Here are the climate-related sections of speeches by MPs during the Commons debate Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026.
Chris McDonald (Labour)
That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026.
The UK emissions trading scheme, the UK ETS, was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.
Under the UK ETS, operators are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. While most allowances are purchased at regularly held auctions, operators in certain sectors at risk of carbon leakage are given a number of allowances for free, referred to as free allocations. Free allocations reduce exposure to the carbon price for those sectors at risk of carbon leakage and reduce the risk that decarbonisation efforts could be undermined by production, and the associated emissions, moving to other countries.
Benchmarks are the efficiency standards used to calculate each installation’s free allocation entitlement. Installations closer to their benchmark have a higher proportion of emissions covered by free allocation, rewarding more efficient installations and incentivising decarbonisation. The third change that the instrument makes is to use current benchmarks for the purpose of calculating free allocation for stationary installations for the 2027 scheme year. The instrument also provides for the ability to update the benchmark values used to calculate free allocation for the years 2028, 2029 and 2030 of the 2027-to-2030 allocation period. Maintaining current benchmarks for the 2027 year will allow time for industrial participants to adjust to the changes.
The changes in the draft order will deliver on commitments made by the UK ETS authority, improve the fairness of the scheme and increase certainty for both regulators and operators. They will ensure that free allocation continues to provide meaningful support to UK industry while maintaining the incentive to decarbonise and rewarding efficient installations. The amendments to the UK ETS will support its role as a key pillar of the UK’s climate policy. They demonstrate that we will take action to improve the scheme where necessary. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
[Source]
Claire Coutinho (Conservative)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am sure that Members will have been hanging on to the Minister’s every word, but they may not have made it through the dense forest of governmentitis, so let me be very clear: the measures in the instrument, which will be imposed from 2027, will reduce the supply of free allowances, thereby increasing the carbon tax in this country. That is explicitly stated in the Government’s impact assessment.
Free allowances have been the mechanism that we use to protect businesses such as cement and steel from being undercut by cheaper imported products from countries that do not charge carbon taxes. That has meant that those businesses have not faced higher costs from the tax, and therefore, neither have consumers. Because of the CBAM, the protection is being moved to a tariff placed on imports at the border, which means the free allowances in the domestic UK market are being phased out. Members should be clear that that means the carbon tax will now start to be charged on the production of goods produced for the British market that otherwise had been protected by free allowances, and British consumers will face higher prices as a result.
What does this mean in practice? The carbon tax is paid by industrial businesses such as gas power stations, oil refineries and food manufacturers. The Government make them pay a tax for every tonne of carbon they release during their production. Naturally, those taxes are passed straight through to consumers in higher prices, so if the Government increase the carbon tax they increase the price of basic goods like electricity, petrol and sugar. The Government know that, because in the impact assessment for this legislation they admit exactly that: higher carbon taxes will be passed through to consumers as higher prices—it is in paragraph 18.8 for any Members who are checking. That means higher energy, food and petrol prices.
The Government insist that they need to do this because they have decided to link the UK carbon tax scheme to the EU’s. That was their decision—it was a political choice—and that alone has doubled our carbon tax since the start of last year. We are not talking about a slight increase; we are talking about a tax that has more than doubled in less than a year because of choices made by this Labour Government. Families across the country will have less money in their pockets, not because of an act of God or events outside the Government’s control but because of an active policy choice made by Labour Ministers. Doubling the carbon tax has increased electricity bills alone by £4 billion.
In fact, the carbon tax imposed by the Government now accounts for over £100 per year, or over 12%, of the average electricity bill. The increase is costing the wider British economy an extra £5 billion a year, and the legislation that Labour Members will vote for today will pile more costs on to consumers. The Prime Minister recently said that his priority is the cost of living, but across his Government hundreds of decisions like today’s are raining down more regulations and higher taxes, which are pushing costs up. These are policies that will push rents up, that have driven food prices up and that are landing on people’s energy bills.
[Source]
Claire Coutinho (Conservative)
It is absolutely extraordinary that the hon. Member does not accept that a higher price of carbon imposed on the production of goods in this country will raise costs. The cost of the carbon tax now accounts for—rather than pointing to the document, it is worth him listening to what I have to say—£100, or 12%, of someone’s electricity bill. That is clearly a cost that has been passed through. If Labour Members cannot understand that taxes on businesses get passed on to consumers, I am afraid I cannot help them in this debate. Make no mistake: this is a massive burden on consumers and businesses.
Why are the Government doing this? Who benefits? The Treasury will see an extra £1.8 billion in tax revenue because it has doubled the carbon tax. Through this legislation, by reducing free allowances, it will rake in even more from ordinary families who are already struggling. That is in fact the entire point. The aim of the carbon tax is to gradually increase costs for British industry until businesses have no choice but to spend hundreds of millions of pounds they do not have at the moment to decarbonise their production, or shut down and move abroad. The fact that companies are choosing to do the latter means that there will be no reduction in global emissions because those businesses are just moving elsewhere. There will be fewer jobs in Britain, and more businesses in countries that have more polluting regimes—so more carbon in the atmosphere overall.
Page 68 of the Minister’s impact assessment says that the carbon tax would be £25 lower by 2030 if the Government did not make the changes we are discussing today. As the Government have admitted, higher carbon taxes feed through to consumers in higher energy bills and higher costs. The Minister is asking us to approve legislation that, by his own assessment, will hurt industry, fuel inflation and make people poorer. When defending alignment, Ministers point to a Frontier Economics report that says that alignment will save £800 million, but that is supposedly saved over five years, and completely ignores the costs that higher carbon prices impose on the wider economy. To be clear, they are imposing a £5 billion tax rise on the economy every year, in the hope of saving just £160 million a year. That is incoherent to say the least.
When I asked the Department how increasing the carbon tax affects consumers and businesses, its response was that the Government were
I ask the Minister these questions: what is his assessment of how many jobs will be lost because of higher carbon taxes? How many more domestic industries will be replaced by foreign imports, which we are already seeing in gas, steel, chemicals and refineries? Does he accept that reducing free allowances through this legislation will increase energy bills? His own impact assessment says that reducing free allowances will increase carbon prices by £25 per tonne, so will he publish an assessment of what that increased cost will add to people’s household bills?
The world is getting more dangerous, and our raw industrial power is hard power. The Government should not be making our industry even less competitive with soaring carbon taxes, and making us more reliant on foreign imports, just as the world is becoming less safe. It is the wrong measure for the wrong time, and for those reasons we will oppose it today.
[Source]
Sadik Al-Hassan (Labour)
The order updates our efficiency benchmarks to reflect current industry performance and further drive decarbonisation: an essential goal that we must continue to pursue to protect our planet for future generations. The order also enables our carbon border adjustment mechanism to work effectively by phasing out free allocation where appropriate, ensuring a level playing field between domestic producers and imports. This is sensible housekeeping that supports both our climate ambitions and our industrial base, at a time when it is urgently needed.
[Source]
Sadik Al-Hassan (Labour)
I think, actually, that when we fix some of the problems around climate change, like investing in energy infrastructure and making sure that we take the true cost of business, that will eventually bring down bills. At the moment, Conservative Members seem to be saying that they do not want to account for the cost of climate change, which is maddening, considering their previous position.
[Source]
Richard Tice (Reform)
The reason so many industrial businesses are shutting down, whether it is at Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Immingham or elsewhere, or in the automotive sector, is because of the high cost of electricity. This emissions trading scheme, and the linkage of it to the EU emissions trading scheme, has driven up the carbon taxes, which of course has therefore driven up bills and costs. Therefore, industries are less competitive and, as was previously said, those businesses have to pass the cost on to the consumer.
[Source]
Gareth Snell (Labour)
The sector is very grateful that it is not included in CBAM, for some of the reasons that have already been discussed. The current arrangements in the sector are quite challenging. I know the Minister is acutely aware of that, and has been a steadfast ally in some of our work to seek long-term support for a sector that is very difficult to decarbonise—it is incredibly difficult to improve on the technology because of the way in which it is set up—but is also producing things that are integral to the Government’s missions, whether that be house bricks for our house building programme or advanced ceramics to support our defence industry, our growing exports, our pharmaceuticals or the factories that we need, because we cannot make steel in this country without ceramics.
Let me put a couple of questions to the Minister. The first is on the allocation of free allowances. I recognise that CBAM will reduce the free allowance allocations that are put to those sectors that will be a part of it. Would it be possible to consider a reallocation of those free allowances to a sector that is not in CBAM and does not necessarily want to be, but for which the decarbonisation programme is most difficult—namely, the ceramics sector? We are still at huge risk of carbon leakage. We work in an unfair market at the moment, not least because of the way in which non-market economy status countries import into this country. The Trade Remedies Authority, which was set up by the previous Government, does not necessarily have the teeth to levy the import tariffs necessary to create a level playing field for consumers.
Secondly, where does the Minister see the cap going in future years? I am aware that a consultation was started by, I believe, the right hon. Member for East Surrey when she was the Secretary of State in the last Government, on how we could incentivise decarbonisation through raising taxation on the most polluting sectors. The Minister will be aware that the ceramics sector is desperately trying to do all that it can to reduce its output of greenhouse gases, but that is really difficult when it has to run a kiln at several hundred degrees for many hours to do the bisque and the glaze firing, and run refractories for 12 to 14 hours at 1,500°C.
Electrification is not available to many of those businesses at the moment, because the capital to invest in those sorts of kilns is simply not available; the profit margins on their products do not allow for it. Hydrogen is not a technology that is yet proven to be viable because of the chemistry that necessarily takes place inside a kiln. We are wedded to gas for the foreseeable future, and therefore wedded to being one of the country’s last remaining polluting industries. What the sector fears is that, as we move at pace to meet some of the decarbonisation agendas and reduce the overall cap through the emissions trading scheme, that will mean that the free allowances also have to come down, which will push the ceramics sector into having to buy many more free allowances. That cost will then simply be passed on to consumers, or—
[Source]
16:59 Chris McDonald (Labour)
I will start by addressing some of the specific points in the draft order and then talk a bit more generally about some of the points that Members have raised. I appreciate the concerns on both sides of the House about the impact on industry and the risk, when we are decarbonising industry, of deindustrialisation. I know that this concern is sincerely felt by everybody in this room, even if we might differ at times on what we think the best approach is. That is why we have been so careful to consult industry on these measures, as I outlined in the long catalogue of dates in my opening speech. We have consulted carefully with industry and made sure we have listened to what they have said.
Some of the issues here run quite broadly around industrial competitiveness. Possibly one of the main points to recognise is that it is important through the whole decarbonisation process that industry manages to maintain access to its key markets, and clearly one of the key markets is the EU. That is where we come to the discussion about linking the EU ETS and the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism with the EU to enable our UK industries to continue to trade there. Negotiations with the EU started in November, but I want to be clear that they will only conclude in this way if it is in the UK interest to do that. We will continue to consult with UK industry on that matter too.
On the question of power and the impact of the instrument on energy bills, the important point is that the ETS applies to power that is produced from fossil fuels, not renewable energy. This Government’s policy is to pursue our clean power mission by 2030, which involves investing in the cheapest forms of power available, in onshore and offshore wind, solar power and nuclear energy. The purpose of the ETS is to incentivise that. The carbon price incentivises investment; it provides the incentive in power and in industry to invest in new green technologies.
[Source]
17:04 Chris McDonald (Labour)
I think what the shadow Secretary of State has outlined is exactly the success of this policy—it has driven coal out of the system in favour of cheaper power. That is exactly the point of the ETS and the industrial investment. Of course, as we said, we are pursuing our clean power mission for energy security and to lower energy bills, as well as to ensure that we also have green energy.
[Source]
Claire Coutinho (Conservative)
I appreciate the Minister’s graciousness in understanding our concern for industry. His priority is decarbonisation, but I am sure he will understand the very real risk that it is not the case that the UK is decarbonising, because those industries are not remaining in the UK and cutting their emissions; instead, UK businesses in those industries are going abroad, often to countries that have more polluting regimes than the UK—which has some of the cleanest electricity of anywhere in the world—including places that are still powered by coal. Rather than reducing global carbon emissions, we will actually increase emissions by moving our businesses from the UK to countries that have more polluting regimes. That will mean fewer jobs in Britain for more carbon in the atmosphere. Do the Government plan to monitor whether that is happening, and if it is, will the Minister change course? Surely he would agree that such a scenario would not count as decarbonising well; in fact, it would not be decarbonising the planet at all.
[Source]
Chris McDonald (Labour)
The shadow Secretary of State and I are clearly both concerned about the same thing. I know that that concern is shared across the House, but deindustrialisation and decarbonisation need not be in competition. Sadly, under the previous Government, there was a 30% reduction in UK cement production, a nearly 50% reduction in automotive production and a 30% reduction in chemicals production. That is why, alongside the ETS policy, we published our industrial strategy; it is why I introduced the British industrial competitiveness scheme to reduce energy costs for 7,000 manufacturing businesses; and it is why we increased the supercharger to 90% for energy intensive industries.
Clearly, we recognise that energy costs have been too high in the UK for industrial businesses as well as consumers. That is primarily a result of the policy of the previous Government to leave us at the mercy of petrostates and fossil fuel dictators, on the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices. The shadow Secretary of State said that my priority is decarbonisation. I happen to be in a place where there is a happy coincidence between energy security, decarbonisation and the lowest cost of energy. That is recognised by industry, and that is why it is Government policy.
[Source]