Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, I think for the first time.

The petition’s demands are simple, clear and extremely compelling. In the UK, we forbid tobacco advertising because tobacco kills us, and that ban has worked to reduce the number of people dying from it. The air pollution caused directly by fossil fuels and the extreme weather caused by climate change are already killing at least as many people as smoking was before the ad ban, and they are likely to kill many more, so why the hell are we allowing fossil fuel companies to take up space in public places and on our screens to sell us products that kill us? I find that argument so compelling that I have dedicated a significant amount of my life in the past few years to trying to make a ban happen. I thank Chris Packham for initiating the petition and doing so much work to get more than 110,000 signatories, and I thank everyone who signed it.

This campaign has been running for many years, and I want to highlight the groundwork done on it by grassroots organising group Adblock Bristol, of which I am a member. Adblock Bristol exists because its members think a lot of things are fundamentally wrong with advertising. Advertising often works by telling us that we are not good enough without a product or by engendering a positive emotion about a product or service that we did not previously have. It often worsens inequality. The billboards are not in the posh parts of town, and they overwhelmingly advertise products that are bad for our health, the environment or society. That is not to mention the direct environmental, social and road safety impacts of the adverts themselves.

After a few years of successfully opposing applications for individual billboards in our community, Adblock Bristol set up a national organisation called Adfree Cities, where I worked for a little bit. It campaigns nationally alongside Platform, Badvertising and others to support people in their local communities all over the country to oppose the pernicious impact of advertising. In fact, the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) listed some of the communities that I supported in doing that.

Many local councils have already adopted policies of not hosting adverts for high-carbon products and services, or other harmful products such as junk food, payday loans, alcohol and gambling, on billboards on council-owned land and bus stops. That is a start, but most billboards are privately owned and councils have no jurisdiction over them and no ability to control the myriad other ways that advertising intervenes, often subconsciously, in our lives. Regulation of advertising in this country is, in general, extremely light touch and, frankly, outgunned by the capacity of the companies that pay for the advertising. That is where the petition comes in. It is time for the national Government to step up where local councils do not have the power to do so.

This kind of social and regulatory change often creates uproar when it is first proposed, only for it to be accepted as extremely obvious, and for the previous status quo to seem appalling, not long afterwards. We have only to look at compulsory seatbelts in cars, the indoor smoking ban and tobacco advertising. “Freedom of speech, freedom of the market, freedom of choice,” they say, yet we pretty much all agree now that advertising products that cause us serious harm should not be allowed.

Let us remember that we are not talking about banning the product; we are just saying that communications that are specifically designed to increase the use of fossil fuels, through misleading claims and by crafting social norms and a social licence for their use and expansion, directly undermining the Government’s evidence-based policy, which is essential to keep us safe from the climate crisis, should not be allowed. That should be a no brainer.

Does the Minister want the history books, and perhaps his children, to look back in 10 years and see that he played the modern-day version of the role of those who opposed seatbelts in cars or the smoking ban? I guess not, in which case now is the time to be brave. He will be glad he did it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I absolutely will. In fact, Mr Twigg, you have pre-empted exactly where I was going in my speech.

Such investments are not token gestures—[Interruption.] Exactly. They are strategic investments that will shape the future of energy. Domestic supply chains, from engineering specialists to subsea infrastructure manufacturers, and from power cable component suppliers to logistics and offshore support companies, will support the transition. Again, we should allow them to tell people in this country about their work.

[Carla Denyer]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier in the debate from the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) that some oil and gas companies advertise their work on decarbonising despite it making up only 0.3% of their business. On that basis, I could arguably edit my Wikipedia page to say that I am a professional swimmer or pub quizzer, but I do not think that would be a fair representation of what I spend most of my time doing, although it probably adds up to 0.3% of my time in some months. On that basis, would the hon. Gentleman reconsider whether he really thinks it is fair to allow oil and gas companies to advertise work that accounts for less than 0.5% of their business and use that to greenwash their image?

[Andrew Bowie]

No, obviously that would not be fair, but as has already been pointed out, the Advertising Standards Authority has demonstrated that it possesses both the mandate and the mechanisms to hold companies to account for misleading environmental claims, and as yet it has found none to be in breach.

It is important that those companies, which require the underlying profit from their traditional exploration and drilling work to support their investment in the clean technologies of the future, are allowed to tell the country and the world about that. We should be immensely proud that we have not only a world-leading oil and gas sector—the cleanest basin from which to extract oil and gas in the world right now—but one that spends billions on developing the clean technologies of the future and attracts international companies to the United Kingdom to do the same.

If the issue is the accuracy of advertising, we should have confidence in the existing regulatory framework, which has proven capable of intervening where necessary. A blanket ban is neither proportionate nor necessary when robust oversight is already in place. I am afraid that the ban advocated by the petition may be purely ideological. It would damage investor confidence and be counterproductive in reducing carbon emissions.

I am proud that BP, Shell, Total, Equinor and the rest invest in music, art, culture, education and sport across the UK—and let us look at what happens when they do not. Baillie Gifford, a global investment management firm that invests in some of Scotland and the UK’s biggest companies, which just happen to be oil and gas companies, was sadly forced, under pressure from environmental activists, to withdraw support for the Edinburgh international book festival. Who has had to step up at the last minute to plug the gap? It is the Scottish Government—the taxpayer—to the tune of £300,000 this year alone, at a time of tightening budgets, fiscal constraints and a difficult financial outlook for the country. When there was money already available, that is utter madness.

The oil and gas industry, which is based in and around Aberdeen but has a presence across our entire island nation, is a national asset. We should be championing it and the people who work in it, not demonising them. We should be proud when we see the names of successful British companies supporting British artists, musicians and sportspeople, and when we see them investing in communities, schools and our country. We should absolutely allow them to tell the world of the globally significant investment that they are making in the clean technologies of the future, and we should not have any truck with this petition.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, for my first petitions debate, which are a great innovation in parliamentary procedure. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), I thank everyone who signed the petition. I do not think that I have been in a Westminster Hall debate with so many people in the Public Gallery. That is fantastic to see, and I thank them for being here.

I join the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), in his comments about the Piper Alpha disaster, the 37th anniversary of which was yesterday. It was the worst oil disaster in history, in terms of human lives lost, and it reminds us just how dangerous some of the work in the North sea is. It also reminds us of the importance of the culture of safety, which has changed beyond recognition since that disaster. This is a useful moment to pause and reflect on the lives that were lost.

This is an important debate, and I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter for his excellent introductory speech. As a Member of Parliament, it is not always easy to give a balanced speech, but he attempted to put forward both sides of the argument very strongly, and I give credit to him for doing so.

I also thank other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and raised a number of points. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) brought his extensive medical experience to the debate. He rightly spoke about the significant impact that emissions have on people’s health, and about why climate change is a public health crisis as much as an environmental one. I also thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for her commitment to this issue. What she does in her spare time will now be in Hansard, so I think Wikipedia will be updated—there is no way out of that; it is on the record.

I recognise the strength of feeling on this incredibly important issue; the 100,000-odd signatures on the petition that triggered the debate underline that point. Before I address the specific points in the petition, however, I want to be absolutely clear that the Government are committed to tackling climate change. In fact, the Prime Minister said recently that that is “in the DNA” of the Government. We know it is an urgent threat to life—an existential crisis for our planet—and as I have said on numerous occasions, it is no longer a theoretical future threat, but a very present reality. We do not have to look far around the world to see examples of that.

Even if we did not accept all that as a huge reason to take action, we should recognise that the huge opportunity that swapping fossil fuels for clean, home-grown energy provides is much greater than just tackling the climate crisis: it can deliver our energy security in an uncertain time for our world and create tens of thousands of new jobs. It is also the industrial opportunity of the century. That is why one of the Prime Minister’s five key defining missions in government is to make this country a clean energy superpower with clean power by 2030, accelerating towards net zero. It is also why the Prime Minister has set one of the most ambitious nationally determined contribution targets in the world—to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% by 2035—and a few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the most significant investment in home-grown clean energy in British history.

Let me be clear. The Government are committed to this transition because it is the right thing to do for our energy security and to tackle the climate, but we will succeed in this mission only if we bring people with us. The moment that people start to feel that this is something being done to them, not with them, is the moment when we lose the battle. The shadow Minister rightly pointed out that we have been on this transition for a long time now. We have halved emissions since 1990 because of the consensus between Governments of different persuasions. That consensus, as many people will not have failed to notice, has now fractured, which is a great shame.

For us to win the political argument, we have to bring people with us. Instead of banning and blocking, our emphasis needs to be much more on empowering people to make informed choices. As the Prime Minister said before the election, after a period in which Government seemed to tread quite heavily on all our lives, part of this Government’s mission is to deliver for the people of this country, but to tread a little lighter on people’s lives. In this space, that means ensuring that everyone has access to accurate and trustworthy information about the climate crisis and the energy they use and the options available to them to be part of the transition.

In that context, I turn specifically to the petition. The UK has a robust regime in place to regulate the content and targeting of advertising through the Committee of Advertising Practice, which sets the codes that are upheld, and through the Advertising Standards Authority, which enforces the codes. The Government are not involved in the codes or in any of the investigations or enforcement delivered by the Advertising Standards Authority. In 2021, those bodies launched a climate change and environment project to respond to the ongoing climate crisis and ensure that environmental claims made in advertising are not misleading or irresponsible. Those findings have informed their updated guidance on advertising.

As the Government’s response to the petition sets out, we do not currently have plans to go any further on the guidance and ban or restrict fossil fuel advertising. However, that is not to say that we do not recognise that the climate crisis, as I have already outlined, is the greatest long-term global challenge we face. To address that, we need a legal framework in place to help us reduce our emissions, which will contribute to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

[Carla Denyer]

I thank the Minister for his patience while I checked a fact. A minute or so ago, he used the phrase “informed choice” to defend why he is not planning to ban advertising for fossil fuels. Is he aware that that exact phrase, “informed choice”, was used by the tobacco companies to campaign against the ban on tobacco advertising? I am reading from a memorandum by British American Tobacco that was submitted to Parliament in 2000.

[Michael Shanks]

I suspect that if we go through all the words that have ever been spoken inside and outside this place, we might find two words that go side by side quite often. In answer to the hon. Lady, no, I do not think that that is the case at all. She makes a persuasive argument, but in my view it is not the argument that applies in this particular case, which I will outline if I can make just a little more progress.

To come to the broader point, it is important that people have the knowledge and information before them to make informed choices on personal decisions, particularly on installing things in their own home. However, as a Government, we have a responsibility to share factual information about the state of the climate. That is why this Government frequently talk about the importance of the climate crisis; I think I have done so three times already in this speech. I am not seeking to pretend that there is not a climate crisis, and I do not think we have hidden from that fact at all.

I also want to talk about the path that the UK is currently on. We need to make a broader argument to the public that goes beyond banning advertising by certain companies. Collectively, we have a responsibility to show the opportunities presented by this transition, counter to much of the misinformation and disinformation that is being put about, including by Members of this House.

The latest report by the Confederation of British Industry shows that the net zero economy is growing three times faster than the wider economy, so there is an economic argument that we have to make. Since we came into government last July, more than £40 billion of private investment has come into the clean energy industries. We believe that the best way to build on that success, bring the public with us and create a convincing argument that this is the right route is by focusing on the economic and social benefits of net zero.

We have therefore been working with industry to explore how we can reduce emissions from high-carbon products, including voluntary eco-labels that help consumers to make different purchasing decisions. We are continually listening to the private sector, local government, trade unions and civil society. That is why we relaunched the Net Zero Council, and we will also publish our upcoming public participation strategy. At the same time, we are doing everything we can to slash emissions while building a more secure and stable future for our country.

The shadow Minister, in customary fashion, reeled off a set of political lines about why this is the wrong choice for us as a country, despite the fact that he believed in it last year when he was delivering speeches from the Government Benches. The truth is that actions speak louder than words, which is why in the past year we have not just said that we are committed to the clean energy mission and to delivering action on climate change; we have delivered.

We ended the onshore wind ban within 72 hours. We set up Great British Energy, the first publicly owned energy company in 70 years. We consented enough clean power for 2 million homes by approving applications that had languished on Ministers’ desks. We kickstarted the carbon capture industry. In the past few weeks, the Chancellor has also announced a significant investment of more than £60 billion in home-grown clean energy, including new regional hydrogen networks for transport, storage, industry and power. We also published our industrial strategy, which places clean energy right at the heart of industrial renewal over the next 10 years.

The wider context of climate action is important, and we want the UK to be a world leader in this space. That is why in 2008, when my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary held the same role, we backed the Climate Change Act 2008, making the UK the first country to introduce legally binding net zero emissions targets. Since then, we have overachieved against the first, second and third carbon budgets, and we will be setting carbon budget 7 by June 2026, in line with our statutory duties.

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I should avoid straying into taxation policy, which is not in my brief. However, I will say that we are doing everything we can to issue a speedy response to the consultation on the future of energy in the North sea, which is all about how we strategically plan the future of oil and gas in this country to ensure that we are building up the future industries at the same time as supporting existing oil and gas supply chains and jobs, and we are moving that work forward.

Let me be clear about what the official receiver does. The official receiver is in post with statutory duties, but that is not in the same bucket as nationalising an industry. It would not be right for the Government to underwrite failing businesses, but we have a responsibility to ensure that an active refinery is wound down in a way that is safe, or that we can find a buyer to continue it.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I stand in solidarity with the workers in the oil industry who are facing such uncertainty and fear. This incident illustrates perfectly why a carefully managed worker-led transition away from oil and gas is so desperately needed to avoid a chaotic collapse in which workers pay the price. Will the Minister agree to implement my Energy and Employment Rights Bill, whose proposals include the publication of a plan for the redeployment and retraining of oil and gas workers, paid for by oil and gas companies across the industry rather than piece by piece and crisis by crisis?

[Michael Shanks]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s proposed piece of legislation, so I will not be supporting it. I think that that is the wrong approach, although she has highlighted the right problem. We are moving as quickly as possible to plan the transition properly, although we should have been doing that many years ago when it started, and as a result we have lost a third of the workforce in the past 10 years. More than 70,000 people have lost their jobs because we failed to plan for this.

I recognise the problem that the hon. Lady has described, but I think that the answer is for us to do two things: to manage the existing fields and support the industry for the lifetime of those fields, and to build up, at speed, investment in the industries that come next. In the spending review the Government supported industries in respect of carbon capture and storage and hydrogen, and, of course, significant investments in the supply chain through Great British Energy to ensure that we are building infrastructure in this country again and securing the jobs that come with it. The transition is important, and we are doing all that we can to ensure that workers are at the heart of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, representing, as he does, a beautiful part of Scotland and one with huge potential for such schemes. That is why Great British Energy announced £4 million of funding for community energy projects in Scotland, working with the Scottish Government to drive those forward. We see, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, the huge benefits not just of delivering clean power, but of the social and economic value for the communities that host it. We are clear that community-owned energy has huge untapped potential and huge benefits for communities. We want to see much more of it, and Great British Energy will help deliver it.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response on reducing the reliance on fossil fuels; no more backing for oil and gas is essential for protecting our children’s futures. However, that positive change requires a plan to future-proof British industries that works for everyone, particularly those who are currently working in those high-carbon sectors. Will the Minister and his colleagues commit to publishing an energy jobs plan for how those workers can be supported in that transition, particularly around being provided with retraining opportunities?

[Michael Shanks]

We consulted on a detailed plan around the future of energy in the North sea, which includes a detailed section on workforce planning. I am sure the hon. Lady was able to submit a response to that consultation, and we will look carefully at her views. We take the question of workforce incredibly seriously. Jobs will be created right across the clean power mission, including in the biggest upgrade to the transmission infrastructure that we have seen in this country for many years, much of which her party seems to oppose.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I understand it, the solar road map has not yet been published, so watch this space. I have been having conversations in the past couple of weeks with international counterparts who are interested in floating solar, and I would be happy to get the hon. Gentleman a more detailed response on our plans on that front.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

As the Minister knows, global leadership is about adaptation and mitigation. Does she expect the Climate Change Committee’s report on adaptation, which is due out tomorrow, to say that the Government are doing enough in this regard? Furthermore, will she show real leadership by requiring local authorities and major infrastructure providers to carry out climate risk assessments, so that, statutorily, they will have to ensure that climate resilience and preparedness form a part of their plans?

North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) to debate transitional support for oil and gas workers, who are already bearing the brunt of the North sea’s disorderly decline as reserves have dwindled without a clear agreed plan. In my first ever job in the renewable energy sector in 2008—17 years ago now—I co-wrote a report on the huge potential of British North sea ports to move into the renewable energy industry as locations where offshore wind turbines and associated infrastructure are manufactured and then shipped. While some of that has been realised, a lot of opportunities were missed as jobs went overseas. The need for action is now urgent.

We already know that new oil and gas projects are incompatible with averting the worst impacts of climate catastrophe. If the goal is also to provide North sea workers and communities with the long-term security that they deserve—and it must be—new oil and gas fields are still not the answer. Even with hundreds of new licences issued and new field approvals granted in the past decade, jobs supported by the UK oil and gas industry have more than halved already, and multiple sources predict a continued decline. We must protect those workers and provide security for that workforce, but in a declining basin that will not come from desperate attempts to double down on new drilling.

Let us take the specific example of the Rosebank oil field. Setting aside the significant climate harm that Rosebank would cause, the claim that the project will create thousands of jobs is inflated. Equinor’s own estimate suggests that only 255 direct jobs would be created in the UK over its entire lifetime. Equinor has decided to construct the main offshore vessel for Rosebank in Dubai, and unions are rightly furious that the project has yet to create a single UK design or construction job.

Meanwhile, analysis shows that properly investing in British clean energy supply chains could create over 20,000 jobs for workers in key areas such as Scotland’s oil and gas communities, many of whom, as Members have pointed out, have a lot of the transferable skills we need. Rather than bowing to the industry’s last-ditch calls for new drilling, will the Government do what is needed to protect workers? For too long, oil and gas companies have been in the driving seat of the North sea transition. Time and again, they choose to prioritise their own short-term interests over the long-term needs of workers and their communities.

As the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) said, alarmingly, just seven of the 87 North sea operators plan to invest anything at all in UK renewables between now and 2030. Instead, these companies are on a sunset ride, maximising profits from oil and gas while they still can, regardless of what that means for the rest of us. That lack of investment has clear consequences for workers, who are demanding clear pathways out of high-carbon jobs and into the renewable energy industry, where they know they have a longer-term future.

Oil and gas companies like to blame the windfall tax for preventing them from investing, but they had been failing to invest long before that levy was introduced. We have also seen companies choosing to make workers redundant while simultaneously banking excessive profits and issuing their shareholders huge payouts—more proof that they continue to prioritise their own private interests over the workforce.

Does the Minister agree that it is time to stop betting on private oil and gas industry companies doing the right thing? How does he plan to ensure that the interests of workers and communities, rather than just those of oil and gas bosses, are served in the Government’s plan for the North sea? The need for the Government to step in and manage the transition in the public interest is now urgent, and the current approach, which is overwhelmingly focused on de-risking private investment, is wholly insufficient to achieve that aim. It risks recreating the inequalities and failures of our current energy system, where wealth and jobs flow overseas.

The unjust closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery without plans to support workers is a damning indictment of that failed industry. To ensure good, secure jobs for workers and build wealth that lasts in communities that are already experiencing the sharp edge of the transition, we need an entirely new approach—one that plans ahead before private companies decide to abandon their workers. Alongside a clear, worker-led plan for the North sea, unions and climate groups are calling for the Government to commit to an emergency ringfenced funding package in the spending review. Will the Minister meet the Chancellor to ensure that those ringfenced funds are secured, and will he ensure that past mistakes are not repeated in the North sea transition?

Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to make the point that climate change is not a future threat but a present reality. This year alone there have been a number of examples around the world of that present reality already having a huge and devastating impact on people’s lives.

On the balance that we want to strike, yes, the oil and gas industry is important to our economy and to our energy mix, but the long-term future requires us to move towards clean power. Even if gas is extracted from the North sea, it does not help with consumer bills in this country, because it is traded on an open market to the highest bidder and sold by private companies. This is not a nationalised industry—it is owned by private companies, and gas is extracted by private companies and sold by private companies—and consumers in this country do not benefit from their gas coming from abroad or from the North sea.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

If the Minister will not comment on Rosebank or Jackdaw because of the threat of legal appeals, will he at least confirm that his Government will put a stop to extraction from a reported 13 new oil and gas fields that received licences from the previous Government but are still awaiting their final consents? I believe that they are not subject to the restrictions that cause him not to want to comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw.

[Michael Shanks]

To be clear, I am not suggesting that I cannot comment because of particular legal action. My Department will have responsibility for making the decisions, and it would be wrong for me to prejudice that process by giving my view on those applications in Parliament or anywhere else. That is entirely how such applications end up back in court, and that is what I am determined to avoid.

We clearly outlined the question of licensing at the election: we will not issue new licences to explore new fields, existing licences will be honoured, and we will not remove licences from fields that already have a licence. However, consents—the point at which extraction takes place—must take into account climate tests, and not least the compatibility test laid down by the Supreme Court. Any applications now or in future must take account of that.

Biomass Generation

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have significantly reduced the ability of Drax to make profits, but we have also ensured that if there are excess profits, they are clawed back on behalf of the British people. The additional rates of 30% and 60% in the mechanism that we have designed will ensure that any unexpected profits are clawed back. That was not the case under the eight previous Energy Ministers in the previous Government who signed off deals on Drax year after year. This is a new way of operating that protects our energy security, as well as protecting the hard-working people of this country.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Drax is a clean energy scam that has been handed £6 billion by successive Conservative Ministers since 2012, when that money should have been spent on getting energy bills down. The Minister rightly cites past excess profits and I believe he said specifically that the new contract will allow Government to claw them back. Will the contract allow clawback of previous excess profits and remedy the past misspending of public money? Or will the clawback apply only as we go forward into the future, in which case that is still throwing good money after bad, just slightly less of it?

[Michael Shanks]

We do not have a mechanism to claw back past profits from any company—that is not something that Governments are able to do. What we can do is move forward with a fair system that reduces the subsidy considerably, and has excess profit mechanisms and a windfall tax in place to ensure that if the company generates additional profits, we can claw that back for the British public, which is important. The level that we have agreed in the deal brings the subsidy down to a considerably lower level—half what it was under the previous Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastically important point, which is that we often think about planning reform as being about the large-scale projects, but it is also about unblocking the smaller-scale projects. Having a national energy policy statement that includes 2030, working with local authorities and making sure there are enough planners to make the decisions—all those things can all make a difference. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her advocacy for this work, and I congratulate the local community on this project.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Experts are clear that the savings from the Government’s clean power action plan will be wiped out by 2050 if airport expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton goes ahead, and that relying on so-called sustainable aviation fuels would use up to half the UK’s agricultural land. Does the Secretary of State agree with the scientists that, while ambitious clean power plans are hugely welcome, if this Government also back airport expansion, they are not going to meet their climate obligations?

[Ed Miliband]

As the Chancellor said last week, any aviation expansion has to take place within carbon budgets and environmental limits. I would also point out that this Government have achieved more in six months than the last Government did in 14 years. We have lifted the onshore wind ban, consented nearly 3 GW of solar, set up GB Energy and the national wealth fund and held the most successful renewables auction in history. This Government are delivering on clean power.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We were talking about this issue in the Tea Room only this morning, and I will meet the ceramics sector and him first thing in the new year to talk about some of the challenges it faces. We are absolutely committed to supporting the sector.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Thirteen oil and gas fields have been licensed for new drilling of dangerous fossil fuels but are still awaiting final approval. The Government paused those decisions while doing a consultation, but the consultation will not change the science: if we are to meet our climate targets, those fossil fuels must stay in the ground. Will the Secretary of State do the right thing by the poorest in our country, who are always at the sharpest end of climate action, and ensure that those licences will not be granted?

[Ed Miliband]

This is a Government with a world-leading position when it comes to oil and gas, and we will do the right thing for the environment and climate change and the right thing to ensure that there is a just transition in the North sea.

COP29

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is right: although we have party political disagreements on some issues, this country has avoided a fraying and splitting of this consensus, as has happened in other countries. The consensus on climate action is so important precisely because of what he has set out: the fate of his grandchildren and all future generations, and the impact on them. I want to work with people across parties on this issue, because the more of a consensus we have, the better it is for the country.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Low-income countries were extremely disappointed by the finance agreements at COP—$300 billion does not come anywhere near the level of need. Critically, there was no clarity on how much of it would be grants, as opposed to loans, which would plunge global south countries further into debt. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the potential dominance of loans and an overreliance on the private sector, and does he agree that considerable public finance could and should be raised through taxes on the most polluting companies?

[Ed Miliband]

I understand why the hon. Lady expresses that disappointment—indeed, a number of developing countries expressed that disappointment. However, I think that this is a considerable scaling-up of resources. That is to state the obvious, because $100 billion was the previous commitment. It is the provision and mobilisation of resources. She is right about the balance between grants and loans, and about the funds that are required for adaptation, but the truth is that public finance on its own will never meet the need. That is why the agreement on carbon markets that was part of this COP is important, and why the mobilisation of private finance, and working on a road map to that mobilisation, which is also part of the agreement, is so important.