Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

The North Sea Transition Authority already expects methane emissions to be as low as possible and all new developments to be developed on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting, and that they should be electrified or electrification-ready. Of course, what is required and will help facilitate that is new investment in the North sea facilitated by licences, without which we are unlikely to see the reduction in emissions that we have so successfully driven so far.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Minister has not really given any reassurance to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). As we know, methane is a whopping 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, so if the Minister is serious about tackling this issue, will he explain why the Government failed to use the Energy Bill to ban flaring and venting? Why did they whip their own MPs to vote against an amendment that would have outlawed it, and given that the practice has been illegal in Norway since the 1970s, will he finally recognise that this makes a mockery of Ministers’ claims about UK oil and gas being greener?

[Graham Stuart]

Unusually, the hon. Lady has got her facts wrong: I do not think that amendment was even selected for debate that day. According to the North Sea Transition Authority, flaring was reduced by more than 10% just last year, contributing to a reduction of nearly 50% between 2018 and 2022. As I have said, the North Sea Transition Authority estimates that methane emissions have fallen by more than 40% to fewer than 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent—a record low. We have old existing infrastructure and are moving with a maximum of ambition to reduce emissions, and we have a successful track record to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Solloway]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the meetings we have had, and I am mindful of the situation that hospices face. We have given support and I will make sure that I keep monitoring the situation.

[Caroline Lucas]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the exchange about the amendment on flaring just now, I do not think I heard the Minister formally withdraw his accusation that I got my facts wrong, and I certainly did not hear him apologise. Given that he has now accepted that he got his facts wrong and my facts were right, I would love him to formally correct the record and perhaps even to apologise as well.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

Offshore Wind Contracts

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been such a consistent champion not only for the power of renewables to meet our environmental challenges but for the economic benefits that come from them. He is absolutely right that the nature of the CfD system is that it learns from the previous auction round, which is the most real data of all, and uses that learning to inform the next round. That is why I am confident that, just as we had a success with 3.7 GW on Friday, AR6 promises to be more successful still.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the Minister on turning complacency and chutzpah into a new art form. The ineptitude of Tory Ministers means that this latest CfD round saw the smallest auction return since 2015—a failing that was entirely avoidable. How will he ensure that the UK delivers the 35 GW of new offshore wind capacity that is needed in just six years? Why did Ministers yet again fail to heed the warnings from industry and experts in advance?

[Graham Stuart]

We have to set the parameters based on the best information we have. As I say, one reason for moving to an annual round is to allow us quickly to learn the lessons of each round. We did not get the wind on this occasion, which I regret, and we will put the real-world prices and learnings from that into the next round. That is the system we have, because we are always trying to make sure that we get the parameters right so that we balance the need to generate additional green energy with the cost to the taxpayer. Understandably, given their carelessness with the public finances and with consumers, the Opposition do not seem to care about that. My job is to balance it, ensuring that we get the generation, and we have 77 GW in the pipeline. We are in position and on track to meet our ambitions, which lead Europe—not that we would know that to listen to the hon. Lady.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

This is the biggest piece of energy legislation ever passed by the British Parliament. We are driving forward with schemes to help insulate houses, drive down bills, and deliver cleaner and more secure energy, and all we can get from the Opposition is criticism. We have ramped up our renewable energy production to over 40%. We have eliminated coal. We are developing new nuclear, which the Opposition failed to do over 13 years in government. Rather than carping from the sidelines, it would be useful if Opposition Back Benchers got on board, supported the Bill and supported our great British companies developing the technology to take this country forward, creating the new jobs, ensuring security of supply and driving towards net zero, which means we will leave this country and the planet in a better place for the next generation, instead of trying to score political points at the expense of this Government who are seeking to deliver for the British people. As such, I am immensely proud of the Bill. It was strong before and it is even stronger now. It is, as I have just said, the single biggest piece of energy legislation ever to be brought before the House.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

rose—

[Andrew Bowie]

I am afraid I will not give way.

The Bill is a revolution in community energy: restarting our nuclear sector; regulating for fusion; developing carbon capture, usage and storage; supporting the technology of the future; liberating private finance; developing our own oil and gas reserves; building an energy network of the future to secure our energy supply; securing our energy base so we are powering Britain from Britain; growing our economy; investing to ensure lower bills; and driving towards a cleaner future. That is what the Bill achieves. It was brought here and delivered today by the Conservative Government, moving the country forward into a brighter, more secure and cleaner future. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, with great pleasure, I commend the new clauses and amendments to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Minister is quite right: the Bill has been with us for rather a long time. I am personally delighted that it is before us this afternoon, but we need to remember that Second Reading was over a year ago, in July 2022, in another place. The Bill has survived four Secretaries of State and two Departments in its passage through the House, so it certainly should be an improved Bill by now. I am concerned, however, that the long passage of the Bill to the statute book has had a real effect on investors and various other people seeking to invest in the low-carbon economy. We should not forget that.

What is this Bill about? As the Minister has said, it is essentially about the decarbonisation of the energy system and making that system fit for net zero. It is, overwhelmingly, a Bill that enables that decarbonisation to take place, and it has been described in a number of instances as a “green plumbing” Bill, which I think is not a bad description. It provides the necessary mechanisms and the details of how we will reach our targets in a variety of areas, as the Minister said: on hydrogen, on carbon capture and storage, on licensing, on the introduction of an independent system operator—which is very important to good construction—on low-carbon heat schemes, on district heating, on energy-saving appliances, and on fusion power. It also makes a number of regulation changes in relation to civil nuclear decommissioning and oil and gas management. It is, moreover, a Bill that the Opposition have welcomed, both for its extent and for its “green plumbing” activities. We were supportive of its measures in Committee, while also tabling amendments that we thought would strengthen its approach. Indeed, the Government have inserted some of them in the Bill, with very slight changes, and we welcome that as well.

However, in my view the Bill is incomplete and unsatisfactory, given its ambition as a green decarbonisation Bill, in that it fails to complete the three tests, or tasks, that are necessary to provide the clarity and consistency that would ensure that the policy will deliver what is claimed. Those tests are these. First, what are the targets for a policy, and how firm are they? Secondly, what are the technical means whereby the proposed targets can be actioned? Thirdly, what is the plan, both financially and procedurally, to make the targets real and not just hot-air aspirations? It is essential to the process of energy decarbonisation for all three of those tests to be in the Bill as we proceed against very tight timescales and immense challenges of implementation.

In some instances, the Bill has succeeded in that regard. The Government’s targets were set out in a number of documents on clean energy, such as the energy security strategy and the 2020 Energy White Paper. Indeed, in a number of instances, the targets contained in those documents have been substantially added to in the Bill. For example, the target of 10 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production by 2030 has been underpinned by the clauses relating to such matters as hydrogen levy management procedures. I applaud the Government’s change of heart on the hydrogen levy. Although a number of Committee members knowingly voted the wrong way, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), the Government have put that right now. We would have liked to see them go a little further with a clear statement that the money would come from the Consolidated Fund, but we will live with the change that they have undertaken to make. I think we can count that as both a win for our pressure on the Bill and a win for the Bill itself.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree that those three tests for decarbonisation make a lot of sense, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as targets for some of the good stuff, we need to see the Government stop doing the bad stuff? In this case, the bad stuff is more and more new licences for oil and gas in the North sea. Would Labour support my amendment, which would see an end to the MER rule on maximising the economic recovery of petroleum and replace it with a just transition to a greener economy? As long as we have a statutory duty to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas, it does not matter how many targets we have on renewables, because we will not meet the targets that we need to meet.

[Dr Whitehead]

I do not think it would be appropriate for me to indicate exactly which amendments from various Members we might or might not support, and it would take a great deal of time for me to do so, but the hon. Member will recall that we tabled an amendment on maximum economic recovery in Committee. I think she can take from that that, broadly speaking, we support the principle of “stop doing the bad things and start doing the good things”. Whether the detail of her new clause fits exactly with that picture is another matter, but I hope she can take some encouragement from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay]

My right hon. Friend has put his finger exactly on the pulse. This is a substantial Bill. I say to the Minister that I hope the Government will strip out criminal penalties for not adhering to unknown net zero certification, EPCs and all the rest of it in the future for something as simple as not complying with some of these net zero regulations. This is really serious. I hope that when the Bill returns to the other end of the Palace, consideration can be given to strip out such proposals.

I could have gone on at huge length this afternoon. I tabled many amendments because these are overweening powers trying to push and nudge us and to ban things. All I can imagine is that the Chinese embassy will be looking at the Bill with great enthusiasm, as it will drive even more of our high-energy businesses offshore. China will be pleased that it will be able to sell us more solar panels and wind turbines based on its steel, produced on the back of very cheap coal power. That is what we are doing here: driving our high-energy businesses offshore. This is not a recipe for energy security; this is a recipe for energy disaster.

I could talk at length about what is wrong with the net zero proposals banning cars, banning oil boilers, banning this and banning that. That is not what we do as Conservatives. We actually allow freedoms. We allow the market to decide. The Bill goes in the wrong direction.

[Caroline Lucas]

There are some elements of the Bill to commend, not least the net zero duty on Ofgem, but overall it fails to deliver the scale of ambition we need or to set out a vision of an energy system free not just from Putin’s influence but from expensive and polluting oil and gas in their entirety. My amendments would address that failing.

New clause 29 would prohibit the approval of new oil and gas field developments and the issuing of new oil and gas exploration and production licences. I am sure that the Minister will seek to paint the new clause as somehow incredibly radical and the policy of Just Stop Oil, pretending that it would recklessly turn off the taps tomorrow. He will no doubt trot out the same tired lines about a quarter of the UK’s energy continuing to come from oil and gas in 2050. In reality, the new clause is far from radical. It would simply do what the science tells us is necessary if we are to secure a liveable future for ourselves and our children and rule out any new oil and gas licences. In doing so, it would follow the advice of experts including the Climate Change Committee, which in its latest report was clear:

“Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero.”

It acknowledges that while the UK will continue to need some oil and gas until the target is met,

“this does not in itself justify the development of…North Sea fields.”

Yet rather than heeding that warning, just one month later we had the former Secretary of State vowing to max out the North sea’s remaining oil and gas reserves. The Government re-announced 100 new licences and it was not ruling out the prospect of Rosebank.

However hard they try to obfuscate and evade, Ministers cannot deny the fact that, without additional abatement, the projected CO₂ emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure would already exceed the remaining carbon budget for a safe climate. Any oil and gas extracted from the North sea belongs not to us but to multinational companies, which will sell it to the highest bidder on the global market. The majority of fossil fuel projects in the pipeline are for oil, not gas, and will do nothing to boost energy security, given we currently export 80% of the oil that we extract.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am just going to talk about one new clause, new clause 29, which I oppose. It seeks to prevent further licences of North sea oil and gas. The reason I oppose it is that we have a plan for the decarbonisation of our economy and it is policed, if I can put it that way, by the Committee on Climate Change. In the path to net zero by 2050, we recognise that we have a continuing need for oil and gas at least until 2035, when more than 50% of our energy needs will still come from fossil fuels, and actually up to 2050 included, because it is net zero, not absolute zero. We have to have oil and gas, so let’s get it from the most efficient and environmentally friendly source. The most environmentally friendly source is Norway, but that is not an unlimited resource; the CO₂ equivalent per barrel of oil there is about 7 kg. The additional oil and gas we use comes not from Norway but from Qatar; it is liquid natural gas and the CO₂ equivalent per barrel there is 79 kg, whereas the figure for the North sea is 21 kg—a quarter the level of environmental damage per kilogram of CO₂ equivalent. The consequence of closing down the North sea prematurely would be to increase emissions and make our carbon footprint worse. It would be the triumph of virtue signalling over the practicalities of decarbonisation.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will not; I am sorry, but I only have one and a half minutes.

It is logical on environmental grounds, therefore, to support new licences in oil and gas. But there are other arguments. There is the balance of payments—we used to talk about the balance of payments. In 2022, our trade in goods deficit was £63.9 billion. I would rather have our imports of oil and gas coming from the UK and not being imports at all, supporting our balance of payments.

There is the tax income. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that in 2023-24 we are going to get £10.4 billion of tax revenue from North sea oil. That pays for a lot of public goods. We should be supporting that, and we should be supporting business profitability and jobs, because that supports our communities. It also gives time for the phasing of what is described as the just transition to renewable jobs. There is an irony in that the proponents of new clause 30, led by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), talk about just transitions, but it is this longer process away from North sea oil and gas, managing decline, that provides the space for a truly just transition to new renewables employment in this country. I do not support new clause 29 as a result.

Energy Infrastructure

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to the House’s attention. There are currently about 200 GW of projects on the books. Many of those are zombie projects, as he describes them, that will not come to fruition and so are clogging up the system. The Government need somehow to get rid of those projects in order to focus on areas where we know there will be investment, and to encourage an anticipatory investment approach that will deliver the new infrastructure we need in a timely way. Otherwise, we will end up developing a renewable technology and a system able to generate clean energy, but we will not have the grid to get it where it is needed.

Secondly, on nuclear energy, our inquiry confirmed that there is a broad consensus between the UK Government and the Welsh Government on the role that nuclear should play in achieving the UK’s net zero targets and ensuring domestic energy security. The majority of our witnesses were in favour of new nuclear energy generation in Wales, and I am pleased to say that the Committee agreed that nuclear energy has a strong role to play in a mix of low-carbon sources.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for the role she played on the Committee, as well as in her capacity as a constituency MP, in championing nuclear energy for Ynys Môn. There has been no more energetic and active Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn that I can remember—she has done a great job in championing her constituency. Our report carries and reflects much of the positivity that my hon. Friend brought to the subject.

We heard strong evidence about the suitability of the Wylfa site on Ynys Môn for a new gigawatt-scale reactor. In fact, we do not believe that the Government will meet their targets for increasing nuclear power without building that large-scale nuclear plant at Wylfa. We recognise the progress that the Government have made in establishing Great British Nuclear and bringing forward the regulated asset base model for securing investment in new nuclear. However, despite that positive progress, a new nuclear power station at Wylfa in north Wales is not in the bag.

When I was in Government 10 years ago, we championed a new nuclear power station at Wylfa. Ministers were sent for photo opportunities there and to meet potential investors, but it did not happen. I know that the community in Ynys Môn, represented by my hon. Friend, feels disappointment because it has had its hopes raised and dashed in the past. We do not want that to happen again, so I implore the Minister to hear the arguments about Wylfa. I know he feels passionate about the subject and will discuss these issues with Government colleagues.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Did any of the witnesses point out the eye-wateringly high cost of new nuclear, as well as how painfully slow the process will be, given the amount of time it will take for it to be up and running? With the best will in the world, it is unlikely that there will be a new big nuclear power station until the early 2030s. Given the Government’s own target to decarbonise the electricity supply by 2035, nuclear will be unable to play much of a part in helping us to achieve that.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Investment in large-scale nuclear, or even small modular reactors, is a longer-term feature of our energy system, as the Government’s “Powering up Britain” report recognised. In fact, the Government’s targets for increasing nuclear are for 2050, not 2030.

On the cost of nuclear, yes, those points were made to the Committee. We made sure that we had an evidence session to hear from Friends of the Earth and others who are opposed to nuclear per se. We heard their strong arguments about their belief in an energy system entirely comprising of renewable and power storage technology in the future, but we also heard strong evidence that the technology for that does not yet exist. We have to stay in the real world, so nuclear, which has been tried and tested over the long term as a provider of cheap and reliable power, is an important part of our future energy mix, in conjunction with other energy sources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is correct: the technical education sector has a lot to offer and Government must ensure that the funding is available for that training. We know that people are needed. If they show willing to come forward to be trained, they should have every support from Government to achieve that.

Touching on the supply chain, I think since the bronze age about 700 million tonnes of copper have been mined, and in the next 30 years, some people say, the same amount will have to be mined as has been mined in the last 5,000 years. That poses quite a challenge for the Earth’s resources and the ability to do that. It is not just mining; I am told that across the world, cable manufacturing is signed up until 2030 and the cable manufacturers are working full tilt to get those orders under way and to meet demand.

We have a huge problem in planning, and sometimes for justified reasons, but planning can take a lot longer than the construction of projects—sometimes twice the length of the construction. That is causing huge difficulties. Building the network is not really the biggest part of the story; planning the network becomes a bigger part.

Where energy infrastructure is built or where energy is generated, there will be a cost to some people. Can that be compensated with community benefits, job creation and other innovative ideas in communities? I know in my own constituency, Tolsta Community Development provides free driving lessons for young people. It is quite an innovative idea, but all the young people in North Tolsta on Lewis get the opportunity for free driving lessons, and there is money at Christmas and what-have-you. There are a number of innovative things that can make infrastructure more palatable to certain communities who have to carry the burden—because that burden will be disproportionate in some places.

Ofgem is a huge area of difficulty. I recall many years of trying to get Ofgem to consent to a 600 MW link to the outer Hebrides while Ofgem was digging its heels in for 450 MW. That went on and on, and then one morning we woke up and Ofgem was talking about 1.8 GW, and we had to go back to the drawing board again and make the case to Ofgem for the whole thing at 1.8 GW rather than 600 MW. It has been said to me, in my new role chairing the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, that perhaps Ofgem needs a statutory duty for net zero. That might free up Ofgem’s hands to do a number of things, because it often feels quite constrained in its remit from Government. People go to Government and try to get something changed and they say, “Well, it’s an Ofgem issue.” People can end up bouncing between the two—I am seeing nods from certain people in certain corners, although I will not point the finger too directly.

Ofgem really needs to be looked at because, while the Government often talk about market forces, the biggest force in the market is most often the Government. They have a huge role to play, especially in energy and in guiding Ofgem and changing Ofgem’s remit to bring all those things into play. I spoke to the Energy Networks Association yesterday, which told me that time is not on our side for much of this work. We can see the evidence in recent months that the climate is oscillating unusually —we know it is. If we are going to get things done, we need to get rid of the grit that is often in the ointment.

Another area that I came across recently when speaking to the chief executive of Centrica and other people involved in the energy space is hydrogen. I am sure this will be debated, but people say that the UK has been second or third on other technologies, letting Denmark and others take the lead on wind, for example. There is an opportunity here to really move for hydrogen, and some estimates suggest there could be 1.5 million jobs in hydrogen. It is a big sector; it needs to be given time and space and a Government commitment. People within energy are telling me they are concerned that those commitments might be weakening. That is not something we want to see happening at all, especially given that the Government missed the boat on many technologies.

I will end on the role of smart meters and demand. Since the Ukraine war and the energy pinch, we have seen a change of behaviour in a number of countries. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) for pointing out yesterday that Germany has decreased its gas demand by about 22% through changes in behaviour. The Government have another part to play in demand management, which can be as simple as public information campaigns letting people know what they can do to change, or what industry can do to change, and helping ensure that we use energy less wastefully and more efficiently.

We must also remember vulnerable consumers and people who need energy more. Someone who is at home and disabled will be using energy more than other people. Smart meters can have a huge role in helping with demand management, but there is an issue for Government—I am sure the Minister will look at this further—on whether GDPR is an impediment to improving demand management and helping people more widely.

On this energy estimates day, we have to look forward and hope the Government are listening, working with people and taking the best advice—

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I was trying to work out where his semicolon was going to come. I am very glad he raised the issue of demand reduction. Does he agree that the Climate Change Committee’s latest progress report is pretty damning when it says that installations of energy efficiency measures are still well below what is needed and, shockingly, fell even further last year? Does he also agree that when it comes to reducing demand, the Government should be setting out a local authority-led, street-by-street home insulation programme that would get people’s bills down? That is what would guarantee energy security, rather than the kind of measures we are seeing from this Government, such as more oil licences.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Yes, one of the Climate Change Committee’s main bullet points has been lack of urgency from the Government. As Lord Deben’s Committee said:

“Pace should be prioritised over perfection.”

I am sure there is not—

[Caroline Lucas]

There is not perfection either.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that there is not perfection either. This is the space of politics and debate, but there has been an awful lot of learning, with many august committees and people who have been experts in this area for a number of years saying some fairly robust things. I hope the Government will take that on board and react to it so that the next report is less robust and more positive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

Let us not make the 2050 target something that we cannot reach. We must reach it—it is an absolute necessity that we do. I will not give way to people who will not follow the science, and who deny that evidence.

To reduce territorial emissions by 68% from 1990 levels, the UK must now quadruple its rate of emissions reductions outside the power sector. The CCC uses a variety of indicators to measure the UK’s progress in reducing emissions, and we are only on track on nine out of 50. Today’s debate focuses on energy infrastructure; even power, which has been the only success story so far when it comes to net zero, is now falling behind. We will miss the target of decarbonising the power system by 2035, which the Government should be very worried about. The CCC says that renewable electricity capacity is not increasing at the required rate. One of the biggest barriers is grid capacity: our unprepared infrastructure has left ready-to-make renewable projects waiting up to 15 years to connect to the grid. It is high time that the Government put their mind to those huge delays and create a regulatory system fit for the net zero challenge.

At times like this, we need more Government, not less. The prevailing laissez-faire attitude of hoping for the market to settle all our net zero challenges is no longer fit for purpose. The CCC has said that we could have mitigated the energy crisis if the Government had rapidly deployed onshore wind and solar power—here lies the hypocrisy. On the one hand, the Government say that they do not want to interfere with the market; on the other, they actively limit the onshore wind and solar industries. The de facto ban on onshore wind and a framework that does not create enough incentives for the solar industry have meant that people in the UK have paid far higher prices for the energy crisis than would otherwise have been necessary.

Offshore and onshore wind deployment has been slow, and solar is particularly off track. We need to deploy 4.3 GW of solar per year to meet our target of 70 GW by 2035, but last year only 0.7 GW of solar was deployed. On estimates days, we discuss Government spending, and the UK is clearly not spending enough on net zero. As Lord Goldsmith detailed in his resignation letter, the problem is that the Prime Minister is “simply uninterested”. [Interruption.] The Minister says “rubbish”. He will have the opportunity to respond in his speech, but I am very much talking about the facts.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member is making a powerful case, and I thank her for it. The Secretary of State told me yesterday that ending new North sea oil and gas licences is, in his words, “bonkers policy”. Does the hon. Member agree that what is really bonkers is a Government subsidising oil and gas companies to drill more of the very thing that is destroying our planet, and handing billions in subsidies to the fossil fuel companies in the middle of a cost of living crisis?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I could not agree more. This is about creating level playing fields—at least for the renewable sector versus the oil and gas industry—but we do not even have that.

The US Inflation Reduction Act and the EU’s Net-Zero Industry Act will be transformative, and will incentivise huge investment in new renewable technologies and crucial net zero infrastructure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

A recent report by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit shows that, regardless of Ministers’ plans to expand domestic oil and gas production, imports of gas will continue to rise significantly unless we tackle demand. New oil and gas licences simply will not deliver energy security as the oil and gas is sold at global prices on international markets. They will cost the taxpayer dearly while being a disaster for the climate. Will the Government finally do what is needed by ruling out new licences and committing instead to measures that will genuinely make the UK energy secure, including a nationwide street-by-street home insulation programme, unblocking onshore wind, and installing new solar on every roof?

[Grant Shapps]

We have gone from 14% of our homes being insulated under the previous Government to nearly 50%—it will be 50% this year—and we have set up an energy taskforce to reduce the usage of energy and make it more efficient. However, the policy of the hon. Lady’s party, and that of the official Opposition, of importing all the oil and gas that we require and not providing new licences is simply insane. It means that every single family in Britain will be subject to the next tyrant like Putin, and that the carbon used will be double what is taken from the North sea. It is bonkers policy.

Rosebank Oilfield: Environmental Impacts

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

I will call Caroline Lucas to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up at the end.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the environmental impacts of Rosebank oilfield.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Robertson, and to open this debate on the UK’s largest undeveloped oilfield. I want to put this debate firmly in the context of the escalating climate emergency. Quite simply, approving the Rosebank oilfield would be a disaster for the climate. At nearly 500 million barrels of oil and gas, the development is enormous. It is triple the size of neighbouring Cambo, which drew nationwide protests back in 2021. If it were burned, its contents would produce over 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. That is more than the combined annual CO₂ emissions of all 28 low-income countries in the world, which together are home to 700 million people. Developing Rosebank would be an act of climate vandalism and would risk pushing us past safe climate limits.

In his reply, the Minister may seek to absolve himself of responsibility by saying, as he did in my previous debate on fossil fuels and the cost of living, that he is

“confident that our approach is compatible with the journey to net zero.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 248WH.]

The Climate Change Committee has now confirmed once and for all that that narrative is false. Its damning progress report, which was published just this morning, is clear:

“Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero.”

Indeed, it goes on to spell out that while the UK

“will continue to need some oil and gas until it reaches Net Zero…this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields.”

I hope that we can therefore now put to bed the Government’s disingenuous arguments and see them for what they are: a last-ditch, desperate attempt to justify propping up the fossil fuel industry.

If the Minister needs any more evidence to persuade him, I am happy to oblige. First, Rosebank’s emissions would blow the allowance in the UK’s carbon budgets for oil and gas production, exceeding the CCC’s recommendation in the sixth carbon budget by 17%. That is presumably why Equinor is reportedly looking at sourcing renewable energy from the Viking windfarm on Shetland to electrify Rosebank’s operations—but that is clean, cheap energy that should be used to power hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses, not an enormous oilfield. Developing Rosebank would actively reduce the UK’s energy security.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

On the point about the use of renewable electricity for the extraction of oil, does the hon. Lady agree that it is disingenuous for lobby groups to talk about oilfields potentially saving carbon dioxide emissions? Does she also agree that comparing carbon emissions in the extraction of oil in the UK with carbon emissions elsewhere is both a red herring and greenwashing?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear that I do indeed agree. Unfortunately, an awful lot of greenwashing goes on when it comes to this debate.

Secondly, it is not just the UK that must reach net zero by 2050 if we are to avoid the worst effects of global heating. According to the sixth assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the whole world must be there by 2050 to stay below 1.5°. If we are to act in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities—which was, let us remember, a central tenet of the Paris agreement—it is clear that the UK, as one of the first countries to industrialise using fossil fuels, must go much further and faster than many others.

Thirdly, the Government’s so-called climate checkpoint fails to take account of scope 3 emissions. In other words, the checkpoint simply ignores all the emissions that are produced when the oil and gas are actually burned, so it is no safeguard at all.

Finally, although Ministers try to ignore our global climate reality, the truth is that there is already far more coal, oil and gas in existing developments than can be safely burned if we are to have a liveable future. According to the UN report “The Production Gap”, Governments already

“plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030”

that would be consistent with staying below 1.5°. The International Energy Agency has made it clear that there can be no more oil and gas developments if we are to limit global temperatures to that critical threshold. Global scientists pretty much agree, yet we have a Government who somehow think they know better than hundreds of UK scientists and the vast majority of thousands of global scientists.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for all the leadership she shows on these issues. Is it not also the case that a lot of our constituents are showing the way as well? They have probably communicated to most of us here today the passion they feel, and they understand the need for a just transition. There are ways to meet both our climate goals and our energy requirements without new oil and gas exploration, exactly as she is outlining.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The majority of public opinion is on our side, and everyone from the Women’s Institute to the scientists is saying the same thing.

I want to talk about climate leadership. Approving Rosebank would destroy any last shred of the UK’s climate leadership. The UK’s record was built on the Climate Change Act 2008 and on being the first major economy to enshrine net zero in law, but as the Climate Change Committee’s report makes clear today, it has been decimated by the Government’s approval of the UK’s first coalmine in 30 years, and by the fact that they have issued more than 100 new exploration licences and are now failing to rule out this enormous oilfield. In the words of the CCC, the UK

“has lost its clear global leadership on climate action”.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this valuable and important debate. I will speak freely and say that it is quite absurd that we are debating this issue today—the day after the four-year anniversary of the net zero target becoming law in the UK, and the morning that the CCC has released its scathing progress report to Parliament. The CCC says that its confidence in the UK reaching net zero is “markedly less” than it was a year ago, and that approving new fossil fuel infrastructure is sending mixed messages about the UK’s climate plans. Does the hon. Member agree that this is a depressing conclusion from the CCC that shows a deficit in climate leadership where there should be none?

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree. In one sense, it is quite exquisite timing to have this debate and this discussion about Rosebank on the very morning of the CCC report, which is not only depressing but frankly damning when it comes to the Government’s lack of action. On leadership, I will quote Lord Deben, the chairman of the Climate Change Committee, who has noted that the Government’s commitment to the ongoing expansion of North sea oil and gas means that they have

“perfectly properly been called hypocrites”.

Let me briefly turn to some of the bogus arguments that Ministers traditionally advance to try to justify the unjustifiable. I have been told time and again in this place that new licences are essential for our economy and for energy security. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth, especially when it comes to Rosebank.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. Of course Rosebank oilfield should not go ahead, and of course it is an act of climate vandalism for it do so in the context of a climate emergency. Given the bogus arguments we hear from Government Ministers who justify the unjustifiable, is it not the case that oil and gas giants have far too much influence in our politics, and that we cannot solve the climate crisis if our political system and Government are in thrall to the corporate oil and gas interests?

[Caroline Lucas]

To reinforce what the hon. Member said, we know that the president of COP28 is going to be somebody who absolutely comes from that background, so it is not just a question of domestic collusion with oil companies. The big climate meeting happening later this year will be presided over by a president who we know is absolutely involved in the oil industry. We need to get fossil fuels out of politics once and for all.

Rosebank will not improve energy security, because 90% of its reserves are oil, not gas. Like the vast majority of oil from the North sea, it will be put in tankers and exported overseas, because it is not suitable for UK refineries. Let us be really clear: there is no argument around energy security in favour of Rosebank.

Secondly, Rosebank will not bring down our energy bills, because it does not belong to us. Any oil and gas that is sold back to the UK will be sold at global prices. As the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), said in February last year:

“Additional UK production won’t materially affect the wholesale market price.”

Thirdly, Rosebank will not deliver long-term job security. Equinor claims that Rosebank will deliver 1,600 jobs, but the real number is less than a third of that, with the rest being short-term, temporary jobs just during construction. There are far more jobs, as we know, in a green energy future. What we need is a proper, just transition, hand in hand with the unions, for those workers and communities, to enable them to reap the benefits and rewards of those decent green jobs.

Fourthly, Rosebank will not be better for our planet than imports. Stopping Rosebank does not mean that we will import more oil. Let me say it again: the vast majority of oil from Rosebank will be exported. Even if Rosebank’s oil did reach UK refineries, the development plans submitted show that it is likely to be more polluting than the oil and gas produced in Norway, our largest import partner. More oil production means more oil consumption, less oil production means less oil consumption—it is basic economics. What will bring down imports is reducing fossil fuel dependence across our energy system.

As if all that were not evidence enough, Rosebank is also disastrous for our marine environment. As the Minister will know, the pipeline required to transport Rosebank’s tiny gas reserves would cut through the Faroe-Shetland sponge belt marine protected area, a precious and fragile ecosystem that is home to myriad species. How can the Government possibly reconcile this development with their commitment to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030, especially in the context of Equinor’s assessment of potential damage to coral gardens having been questioned by the regulator? The development would lay infrastructure through a vital ocean habitat, and an oil spill from Rosebank would be potentially catastrophic. The UK already has the most fossil fuel developments in nature-protected sites in the whole world. Let us not add yet another.

There are also plenty of economic arguments against Rosebank, since the development would be staggeringly costly to the public purse. In the words of the UN Secretary-General, investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure is

“moral and economic madness”.

It is madness, because if the Secretary of State fails to stop this project going ahead, the British public will carry almost all the costs of developing Rosebank, while the Norwegian owner, Equinor, gets to pocket the profit. To be specific, Equinor would receive more than £3.75 billion in tax breaks, thanks to this Government’s subsidy regime. Will the Minister explain to me in what world it is acceptable to hand billions of public money to a climate-wrecking company that last year raked in record profits of almost £24 billion, let alone in the midst of a cost of living scandal when the NHS is on its knees, mortgage rates are going through the roof and parents cannot afford to feed their children?

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling argument against licensing new extraction at Rosebank, and one that I agree with. Does it not seem common sense to most people that reliance on oil and gas will not be reduced by drilling for more of it? The ordinary folk of this country can see that. Why does she think the Government are engaged in this crass idiocy of arguing the opposite of common sense?

Would the hon. Lady also reflect on the differences in attitude between the Scottish Government—who have a more critical and hesitant view of new oil exploration in the North sea—and the current UK Government? Would it be better for the decision on the matter to be devolved to the Scottish Government to allow them to make a more considered decision?

[Caroline Lucas]

I broadly agree; I think it probably should be a devolved issue. I certainly think the Scottish Government are doing a much better job, with more progressive policies in the area of oil and gas. The hon. Gentleman would expect me to refer to the fact that there are Greens in coalition with the SNP in the Scottish Government, and I am pleased about the progress they have managed to make in this area.

I want to come to the position of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I am sad to see none of them here in a formal capacity, though I am delighted to see Back Benchers. While I welcome their commitment not to issue new licences if they were to become the next Government, let me be clear that the revelation that they would not revoke Rosebank’s licence is no less than a tacit endorsement of this climate catastrophe. I worry that the official Opposition, in refusing even to consider rescinding that licence, may as well have given the green light to the project.

I was shocked to hear hon. Members from the shadow Front Bench team saying that rescinding an existing licence sends exactly the wrong signal to investors all over the world. Frankly, that is absurd. It conflates projects that are already operating in the North sea with Rosebank, which is an entirely new development from which first oil is not expected until between 2026 and 2028. A final investment decision has not yet been taken, with developers saying that that will come shortly after approval. Investors are therefore still assessing whether to press ahead with Rosebank, so the official Opposition should have made it crystal clear to them that they should not press ahead with it.

While it would get more complicated to cancel Rosebank’s licence if this reckless Government approved it, that does not mean that it would be impossible. I urge Labour to leave no legal stone unturned and no avenue unexplored to overturn this disastrous decision. That could include, for example, passing new legislation strengthening climate and environmental requirements and thus allowing a licence to be reviewed or revoked, following the Dutch example of phasing out coal power.

The risk of potentially being required to pay costs once again reinforces the urgent need for the UK to withdraw from the energy charter treaty, which allows fossil fuel giants essentially to hold British taxpayers to ransom. Calls for that have so far fallen on deaf ears but have been bolstered by the Climate Change Committee today, which has said:

“There is a strong case for the UK to reconsider its membership”.

It was reported last week that Rosebank will be approved by the regulators in the next fortnight, after which the Secretary of State will have to decide whether to intervene or let it pass, giving the decision a de facto green light. Time is ticking for the Government to act. The only question is whether they will do the right thing for people and planet or commit a climate crime. The choice is clear, so I will conclude with a number of crucial questions for the Minister.

Will the Government review their approach to oil and gas licensing in the light of today’s guidance from the Climate Change Committee? If they do not, do they really want to send the signal that they think they know better than hundreds of scientists nationally and thousands globally? Will they finally scrap the investment allowance, which sees the taxpayer pay fossil fuel companies huge amounts of money to pump yet more filthy oil and gas? Will they withdraw from the energy charter treaty, following many other European countries including France and Italy? Crucially, will the Government stop the development of Rosebank, or are they content to be on the wrong side of history?

I hope that when the Minister responds, he will make reference to the Climate Change Committee’s report today. If he has not had time to read it all, I hope he will scroll back on this morning’s “Today” programme and listen to Lord Deben at 8.45 am, where he will hear his fellow Conservative colleague, former Minister and now chair of the independent Climate Change Committee say that there is reduced confidence that targets will be met, that just because past targets have been met there is no guarantee that future ones will be, that only 33% of measures necessary to achieve the targets are actually in place and that, in terms of future targets, the Government

“are in no state…to achieve those ends and it is…not true to say they will”.

Lord Deben also said that

“the Government is relying, for example, on technologies we don’t have. It is not doing the things which we have to do.”

I very much hope the Minister will reflect on those words, as well as my own, and tell us today that the Government will not go ahead with the reckless decision to give a green light to Rosebank.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will make a little more progress, and then I will come back to the hon. Lady.

Reducing the decline in domestic production will not increase the use of fossil fuels in the UK. The hon. Lady’s economics seem rather upside down. It is demand that typically drives supply, rather than supply driving demand, although I recognise that there are movements in both directions. Increasing domestic production will avoid the need to substitute British gas with foreign liquified natural gas, which has much higher emission intensity. The effect of the proposal from the hon. Lady and His Majesty’s Opposition would not be that we consume less fossil fuel; it would be that we import more in tankers. There is not the option to have more Norwegian gas. Not producing our own gas would result in generating higher emissions directly. As well as that, to pick up on the economics of this, they say that the proposal will not affect price. There is a global price; it is a global market. Our oil is traded. It goes to refineries and comes back in the form of medicines, plastics and other things that are vital to our modern society. It is an international market and we are net importers. It is important to recognise that there are tens of billions of pounds coming into the Exchequer, especially at the moment with the energy profits levy tax rate at 75%.

We cannot make out that new projects would somehow cost the taxpayer, or be subsidised by the taxpayer. North sea production brings tens of billions of pounds into the UK Exchequer. It makes a material difference to our energy security because we produce it here at home. It also supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, which His Majesty’s Opposition and the Scottish National party have turned their faces against—and for what? Will there be an environmental gain? There will not be. It will not make a difference, by a single barrel of oil, to how much we consume. What it will do is lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, lose tens of billions of pounds for the Exchequer and lead to higher emissions. And it is worth the House recognising this killer point: it will remove the very supply chain that we need for the transition. The Climate Change Committee and every international body looking at this issue say that we need carbon capture, usage and storage, and we need hydrogen. Which companies, capabilities or engineering capacities are going to deliver those? It will be the jobs, people, balance sheets and skills that are vested in the traditional oil and gas companies, all of which are now involved in delivering the transition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

As I say, we are net importers in a global market. Oil and gas is processed in different places. It goes out and it comes back. As net importers, the alternative to using that gas here is that we will have more tankers coming in. As the hon. Gentleman knows, or certainly should, the upstream emissions attached to that are two and a half times higher than the emissions attached to gas, which Scottish workers are producing from British fields to the benefit of every taxpayer and the energy security of this nation.

[Caroline Lucas]

It is interesting that the only alternative to one set of fossil fuels is another set of fossil fuels. That is exactly what Lord Deben criticised in his report today. If the Government had done what they were meant to do, and actually set out the investment in home insulation schemes and reduced energy demand, we might not be in this position. If they had scaled up much more in the many other technologies that are out there, we would perhaps not be in this position.

I come back to what the CCC said. I expect the Minister to disagree with me, but does he disagree with Lord Deben and the Climate Change Committee? They said:

“Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero”.

They said that the UK will need “some oil and gas”, but that that does not

“justify the development of new North Sea fields.”

Does the Minister disagree with his colleague?

[Graham Stuart]

As I said, North sea oil and gas production is declining. It will continue to decline with new licences—

[Caroline Lucas]

That was not my question.

[Graham Stuart]

It will not be expanding; it will actually be reducing. Throughout that time, even as we bring down our demand—ahead of nearly all other countries—we will still be net importers of oil and gas. It makes no sense, or only in the parallel universe occupied by the bizarre fringes of politics does it make sense for us to import—[Interruption.] It will not make a difference, by a barrel of oil, to our consumption. However, it will make a difference to the balance sheet, the jobs and the capabilities that we need to do the transition.

The hon. Lady is quite right to challenge me on this country’s past record on insulation—on the parlous state of the housing stock, for instance, and energy efficiency. In 2010, when we came into power, just 14% of homes were decently insulated with an energy performance certificate rating of C or above; in other words, 86% were not. That was the legacy from Labour. By the end of this year, it will be 50%; we have moved from 14% to 50%—

Net Zero: 2050 Target

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on reaching Net Zero by 2050.

It is always good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. This is the second time in about seven years that I have been able to introduce a Back-Bench debate, so I am very grateful for the opportunity.

I am pleased to be able to say that the net zero agenda—the energy transition—enjoys wider support across the House than practically any other area of policy. Yes, there are sceptics on both sides of the House, but it is extraordinary how widely shared the ambitions for net zero and decarbonisation are. I am grateful to organisations in my constituency and to my constituents. I thank Talking Tree, whose climate emergency centre has promoted decarbonisation in my constituency, and my constituent Hettie Quirke, who has raised these issues with me in constituency surgeries and provided me with my inspiration, or certainly my motivation, for requesting the debate.

This is a matter of great interest to me personally. I was fortunate to be appointed Energy Minister, the post that my right hon. Friend the Minister now ably fills, in July 2019, only a few weeks after we as a Government had passed the net zero Bill and enshrined the 2050 net zero target in law. That target was not simply plucked out of thin air. It is based on a scientific assessment of what we need to do as a global community to keep average temperature increases on this planet below 1.5° compared with 1990.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that at the time when the net zero by 2050 target was agreed, so was the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities? That means that countries such as the UK that can go further and faster must do that, so we should be looking at something much closer to real zero as soon as possible after 2030, not net zero by 2050.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As the hon. Lady well knows, she and I have very different views on this. I think that the Government have to carry the population with them, and it was interesting to hear what the unions were saying about oil and gas earlier this week. I would like to be able to press a button and say that we can get to absolute zero by 2030, but I do not think that is possible given the technological constraints and the financial and fiscal pressures. I do not think it is attainable, which is why I am happy to push the target of net zero by 2050.

I want to talk about our ability to reach that target. The hon. Lady is right that we could and should always try to do more, but we are constrained not only by technology but by fiscal necessities and, I might add, by what is going on in the rest of the world. The UK represents only 1% of global GDP, but we are an example and a leader, and we have to be able persuade partners across the G7 and the G20 and particularly in the developing world. As she will appreciate, that is not always easy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I welcome this debate on Government policy on reaching net zero by 2050 and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on securing it.

I would like to start by setting out the context for the debate. Ministers are very fond of pointing out that the UK’s emissions have almost halved since 1990. However, when we are, in the words of the UN Secretary General,

“on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator,”

relying on past progress is not enough. Secondly, that figure ignores emissions from imports, focusing only on emissions from the things we produce domestically. Frankly, if we outsource most of our manufacturing, it is not surprising that our emissions go down. We have just outsourced them to countries like China. But we cannot outsource that responsibility and we must not. If we take a consumption-based approach, the UK has only actually reduced its emissions by 23% since 1990. That is equivalent to an average cumulative reduction of just 0.7% a year. That is hardly transformational.

In the short time I have, I want to focus on what is at the heart of the climate crisis, which is our seemingly insatiable addiction to fossil fuels. Frankly, it does not matter how many good things we do or how many renewables we bring on line if, at the same time, we continue to pump yet more filthy oil and gas, and continue to license more oil and gas fields, as the Government plan to do. Let me just make three quick points.

First, new oil and gas will not bring down bills. The right hon. Member for Spelthorne himself noted in February last year:

“The situation we are facing is a price issue, not a security of supply issue…Additional UK production won’t materially affect the wholesale market price.”

Well, I could not agree with him more. He gets to the nub of the issue: we have an energy affordability crisis, not an energy supply crisis. Fossil fuels are not only heating our shared and only home, but are so expensive that they have plunged millions of UK households into fuel poverty, all while oil and gas companies have raked in obscene, record-breaking profits. Our dependence on oil and gas is the very reason for high energy bills. It is somewhat perverse, therefore, that anyone would suggest that they can also be the solution.

We know by now that the way to bring down energy bills is to unleash truly abundant renewables, alongside storage and batteries, and to properly insulate homes to keep them warm over the winter months. It really is not that complicated. It should shock us all that energy bills are now a staggering £9.8 billion higher than they would have been had Government Ministers not “cut the green crap” a decade ago.

Secondly, new licences will not improve energy security, contrary to Ministers’ claims, because it is not our oil and gas—it is owned by private companies, who sell it on global markets to the highest bidder. In fact, the UK’s gas exports increased following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in response to high European demand. Even if it did belong to us, the majority of fossil fuel projects in the pipeline are for oil, not gas, and we already export around 80% of the oil that we extract because it is not the type used in UK refineries.

That is before we even talk about the fact that despite disingenuous protestations, no one is talking about turning off the taps tomorrow. We are saying that there should be no new licences for projects, which would not come online for many years to come. I refer the right hon. Member for Spelthorne to Lord Deben, the chair of the CCC, who has said how much he supports the policy position of no new licensing of oil and gas. He is a prominent member of the right hon. Member’s own party.

Finally, let us put to bed the idea that, somehow, producing oil and gas domestically is better for our planet. It is commonly asserted that the oil and gas extracted from the North sea than has lower emissions than imports. Although that is certainly the case for liquefied natural gas, imports of which have undoubtedly increased in the last year, it is not the case for Norwegian oil and gas, where the majority of our imports typically come from. In fact, the UK’s production is two-and-a-half times more polluting than Norway’s because the UK uses practices such as flaring and venting, which have been banned in Norway since the 1970s.

Furthermore, the Government maintain that new extraction is entirely in line with delivering net zero, but that is only because they have washed their hands of emissions produced when the oil and gas are burned—otherwise known as scope 3 emissions. Surely those have to be taken into account if we are truly to understand the impact of fossil fuels produced in the UK. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that extra oil and gas extracted in the UK will

“support a larger…market overall.”

When the International Energy Agency and so many other experts say loudly and clearly that it is simply not compatible with our climate change objectives to be pursuing new oil and gas, we simply should not do it.

Reaching Net Zero: Local Government Role

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of local government in reaching Net Zero.

I thank the Members across the House who supported the application, as well as the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate today, World Environment Day.

The Government ignore at their peril the vital role of local authorities in delivering net zero. The Committee on Climate Change, the National Audit Office and the independent review of net zero all agree that the UK cannot meet its net zero targets without local authorities. The CCC shows that local authorities have influence over a third of UK emissions. The net zero strategy puts the figure at 82%.

Local authorities determine what is built in our communities, how we get from place to place, how we reduce our waste, and much more. They are best placed to understand their communities and deliver policies that fit their place. Those communities are let down by a Westminster Government who prevent local authorities from decarbonising their areas according to their need. Forty per cent of people most trust their local authority to act on climate change. That is much higher than the faith they place in central Government or in business. It is time that the Government treated local authorities as equal partners and gave them the funding and powers that they need to reach net zero.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. On funding, does she agree that, as well as reversing the 13 years of serious cuts that are preventing local authorities from greening elements of their areas, we need to move away from piecemeal competitive funding for specific projects? Such funding means that local authorities cannot plan for the long term and waste a huge amount of time bidding against each other, rather than getting the funding they need to roll out now.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I totally agree. The hon. Lady pre-empts what I will say later in my speech. The competitive process wastes so much time and local resources that could be spent on delivering projects.

More than 300 local authorities have set a net zero target and declared a climate emergency, and 132 councils have net zero targets of 2030 or sooner. Liberal Democrat-run councils have had remarkable successes in implementing sustainable, green policies against a backdrop of substantial barriers; they could do so much more. My Bath and North East Somerset Council has become the first in England to adopt an energy-based net zero housing policy. That ensures that any new housing development is energy self-sufficient and puts a limit on building emissions. My council is also the first in the west of England to adopt a biodiversity net gain policy. But such brave initiatives cannot survive unless central Government are truly behind such progressive policies and support rather than undermine local authorities, particularly when it comes to planning applications that go to appeal where developers get their way and do not build the green buildings that we need.

Beyond Bath, the Liberal Democrat-run Cheltenham Borough Council has implemented a green deal that has helped local businesses to invest in solar panels and heat pumps, led by the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate, who, I hope, will tell us all about it once we have had a general election. In Richmond, the Liberal Democrat council has been independently recognised by CDP—a global not-for-profit charity that runs disclosure systems and is regarded as the gold standard for environmental reporting—as one of 123 cities and boroughs across the globe taking bold environmental action.

In Stockport, Liberal Democrats successfully implemented the Stockport schools climate assembly. That involved young people from several schools coming together to learn about, propose, debate and vote on climate action ideas. Their first ask was to make sustainable and biodegradable period products more available in schools. The council responded by creating a programme that delivered funding and training to implement that. Stockport Council has called on the Manchester Mayor to roll out such school climate assemblies across the region. I will go further: we should have them across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I agree; I could not have put it better myself.

Let me return to the grants, which are currently rigid and tied to certain areas, meaning that councils can end up with money for projects that are not right for their communities. Not only have we not got enough money; when we do have it, it is often not the right sort of money, nor what our communities need. For example, a council could receive money for additional bus lanes when increased bus services would be preferred, or they might receive money designated for e-bikes when such provision is not really right for the needs of the community. Net zero grants must be made more flexible to help local authorities to spend the money on projects that work in their area.

The Government have spent more time blocking local authorities than they have empowering them. Many councils I have spoken to said the biggest barrier they face in implementing net zero policies is central Government. Onshore wind is an example. Some 77% of people would support a new onshore wind farm in their area—people know that renewables are the solution to our energy crisis—but the Government’s effective ban on onshore wind has denied communities this investment. Housing is another example that has already been mentioned. The UK has some of the leakiest homes in Europe. Net zero will remain a pipe dream in the absence of a huge and comprehensive retrofit programme; we need to understand the scale and we need the money to retrofit.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful that the hon. Lady is recognising the problems around funding, but also around regulatory frameworks. She will know that a report by UK100 has said that local authorities face what they call “Kafkaesque” barriers to pursuing net zero, one of which is in the area of transport. As she knows, the all-party parliamentary group on the green new deal undertook an inquiry on transport, concluding that we need local authorities to have the powers and the funding to modernise their own local public transport networks. Does she agree?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Indeed. Again, the hon. Lady pre-empts me; I will come to that point in a minute. Local authorities need much more control over what is happening in their local transport provision. The situation is wholly inadequate. If we really want to provide an alternative to motorised travel, we need good local transport and bus services, but we do not have them. Local communities are crying out for us to design and implement such services, but local authorities must be key partners as only they have the structure and relationships to deliver the programmes we have discussed.

Let me return to housing. We Liberal Democrats have campaigned relentlessly to get the Government to introduce higher efficiency standards for new builds and not wait until 2025. It is irresponsible to delay further and to hamstring local authorities’ ability to raise standards, and it is ridiculous that we are building homes now that will need to be retrofitted in five or 10 years’ time. That is such a waste of time. Why not regulate now to build the houses for the future? The chair of the national Climate Change Committee has called this a “stunning failure” by the Government to decarbonise homes, and I fully agree.

Planning and listed building laws also contribute to our leaky buildings. We Liberal Democrats run councils with some of the most precious historic buildings and streetscapes in the country, such as in my city of Bath. This is a blessing and a curse. We represent some of the most beautiful areas in the world, but we are often unable to retrofit and reduce the emissions of historic houses and buildings. Currently, national planning policy puts heritage concerns above climate concerns. That is counterproductive. If councils are unable to retrofit these properties and make them more energy efficient, many will become uninhabitable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I say that because, in the context of this debate, he is very anti and I am very for, so I hope I will level things up in some way. First, to respond to some his comments, I want to say that I support every method that moves us towards net zero. In my speech, I will talk about some of the health implications and about how citizens need clean air; otherwise, we will suffer the consequences of not having clean air. As well as speaking about that, I will present some statistics, so I do hope that the right hon. Member will be paying attention.

I am proud that it was a Labour Government under Gordon Brown who passed the Climate Change Act 2008. It set a legally binding target for the UK to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, compared with 1990 levels; that was increased to 100% in 2019. Unfortunately, 13 years of Conservative Government have slowed progress. Since 2010, local authority funds have been stripped away, and that has severely delayed and hindered what local authorities can do. However, as we have heard, local authorities are ambitious for change and for their communities. I will focus on how this Conservative Government and Conservative councils can probably learn a lot from the London Mayor and from Lewisham Council in my area—if I can be so bold as to say so, which I believe I can.

In 2019, Lewisham Council led by example and became one of the first local authorities in London to declare a climate emergency. Its many achievements in delivering net zero include its climate emergency action plan, which obviously covered schools, housing, cycling, green spaces and so on, being rated as one of the best in the country. Lewisham planted 25,000 trees between 2018 and 2023, and it has increased food waste recycling rates by 250%. Lewisham Council is therefore stepping up and providing leadership where the Government sadly are not. Lewisham’s climate action plan is estimated to reach net zero for our borough by 2030, and it will cost a minimum of £1.6 billion. Against the backdrop of the cost of living crisis and the hardship that people are experiencing, the Government must resource local councils so that they can deliver on the net zero plans.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has also set a target for London to be net zero by 2030. To do this, he is working to achieve a target of over 2 million homes and a quarter of a million non-domestic buildings being properly insulated. I also support his action to extend the ULEZ. Right now, toxic air is thought to contribute to the premature deaths of 4,000 Londoners each year—that is 11 deaths a day. Those are 4,000 deaths that could probably have been prevented. I remember hearing a paediatrician at an event speak about particles in a new-born baby’s lungs. It was astonishing, shocking and awful to hear that CO₂ emissions in the air have done this injury to a baby at such an early stage in their life.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member is making a powerful case, and I very much agree with the point she is making about air pollution. I am sure she will agree that things like air pollution hit the poorest hardest—they are less likely be to be able to move away from busy roads, for example. Whether it is air pollution, fuel poverty or a lack of affordable public transport, all of these things hit the poorest hardest, so in suggesting that there is somehow a division between environmental justice and social justice, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is just plain wrong.

[Janet Daby]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I remember my child saying to me, “Mummy, it’s really quite smelly here.” I said, “No, it’s not,” but then I thought that I am not the same height as my child, so I bent down and I could smell all the fumes coming from all of the cars. It is awful, but this has an impact on children’s health and wellbeing, and it has an impact on the quality of air. We all have the right to breathe clean air, but we need to make that possible, and it is the Government’s responsibility to do so. These deaths are preventable, and that is why we must act now.

I was pleased that last week, Sadiq Khan announced a major expansion of the ULEZ scrappage scheme. It will cover more small businesses in London, as well as London families receiving child benefit. There is also more support for charities. To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), poorer communities are suffering more from polluted and dense areas, but families and communities from diverse backgrounds are also experiencing more pollution because of poverty. The Mayor of London has consistently called on the Government to support the switch to cleaner vehicles by funding a targeted national scrappage scheme, or by providing additional funding to London, as has been done for other cities across the country. The Government must also do that for London; if they do not, they must say why. I hope they are not failing to do so for political reasons.

It is clear that the Mayor of London and Lewisham Council are miles ahead of the Government in delivering net zero, but I would love to see the Government trying to outdo them and to hear from them how they are trying to make that difference, rather than making things harder. I urge the Government to rethink their approach, and I look forward to their serious response on this serious matter.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the opportunity to debate this incredibly important issue. I thank all hon. Members from across the House for their contributions, which have informed a very interesting and, at times, lively discussion. I also thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for bringing this important topic to the House.

The UK’s 2050 net zero target is a Government priority. The transition provides huge opportunities for jobs, investment, innovation and exports. The UK is already leading the world in tackling climate change. Between 1990 and 2021, we cut emissions by 48% while growing our economy by 65%, decarbonising faster than any other G7 country.

Our local areas will play a crucial role in delivering net zero. We agree that local authorities have great scope to influence carbon emission reduction and many have strong ambitions in that area. We can consider the transition a success only if its benefits are felt across the UK. We know that we need local authorities to drive action across a range of areas such as planning, energy, housing and transport.

[Caroline Lucas]

On the issue of planning, as an example, does the Minister accept that the Government need to give powers to local authorities as well? There are examples of local authorities trying to implement green planning policies, but they find that their policies are being thrown out by local planning inspectors because there is not a net zero obligation at the heart of our planning process. Does she agree that that is something the Government could do to facilitate the action of many councils around the country?

[Amanda Solloway]

I will come on to talk in a bit more detail about all the Government’s plans, but we are confident that we are doing all we can to achieve our net zero goals.

Local authorities are well placed to align net zero work with local opportunities. There can be significant economic advantages for local areas, attracting private sector net zero investment and building local supply chains. They currently have a lot of flexibility when they take action on net zero. My Government are keen to ensure local authorities preserve that flexibility because, as has been noted, each region and community may require tailored approaches to reach net zero. So we do not believe that a new general statutory requirement on local authorities to meet net zero is needed. There is already a high level of local commitment in the sector and our local government colleagues have told us that a new statutory duty is not something they want.

The Government are already working closely with local government to help deliver net zero. In the 2021 net zero strategy and net zero growth plan from this year, we set out how local areas can take action on a wide range of policies, including planning, transport and energy, as part of our overall strategy to reach the UK’s 2050 net zero target. More detail on how we will meet net zero by working with local partners is set out in the relevant sectoral strategies, such as the transport decarbonisation plan from 2021. That covers, for example, how emissions from different forms of public transport will be reduced. The creation of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero helps to drive the overall delivery of net zero across Government. The Department’s officials work with counterparts across Government to co-ordinate action, working particularly closely with the Cabinet Office and His Majesty’s Treasury. That ensures net zero is prioritised in Government.

On working closely with local government on net zero, my colleague Lord Callanan, the Minister for energy efficiency, co-chairs, with the Local Government Association, the ministerial local net zero forum. It met in February for the first time. Alongside that, there is an officials’ local net zero forum, which has met four times to date. Both forums bring together national Government and local government to discuss key policy and delivery options on net zero. The Department funds five regional local net zero hubs to help local authorities develop net zero projects, focusing on attracting commercial investment. The hubs have helped to develop innovative tools and resources for local authorities, including Net Zero Go, an online platform supporting clean energy projects, and SCATTER—setting city area targets and trajectories for emissions reduction—which is a tool to help local authorities standardise their greenhouse gas reporting. Tools of this kind are supported by a wide range of guidance from Government Departments and other sources. I recognise the importance of co-ordinated action across Departments, but given the range of actions recently undertaken in this area, the Government do not think a net zero delivery authority is necessary.

The Government have provided a great deal of funding for local government to reach net zero. Through core settlement growth funding, such as the shared prosperity fund and grant funding from my Department and others, local authorities can meet net zero goals flexibly, in a way that best meets their needs. We have committed to explore simplifying local net zero funding, where that provides the best results for net zero. We will continue that work. One approach we are testing is using devolution deals in England to pilot new approaches. We have announced wide-ranging devolution deals with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the West Midlands Combined Authority. They include first-of-their-kind pilots to simplify retrofit funding from 2025. We also established the UK Infrastructure Bank, which has a lending facility of £4 billion for local authorities at preferential rates and a technical advisory service.

Communities also play a strong part in supporting our transition to net zero. I am aware that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bath, the Bath and West Community Energy Group works with local authorities in the area to support households to access funding for energy efficiency measures in their homes. Many communities work closely with local authorities to access the funding and support they need, and the local net zero hubs can help local authorities and community groups to work together.

We already work in partnership with local areas towards our net zero goals, with examples of local innovation across the United Kingdom. By working together, I am confident that we can drive green growth across the country and deliver our ambitious net zero targets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I am going to have to riff this one, since that came out of the blue. The UK Atomic Energy Authority is working across the country, including with Manchester University. Its CEO, Sir Ian Chapman, is very proactive on this issue, and he hopes to work with Manchester University, and other institutions, to ensure that the coal-fired power station that was closed down at the end of March in West Burton is opened as a fusion power station connected to the grid. That will be done with the help of Manchester University and many other institutions.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Even nuclear fusion’s most ardent advocates admit that it will be decades before an operational power station is built. At the same time, I remind the Secretary of State that his own Government’s target for decarbonising the power sector is 2035, so nuclear fusion will be no help in meeting that target. Instead of wasting taxpayers’ money on yet another nuclear white elephant, why will the Secretary of State not fully harness the things that we know will work, which means an energy system based on renewables backed up with interconnectors, batteries and storage, unblocking onshore wind and unleashing a rooftop solar revolution? Why is he not doing that, which will make the transition much quicker and much cheaper?

[Grant Shapps]

Well, Mr Speaker, we are! When we came to power in 2010, just 7% of our electricity was coming from renewables. Right now, if I look at renewables plus nuclear—I know the hon. Lady does not like to look at nuclear—that figure was 57% in the last year. The idea that we should ignore technology and take that luddite approach to energy is not the energy security that this Government seek.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

We are talking about energy security, and about a tyrant costing all our constituents a fortune, and SNP Members do not want to fix it. They do not want to have reliable nuclear power—they stand against it. They stand against oil and gas. I do not know where they expect all this energy to come from in a reliable way in the future. However, where there are differences, I want to be constructive with the hon. Gentleman and, of course, the devolved Administration. By and large, that is the way in which this Bill has progressed, so on the other issues—the amendments—we will of course try to find ways to work with the House in considering all of them.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Grant Shapps]

I will make a little progress, and then I will give way again. I just want to say a big thank you to a lot of Members for their work on energy and on considering this Bill, such as the net zero review led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore); the pre-legislative scrutiny that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee carried out on parts of the Bill; the 1922 BEIS Back-Bench committee’s ongoing consideration of the issues we face; and many others in this House.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Secretary of State say a little about hydrogen? As he will know, there is real concern about putting a hydrogen levy on household bills at a time when so many people are already struggling to pay those bills. Will he look again at where to put the funding for hydrogen? Secondly, will he accept that using hydrogen for households—for home heating—is very inefficient? It is expensive, and it brings safety risks. We do need hydrogen for hard-to-decarbonise sectors, but will the Secretary of State rule out using it in homes?

[Grant Shapps]

It is certainly the case that hydrogen comes with complications when it comes to home heating, which is why we have a couple of different trials ongoing to understand some of the impacts. We will know more once those trials have been carried out. However, the hon. Lady asked specifically about a levy, so I should point out that the Bill will not itself introduce a levy. She is right that we need to see the results of trials before we understand how that should operate, so we will wait a little while.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I appreciate that hon. Members want to demonstrate cross-party support for net zero. Yes, by and large, we agree about decarbonisation, but sadly we do not agree about the speed of that process. The UK has a responsibility to go much further and faster than most other countries because we are disproportionately responsible for the cumulative emissions that are already in the atmosphere.

We were the first country into the industrial revolution—the fossil-fuel industrial revolution—and we need to be the first country out of it. I have not heard enough urgency from Members on either side of the House about that this evening. Winning slowly on this issue is the same as losing. The bottom line is that there can be no new exploration for fossil fuels if we are serious about doing our fair share to avoid the worst of the climate crisis. The report by the United Nations environment programme on the production gap states clearly that

“governments still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than will be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°”.

Ministers often seek to justify new oil and gas developments in the North sea in the name of energy security, but that is profoundly misleading. The majority of fossil-fuel projects in the pipeline are for oil, not gas, which will do nothing to boost energy security, given that we currently export at least 80% of the oil we extract because it is not even the type that is used in UK refineries.

That defence also exposes a paucity of imagination and a failure to grasp what true energy security looks like. True energy security is about abundant and cheap renewables. It is about a flexible energy grid. It is about properly insulated homes and it is about better storage. I urge Ministers to grasp this opportunity genuinely to transform the future of our energy system so that it works for people and planet.

What is most striking about the Bill is its failure to wean us off fossil fuels—the very thing that is choking our planet and driving high energy prices. I endorse the Lords amendment on the prohibition of new coalmines. It was simple in its drafting but vital in its importance. The Minister will no doubt note that it does not only cover coal for energy; it covers coal in its entirety, extending its reach to the newly approved Whitehaven coalmine—and so it should, because that stranded-asset coalmine would produce vast amounts of climate emissions. It is neither wanted nor needed by the UK steel industry, and it is not wanted in Europe, which is rapidly moving towards green steel. I urge the Government to retain the amendment to the Bill.

We need to go much further than that, and reduce our wider reliance on all fossil fuels, not just coal. As a first step, that must involve a review of the outdated and dangerous duty to maximise the economic recovery of petroleum from the North sea. It is beyond imagination that at a time of climate crisis we still have on the statute book an obligation to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas. We need to move away from that. We also need to move away from the extraordinary position on the so-called windfall tax.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Lady’s speech with great interest, and want to pick up on one part of it. On moving away from maximising economic recovery, does she agree that we are already less than 50% dependent on our own domestic sources of oil and gas? Does she agree with the Climate Change Committee’s assessment that our dependence on oil and gas will decline more slowly than our ability to replace it, so we will become more dependent on imports? What she has recommended will not stop our use of oil and gas—it will just make us more dependent on imports.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I totally disagree. The option before us is not to use home-grown fossil fuels versus imported fossil fuels. The choice—[Interruption.] No, it is not. The choice before us is whether we continue to depend on fossil fuels or whether we shift to a green transition much faster. I appreciate why that is difficult for him to understand. Having listened to the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who spoke about the future of aviation, I was struck by the fact that nowhere in his speech was there anything about demand management. People are looking for technical fixes the whole time without recognising that the bottom line is that there are climate limits to what we can do.

[David Duguid]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

No, I will not, I am sorry. Some climate limits mean that we need to change behaviour as well as depending on new technologies.

I was about to talk about the windfall tax and the gaping hole that allows corporations to claim £91.40 for every £100 invested if—perversity of perversities—they reinvest that money in yet more oil. This comes at a total cost to the taxpayer of nearly £11 billion—enough to give an inflation-matching pay rise to every NHS worker and teacher for a year. Instead, the North Sea Transition Authority should have a duty to help meet the UK’s climate commitments and deliver a managed and orderly phase-down of UK petroleum. This, of course, must come with a requirement to support a just transition for oil and gas workers and communities—a clear pathway coupled with financial support to enable them to move into green jobs. Crucially, we need to see no new licences, which means that Ministers must give up any idea of giving a green light to projects such as Rosebank, the UK’s largest undeveloped oil field, which would produce more emissions than 28 low-income countries combined. That would be the definition of recklessness.

The Energy Bill aims to deliver a

“cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system”,

which is a worthy aim. I very much hope the Government listen to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have talked about introducing a new duty on Ofgem to abide by net zero requirements. The amendment on that tabled in the other place received cross-party support, and I cannot see why the Government would not want to make sure that we retain that.

The Government have repeatedly said that they wish to see more community energy generation, but they objected to amendments on that in the Lords on the grounds that they constituted a subsidy. That is not the case. Rather, those amendments would give community energy schemes fair access to the market. If the Government are serious about community energy, they have to find a way to bring community energy to market, precisely by the kind of mechanism—a fixing of price—that we already use with contracts for difference. I urge the Government to accept retain the amendments on community energy, or offer a workable alternative.

In the very short time I have left, I would love to say more about energy efficiency and the need to insulate our homes properly. The cheapest energy is the energy that we do not need to use in the first place, and I despair of the fact that the Government have still failed to come up with the community-led, local authority-led, street-by-street home insulation programme that would achieve proper progress on this.

In the very few moments that are left I want to say a few words about nuclear. Government support for this nuclear white elephant, formalised by the Bill, is beyond ludicrous. We have already discussed the cost of nuclear—it is massively expensive and going up in price—but it is also massively slow. The Government have accepted the goal of decarbonising the UK’s power system by 2035. Given that it will take eight to 10 years to produce new nuclear, it will make absolutely no difference to that decarbonisation target. It is too expensive, too slow and it needs to come out of the Bill.