Here are the climate-related sections of speeches by MPs during the Commons debate Energy Security.
Caroline Nokes (Conservative)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (i) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I call the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
[Source]
00:00 Claire Coutinho (Conservative)
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech commits to banning the issuance of licences to explore new oil and gas fields; recognise that this proposal will have a particularly negative impact on Aberdeen, the North East of Scotland and the wider UK economy; believe instead the Government must approve the Rosebank oil field and the Jackdaw gas field, which would boost UK energy security; urge the Government to drop its opposition to new oil and gas licences and instead legislate for a presumption in favour of approving new licences, and permit the exporting of oil and gas technology overseas; further regret the cancellation of a third large-scale nuclear power plant at Wylfa; and further urge the Government to abolish the ‘carbon tax’ regime to avoid more refinery closures, protect the domestic supply of refined products, and reduce the tax burden on UK industry.”
[Source]
14:30 Andrew Lewin (Labour)
The right hon. Lady talks of absurd positions. I did a little research before the debate today. I went back to 21 May 2024, just before the last general election, and in this House, in her capacity as Secretary of State, she said that she believed in net zero. She said:
“We are on track to reach net zero by 2050, and we will do so in a way that brings the public with us.” —[ Official Report , 21 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 724.]
Her position now is that she does not believe in net zero, and does not believe that it is desirable or achievable. Is that not absurd?
[Source]
14:30 Claire Coutinho (Conservative)
People change their minds when they look at facts— [ Interruption. ] I am not hiding from this. I think the hon. Gentleman needs to look at the overall record of the things I said in government. The first thing I said when I went into position was that we cannot impoverish ourselves in the name of net zero. I started a true costing of renewables in the Department, because we did not have a proper costing of energy. Who cancelled that work? It was the Secretary of State. I backed the North sea; I signed off Rosebank; I legislated to protect those North sea licences. Who is turning all of that around? The Secretary of State. We all know the real reason that he is doing it. He is shutting down British oil and gas to show climate leadership. He put that in the King’s Speech. Let us be crystal clear, though. What he is saying is that he is willing to turn his back on British industry, even though we will not need any less energy. We will rely on higher-emission imports from abroad because he cares more about the climate bureaucrats than about the jobs of British workers. That is what climate leadership means to him.
Where exactly is this meant to be leading us—bankruptcy? Where does it end—cheering as the lights go out as the last factory in Britain closes? That is what the Secretary of State’s North sea and carbon tax policies are doing. They are simply offshoring British emissions to the coal-powered refineries of India, the diesel tankers bringing us gas from the US and Qatar, and the factories in Trinidad from where we are now getting our ammonia. That does not help the climate and it does not help British workers.
[Source]
14:35 Claire Coutinho (Conservative)
The North sea is a vital part of our industry. It provides us not only with the gas that we need for energy security but with the feedstock that feeds into our chemicals and plastics industries. There is a whole supply chain of other industries that rely on the North sea and on our having a successful industrial base. If we lose just one of those foundational industries, it is like dominoes: the rest will go. If we keep offshoring British emissions, it will not help the climate and it will not help British workers. Do the Government understand how bad it looks when they make speeches patting themselves on the back here in Westminster while hard-working Brits out there lose their jobs so that we can import more goods with higher emissions from abroad? That is why the vote on the North sea today should be a litmus test for them. Do they reject decarbonisation by deindustrialisation or not?
[Source]
14:33 Claire Coutinho (Conservative)
Now let us talk about electricity. A key part of the Secretary of State’s plan is to make us more reliant on electricity imports. He does not like to talk about it, but at the height of winter, when we need it most, we will be importing twice as much electricity by 2030 as we did when this Government came into office. What does that mean? It means relying on the goodwill of France and Norway to keep the lights on in Britain. I remind the House that we are now in a situation where France is on the edge of a debt crisis, with the National Rally topping the polls. Does the House really think it prudent to hand over the keys to our electricity security to Marine Le Pen? Let us be honest, that is the Secretary of State’s plan. Whichever way we look at it, this is not an energy independence Bill. It is an energy dependence Bill that makes Britain beholden to Marine Le Pen for our electricity, to Xi Jinping for our solar panels and to Donald Trump for our gas. The Government’s plan is for energy scarcity, but what we need is energy abundance. That is why our plan would be to double down on nuclear, to axe the carbon tax to save British industry, to get Britain drilling and to make electricity cheap.
[Source]
14:36 Claire Coutinho (Conservative)
Growth is the antidote to so many of our problems, but to deliver it, we need two things: cheap, abundant energy and economic freedom. By shutting down the North sea, cancelling nuclear projects and keeping a distorted electricity market in place, the Government are making energy scarce and expensive. Being part of the EU does not solve that problem. The EU leaders themselves rail against their own energy policy. Reindustrialisation is just a meaningless slogan unless we back the North sea, axe the carbon taxes that are killing British industry and cut the cost of energy. If none of Labour’s contenders has the courage to say anything about these issues, nothing will change.
If Labour Members really cared about growth and reindustrialisation, they would axe carbon taxes, get Britain drilling, double down on nuclear and make electricity cheap. In short, they would put the national interest ahead of the Secretary of State’s ideology and vote with us tonight.
[Source]
12:29 Ed Miliband (Labour)
I agree with that commentator—it was the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), the shadow Energy Secretary, in Hansard on 16 November 2023. I agree with her. The problem is that she no longer agrees with herself. Where the evidence says we need more renewables, not less, she opposes them. Where the evidence says we should electrify as much as we can, she says we should abandon support for people to get heat pumps. Where the evidence says electric vehicles can protect consumers, she opposes action for their take-up—not because the facts have changed, not because the evidence has changed, but because she has jumped on the anti-clean energy, anti-net zero bandwagon. I am very happy to give way to her, so that she can tell the House whether she agrees with herself.
[Source]
Jim Shannon (DUP)
I want to see nuclear power in Northern Ireland, although unfortunately that is down to the Northern Ireland Assembly and it looks like there might be some obstacles. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to tidal power, battery storage and green hydrogen. He has always been keen to ensure that Northern Ireland can also be part of the growth that is coming from here. Will he give Northern Ireland some encouragement that when it comes to moving forward with green energy, we are part of that plan across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
[Source]
15:07 Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat)
We need a secure energy mix, and that includes nuclear; we believe that small modular reactors have great potential to strengthen energy security alongside renewables. Oil and gas will also be part of that energy mix for decades to come, but we must recognise the need for a fair and managed energy transition, given that our remaining reserves are in decline. Communities cannot be left behind. We urge the Government to establish a just transition commission, to future-proof supply chain jobs, and to enable the retention of our brilliant, skilled oil and gas workers in high-quality jobs in renewables and other sectors.
[Source]
Pippa Heylings (Liberal Democrat)
Proponents of prolonged over-reliance on fossil fuels often ignore the costs of inaction. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that transitioning away from fossil fuels is essential to our efforts to tackle climate change. Communities around the country are already feeling the impacts and costs of extreme weather events. My South Cambridgeshire constituency is one of the most water-stressed in the country; last month, we saw 5% of the average rainfall, and we are feeling it. Floods and droughts have battered farmers across the country—they are reeling from the worst harvest on record, which will lead to problems with food security and put up our food prices.
[Source]
Angus MacDonald (Liberal Democrat)
To support the hon. Gentleman’s argument about the price of electricity, renewable energy is largely generated in Scotland, north Wales and south-west England. We have the highest level of fuel poverty, we have no mains gas, and the suffering caused to those rural areas is remarkable. Until that is improved, we are not in a position to move to an electricity-based economy.
[Source]
15:10 Bill Esterson (Labour)
The economic arguments are strong. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), was talking about growth earlier; I ask her just to look at what the Office for Budget Responsibility is saying. The OBR makes the point that the costs of not addressing climate change are significantly more than the costs of making the transition. The Climate Change Committee predicts that, if we do not act, we will see a 7% fall in GDP by 2050. If we really want to be scared, we should listen to the actuaries: they know a thing or two about this, and they predict that global GDP will fall by 50% between 2070 and 2090, with catastrophic consequences across the world, unless we take the action that we need to take. We have to act.
[Source]
15:24 Edward Leigh (Conservative)
I should have thought that we could have a compromise on this. We could have a policy that is sensible, gradually moving away from fossil fuels and gradually becoming a more green-energy economy, but we should not simply export our emissions and set arbitrary dates.
[Source]
15:29 Toby Perkins (Labour)
The exchange of letters between the shadow Secretary of State and the chair of the Climate Change Committee, and I encourage everyone to look at them, made it clear that when she voted against allocation round 7, she simply did not understand what she was talking about in terms of the difference between an LCOE—a levelised cost of energy—and contracts for difference. So when she says that we should follow her advice, we should treat that with the greatest of scepticism.
The King’s Speech also has a clean water Bill, and alongside climate action we do need nature action. Nature is the foundation of our national economic security, and we cannot tackle climate change without restoring nature. The Government made a promise to clean up Britain’s rivers and seas, and I am delighted to see this clean water Bill in the King’s Speech—not only in tackling water industry reform, which is crucial, but in recognising the need to tackle agricultural water pollution and road-based water pollution.
[Source]
15:37 Anneliese Dodds (Labour)
The Government have, rightly in my view, launched their sovereign AI fund, supporting innovative start-ups to scale up and generate value here in the UK, including access to compute. I know that many Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero have been working hard to ensure that the capacity is there to deliver that additional compute. However, when it comes to the design and use of AI systems and models, we have only the AI Security Institute, a world-first, expert-led organisation, but one that lacks statutory powers and has to ask companies politely to engage. Even the Trump Administration now appear to recognise the need for the evaluation of frontier AI models before release. If we are genuinely serious about our country’s economic security, we must devote as much attention to AI and its astonishingly transformative, productive and disruptive potential as we are rightly devoting to energy security and the delivery of home-grown renewables. That will first require working with the EU on digital regulation, and I will push for that to be reflected in the welcome EU partnership Bill.
[Source]
Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat)
Energy security is now utterly urgent. If I cannot convince hon. Members of all the science that points to the need to tackle the catastrophic blight of human-made climate change, surely I can convince them that our energy security rests on domestically produced renewable energy: Putin cannot turn off the sun, the wind or our waves. Surely we should therefore rejoin the European international energy market and invest massively in the national grid.
[Source]
16:00 Emma Foody (Labour)
My region is leading the way to building clean, renewable energy and energy security. New seabed sites off our coast can unlock at least 6 GW of offshore capacity. That means billions of pounds of investment coming to our region, creating jobs and opportunity. In my constituency, the West Hartford business park, with support from Arlington and the port of Blyth, will unlock 2,000 jobs and more than £400 million of local investment. The Moor Farm roundabout upgrades—never knowingly not mentioned by me—adds to the sense of possibility, acting as a gateway to growth across the north-east.
[Source]
16:11 Rachel Hopkins (Labour)
The King’s Speech outlines our plans to go faster and further, taking definitive action to protect the energy, defence and economic security of the United Kingdom for the long term, including through the introduction of an energy independence Bill to scale up home grown renewable energy and protect living standards, helping to tackle the affordability crisis, particularly for low-income households, including through our warm homes plan.
[Source]
Joe Robertson (Conservative)
As we have heard from Members across this House, there is a consensus—there is unity. We all want to decarbonise energy use, but Conservative Members will not support doing so at the expense of families, households and individuals, particularly those who are hard up and least able to pay. This is not a binary choice, where we are either pro-decarbonisation or against it; we can be for it, yet understand that the security of energy supply and household energy bills must come first. What country in the world would run headlong into an ideological experiment for the sake of it, leaving hard-up citizens behind? No country in the world. This country should not, and this Government should not either.
[Source]
Joe Robertson (Conservative)
I accept that there are some difficult questions in and around this whole area of debate. The truth remains that no Government have done more to decarbonise the economy and to bring forward green technology than the last Conservative Government, but we would not do that at the expense of hard-working families. The bonkers green tax agenda that this Government are peddling is harming the debate on decarbonising the economy. I will give an example of that.
[Source]
Polly Billington (Labour)
I am comfortable with accepting that there has been a growing consensus about decarbonising our energy system over a period of time, starting with the Climate Change Act 2008, which only a handful of Conservative MPs voted against. However, I am puzzled that hon. Member thinks that the last Tory Government did that without any burden on the taxpayer or on bills, when the so-called energy savings package that Liz Truss put in place cost £44 billion and has left this country in profound debt.
[Source]
16:40 Joe Robertson (Conservative)
The Government, instead of helping us—they say they will help, and I am still holding out hope that they will—will in July levy a carbon emission tax on the Fishbourne to Portsmouth route that the ferry company cannot avoid. It cannot decarbonise its ferries and go electric, because there is no grid charging capacity in Portsmouth harbour. There is no grid charging capacity in Southampton either. These are not strange little harbours—they are the naval base of the United Kingdom and one of the biggest export container ports respectively—yet there is not the grid capacity to charge an Isle of Wight ferry. The ferries will pay, however, and guess what: they have passed on that charge to consumers and my constituents.
[Source]
16:29 Polly Billington (Labour)
Specifically on the Southampton point, it was under the Tory Government that the Labour-run Southampton council wanted to clean up and install that grid connection to be able to decarbonise shipping in that port and specifically to tackle air quality in that city. The Tories had 14 years, and they did nothing.
[Source]
16:46 Tony Vaughan (Labour)
The vast majority of my constituents in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh want to tackle climate change and lower energy bills, and they want Britain to be energy independent. The best way of achieving all those objectives is to deliver a balanced energy mix, and to ensure that savings and opportunities reach people’s front doors. That means introducing a serious warm homes programme, upgraded insulation, modern heating systems, and clear duties for landlords so that renters are not left shivering in leaky homes while their landlords take all the profits. Solar finance has evolved to the point where there can be no excuse not to have a solar panel on every domestic rooftop, which could allow tenants as well as landlords to benefit from lower bills. The Government must do everything they can to make that a reality.
Renewables play a critical part in our energy production, along with new nuclear. We should continue to extract from the existing North sea oil and gas fields, but the Government are right to oppose the opening up of new fields. That would not lower people’s energy bills, because the oil and gas price is determined by global markets. Moreover, as many of my colleagues have said, it would undermine our mission to tackle climate change, and would weaken our global leadership role on the issue. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his Department for their work in that regard. The real jobs plan for energy is to invest in clean power, grids, storage and efficiency, and to give workers in existing industries a clear path into those new roles.
[Source]
Tony Vaughan (Labour)
So I commend the actions of this Government to help speed up the development of new nuclear technology. My predecessor pushed for many years for the Tory Government, run by his own party, to bring new nuclear to Dungeness, but I am afraid he got nowhere, because his party was just not interested in helping him. I do welcome the intention in the nuclear regulation Bill to implement the Fingleton review to cut unnecessary delay and duplication. That is not to say that we will undermine environmental protections, which must of course remain effective and credible, as well as evidence-based. The argument is not nature versus nuclear. Climate change is itself a major threat to habitats and species, so changes must focus on faster decisions, but with real environmental integrity.
[Source]
16:57 Andrew Lewin (Labour)
A word on climate change: records on global temperatures date back to 1850, yet the past 11 years have been the 11 warmest years on record. We must pursue the transition to clean and green energy for our political and economic security today and for the tomorrows of all the generations yet to come.
When it comes to embracing green technology, the public are already voting with their feet. The CEO of Octopus Energy has reported a 50% increase in demand for solar panels and a 30% uplift in demand for heat pumps within weeks of the conflict in Iran starting. This is welcome news, but the transition to green, clean and home-grown energy is not a challenge that the market alone can fix. I am proud of the record of our Labour Government in the past two years: two renewable energy auctions, with bids for enough energy to power 23 million homes; ending the de facto ban on onshore wind; and scaling up the social housing warm homes fund, including more than £6 million for Welwyn Hatfield borough council in my constituency, which will see more than 600 council homes retrofitted in my community. But we have to go further, and I hope that the energy independence Bill can be a focal point for the Government.
We have to innovate. I was with the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister in January when he made an excellent speech on how to speed up the delivery of policy, which is something so many colleagues have talked about today. He talked about learning the lessons of the vaccine taskforce model and applying it more universally. I encourage colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Cabinet Office to work together with this model in mind, and particularly with a view to speeding up the all-important connections to our grid.
[Source]
15:49 Harriet Cross (Conservative)
We are sacrificing jobs in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland and sacrificing our energy security just to deliver green energy, because that is all this Government want to focus on. This Government should be looking at what our neighbours in Norway are doing and seeing how it is seen as a truly energy-independent country because they are still using their oil and gas, because they know they need it—their energy systems and their country are not set up not to use it. The UK is not either. We need it, we must use it, and we should be drilling all we can from the North sea—starting today.
[Source]
15:49 Alison Hume (Labour)
I urge the Government to use the upcoming energy security Bill to replace the volume-based definition with one based on intent and process, and to introduce a blanket prohibition on fracturing rock for hydrocarbons. All forms of fracking contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and undermine our net zero commitments, and therefore all forms of fracking need to be banned.
[Source]
17:19 Jonathan Davies (Labour)
We therefore need to deal with our carbon emissions and our impact on the environment not just for the economy, but to prevent drivers of global conflict in the future. We know that our access to natural resources such as water, the way that we grow our food and extreme weather events will be drivers of conflict. We need to do more on energy for our economy and for domestic customers, but if we do not get a grip on climate change and the threats it poses to people in this country and around the world, we will see more conflict. If the Government’s assessment had had the attention it needed, it would have had an impact on the strategic defence review, which talks about climate change, particularly in the High North. This is an issue that we are only beginning to get to grips with. If the Minister could take that away and raise it with his colleagues, I would be most grateful.
[Source]
16:08 Katie Lam (Conservative)
If this action is being taken in the name of climate change, it is proving to be a catastrophic failure. In the eight years between 2013 and 2020, China pumped out more carbon emissions than Britain has produced over the past 250 years. That is not just because China is a bigger country—per-person emissions from China are more than double those in Britain. We are sending our emissions abroad to countries such as China without making a dent in addressing global climate change, and British families and businesses are left to pick up the tab.
The Government’s plans on energy policy will leave us more dependent on overseas imports and will leave the British people worse off financially, without making any noticeable impact on global climate change. If the Government genuinely want to advance our energy independence, we welcome that, but they will not do so by wrecking domestic production and leaving us reliant on imports from abroad.
[Source]
17:28 Jessica Toale (Labour)
It is an immense source of pride for me to represent a constituency that is full to the brim of extraordinary talent, creativity and innovation. We have outstanding colleges and universities and skilled workers. A great example of that is Bournemouth & Poole college’s green energy centre, which is building the skilled workforce of the future. We have natural assets on our coastline and communities eager for investment. There are huge opportunities through the Dorset clean energy super cluster, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton).
[Source]
17:35 Carla Lockhart (DUP)
Energy security means affordability and policies grounded in reality. People support protecting the environment, but they also expect realism, and that means recognising the simple truth that energy security begins with producing the energy we need ourselves. The North sea has the ability to help power our economy, support jobs and strengthen our energy resilience for decades, yet instead of backing a strategic national asset, the Government too often appear determined to turn their back on it, with a Secretary of State who is so wedded to a failing, crazy net zero agenda rather than helping those most in need.
At a time of global instability, increasing dependence on imported energy while restricting domestic production raises serious questions. That is not energy security; it is exporting jobs, exporting investment and increasing dependence on others. We should be supporting domestic production, backing strategic industries and ensuring that we are using our own resources wherever possible. We should also stop loading further costs on to households and industry through increasingly unrealistic and punitive carbon taxes, which ultimately make life more expensive for working people and businesses. The cost associated with net zero from 2025 to 2050 is £116 billion—£35 billion per year. Those are eye-watering sums and it is the taxpayer who is paying.
At a time when pensioners struggle, businesses face pressure and families watch every penny, the Government are more concerned about forcing unwanted and not needed agendas and ideology, such as digital ID and net zero. That money would be better spent on our WASPI women, on our pensioners and on meaningful welfare reforms. Where was the support for businesses and farmers that sustain our rural economy and food security? Where was Northern Ireland? There was no meaningful recognition of the continuing barriers within our own United Kingdom internal market.
[Source]
17:37 Julia Buckley (Labour)
In the face of climate change, we must adapt and improve our readiness. That is vital in the energy independence Bill, as we have heard from colleagues today, but nowhere is this more needed than in the water sector, where we have witnessed the abject failure of privatisation in the industry, leaving us with dangerously polluted water, inadequate sewage management and increasingly expensive water bills. Additionally, the effects of climate change mean that we are simultaneously seeing an increase in flooding and drought. That sounds like an oxymoron, but it is just a symptom of the mismanagement of our precious water resource, with inadequate infrastructure.
[Source]
17:40 Polly Billington (Labour)
However, this new international situation is different from the circumstances we were previously considering when tackling the science of climate change and the failed energy market in this country. We now live in a situation where the global context is more volatile and more unstable than it has ever been. Therefore, the legislative programme that the Government have announced is absolutely necessary, but it may not be sufficient on its own. To secure the energy independence and resilience we require, the Government need to consider their role in establishing greater international agreements on how we increase the resilience of our global economy against our exposure to fossil fuel markets. I have called on the Government to convene an international energy summit with the same boldness and scope of Gordon Brown’s crisis summit in 2009 following the great financial crash. I saw at first hand then the role of Britain using its convening power to bring nations together, and we should look to do so again.
[Source]
Brian Leishman (Labour)
Coalminers were the original victims of an unjust transition and, 40 years on, the Grangemouth oil refinery workers are the modern-day equivalent. PetroChina, the Chinese state-owned petrochemical company, and Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos ended a century of Scottish oil refining because they—a foreign Government and private capital—wanted to make even more money. The closure meant: 435 jobs on site—redundant; 2,822 supply chain jobs—gone; local businesses, which needed refinery workers’ custom— hammered; £400 million a year from the Scottish economy—lost; Scotland’s energy security—weakened; and Scotland’s national security—compromised. The previous Tory Government were uninterested and the SNP Scottish Government were negligent. We know that when essential national infrastructure is in the hands of a foreign Government and a private company, workers, their communities and our nation’s energy security will not stand in the way of shareholders getting their dividend. That is what private capital will always do.
[Source]
Elsie Blundell (Labour)
The delivery of the largest light rail network in the country has completely transformed the prospects of tens of thousands of people in Greater Manchester. The tram is arriving in my constituency, with spades in the ground by 2028, and we are closing gaps in provision so that the whole of Greater Manchester can benefit, including Heywood and Middleton North. We are delivering through a responsive, integrated and affordable bus service that reaches all corners of the city region, having been taken back into public ownership. On rail, I also welcome the Government’s Northern Powerhouse Rail Bill, a clear reflection of our region’s ambition and a firm commitment from Government to decarbonisation and delivery across the north.
[Source]
Torcuil Crichton (Labour)
At Ness football ground, where the under-eights were in fierce competition, one parent gave me his simple political priority: to keep the North sea open. It has provided him and his family with the means to stay on the island, as it has for many other families around that pitch, although it means that many mothers are effectively single-parent families for half their children’s lives. Further up the road, walking her neighbour’s dog, another constituent stopped us to state her concerns and objections about plans for a multinational 900 MW offshore wind turbine array—being less than four miles away, it is actually near-shore rather than offshore. Both those conversations reflect the concerns of many who find the scale of this transition overwhelming, or who feel that they are not being carried along on the journey to renewable energy and that the workers and the communities affected by this revolution are in danger of being left behind.
[Source]
Jen Craft (Labour)
Earlier this year I had the pleasure of welcoming the Energy Minister to my constituency, where we took part in the blessing of a tunnel underneath the Thames that formed the final part of the Tilbury to Grain upgrade of the National Grid. At the time I reflected on how that put us right at the forefront of a green energy revolution in my constituency and how Tilbury, a place on the Thames estuary, is once again playing its part in delivering and securing our nation’s future.
[Source]
17:53 Liam Conlon (Labour)
My hon. Friend mentions investment in green energy. Beckenham and Penge has had significant investment from GB Energy, with more than £700,000 for rooftop solar panels at NHS Bethlem Royal hospital and in local primary schools such as Harris Primary Shortlands. Does she agree that that is a win-win for everyone—it is good for the environment and good for bills, and means more money spent on patients and students?
[Source]
Jen Craft (Labour)
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. A secondary school in my constituency has benefited from the installation of solar panels and expects its energy bill to reduce significantly, which will have a huge impact on what it is able to deliver for its students. My constituency is already seeing benefits from the switch to green energy. I recently helped to open the Green Energy Centre at South Essex college, which is helping people to train and retrain in retrofitting existing homes so that they become bill free, reducing the price that people must pay to heat their homes and get energy into them. The Thames freeport, a large proportion of which is in my constituency, has a focus on renewable energy. It will bring lifelong jobs and careers for people who can stay local and work locally, and it could bring huge, transformational change to the lives of people in Thurrock.
[Source]
18:04 Catherine Fookes (Labour)
I am delighted that measures in the King’s Speech will strengthen our economic security, our national security and—what we are debating today—our energy security. While the Tories and Reform want to ditch our net zero policies and our clean power targets, it is a huge relief to people in Monmouthshire and across the UK that Labour is taking clean energy seriously. Anyone hearing the speeches from those on the Conservative and Reform Benches would think that they wanted to take us back to oil lamps and candles, such is their disdain for clean energy and modern ways.
The Climate Change Act 2008 has been emulated throughout the world as a leading framework for us to budget for and plan our emissions, and to hold Governments accountable for pollution. The Tories, who supported the Act years ago, now want to scrap it, while Reform backs fracking and its deputy leader actually calls net zero a “cult”. The energy independence Bill and other legislation set out in the King’s Speech affirm this Labour Government’s commitment to harnessing clean, home-grown power, and I am proud to back a Government who take decisions that protect our natural world, our security and our wallets. Those decisions will benefit not only my generation, but generations to come.
[Source]
18:18 Lauren Sullivan (Labour)
I welcome the Government’s commitment, set out in the King’s Speech, to drive innovation in the energy sector and deliver clean and more secure energy for future generations. Gravesham is stepping forward to meet the challenge. The Northfleet Green Hydrogen Project was one of 11 successful projects as part of the UK Government’s first hydrogen allocation round designed for its ambition of supporting 10 GW of green and blue energy by 2030. For Gravesham, that means it would decarbonise a paper-making process for much beloved household brands such as Andrex at Kimberley-Clark, which has been a part of Gravesham’s businesses for over 70 years.
[Source]
17:09 Elaine Stewart (Labour)
In the King’s Speech, His Majesty set out a clear and sober assessment of the challenges facing our country. He reminded us that energy independence is now a matter of national security, not just environmental ambition. His Majesty warned that recent events in the middle east have once again shown how global instability can reach directly into the homes of families across the country. That is why the Government have committed themselves to an energy independence Bill designed to scale up home-grown renewable energy and protect living standards for the long term.
Faced with decades of deindustrialisation, communities like Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock need to see and feel real benefits, such as lower bills, good jobs, and investment in local services, otherwise support for the transition will erode—and if support erodes, we risk losing the wider public argument on climate change altogether. In Scotland, delivering those real benefits means Governments working together. The clean power mission is an objective shared by both the UK and Scottish Governments; it is important to acknowledge constructive co-operation, and encourage more of it where possible.
[Source]
18:26 Graham Stuart (Conservative)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He prioritises energy security, and of course the transition to cleaner energy and affordable energy is what we would all wish for. However, this country is going to burn through billions of barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050, even if we meet net zero in 2050. On what basis does he support Government proposals to stop us producing that oil and gas to the highest environmental standards here in the UK, and instead importing it from abroad, with much higher emissions attached?
[Source]
18:26 Sean Woodcock (Labour)
I think the right hon. Gentleman unintentionally misrepresents Government policy, as it is my understanding that we will continue to use oil and gas, and it will play a key part in the just transition.
[Source]
Josh Newbury (Labour)
Having worked in energy, I am all too aware that it has not always been high on the political agenda, but since the invasion of Ukraine, it has of course seized the headlines, and it is in the news once again because of President Trump’s distraction plan in Iran. I welcome the Government’s focus on energy security, but I hope that we will not narrow our view of what energy security and clean energy mean. Reliance on fossil fuels is a growing drag on our economy, so the Government are right to push for electrification where viable, alongside home-grown renewable energy to get us off that rollercoaster, but zero carbon renewable gas should also be a critical part of our plan for energy independence.
Many aspects of the energy independence Bill are fantastic, such as new obligations on landlords to invest in renewable energy and beefing up Ofgem with new powers that will enable it to step in where consumers have been ripped off. When it comes to the warm homes agency, I welcome the huge investment that will be going into insulation, but remain concerned about the direction of travel on electrification for almost all homes.
The extension of the green gas support scheme to 2030 is welcome, but like all energy investment pipelines, producers and investors need longer-term certainty on the Government’s position. I have heard similar concerns from the hydrogen industry. Although there is widespread support for the Government’s investment in CCS and the first round of hydrogen investment, we still do not have the hydrogen strategy. All these strands need to be knitted together as part of a balanced approach on reaching net zero, supporting our constituents and businesses along the way.
In the Government’s focus on clean energy and the jobs of the future, let us not lose sight of the promise of biomethane and hydrogen as other examples of home-grown clean energy. Above all, let us always be on the side of our constituents who want to do the right thing in decarbonising their homes, but worry how on earth they will afford it.
[Source]
Dave Doogan (SNP)
I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, of being a rank, rotten revisionist, but the problem is that in the last 10 years of his Government, oil and gas jobs in north-east Scotland went down by 100,000, and just in the two years that he was a Minister, including in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, they went down a further 10%. Why is he now manifesting as some sort of caped crusader for oil and gas workers? It is difficult for many of us in north-east Scotland to believe.
[Source]
18:53 Michael Shanks (Labour)
Now is not the time to look away from the biggest long-term threat we face: climate change. It is a threat that we can no longer ignore, so we will build the energy system of the future. Since we came into power, we have had two record-breaking renewables auctions after the catastrophic failure of AR5 under the last Government. Despite the shadow Secretary of State’s advice to cancel AR7, we have secured clean, home-grown power for the equivalent of 23 million homes. That is power that, since the middle east crisis began, is saving the country millions of pounds every single day in gas that we no longer have to buy. But good is not enough; we are determined to go further and faster. That is why we are bringing forward the next auction round to July, and why the energy independence Bill will accelerate the build-out of grid infrastructure by reforming planning and getting clean power built at the speed that the moment demands.
[Source]