(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deput y Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Luke Murphy, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK’s progress towards achieving the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
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.
Similarly, increasing gas production would not offer short-term relief. Any additional UK-extracted gas would also take years to come online and would represent only a tiny fraction of the global gas market, leaving gas prices effectively unchanged. Of course, oil and gas will be used in the UK for many years and decades to come, but the idea that expanding oil and gas exploration would cut bills or materially improve our energy security is a fantasy. The impact would be marginal.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
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?
Luke Murphy
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.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
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.
Luke Murphy
I fully agree with the hon. Member. I will say more about the impact on future generations later, but as she says, the burden will weigh heaviest on them if we do not take action today.
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.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
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?
Luke Murphy
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
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
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?
Luke Murphy
Like my hon. Friend, I am so pleased when I get letters from children at schools in Basingstoke. I am able to tell them about the Government’s ambitious plans and their commitment to an issue that so many children are concerned about.
The Government have taken action. Great British Energy is rolling out solar in schools and hospitals, meaning that they are no longer paying for high energy bills, but are instead investing in education and in treatment for NHS patients. We have secured record-breaking offshore wind capacity, meaning more energy than ever and lower bills. Our warm homes plan is delivering £15 billion of investment to upgrade 5 million homes, meaning that every home is built for the future, with lower bills. We have invested £14.2 billion in Sizewell C, providing low-carbon electricity for 6 million homes and 10,000 good jobs. We have launched the clean energy jobs plan to support workers transitioning out of fossil fuels, ensuring that the move to a clean economy benefits us all. We have expanded apprenticeships and technical training, so that young people can build careers in Britain’s modern economy. And we have introduced the environmental improvement plan to restore nature and meet our legally binding targets, so that future generations can continue to enjoy our beautiful countryside and nature.
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am going to impose an immediate six-minute time limit, because there is a second debate to follow.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
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.
Prevention is not soft policy; it is hard economics. If we wait for a crisis, we have already failed. By the time a new pandemic or an antimicrobial-resistant superbug arrives in the UK, the cost will be measured not only in budgets, but in lives. This House faces a simple question: do we act early on climate, on global health and on prevention, or do we wait and pay the economic price later? A world without effective antibiotics is not an abstract future; it is becoming a very real possibility. It is one that we should not be willing to accept.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing the debate. As far as I am concerned, we should debate this all day, every day, because the message needs to be heard loud and clear out there. Those who want to delay climate action are denying our children and grandchildren a future. They should be honest about their intentions and reasons for saying what they do. I will speak about three broad areas: science and the very real threat now and in the future; the myths and misinformation peddled by opponents of action; and the benefits of taking climate action, which my hon. Friend set out very well indeed.
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.
There are impacts on biodiversity and on national security, with consequences such as conflict over scarce resources and migration because people are not able to live in certain places. The latest science suggests that unless we take action right now, parts of southern Europe—let alone the rest of the world—will be uninhabitable in as little as 15 to 20 years’ time, and by the end of the century billions of people will not be able to live where they are. That means they will not have anywhere to live. If we think we have a migration crisis now, we have seen nothing yet.
Let us deal with the myths. First, there is the idea that because we are responsible for only 1% of global emissions, we should not take action. Well, 30% of emissions come from countries that are responsible for less than 1% of emissions. If none of them take action, where is the motivation for China, India and other large countries—the United States is a bit of a lost cause at the moment—which have a far greater impact?
Alistair Strathern
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.
Bill Esterson
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.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
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?
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is right. I hope that her constituents and the businesses in her constituency can take full advantage in spite of the damage that the appalling party she mentioned is trying to do not just to the climate to our economic prospects.
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.
The public are being led to believe by the siren voices on the right in politics—let us be clear, they come from both main right-wing parties—that costs will go up. Well, I have news for them: the costs of investing in our networks and in our infrastructure to generate electricity will be there whether we do that with renewables and low-carbon generation or with fossil fuels. The cost is there whatever we do, but it is better to do that through low-carbon sources for all the reasons that my hon. Friend gave earlier.
Let us deal with the claims about the North sea. Yesterday, the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), made a comparison with Norway. In Norway, the Government did not sell off the production company—it is state owned, and they have control over it. Norway also did not have the same rush to extract oil and gas from the North sea that we had in this country. By the way, Norway was clever, because it set the boundaries between the UK and Norway sectors for the extraction of oil and gas. As a result, it has far more reserves than we do, and it has control, unlike us. As has been said, whatever we do, and however much we change the production capacity, we cannot set the price—not that we could do it soon anyway, so it would not affect the current concerning situation with the conflict in Iran.
We have to be honest about what is going on here, and we have to give confidence to people that ours is the right approach. It is true that we can improve our energy security, reduce prices and take the action we need to on climate as they are inextricably linked; we have to make that case. We also have to give confidence on the jobs mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), to support the supply chain and to make the case for the co-benefits to be had in health from taking action, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers).
On the economy, the clean economy is growing three times as fast as the rest of the economy. The Government have taken action, including with the clean energy jobs plan and apprenticeships. Apprentices like those I saw at Cavendish Nuclear in Warrington just a few weeks ago are starting to make the difference in good, well paid, high-skilled jobs. With allocation round 7, this country is demonstrating again that we are the place to invest in the low-carbon economy. In the actions of Great British Energy through Sizewell C and the small modular reactors programme we see examples of the Government leading the way again.
We have to continue taking that lead, we have to continue busting those myths, and we have to keep reminding people that this is not a choice that our children and grandchildren want to have to face. Let us take that action now, let us keep making the case, and let us ensure that we prevail in the debate on the climate over those who would undermine, who would damage and who would destroy.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (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:
“Every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse”,
threatening UK national security and prosperity. Let us give that a moment to sink in. The first job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, yet there is a yawning gulf between climate reality as recognised in that national security report and the actions that the Government are undertaking.
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.
Last year, the Chancellor scrapped the energy company obligation scheme in the autumn Budget. It required energy companies to pay into programmes that cut fuel poverty. The impact of that cut falls not only on the 8.9 million households classed as fuel poor, but on jobs. The Installation Assurance Authority Federation, a leading representative body in the retrofit sector, found that a staggering 12,100 skilled professionals have been made redundant since the end of the ECO scheme was announced in the Chancellor’s Budget. A further 79,000-plus may be made redundant within the next 12 months. Such fragmented policy making, where a gap is left between an old scheme and a new scheme, puts jobs at risk and undermines ambitions on warm homes.
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.
Continuing to subsidise the fossil fuel industry is downright dangerous when the extraction and burning of fossil fuels is still the main driver of global warming. Burning the fossil fuels at the proposed Rosebank oil field would release more than the combined annual emissions of all 28 low-income countries globally. That is all without any evidence that that oil would bring down costs at home, because prices are set on the global market. Rather than propping up the oil and gas giants, I have been calling on the Chancellor to end the £2.7 billion of tax breaks given every year to fossil fuel companies. Instead she should fund a jobs guarantee to support workers currently employed in oil and gas to move into new green jobs.
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.
Carla Denyer
I am just coming to an end.
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.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
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.
In my constituency, the Severn estuary growth zone alone could deliver 15,000 jobs, including 3,000 supporting new nuclear at Oldbury. We are in the unusual position of having another former nuclear power station just up the road at Berkeley. The late and—at least by me —lamented Western Gateway partnership put together the Severn Edge proposal, which talked about having a low-carbon energy campus, which would do more than just nuclear and would link the two sites. Training would be delivered at Berkeley, and there could be a small modular reactor there directly connected to an off-taker, such as a data centre, and then Oldbury would deliver power to the grid. It is that sort of strategic vision that we need and which I am concerned that we are not getting from this Government at the moment. Having recently attended the south-west nuclear showcase at the University of Bristol, I know that the universities in our region are also supporting this through their research.
It is not just about nuclear; the Severn estuary commission last year published its report pointing the way to how we can deliver tidal power from the Severn. There is amazing hydrogen expertise in our region. At the science park just outside my constituency and possibly expanding into it, there is the Institute for Advanced Automotive Propulsion Systems, which looks at alternatives to the traditional fossil fuels that we use to power automotive and aerospace. There is also the National Composites Centre, which, among many other things, looks at how to deliver materials that can contain hydrogen successfully. People might not think of the west of England as a former coalmining area, because it is not as recently a coalmining area as others, but it is, and there is the potential for geothermal with heat from mine workings.
There are many opportunities in a small area, but they are not being realised because we are not getting the investment and recognition we need. I do not think our area gets the recognition that other areas, perhaps in the north or in Wales, get.
There are many smaller firms delivering things, such as Fellten, a small firm that refits classic cars with electric motors, and I could mention many other examples. Our area also has a lot of demand for retrofitting. Twenty per cent of homes in my constituency are off gas, so if we trained the workforce, we could have local people delivering cleaner, cheaper energy solutions for people to heat their homes—all the more important in the wake of the oil and liquefied petroleum gas price crisis that we have seen this week.
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.
Another barrier to all this happening is the fact that in a rural area like ours, transport is a huge problem. There is no further education provision in my constituency, and even from a town like Thornbury, there is not a direct bus to the nearest further education college, let alone from any of the smaller villages.
I visited the university technical college at Berkeley, which could form part of that low-carbon energy campus that I talked about. Trying to access the college is also hugely difficult from my constituency. This change cannot be delivered without the skills provision and without enabling people to access the college and the jobs afterwards.
We need to get in the infrastructure, and if we are not to rely entirely on our increasingly decrepit strategic road network, we also need to be looking at rail. If we are to have any increase in line capacity and station capacity, we need Westerleigh junction to be upgraded. That is something else I have raised with the Government, but again we are not seeing the investment. Alternatively, in the short term at least, we could look at electrifying more lines, which would also increase capacity because electric trains can accelerate and decelerate faster, so there are opportunities—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that she was on a time limit. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
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.
We cannot escape the fact that our electricity prices are among the highest in Europe, but that is not inevitable; it is the result of a pricing imbalance. Right now, the cost of electricity is set by the price of gas 97% of the time, even though half of our electricity comes from renewables, which are much cheaper. That disconnect is driving up bills unnecessarily, and we must break that link. We Liberal Democrats propose the practical solution of moving older renewable projects off expensive renewable obligation certificates and on to cheaper contracts for difference. The UK Energy Research Centre estimates that that change alone would save a typical household about £200 a year.
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, the majority of my constituents are firmly behind climate action, and so is my Liberal Democrat council. I was delighted to hold a pop-up surgery at Bath climate hub last week. The hub supports people to reduce their carbon footprint through diet, energy use or transportation changes. It also facilitates the meaningful conversation that we must keep having on climate issues. From action to rewild nature-depleted land to community owned energy initiatives, local areas in Bath are making changes that together make a big difference.
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.
We Liberal Democrats have also pushed for a long time for stronger marine environmental targets, both internationally and domestically. We welcome the Government’s decision to ratify the global oceans treaty through legislation. However, much more needs to be done to work with our coastal and fishing communities to ensure a sustainable future for fishing and our marine environment.
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.
The Conservatives and Reform are all too often happy to talk down Britain’s renewable industries. They would have us scraping the bottom of the North sea oil barrel. In doing so, they overlook the remarkable innovation happening right here in the UK: home-grown green technology companies driving growth, creating skilled jobs and shaping a more sustainable future. Even if more oil was extracted from the North sea, it would be sold on the international market at international prices. That would not lower energy bills. The Conservatives know that, so it is particularly callous to ask for something that would leave our constituents less safe and secure economically.
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.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
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.
Under the Conservatives, the UK made more progress to cut emissions than any other G7 country—by 2022, cutting emissions in half compared with 1990 levels. Indeed, emissions were cut to such an extent that the UK surpassed the targets that countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and the US set for themselves for 2030. Under the previous Conservative Government, the proportion of the UK electricity generated by renewables increased fourfold, from 9.5% in 2011 to over 47% in 2023.
Luke Murphy
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?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It has been over 18 months and Members are still using “you” as if it were confetti. Please, can we all be a bit better?
Luke Murphy
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why is the hon. Member and her party proposing to throw out the framework that underpinned all the achievements that she is listing?
Harriet Cross
I will not skip forward a few pages of my speech now, but we will touch on that matter in the coming few minutes.
As I said, the things that we have done are notable. Between 2010 and 2019, the UK Government oversaw the planting of 15 million trees, and during our time in office, the UK was home to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest wind farms in the world. We—the UK—have done a lot, and yet the climate is still changing. That is not because there has not been enough ambition or enough action from the UK, and it is not because of a need to just go faster. It is because, first—and I know there will be wails about this—the UK contributes less than 1% of global emissions; and secondly, other countries have not been following our lead.
Wera Hobhouse
Is the shadow Minister saying that because we cannot make a big enough impact globally, we should scrap our impact altogether?
Harriet Cross
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we have made huge progress and yet others have not been following our lead, so why would we make our industry less competitive? Why would we ensure that investment goes down in our country just to virtue signal and for no one to follow?
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.
Bill Esterson
The hon. Lady is four minutes into her speech and she has talked about the reduction in emissions, which is largely the result of the dash for gas, which predated the last Conservative Government—actually, it happened under the previous Conservative Government. So far, she has talked about her opposition to what this Government are doing. She has not yet told us anything about what she thinks the next steps in taking climate action should be. Is she going to do that?
Harriet Cross
The hon. Gentleman is obviously keen to hear from me, which is great, but as he says, I am four minutes in and have taken three interventions; I think I still have a couple of minutes to form my argument.
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.
Permitting Rosebank, Jackdaw and, down the line, Cambo will mean that the UK’s emissions from oil and gas, which we will be using in any case, will be lower—lower than if those reserves are left in the ground and instead we use more carbon-intensive imports. Based on science, emissions and the fact that oil and gas will still be needed in the UK for decades, no one can reasonably argue that replacing domestic North sea oil and gas production with imports is the right course of action. It is not—not for jobs, investment, growth, energy security or emissions.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Lady not recognise that all that might make it cheaper for the oil and gas industry, but it will not make it cheaper for our constituents? Their bills will be the same wherever the gas is extracted; it is the oil and gas industry that might profit from it being extracted elsewhere.
Harriet Cross
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.
Harriet Cross
I will not. I have taken a lot of interventions, and there is not a huge amount of time—I want to wrap up.
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.
The illogical way in which we consider domestic emissions while ignoring global emissions further undermines UK industries. Carbon leakage—exporting production, and therefore emissions, abroad—has become a convenient way for the Government to reach their emissions targets at the cost of vital UK industries. We are offshoring our industries and losing jobs, skills, taxes and investment just to import products at huge cost on huge, diesel-chugging container ships from across the world from countries that still use coal power. It is a complete contradiction of what the Government say their emissions ambitions are.
The UK has already done a lot—more than many other countries—to reduce emissions, but that cannot and must not be at any cost. From our electricity prices to the North sea, traditional industries to AI, the Secretary of State’s idealistic approach to energy policy, which focuses primarily on domestic carbon emissions, is impoverishing Britain for no benefit to global emissions.
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?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
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.
I also thank the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for their contributions. I have enjoyed our collaborative work and feel sure that they welcome our clean jobs plan. I endeavour to work with them on a happier outcome.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for his typically eloquent overview. He pointed out something that is often missing, as indeed it was in the Opposition’s plan, which is that we have to invest in our energy infrastructure. We have a choice in where we make those investment choices.
I thank, too, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her contribution. We have worked very closely together on oceans, and I am glad that she recognises the crucial progress that this Government have made. I also hope that she recognises that our warm homes plan is the biggest upgrade in British history. We always welcome people with new ideas, but I think recognition of how far we have come is also good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) outlined the risks as well as the opportunities available in this area. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) that, since taking on this role, I have been to Derby North more times than anywhere else. I also thank the students from Reigate Park primary—I look forward to reading to them. The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) must be celebrating our nuclear plans, but I very much recognise her focus on innovation.
Claire Young
I would just like to apologise to the Minister for my over-enthusiasm earlier in extolling the virtues of my area. I would also like to ask her to visit my constituency to see the opportunities for herself and to discuss with me the barriers that we face.
Katie White
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her kind invitation. I will consider it and get back to her.
Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who raised some important issues around health. He also championed the role of science. I too have always thought that science is crucial, but since entering this role, I have found British scientists to be fabulous. They are at the heart of telling us what the problems are and at the heart of innovation, so I pay tribute to them.
I want to assure the House that this Government remain totally committed to limiting global warming to 1.5°C, and that doing so is at the heart of our agenda. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke knows, we have been talking about these issues for more than two decades, which means that we can sometimes become desensitised to the urgency of the challenge. But we in this House have a responsibility to be honest about the gravity of what is at stake. The truth is that the world is getting hotter at an alarming rate—the past decade has seen the 10 warmest years ever. The Amazon has seen the worst droughts on record, partly as a result of deforestation, and in the Arctic and Antarctic global warming is driving geopolitical competition over the resources lying beneath the ice.
I recently spoke to Ministers from the Caribbean who told me about the horrific damage caused by Hurricane Melissa. Here in Britain, we are in no way immune, with recent storms such as Goretti flooding homes and cutting off power. Heavy rainfall has cost farmers hundreds of millions of pounds, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern). Extreme heatwaves have disrupted almost every aspect of our lives.
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.
Bill Esterson
I know that we are talking about the climate, but the events in Iran are a salutary reminder of the need to take action because of the reliance on global fossil-fuel prices. A new report from Reuters suggests that 17% of Qatar’s next five years of LNG supply has been destroyed by the overnight attacks. Does that not remind us how critical it is, for the energy security reasons that my hon. Friend set out, as well as for the climate reasons, that we get off the roller coaster of fossil fuels as fast as possible?
Katie White
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 transition to clean energy is a historic opportunity to improve people’s lives in this country. It is the route not only to lower emissions and climate security—vital though they are—but to lower bills, warmer homes and cleaner air. It is the best way to revive industrial regions and create good jobs and new opportunities for young people.
As the unfolding conflict in the middle east reminds us, home-grown, clean energy is also the way to ensure our energy independence and protect British people from the impacts of events beyond our borders. As we saw four years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine, as long as our energy costs are set by international oil and gas markets, we will always be exposed to price shocks. That is why accelerating the shift to clean, domestic power is a national security imperative, not a “nice to have”.
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 2010, 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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Luke Murphy to sum up very, very quickly.
Luke Murphy
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?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK’s progress towards achieving the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.