives, or that they have relationships with. That brings us back to the fundamental point that it is in our interest for UK parliamentarians to take the right steps for the UK’s national interest and for the world. I hope that we will do that throughout this Parliament.

  [Source]

• 16 Jan 2015: Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill

  12:41

  The hon. Gentleman is pursuing an interesting line of inquiry. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), may I ask what data the hon. Gentleman has about the impact of catastrophic climate change on migrating bird numbers and patterns?

  [Source]

  I am heartened to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s support for Labour’s price freeze, which I will pass on to the Leader of the Opposition. In all seriousness, does he not see the benefits of protecting his constituents from the volatility of fossil fuel prices? I am sure he is an avid follower of the work of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. It has modelled what it believes to be a lower bill scenario through a transition to a low-carbon economy and low-carbon generation.

  [Source]

  13:07

  I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a consistent record on this area of policy. He was one of just five Members who voted against the UK’s world-leading Climate Change Act 2008. As a result, I am not sure that we will find many areas of agreement on the specifics of the Bill, but I give credit to the hon. Gentleman in one regard: his Bill is, at least, brief. In little more than one page, he seeks to annihilate the UK’s world-leading offshore industry in its entirety—an industry with approximately 5 GW of capacity in operation or construction, with a further 3.2 GW awarded under early contracts for difference. The industry directly employs nearly 7,000 people and many more in its supply chain. It is fantastic to see in the Chamber today representatives from east Hull and from Delyn who have been able to articulate the benefits that the industry brings to their areas.

  The hon. Member for Christchurch is a strong supporter of nuclear power, as am I. Labour supports the construction of new nuclear power stations at Hinkley and elsewhere. Where the hon. Gentleman and, I am afraid, too many of his Conservative colleagues get it so badly wrong is that they do not appreciate or understand the need for an energy mix. That means new nuclear, carbon capture and storage technology and, fundamentally, renewables such as onshore and offshore wind as well as solar, wave and tidal. That is what we mean by a mix. We cannot meet our carbon reduction commitments or avert catastrophic climate change unless we follow the route to such a mix.

  Labour is committed to setting a 2030 power sector decarbonisation target—something that the industry has called for—in order to provide the long-term certainty that it needs. In that regard, the Bill is entirely contradictory. One of its clauses is, as we have heard, to limit the maximum height of wind turbines, yet the new generation of more efficient turbines coming on stream has been designed to maximise the energy yield in deeper waters. These turbines, such as the latest products from Vestas and Siemens, will certainly exceed the 100 metre height, with blades perhaps 75 to 80 metres long. These taller, more efficient turbines will help to drive down cost reduction, not to mention the benefit to the UK’s manufacturing investment. The Bill is pursuing two contradictory objectives in those two clauses.

  I understand that the hon. Member for Christchurch was one of more than 100 Conservative MPs who wrote to the Prime Minister, demanding that the Government withdraw support for the UK’s onshore wind industry as well. In that regard, they were successful. The Conservatives have now proposed an effective moratorium for onshore wind, which is, of course, the cheapest large-scale form of renewable energy. Indeed, between June 2013 and September 2014, the Communities Secretary intervened in 50 onshore wind applications—projects that could have powered more than 250,000 homes.

  Thankfully, the Conservatives’ irrational dislike of clean energy is not supported in public opinion. According to their very own figures, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has noted that 74% of people support offshore wind, two thirds support onshore wind and a whopping 80% support further solar development. The hostility to green energy runs counter not only to our energy security needs, but to public opinion.

  One colleague who joined the hon. Member for Christchurch in the lonely No Lobby during the vote on the historic Climate Change Act 2008 was, of course, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who made a final, desperate point of order just before the House divided. Although the House was passing the Climate Change Bill that evening—based, he said, on the supposition that the climate was getting warmer—he pointed out that it was snowing outside, even though it was October.

  This is not a debate about climate change, and nor would I wish unfairly to associate the words of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden with those of the Member for Christchurch, but I think we can all agree that climate is different from weather. If we cannot, there is very little point in discussing the intricacies of how far turbines should be from land or what the right strike price is for offshore wind, nuclear or anything else.

  The fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided overwhelming and compelling scientific evidence that climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity and that it will have disastrous consequences if urgent action is not taken to cut our carbon emissions and invest in mitigation.

  I am always willing to have a debate about offshore wind, about how we can get investment up and bring costs down. However, no debate centred on a Bill that would implement a de facto ban on offshore wind could, I think, be considered a serious one. Labour is focusing on how we can best navigate the energy trilemma that all economies face. Instead of a tax on clean energy, Labour is providing—through widely supported policies such as our 2030 power sector decarbonisation target—the certainty that is needed if we are to attract investment and bring costs down. Clean energy is crucial to our energy security. Labour is focusing on helping our clean energy industry to succeed, and ensuring that United Kingdom consumers are given a fair deal in respect of their secure, clean energy.

  [Source]

  13:25

  I do not believe that the Minister is as silly as his remarks might suggest. I think he is perfectly aware that it was always intended to be a freeze on rising prices, with the potential to deal with a fall. He has been gracious in letting me intervene on him, so may I ask him a specific question? He said that we were in favour of decarbonised electricity generation without having regard for the impact on consumers. It is the Conservative party, however, that is proposing a ban on onshore wind development, which is the cheapest form of renewable energy. If he is to stick to the legally binding commitments that this country already has, how will he square his lack of support for the onshore wind industry with his concern for consumers?

  [Source]

  13:27

  The Minister is trying to dodge his previous statement by making points about efficiency, which he knows I agree with—hence our ambition for a much more successful energy efficiency policy than the one his Government have pursued, which has been in most aspects an outright disaster. I say to him again that he is talking about decarbonising at the lowest possible cost while simultaneously ruling out the most cost-effective form of renewable electricity generation. How does he square those two objectives?

  [Source]

• 3 Sep 2014: Energy Company Licence Revocation

  15:27

  I am not quite sure where to begin when it comes to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). Let me respectfully say to him on the issues of climate change—without going too far away from the motion—that the 10 warmest years on record are clearly those of recent times. People who express climate scepticism—I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not mind me saying this—are likely to be those who are relatively sceptical about the powers of big government. The hon. Gentleman probably does not believe that making direct state interventions is the way to solve the world’s problems. He mentioned the smart meter roll-out in that context. If we look at the countries involved in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—countries as diverse as Switzerland, China, Australia, Japan, the USA, India, Germany, Russia and Norway—is it possible or conceivable that the scientists from all those countries have got together and decided to hoax us in this grand fashion? I cannot believe that anyone with the hon. Gentleman’s scepticism would accept that position so readily.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) wonderfully highlighted some of the inconsistencies behind Government policy on quite a few issues. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and, indeed, the hon. Members for Monmouth and for Warrington South repeated what has become the siren call from the Tory right—perhaps soon to become the UKIP left—arguing that the pressure on energy prices is somehow related to the conversion to renewable energy. I am afraid that those claims do not add up. The Government’s figures on policies such as the renewable obligation cannot possibly explain the rise in energy bills that we have seen in recent years. Through such policies, we get safety in energy and obtain much greater energy security. What is more, renewable energy sources have nothing of the price volatility we see in international gas markets. As Dale Vince, the chief executive of Ecotricity, recently remarked,

  [Source]

  15:41

  There is not a tension between the pursuit of affordability and the pursuit of decarbonised energy supplies—or, at least, there is not a problem that we cannot resolve. Yes, renewable energy is more expensive than, for instance, coal, on which the hon. Gentleman may be particularly keen, but surely that makes the transparency of our energy market more rather than less important. The need for us to ensure that there is a downward pressure on energy prices becomes more of an imperative when we are making that transition.

  [Source]

• 11 Jun 2014: G7

  I welcome the Prime Minister’s words on climate change, but he will know that there was considerable disappointment that not one G7 member managed to send a Minister to the Bonn United Nations framework convention on climate change meeting last week. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he intends to attend the Ban Ki-moon summit later in the year?

  [Source]

• 25 Mar 2014: amendment of the law

  16:57

  It would be wrong to think that the national Government do not have a role, but they should just do what they do best. To get our economy right, we need many institutions and real industrial strategies, not just side projects for BIS that do not have wider Government support. Renewable energy, for instance, particularly wind power, is a crucial part of the UK’s future and we have all welcomed the decision made by Siemens today. However, although DECC and BIS champion it, DCLG holds up every onshore wind power application it can get in the way of. It is pathetic.

  Finally, we need to orient our economy to the challenges of the future. I have very little interest in who the Prime Minister picks for his Cabinet, but I would simply say that we will not win the global race with people who have not yet got round to accepting that climate change exists.

  [Source]

• 11 Mar 2014: Energy Company Obligation

  If the Committee on Climate Change wants us to do 200,000 solid-wall jobs a year, 25,000 a year is simply not good enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test hit the nail on the head when he said that if we look at the objectives, the key issue is that ECO was created to do that hard-to-treat work. The policy is constructed around starting to meet that challenge, yet mid-programme the Government have now changed the objectives, leaving us with a bit of a mess.

  [Source]

• 7 Nov 2013: Energy Prices, Profits and Poverty

  14:47

  As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and it is a particular pleasure to be here today to discuss the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change’s report entitled “Energy Prices, Profits and Poverty”, and the responses to it.

  [Source]

  14:52

  From our exchange at the Dispatch Box yesterday, it seems that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), and I have substantially different views on the performance of the Government’s flagship ECO scheme. I simply do not believe that the ECO is ambitious or effective enough to meet the fuel poverty challenge in this country. In answer to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), the chances are that the ECO’s cost will rise out of proportion to the success of the measures being delivered.

  [Source]

• 25 Mar 2013: amendment of the law

  There are three issues I would like to address in the brief time available to me, the first of which is manufacturing. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that this Government have done some good things in that regard. I am pleased that there are Members on both sides of the House who, like me, are passionate about manufacturing, a sector in which a fifth of my constituents still work. However, the Budget speech made no mention of the “march of the makers”, and it did not address the two main issues that still remain: that such businesses cannot borrow money when they need to; and that they feel that the Government do not give them sufficient strategic direction, be it on renewable energy, High Speed 2, aviation policy or anything else. I hope the Chancellor has had time to read the excellent report by the former director of the Institute of Directors, Sir George Cox, on short-termism in the UK economy. I hope he will take on board its main recommendation: that we need to develop a coherent and workable modern industrial strategy if we are to remain competitive. I agree with Government Members when they say we are in a global race, but at the moment we do not even have a map of the course.

  [Source]

• 14 Jul 2010: Renewable Energy Projects

  16:44

  I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made. Does he agree that planning is at the centre of some of the problems relating to the tensions between local authorities and co-operative groups in respect of renewable energy projects? One way to redress the balance is to encourage more local authorities to regard community ownership positively in terms of giving planning consent, allowing them to support such a co-operative movement without crowding it out.

  [Source]

See all Parliamentary Speeches Mentioning Climate