Climate and Nature Bill

Carla Denyer Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I will not. I have given way a few times and other Members want to speak, so I want to make some progress.

Aligning to the targets, which the Bill would oblige the Secretary of State to achieve, would require even more drastic action to reduce emissions. The Secretary of State has already signed the country up to an even stricter target of cutting emissions by 81% by 2035—something the Climate Change Committee said will require people to eat less meat and dairy, take fewer flights, and swap their boilers for heat pumps and their petrol cars for electric vehicles at a pace that will require taxes and mandation. That is not sensible, nor is it feasible.

Let us turn to the objective to include import emissions in the scope of our carbon budgets. Zero Hour correctly identifies that the current carbon budget system focuses on territorial emissions, rather than consumption emissions—in other words, we count the carbon emissions of what is produced within our own borders, rather than the carbon emissions of products that are produced overseas, shipped in and then used within the UK. Some may think that underplays our true contribution to global emissions, and they may have a point, because if we shut down our oil and gas sector, for example—as the Labour party seemingly wants to do—that will not mean that we consume any less oil or gas; it will just mean that we ship it in from overseas as liquefied natural gas, which has four times the carbon emissions in the production process. We may have reduced our territorial carbon emissions and stuck to our carbon budgets, but we would actually be increasing our carbon emissions overall. That, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) likes to say, is carbon accounting gone mad.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Does the shadow Minister recognise that the point he makes about emissions from imports not being counted rather undermines the point he was making earlier, when he boasted about the territorial emissions that were reduced when he was in government, which may be the very point that the sponsors of the Bill are trying to make?

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but how do we get away from the problem of double accounting for those emissions? If, for example, India is counting them as part of its global emissions and we start to count them too, in addition to what we are doing within our borders, how will we ever get an accurate picture of emissions across the globe? If we were to take into consideration the global effect of our consumption emissions and the carbon footprint of what we import, the British people would soon realise that there is no way to decarbonise consumption as rapidly as possible, as the Bill seeks, without a huge economic challenge, and that is not recognised in the Bill.

That brings me to the next aspect of the Bill: the requirement—not just the ambition—that the UK ends

“the exploration, extraction, export and import of fossil fuels…as rapidly as possible.”

I am sorry to say that that is not a serious proposal. Even the Climate Change Committee has said that oil and gas will remain a crucial part of our energy mix for decades to come—something that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have accepted. As we have been saying, turning off the taps in the North sea will result only in higher imports—something the Labour Government seemingly accept.

But even worse, the Bill would require us not only to completely end domestic exploration and production, but to end the import of fossil fuels. Just this week, on Wednesday, gas power stations provided 65% of the UK’s electricity. Just 2% came from wind power and 1% came from solar. If the Bill is successful and we end not just the extraction but the import of all fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, MPs who are backing it will have to explain how we keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.

[Carla Denyer]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I will make progress, because I know more Members wish to speak. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, we simply do not have the technology available—we do not have enough clean power from batteries or long-duration electricity storage—to meet demand. That speaks to the major contradiction in the Bill: it talks about protecting the British countryside from development, but it would require an incredible roll-out—at pace and scale unprecedented—of renewable technologies, pylons, substations and battery storage facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Last week, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and I were invited to see a play called “Kyoto”. [Interruption.] It looks like other Ministers were also there; I did not spot them. The play tells the story of the international climate negotiations in Kyoto, including the pivotal role that the late great John Prescott played in working collaboratively to forge a binding agreement between countries with vastly different politics and that agreed about very little. I found the play so moving and inspiring, and I thought I saw that the Secretary of State did, too. The next morning, I wrote to him, asking if he would be willing to have a call with me about this Bill and how we might be able to work together. I did that because this crisis is too big and too existential to leave to a party machinery whose prime motivation seems to be simply to be seen to win, as we saw reported in the news yesterday.

This Bill was first tabled by the first Green MP, Caroline Lucas, four years ago. It is and always has been a chance for collaborative, cross-party endeavour. It is supported by many of the Government’s Back Benchers, and the Labour party itself pledged agreement with its principles not long ago. If the Government support it today, they will share in the credit of its success. We will all win if the Bill goes into Committee and emerges as strong as possible, supported across the House.

I understand that the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) has agreed not to push it to a vote today, in exchange, it seems, for just a meeting with the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero and a video, with an agreement to work together but with no specific commitments. That is her decision. [Interruption.] Let me continue, please. That is her decision. I am sad about it, but I wish her well and hope it works out.

However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot tell you how disappointed I was, and how disappointed millions of people will be, to learn how the Government have behaved. They ignored the CAN Bill campaign for months, only finally agreeing to meet its promoter 10 days before this debate—coming to the negotiation table with almost nothing new, demanding a promise not to push the Bill it to a vote in exchange for no regulation, no legislation, no new targets. That is peanuts. After 10 days of negotiation, incredibly, the offers got worse—until, late last night, the best that the Government could offer was a meeting with the Secretary of State, a non-specific offer to work together, and a video.

The climate is why I got into politics and I am not giving up that easily, so I have stood up today to say to the Government, “Please, give us real commitments, binding decisions, legislation, timetables and consequences.” The existing legislation to which the Government are working is based on science that is out of date, taking us back to a time when we thought that 2°C was a safe level of warming. It takes no account of the emissions from products and services that we import, no account of emissions from aviation and shipping, and no account of emissions from other greenhouse gases such as methane. In other words, it chooses not to count the tricky stuff and then slaps itself on the back for doing so jolly well at the easy stuff, and, as we have heard over and over again today, it does not join up climate and nature legislation or policy in any way.

So I say to the Government again, “Please, please commit yourselves to real, binding, bold legislation that reflects the way in which the science has evolved since the Climate Change Act 2008, which was groundbreaking in its day but which has now been superseded by the climate science.” If they will not do so, I, as one of the Bill’s sponsors, will take this Second Reading to a vote. If they really think that they can look their constituents and their children in the eye—

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I would like to finish this point. If the Government really think that they can look their constituents and their children in the eye and say, “Look, we couldn’t help it; there was party politics; I had to think of my career,” I say to them, “Go ahead.”

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I, too, have seen “Kyoto”, and I have spent 20 years attending all the climate negotiations. Given that the hon. Member has spoken about cross-party consensus and the need to build the necessary political momentum, will she show respect for the huge efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage)? She did receive commitments that will enable us to move forward—not at the pace that we want, but together—and I am very worried about the way in which the hon. Member is undermining the efforts that have been made to move forward with this.

[Carla Denyer]

I do have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Member for South Cotswolds, who has worked incredibly hard over the years—decades—as an environment campaigner, and for months since she first proposed this Bill.

[Adam Thompson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I want to make some progress. I respect the hon. Member’s choice, although I disagree with it and I am sad about it. This Bill has been going for four years and has had cross-party support throughout. The position of the lead proposer on this iteration of the Bill is to accept a negotiation without specific promises. My position is that stronger negotiation and getting the Bill to Committee stage is needed—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carla Denyer]

I anticipate that I will answer many of the points that hon. Members want to make, so I will make a little progress.

Even I do not love every clause of the revised version of the Bill. I would prefer its climate target to make explicit reference to the 1.5° limit and the UK’s fair contribution towards it. I very strongly disagree with the last-minute insertion of a presumption against large renewable projects, which was made without consulting the co-proposers. But the fundamental principles of the Bill are sound: laws based on the science, tackling climate and nature as one and doing things with people, not to people. It has the level of ambition that the science demands. It contains enough positive measures for me to give it my full support, putting aside my differences about those points.

In the debate on Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, we heard powerful arguments about how it could be improved, but the House voted for it to progress because there was an agreement that it warranted further scrutiny, including potential amendments. The same applies today. If Members agree with the principles but want to change some specifics, let us debate that. In that case, I ask them not to block the Bill today, but to join me in voting for Second Reading and then to debate together, on a cross-party basis, how to make it better together.

[Adam Thompson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Denyer]

I am on my final sentence. Let us set aside party allegiances for a moment. We can show bold leadership together.

[Dr Savage]

I admire the hon. Member’s passion and commitment to the cause. I am afraid I was not in the Chamber to hear the beginning of her speech, but from what I have been able to gather, let me take the opportunity to set the record straight. I very much believe that we do need cross-party consensus. I have been willing and eager to have conversations with the Government. I have been an environmental campaigner for the last 20 years. I have tried the placard-waving and I have marched in the streets. That has an important role to play, but there is a reason that I chose to come to this place: to take the policy approach. As the third party, the only way we can do that is by working with the Government.

[Carla Denyer]

With the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, taking a Bill containing binding legislation to Committee stage for line-by-line scrutiny is not placard-waving. Voting for the Bill today is voting for a liveable future. I hope that is what we all choose.

Environmental Protection

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman knows of what he speaks, and of course I accept that there is wonderful variation across our whole country. That is precisely why I chose two neighbouring authorities. What could be easier than collecting from dense urban areas, compared with the challenges and costs of having to collect waste across far-flung rural communities such as those I represent? Perhaps later we will hear the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) explain exactly why that council, which drove itself into the ground, has such a poor record on recycling.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

rose—

[Andrew Griffith]

Fantastic, we do not have to wait.

[Carla Denyer]

As the MP for Bristol Central, I cannot speak directly on behalf of councillors for Brighton and Hove, other than to point out that my understanding is that their hands were tied by a deal that was agreed by the previous Labour administration

[Andrew Griffith]

I hate to intrude on socialist grief, so let me move on.

Business leaders make decisions only when they have considered the context of all external factors, so it is important—I hope the Government agree—that we consider the statutory instrument in the context of the current headwinds faced by British business.

Right now, businesses across the land are working through the tough choices they will have to make to keep their businesses viable in the face of this Government’s job-killing, investment-crushing, growth-destroying Budget, because of choices this Government have made. It was this Government who chose to place enormous burdens on business with their new tax on jobs. It was this Government who chose to halve business rates relief for retail and hospitality. It is this Government who are choosing to push through their Employment Rights Bill, which will increase unemployment, as we saw today, and prevent young people from ever getting their first chance of a job. Business confidence has been knocked down and jobs are at risk, and it is no surprise when we consider that not a single person sat around the Cabinet table has real experience of running a business.

No sectors have been hit harder than retail and hospitality. The British Retail Consortium has said how Labour’s Budget will increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures—the very shops that will have to participate in this scheme—and reduce jobs. The CBI has said that retail businesses have gone into “crisis containment”. The Institute of Directors found that economic confidence has fallen for a fourth month running—does anyone know what those four months have in common? The number of businesses closing has increased by 64% since the Budget. That is the shocking reality and the context in which the Government seek to bring forward today’s statutory instrument, putting more burdens and more cost on business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I and the Green party welcome this scheme; however, I am disappointed to see a deposit return scheme that does not include glass. Implementing a deposit return scheme that includes glass is really not unprecedented; it is absolutely possible. In fact, there are around 50 schemes around the world, 46 of which include glass. The remaining four do not, but that is only because there is a separate glass scheme. While I welcome the progress, which I am sure will help, will the Government look at this again, and work closely with the Welsh Government to see how glass can be included?

On a tangentially related note, I want to quickly respond to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who appears to have stepped out of the Chamber. Since my response to him earlier, a resident of Brighton and Hove has been in touch—the hon. Member may regret having raised this—to explain that the 25-year private finance initiative deal that Brighton and Hove council was locked into, which heavily restricted the range of products that could be recycled, was originally brought in by a Labour Administration, but was later extended by a Conservative one.

Sewage Discharges: South West

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will outline some of the measures I will put to the Minister.

I urge the Government to go much further by scrapping Ofwat, which has proven itself to be toothless and missing in action. The Liberal Democrats would replace Ofwat with a much more powerful clean water authority, which could ban bonuses for water company bosses who fail to stop sewage dumping, revoke licences of poorly performing water companies immediately, force water firms to publish the full volume and scale of their sewage dumping, mandate local environmental experts to sit on water company boards, and set legally binding targets on sewage discharges.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for bringing this debate before the House. On the question of public ownership, does he think that the independent commission on the water sector regulatory system might be better off if it were tasked with at least considering how public ownership of water companies might work, rather than the current situation, in which this supposedly independent commission has been banned from considering one of the possible solutions to the problem?

[Ben Maguire]

The hon. Member raises an important point about independence. As was covered briefly earlier, that consultation will be a very important part of this process.

Lib Dem amendments have recently been tabled in the other place to empower the regulator to revoke water company licences in the face of repeated failures and, crucially, to make it a criminal offence for water companies to fail to implement pollution reduction plans, holding senior managers personally and criminally liable. In the last Parliament, my Liberal Democrat colleagues in this place also tabled an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that would have created a sewage illness victim compensation scheme. Under that scheme, where medical evidence is provided to support a claim, proper compensation would be payable by water companies to their victims, such as three-year-old Finley and his family. I take this opportunity to plead with the Minister, on behalf of all my constituents, to seriously consider these measures so that water companies are finally held accountable, with no more excuses and no more delays.

Picking up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) earlier, EDMs—not electronic dance music or early-day motions, but event duration monitors—that are fitted to storm overflow tanks only measure the number and duration of spills, not the volume. There have also been reports of faults with those EDMs, which could represent a serious under-reporting of sewage spills, significantly skewing the data. That could mean that the situation is far worse than we thought. Whatever enforcement approach is taken by the Government against water companies, the accuracy of the data will be crucial, so I ask the Minister to please consider the accuracy of the current monitoring system.

When I took my seat in this place, I promised my constituents that I would always speak truth to power. In a previous career, I advised businesses and their leaders. If I could offer some advice here and now to the chief executive of South West Water, I would say, “Please do the decent thing and go now.” In what other universe could a chief executive preside over such a record of abject failure? With Ms Davy having been the chief finance officer since 2015 and then the chief executive since 2020, almost 10 years of failed leadership have brought us to this diabolical situation. How on earth can anyone now have confidence that South West Water will miraculously turn things around in the next five years?

Ms Davy declined to take a bonus last year, instead adding that bonus amount to her base salary, which at last count was a whopping £860,000. Before Members start worrying about South West Water’s shareholders, they too were awarded a generous dividend of 44p per share. This is all while water bills are rocketing, children are getting severely sick as a result of that greed, and people everywhere are too afraid to enjoy the beaches and rivers that make Cornwall and the wider south-west so uniquely special. As a society, at what point do we come together and say that this has to stop, for the sake of our children and the sake of us all? Well, I humbly suggest that that point has now long passed.