Here are the climate-related sections of speeches by MPs during the Commons debate Climate Change.
19:34 Luke Murphy (Labour)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate. I am also grateful to the members of the all-party parliamentary group on climate change—of which I am the chair—whose commitment reflects the strength of feeling on this issue in this House and across our constituencies. I also thank the APPG’s secretariat for their dedication to ensuring we have the evidence and expertise to drive forward meaningful discussion on climate progress.
Some still ask why progress on tackling climate change matters at a time when living standards, economic growth and public services are much higher up the list of the public’s priorities. The truth is that action on climate change is inextricably linked to those priorities. Just in the past few weeks, it has been demonstrated that our energy security and living standards are indivisible from our climate ambitions. Many of our constituents are already feeling, or worrying about, the severe instability that the Iran war has caused for prices at the pump, heating oil and future energy bills, as well as its wider indirect impacts on the cost of things like the food they put on the table.
That is because this is not an energy crisis; it is an oil and gas crisis, one that comes only a few years after the last oil and gas shock, which was caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That crisis caused household energy bills to soar by 80% and inflation in the economy to increase to 11%, and resulted in a taxpayer bail-out of nearly £60 billion. These crises are not new—history is repeating itself. Since 1970, half of our country’s recessions have been caused by oil and gas price shocks. The truth is that the UK is paying the price for a broken global energy system, upon which every household is dependent. Indeed, research has shown that the cost of cutting UK emissions to net zero is less than the cost of a single fossil fuel price shock.
We see the consequences in our communities every day, with rugby and football clubs across the country unable to open daily as their energy bills rise, local pubs struggling to keep the lights on and established industries and start-ups alike struggling to cope with energy costs, yet there are those inside and outside of this House who argue for yet more dependence on this broken system. They call for us to slow down our action on climate change—to slow the sprint to clean energy or, worse, to hit reverse gear. They believe that more oil and gas will solve our problems, ignoring the fact that our reserves are heavily depleted and extracting what remains is far more expensive than it is in other North sea nations. They ignore the fact that even if we increased oil production today, it would take five to seven years before any new oil supplies became available, far too late to help families facing costs right now. Even then, UK-produced oil would still be sold into global oil markets, where international supply and demand set the price.
[Source]
14:23 David Chadwick (Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I agree with many of his points. Tackling the climate emergency is vital, but that does not mean that green energy companies should be allowed to do whatever they want. Does he share my concerns about the conduct of Bute Energy, a green energy company that has spent—at the very least—thousands of pounds on courting his colleagues in Cardiff?
[Source]
14:24 Luke Murphy (Labour)
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I do not know the circumstances of that particular issue, but I agree that renewable energy companies, like all companies, should act in the public interest.
Those who actively oppose the transition to clean energy, such as Reform, prefer instead to expose every family, business and community in Britain to the boot of the fossil fuel dictator stamping on their neck forever. More broadly, tackling climate change matters because its impacts are no longer a distant threat—they are part of everyday life. Across the country, extreme weather means more patients on hot hospital wards, children struggling to learn in stifling classrooms, and families worrying about how to protect and insure their homes from flooding.
[Source]
14:25 Layla Moran (Liberal Democrat)
I completely agree with the hon. Member that this is exactly the wrong moment to turn our backs on the promises that this House made to the children of this country. He may remember that it was the Fridays for Future movement that had children literally coming out on to the streets, out of school on Fridays, to make the case to their elected parliamentarians that they wanted us to commit to net zero. We would be reneging on our commitment to those children’s futures as well as affecting their presents.
[Source]
14:28 Luke Murphy (Labour)
In my constituency of Basingstoke, we have already seen the reality of our changing climate, with more than 500 heat-related deaths in the south-east in 2022 alone. In 2023, extreme weather caused a landslip that severed our town’s rail connectivity for days, and in 2024, the south-east NHS saw a 13% increase in emergency hospital admissions for a respiratory condition linked to rising temperatures. Climate change is already affecting our health, our infrastructure and our economy, placing immense pressure on the public services we rely on. That is before we even consider the other serious economic risks posed by climate change.
The Climate Change Committee estimates that unchecked climate change could impact UK economic output by up to 7% of GDP by 2050. Businesses and investors already recognise that climate risk is economic risk, and small businesses are already feeling the impact. Shops on Pontypridd high street in Wales are finding it impossible to get insurance; flooding in Yorkshire and Cumbria is disrupting national supply chains; and whisky distilleries in Scotland face water scarcity. Failure to manage these challenges today will only increase costs and disruption later.
Climate change is also a critical matter of national security. For decades, and notably in the Pentagon’s 2014 quadrennial defence review, security experts have identified climate change as a major threat multiplier—it drives instability, heightens resource pressures and accelerates displacement. The Ministry of Defence’s 2021 “Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach” document warns that climate change increases the risk of conflict through competition for scarce resources and undermines military effectiveness.
Then there is the impact on nature and our wider environment. There are those who try to separate the issues of climate and nature—the Reform party, for example, claims to care about nature while planning to tear up legislation, policies and investments to tackle climate change—but this is a false choice. Climate change is inseparable from the health of our wider environment; the stability of our forests, rivers, soils and seas is inextricably linked to our climate. As temperatures rise, we see damage to biodiversity and agriculture. The Government’s own nature security assessment warns that on our current trajectory, every critical ecosystem across all regions is heading towards collapse. Nature also plays a crucial role in safeguarding us. Our forests and wetlands absorb carbon; chalk streams, like the beautiful ones we have in Hampshire, support drainage; and urban trees help cool our temperatures. Protecting the climate and restoring nature must go hand in hand, as the resilience of one depends on the health of the other.
[Source]
Alistair Strathern (Labour)
As always, my hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the breadth of issues that underline why it is so important that we act on climate change. It is often seen as a future issue, but my farmers are feeling the effects of volatile weather right now, just as some of my households felt the effects of rare flooding just last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that the land use framework published yesterday will be a really important document for ensuring we get adaptation and mitigation strategies right when it comes to protecting nature, as well as delivering the carbon reduction goals that are vital to ensuring we get our climate change action back on track?
[Source]
14:29 Luke Murphy (Labour)
I completely agree. If my hon. Friend will forgive the pun, the land use framework is a landmark document. It reflects the Government’s acknowledgement that the public understand many of the threats that we face and want to see climate action. Polling shows that 70% of the British public say that tackling climate change is important to them, with more than two thirds supporting ambitious action. For years, there was a broad cross-party political consensus on such measures. That consensus stretches back all the way to Margaret Thatcher, who said:
“The problem of global climate change is one that affects us all”.
That consensus delivered. We implemented the world’s first Climate Change Act in 2008 under Gordon Brown, and built on it under Theresa May. In 2015, we announced that we would phase out coal by 2025, which was brought forward to 2024. With the closure of Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, the target was met. Domestically, we have more than halved our emissions since 1990 while growing our economy by nearly 80%. Clean energy drives economic growth, with the clean economy growing three times as fast as the rest of the economy.
Our leadership has secured action around the world. The Climate Change Act 2008 inspired nations such as Denmark, Mexico, Sweden, France, New Zealand, Ireland and Germany to adopt similar measures, and has contributed to reductions in emissions around the world. Successive Governments have shaped the global agenda, but that leadership is now at risk. The current leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), would scrap the vital Climate Change Act, as would Reform, sacrificing the health of our environment, economy and society at home, and Britain’s global climate leadership and action abroad. Such action is reckless.
We have the capacity to drive meaningful progress at home and abroad, and we must continue to exercise our leadership. I was really proud to hear the Prime Minister say at COP30 that the UK is doubling down on the fight against climate change, and I am pleased that that commitment has been met by decisive action over the past 20 months
[Source]
Catherine Atkinson (Labour)
Year 6 pupils from Reigate Park primary academy in Mackworth have written to me in some beautiful handwriting to say how concerned they are about climate change. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential that this Labour Government are committed to tackling the climate and nature crisis, and to accelerating to net zero? Does he agree that going further and faster on clean energy is the only way to secure energy security and cheaper bills?
[Source]
Luke Murphy (Labour)
Current events demonstrate that, through their ambitious commitment to clean energy and tackling climate change, the Government are on the right track. If anything, we must go further and faster. In an unstable world, where energy prices are rocketing, the most effective step we can take is to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster.
Sitting in this House is a privilege that comes with responsibility. Every one of our constituents is affected by climate change, as future generations will be. We often talk about the economic inheritance that we leave behind—public finances, growth and opportunity—and we should talk about those things, but what about everything else that our children and grandchildren will inherit? The choices we make today will determine the environment that we leave for generations to come. It is our duty to ensure that those who come after us are not left to shoulder a far greater burden than the one that we face today. I want to leave my nephews, and my friends’ and neighbours’ children, a world that is safe, healthy and sustainable. We must reject those who want to turn the clock back, or to use climate as a wedge issue. The stakes are too high to leave this to those who will come after us. The responsibility is ours, and the time for bold action is now.
[Source]
Danny Chambers (Liberal Democrat)
At a time when misinformation about climate change is louder than ever, these discussions are not just important but essential if we are serious about protecting our environment and our future. I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), for securing the debate, for putting this issue in context, and for showing that climate change is also about health and national security.
I will focus on something that we too often overlook: the direct link between climate change and global health. In veterinary science, we use the term “one health” to reflect the idea that human, animal and environmental health are completely interlinked and inseparable. Climate change does not just warm the planet; it accelerates the spread of disease across all animals, humans and plants. Climate shocks, floods, droughts and extreme heat do not happen in isolation; they disrupt sanitation, displace populations and overwhelm what are often very fragile health systems. That is exactly the type of environment in which infectious diseases thrive, and we are already seeing this. As the climate shifts, we see vectors such as midges and mosquitoes moving into different parts of the world and carrying diseases into new regions. Diseases that were once considered tropical are now being seen in other parts of the world as a direct result. In the UK, we now have a disease of livestock called bluetongue, which is spread by midges that were not previously found in northern Europe.
We know that the poorest countries are hardest hit by climate change, despite contributing to it the least. We have seen that very recently in the Caribbean, which has had record-breaking storm seasons. However, this is not just a distant humanitarian issue; it is about our safety here in the UK. Disease does not respect national borders, and a threat anywhere is a threat here as well. When health systems abroad are overwhelmed, outbreaks spread faster, surveillance systems weaken, and the risk of global transmission rises. That is how local crises become global crises.
Layered on top of all that is one of the greatest threats that we face in global public health: antimicrobial resistance. Antimicrobial resistance is a slow pandemic that is already under way. It gets relatively little media attention, but it is having a huge and direct effect on day-to-day medicine in the UK. It means that antibiotics stop working, routine operations such as hip replacements become high-risk procedures, and minor infections become life threatening. We are talking about returning to a world where a simple cut could kill. It is predicted that 39 million people will have died by 2050 as a direct result of antimicrobial resistance. We can add to that picture climate change, which is driving infection, increasing antibiotic use and accelerating resistance, creating a perfect storm.
With falling vaccine uptake, climate change denial and growing global instability, it is often the scientists who are doing the hard work to keep us safe, yet too often their warnings are ignored. That has real-life consequences. When we cut overseas development assistance and scale back support for global health systems—for example, through the Fleming Fund—we are not actually saving money; we are directly increasing the risk to ourselves. Such funding helps to build up resilient health systems, supports disease surveillance, and reduces the spread of infection before it reaches our shores and our NHS.
[Source]
14:39 Bill Esterson (Labour)
I turn to the science on climate breakdown. We see the impact now, with heatwave days in the UK over the last few years, 88% of which would not have happened without the impact of climate change. There are 2,000 excess deaths a year in the UK alone as a result of excess heat, and 90% of our healthcare facilities are vulnerable to overheating. We face flooding and its consequences for food insecurity and the difficulty of growing crops—and that is just in this country, let alone around the world. Equally, we see heat and drought affecting our food production, and that threat to food production means rising prices and shortages.
[Source]
14:42 Alistair Strathern (Labour)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Doubters of the net zero agenda often suggest that, because it is an international problem, we should go slower. Does he find it utterly bizarre that some suggest we can get other countries to go faster by going slower and engaging less ourselves? Actually, we need to be leading the way in the best traditions of Britain.
[Source]
14:42 Bill Esterson (Labour)
My hon. Friend is right. Actually, our global leadership through COP, which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned, and the fact we have set our nationally determined contribution—unlike some countries—is hugely important. We were ahead of the game with the Climate Change Act 2008 and the 2050 net zero target set by Theresa May. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also mentioned Margaret Thatcher —when I came here, I never dreamed that I would be quoting her, but I have become more inclined to do so on this issue, if on no other. That fracturing of the consensus in the House is deeply worrying.
[Source]
14:43 Leigh Ingham (Labour)
Last year in Staffordshire, we had a Reform county council elected, which undeclared the climate emergency—I did not know that that could be done. What I find most frustrating about that is not only that climate change poses a risk, but that there is an opportunity for jobs in Staffordshire. In Stafford, the largest employer specialises in wind turbine technology and high-voltage direct current valves—the Secretary of State came to visit recently. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are opportunities for this country and not just risks?
[Source]
14:45 Bill Esterson (Labour)
Let us look at the cost of a failure to take action. Last July, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that failure to act on climate has an economic cost. The Climate Change Committee put a figure on it: 7% of GDP will be lost by 2050 unless we take climate action. If we do not want to believe the Climate Change Committee or the OBR, let us try the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries—a pretty reputable bunch that anybody on the right of politics ought to listen to. Its prediction is that the global economy will be cut by 50% between 2070 and 2090 unless we take action internationally right now. That means leadership by this country of the sort we have been discussing.
[Source]
14:48 Carla Denyer (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), my fellow member of the all-party parliamentary group on climate change, for securing this debate. The climate and nature emergencies are the most pressing issue of our time. They go to the heart of every area of Government, and we ignore or sideline them at our peril. A suppressed national security assessment report, partly released in January in response to a freedom of information request, warns:
As we have heard, ambitious action now makes economic sense, too. Failing to tackle the climate and nature crises will cost far more in the long term than investing properly now. The Climate Change Committee, the Government’s own specialist advisers, recently crunched the numbers and worked out that for every pound spent on reaching net zero, the benefits outweigh the costs up to fourfold. That is a good return on investment. Crucially, the Climate Change Committee recognises that the benefits of climate action will be felt in all areas of our lives. Warm homes and better public transport will have huge benefits for our health and wellbeing, and will save the NHS money, too. The health service spends £895 million a year just as a result of cold and damp homes. While the Government are grasping the big picture in some areas, such as growing clean energy, for example, all too often that is not being done in a joined-up way. It does not feel like they are aiming for the massive social and environmental wins that acting boldly and thinking genuinely long-term could secure.
I acknowledge the commitment of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and of the Minister, to this agenda. I also acknowledge the degree to which they appear sometimes to be thwarted by the Treasury and others that seem singularly incapable of grasping that building a strong, resilient economy will be an impossibility inside an environment going haywire. They also seem to be thwarted by those who seem unwilling to understand that delaying action and an overreliance on techno fixes, such as carbon capture and storage, are paving the way for a cliff edge of social chaos and economic freefall when we should be planning for an orderly, fair, controlled transition.
Climate adaptation must become much more prominent, too. The Government’s climate watchdog has warned us that preparedness for extreme weather in this country is disjointed and piecemeal, and that has consequences for all our constituents, for public services and for the economy. That brings me full circle back to my opening point: the climate emergency has ramifications for every single Department and every aspect of all our constituents’ lives. That is why there was such a large appetite for the climate emergency declaration that I pioneered as a councillor in Bristol in 2018. After adopting my climate emergency declaration, Bristol ramped up its ambitions, and the idea has since spread across the UK and internationally. It shows the public’s appetite to go further and faster to protect our planet for future generations. While recognising the good work done so far, we still need vastly more ambition across government. No stone can be left unturned if we want to operate within safe climate limits.
[Source]
Carla Denyer (Green)
We must leave no stone unturned, whether it is housing standards, taxation, jobs, transport, energy, defence or food. That is my main message today, and I hope the Government are open to hearing it. It is important that we look at climate change across every single Department, because that is how we will build a safer, more positive, more equal and happier country together.
[Source]
14:54 Claire Young (Liberal Democrat)
I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing the debate. Climate change is the defining challenge of our time and, as others have mentioned, some are pushing a false dichotomy between tackling climate change and other important things, such as saving jobs, growing the economy and cutting bills. I firmly believe that we can meet climate change targets, deliver growth, create good jobs and ease the cost of living, and that the west of England—my region—has the potential to lead the way.
There is a chance to employ locally and deliver great things, but it will not happen without the skilled workforce to do it. There is a willingness for further education colleges to work together—I know because I have been talking to them—but they need seed funding to support that, which is something I raised with the Skills Minister last January. There is also an identified need for a construction skills college in my area. We need to inspire the next generation. Why do we not encourage firms to sponsor trips to the science park and to local firms? When we are expanding the park, it would be fantastic if there was a space there to support that. This generation, which faces the highest unemployment in 10 years, needs to be empowered to take control of the climate change revolution, and we need to supply them with good skills and well paid jobs locally.
[Source]
15:04 Wera Hobhouse (Liberal Democrat)
The UK has a lot to be proud of in our record on climate change, such as halving our greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, being the first EU nation to phase out coal, and massively scaling up renewable energy. It is no coincidence that many of these accomplishments came against a background of cross-party consensus on the need to reach net zero.
The parties used to compete to have the most ambitious environmental programme, but since the last election the Conservatives have abandoned our ambitious climate commitments. Instead, they have kowtowed to the politics of fear, and seized on net zero in a culture war of trying to out-Reform Reform—and where are the Reform Members? Even while still in government, the Conservatives squandered some of the huge economic, social and environmental opportunities of net zero, and now they are falling even further behind the curve. Their recent decision to call for the Climate Change Act to be scrapped would critically endanger future generations, who deserve a safer planet, energy security and a stronger economy. The Climate Change Committee frequently warned that the last Government were not moving fast enough. Let us not forget that they were defeated twice in the High Court due to their inadequate climate plans.
We Liberal Democrats recognise the urgent need to go further and faster on climate change. This generation should be the first to leave the country and the world in a better condition than we found them in. We also recognise the huge opportunities that new renewable energy brings to support skilled jobs and economic growth. Previous failure to invest sufficiently in renewable energy and insulate our homes has led directly to the energy crisis, pushing up energy bills for everyone and squeezing family finances. The situation in Iran has laid bare the state of UK energy security as prices have shot up because we are so reliant on oil and gas. Home-grown, renewable energy does not have to pass through the strait of Hormuz, and its price is not set on the rollercoaster of international markets.
Conservative and Reform Members have their heads in the sand in adopting anti-renewable, anti-environmental policies that would leave us vulnerable to more energy crises in the future. The Climate Change Committee has found that the cost of net zero by 2050 is less than the impact of one fuel crisis. Conservative and Reform Members would have us believe that we cannot afford net zero. In reality, the truth is that we cannot afford not to get to net zero.
At the same time, the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s inquiry into the cost of energy has uncovered serious concerns about transparency. We have heard evidence that profits can be obscured within network charges on energy bills. Energy companies must be transparent, so consumers can clearly see what they are paying for and where profits are being made. Our constituents deserve energy bills to be fair, affordable and easy to understand.
In Bath, like the rest of the country, retrofitting our homes through a national insulation programme is crucial to lowering carbon emissions and reducing bills. The Government’s warm homes plan unfortunately falls short of the scale, ambition and long-term certainty we need. An emergency home upgrade programme should have been implemented in the first 100 days of this Government. We Liberal Democrats would upgrade our homes, making them cheaper to heat with a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation for those on low incomes and ensuring that all new homes are zero-carbon. We would also provide further incentives for installing heat pumps that cover the real cost. That would reduce emissions and bills, combating both climate change and fuel poverty.
Climate change is, after all, a global issue. We must bring others with us. The UK and European partners must lead the global effort to tackle climate change together, even more so given that the US has abandoned the multilateral approach to international climate policy. One choice the Government could take immediately to help global efforts towards net zero would be to reverse the cut to the aid budget and set out a road map for restoring official development assistance to 0.7% of gross national income. UK aid provides vital support for the most vulnerable people in the world and is a key tool in meeting our climate commitments.
Public support for climate action remains strong across the UK, but we cannot take it for granted. We must continue to bring the public with us throughout the energy transition. A part of that is ensuring that misinformation and disinformation is effectively challenged. That means tackling myths about renewable energy head-on, and making sure that households right across the country actually feel the benefits through lower bills, warmer homes and secure jobs in their communities.
Our constituents want to tackle climate change. They want lower fuel bills. They want their wildlife and landscapes to be protected. They want a strong economy that supports British jobs. That is what the energy transition must give them. We Liberal Democrats will keep making the case for the urgent transition away from fossil fuels.
[Source]
15:08 Harriet Cross (Conservative)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing the debate and thank him for doing so. I recognise his concerns and those of others on climate change and its impacts, but I do—this will not be a surprise to anyone in this House—have a difference of opinion, especially when it comes to the actions we have taken and should now take, in particular with regard to our oil and gas sector, which I will come to later. But I will begin by looking backwards.
[Source]
Luke Murphy (Labour)
I, too, celebrate the achievements under the previous Government. Why, then, given that those achievements came about under the framework of the Climate Change Act, which was then recognised internationally and led to progress elsewhere, are you now going to throw that framework in the bin?
[Source]
15:11 Harriet Cross (Conservative)
We will look at what is happening today. To be very clear—I think this needs saying—disagreeing with the Energy Secretary’s approach to energy policy, and questioning the speed and cost of moving towards renewable energy, does not make one a climate change denier. That is tedious; it is a lazy argument made by those who want to close down the debate—those who believe that decarbonisation must always be the No. 1 priority, at the cost of all else. That is the inherent problem with the current debate on climate change and carbon emissions. It has become a pursuit of what is perceived to be the perfect response—the purist approach to the climate—over what is pragmatic and what is practical. It does not prioritise the public, prices, industry or energy security.
[Source]
15:11 Harriet Cross (Conservative)
I will first consider electricity. Our electricity is some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also some of the most expensive, and that is the issue. Making electricity the cheapest option will make it the preferred option. Making electricity cheap will encourage the adoption of electric vehicles and the electrification of home heating, and it will make the UK more attractive for businesses and for growth markets like AI. Cheap electricity will improve the cost of living for households across the country. That is why the Conservatives have a cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for everyone—for households and for businesses. And how? By cutting the carbon tax, which is a tax that makes up a third of the price of our electricity.
But of course, as Members know, electricity only makes up about 20% of our energy mix. Oil and gas—at over 70% of that mix—remain central to our energy needs, and will for a long time. The Climate Change Committee’s projections include oil and gas in its 2050 net zero scenario. So why are the Government banning new licences for the North sea? Why are they taxing companies to such an extent that they pack up and leave? Climate change is a global concern, and therefore global carbon emissions must be considered. Why is the Secretary of State determined to run down our oil and gas production just to increase imports, which are four times more carbon-intensive than what is produced in the North sea? LNG imports have to be extracted, liquefied, shipped and re-gasified, rather than just being piped from the North sea directly into our gas grid.
[Source]
15:16 Harriet Cross (Conservative)
I do not know whether there has been a misunderstanding of the title of the debate—it is on climate change, not the costs of bills. For climate change, we are looking at emissions; if we are focusing on emissions, we are focusing on where the carbon is produced. There is less carbon intensity in our domestic oil and gas than in imported oil and gas. I know that is not the message that the hon. Lady or others want to hear, but those are the facts.
Being wedded to domestic emissions targets while ignoring emissions produced elsewhere is causing the deindustrialisation we are seeing across the UK. Businesses in ceramics, refining, petrochemicals, oil and gas and many more industries are packing up and leaving the UK, not because their products are needed less, but because they are unable to sustain themselves here under the weight of industrial energy prices and carbon taxes.
[Source]
15:16 Harriet Cross (Conservative)
The targets of the Climate Change Act are forcing the UK to make decisions through the lens of emissions, not what is best for industry, electricity costs, growth, prosperity or jobs. That is why it is right that the Conservatives have committed to repealing it. The carbon tax imposed on our industry through the emissions trading scheme has also made it significantly harder for energy-intensive industries to do business in the UK. It increases costs for consumers and makes our industries less competitive.
I once again thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke for securing today’s debate. To conclude, I ask the Minister the following three questions: does she recognise the incoherence in the Government’s determination to shut down North sea production just to increase reliance on more carbon-intensive imports? When will the Government make a decision on Jackdaw and Rosebank? Will the Government adopt our plan to cut the carbon tax and adopt our cheap power plan, immediately stripping 20% off household and business electricity costs?
[Source]
15:19 Katie White (Labour)
That got a little bit feisty at the end, didn’t it? I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing today’s debate. He is a fantastic advocate for climate and nature, both in his constituency and as chair of the APPG on climate change. I know that he has been pushing for this debate for a long time, so I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position in detail today.
[Source]
15:21 Katie White (Labour)
The Office for Budget Responsibility is also clear that rising temperatures pose a huge threat to our economy and could wipe billions off our GDP in the years to come if we do not act. That is why, as our national security strategy sets out, tackling climate change and nature loss is vital for both global stability and our national resilience. As the Prime Minister said, there can be no national security without climate security. Let me be clear, though, where we face severe challenges, we are absolutely capable of meeting them. We are the generations with the power and the opportunity to act and build a cleaner, more secure and more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren. That is why we are stepping up on the global stage once again and showing real leadership with our mission to achieve clean power by 2030 and accelerate to net zero across the economy.
[Source]
Katie White (Labour)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. He is exactly right. When it comes to our energy policy, the way that we work at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is by balancing the trio of emissions and environmental concerns, energy security, and price. It is within that trio that we operate all our policies.
The Climate Change Committee has been clear on that too. Its recent advice on carbon budget 7 confirmed that delivering the clean energy transition is the most cost-effective path ahead for the UK economy. In fact, its research shows that household bills would rise by nearly 60% from a future fossil-fuel spike if we fail to deliver on our clean power mission. Pursuing this path is therefore not an agenda or activism—and I can assure the shadow Minister that I am not a purist. It is common sense, and it is our patriotic and economic duty.
We have made huge progress in the less than two years that we have been in power. Since July 2024, over £90 billion of investment has been announced for home-grown, clean energy. We have lifted the onshore wind ban in England and approved record amounts of renewable energy. We have launched Great British Energy—our first publicly owned energy company for 70 years—and we have kick-started our new golden age of nuclear with the greatest investment in new nuclear power for half a century, including plans for our first small modular reactors at Wylfa on Anglesey. We also held Europe’s biggest ever offshore wind auction, alongside the largest ever procurement of solar projects in the UK, collectively securing enough clean energy to power the equivalent of 16 million homes. At the heart of this mission is a determination to support communities and create the good clean energy jobs of the future.
Last week I visited the Bridgend Ravens rugby club in Wales, which has just partnered with Electricity Cymru to install solar panels and LED lighting. This has slashed the club’s bills and allowed them to host the country’s first carbon-neutral rugby game. At a nuclear skills academy in Derby, I was lucky enough to meet—and was massively impressed by—Gracie, a 17-year-old apprentice who is the fourth generation in her family, and the first female, to train up to work in the clean energy revolution. She recognised that she is in the right place at the right time: helping to tackle the climate crisis, drive growth and ensure our energy security.
I know that there are those who doubt the impact that Britain can have on global emissions, but they underestimate this country’s potential and forget that we have already made a huge difference. We were the first country to pass a climate change Act and set up our own independent body on climate change—a move since been replicated by over 70 countries.
I would like to take a moment to applaud the Conservatives for their leadership at COP26. It is evident that the choices that we make in Britain influence the course of global action and, in doing so, help to protect future generations here and abroad from the impacts of the climate crisis. Our clean energy mission at home gives us the perfect platform to continue leading by example on the world stage. People want us to show leadership. They see what is happening in the world and they expect us to play our part.
I am pleased to confirm that the UK has delivered on our commitment to spend at least £11.6 billion on international climate finance over five years by the end of this financial year. We are working to ensure that that money makes a genuine difference for those on the frontline of the climate crisis, supporting stability and security across the world. Since 2011, we have helped 137 million people adapt to the effects of climate change, whether it is creating a renewable-powered clean water supply in Mexico or building infrastructure that can withstand extreme weather in the Caribbean. We have also provided 89 million people with improved access to clean energy, including solar-powered cold storage to help prevent food waste in Kenya— [Interruption.] I will speed up a little, as I hear the Whip’s cough. We have made more commitments, including a £6 billion commitment to international climate finance. On top of that, we will generate an additional £6.7 billion of UK-backed climate and nature-positive investments.
To those who still doubt the effectiveness of global climate action, I say this: before the Paris agreement in 2015, the world was on track for 4°C of global warming by 2100, but thanks to the commitments made since, we have brought that down to 2.3° to 2.5°. That is still a terrifying figure, but the difference for millions of people around the world is literally life or death. It is also a source of optimism, because it shows that the ambition is there.
I remind the House that keeping 1.5° in reach is only half the story. The crisis in Iran and the Gulf is yet another wake-up call to the fact that the UK’s energy system does not work. Our critics like to talk about the cost of transition, but the previous Government spent £44 billion on supporting households and businesses after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We are totally committed to clean energy, to working with partners around the world to keep the Paris goal within reach, and to building a secure, more prosperous Britain for today and for future generations.
[Source]
15:31 Luke Murphy (Labour)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and all colleagues who contributed. There was broad agreement that it is important to make progress on tackling climate change, not least because it means progress on economic growth, on living standards, on delivering national security, and on leaving a better inheritance for future generations—and who would not want that?
[Source]