Climate Change Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Claire Coutinho
Main Page: Claire Coutinho (Conservative - East Surrey)Department Debates - View all Claire Coutinho's debates with the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Today, we are voting on something hugely consequential: a new net zero target that will allow Ministers and civil servants to control almost every part of the economy and the cost of goods in every aspect of people’s lives. It will affect the cost of energy, food, housing, heating, transport, holidays and shipping, and which industries will find it competitive to do business in Britain and which industries will not. Yet in this Chamber can anybody put a figure on how much more expensive this will make food or energy bills or family holidays?
Jonathan Davies
Does the right hon. Lady not accept that the investment her Government made in offshore wind power has insulated British consumers against the fossil fuel price hikes we have seen as a consequence of the Iran war? That is evidence that investment in renewable energy is good for consumers and businesses.
Claire Coutinho
I note that the hon. Gentleman did not answer my question, because he does not have an answer. Let me answer his question: on an electricity bill, 25% of the cost is a wholesale cost, and 75% is a non-commodity cost. Bills have gone up so much partly because of the taxes, levies and policies that his Government have chosen.
Claire Coutinho
No, I will pursue my argument. The vast majority of the costs on an electricity bill are not to do with wholesale prices. The question that I asked the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) was whether he could tell us—[Interruption.] He should listen to this; he is not even listening to my point. I asked whether he could tell us what the legislation he is voting on today will do to the price of food, energy, and holidays for his constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Claire Coutinho
Let me try this question: how many Members present can say, hand on heart, that they have read the impact assessment for this legislation?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Gentleman says that he has. Could he cite the number of jobs the legislation will create or lose in the overall economy?
Luke Murphy
The right hon. Lady’s argument would have a lot more credibility if she had not said, in 2023:
“Nothing will distract us from achieving net zero or driving forward renewables…I want people to feel nothing but unadulterated optimism…We are absolutely committed to our targets.”
The facts about climate change have not changed, yet the right hon. Member has changed her mind. Could that be because of those Members sitting on the Reform Bench?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Gentleman also did not answer my question on jobs. I inherited my party’s position on net zero. I made it clear from the outset that my priority was affordability for Brits in this country, and that net zero should not impoverish consumers. In fact, I made some changes that meant that Labour called me a climate denier and a flat-earther. The hon. Gentleman now comes to this Chamber, not to scrutinise the legislation that will have a massive effect on his constituents, but to criticise me for scrutinising it, asking questions and changing my party’s position.
I am proud to have changed my party’s position, because I care about the consumer, about jobs, and about the price of food and energy. None of the Members on the Government Benches seems to care about those things, because if they did—[Interruption.] I will make some progress, because nobody is answering these questions. If they cared about those things, they would have read the Government’s impact assessment.
Claire Coutinho
Well, the hon. Gentleman could not answer the question on jobs. If he had read it, he would know that the Government’s own impact assessment admits that the modelling does not consider any upside, or downside risks, to the economy arising from the energy transition. It specifically says that it does not consider the impact on jobs. That means that Government Members are voting on legislation without any idea of what it is going to mean for the British worker.
The impact assessment is clear and explicit: the modelling does not analyse energy security. The Government do not know what the legislation will mean for the energy security of our nation. The head of Unite was spot on when she said at the weekend that the Secretary of State
“only seems to be interested in one side of the equation, rushing Britain to net zero with almost no thought for jobs, skills and national security.”
The transition has literally not been properly assessed. What is worse is that Government MPs want to make their political points, but none of them seems to care. Considering how much people are struggling and how much growth is flatlining, are Labour Members really happy to wave through those legal targets without the foggiest idea of what it will do to the economy, the cost of living or energy security?
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Claire Coutinho
If the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us about the impact on jobs, he is more than welcome to do so.
Mr Perkins
I am happy to do so. Is the right hon. Member aware of the evidence from the Climate Change Committee that says that the cost of doing nothing is more expensive than the cost of everything that is needed for net zero? When she attempts to stand in the way of the transition, what she is actually doing is attempting to pile up the costs on British business and consumers, and on the sustainability of our country. She should understand the impact of her policies, rather than attempting to row back on one of the few things the previous Government should have been proud of.
Claire Coutinho
I will come to the evidence of the Climate Change Committee in a second, but first I note that once again, a Member from the Labour Benches cannot cite an overall figure on jobs—I would have thought that the Labour party would be able to cite a figure on jobs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Claire Coutinho
Look, I have given way to a number of hon. Members, and nobody has had an answer. Let me put this to them—
Peter Swallow
It absolutely will be about jobs—I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. The CBI—not the Government, but the CBI—has found that the net zero economy is worth £100 billion of investment in this country every year and supports 1.1 million jobs.
Claire Coutinho
Oh dear. So the hon. Gentleman has not read that report either, because it includes among those jobs waste, recycling and nuclear power—does he think we did not have those jobs before the net zero target? It also includes soil restoration and land management. It specifically says—[Interruption.] I am sorry; Labour Members do not seem to like this, but I have actually read these reports. They do not seem to realise that that report includes a huge range of things that have nothing to do with the net zero target.
I will press on. When the Climate Change Committee provides advice to the Government about what carbon budget target they should set, it uses its own costings and assumptions. Its analysis determines how billions upon billions—that is thousands and thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money—is spent. I am afraid that is deeply problematic.
Why do I say that? Because the cost of offshore wind used to prepare carbon budget 7 was out by a factor of three. The Climate Change Committee said that offshore wind would cost £38 per megawatt-hour, but contracts were being signed by their Secretary of State for £82 per megawatt-hour, suggesting that something was clearly going very wrong on a key input for the exact target that we are voting on today.
When I wrote to the Climate Change Committee—
Several hon. Members rose—
Claire Coutinho
I will make this point. When I wrote to the Climate Change Committee asking it to look at this matter, it sent me a dismissive reply. So I wrote about it in a newspaper. What did the committee do? It reported me—a democratically elected politician—under the Independent Press Standards Organisation editors’ code and tried to get me to remove my opinion. I did not. Just a few months later, the Government updated their own costings, not to £80 per megawatt-hour or even to £90 per megawatt-hour, but to over £100 per megawatt-hour. That is the Minister’s own figure. That means that not only was I right, but offshore wind was now predicted to cost three times what the Climate Change Committee had said.
I do not know which is worse: that we are making huge decisions on the basis of such poor analysis, that nobody on the Government Benches thinks that this warrants any scrutiny, or that an unelected advisory body is using taxpayers’ funds to try to silence elected representatives rather than focusing on getting its costings right. Everybody in this House should think that is shameful. If the committee was wrong by a factor of three on offshore wind—something that we have better evidence for than pretty much anything else in the market—how can we trust any of the rest of its analysis?
Let us look at some of the committee’s claims. It claims that a low-carbon electricity supply is “cheaper per unit” than high-carbon electricity. Well, if your numbers are out by a factor of three, perhaps you might think that. It also says that
“most businesses will not be…affected by Net Zero”,
particularly in the services sector. How does it justify that? Let me assure the House, if net zero blocks the advance of AI in this country, that will have a catastrophic impact on our services sector. Here is another claim:
“a reduction in meat…and dairy”
will mean a healthier diet. Who are they to tell us what to eat and to give us nutritional advice? The committee makes claim after claim and sweeping statement after sweeping statement with nobody holding it accountable. Yet this advice—this target—will affect almost every part of normal life.
Hon. Members may argue that we need strict climate targets to provide certainty for jobs—that is what the Minister just said—but that is nonsense. The country doing the best at creating clean tech jobs is China, which is now the world’s largest polluter. Hon. Members may also say that this is about our moral duty to fix climate change, but I will remind them that every time a British factory shuts here, where we have some of the cleanest electricity in the world, and we import those same goods back from coal-powered China, we are not helping climate change; instead, we are increasing global emissions. Before Labour Members get on their high horse, I will remind them that the Conservatives are the only party to call for the measurement of the offshoring of emissions. Labour does not want to know because it does not care.
Here is the problem: Labour Members do not want to properly measure whether we are just trading emissions here for emissions abroad because they do not really care whether this target is actually good for the worker, or good for jobs, or good for the cost of living, or good for the environment. That is why none of them cared to read the impact assessment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Claire Coutinho
I have taken interventions from so many Labour Members, and none of them could give a figure—[Interruption.] I will happily give way.
Luke Murphy
Point 299 of the impact assessment says:
“The transition away from fossil fuels will lead to a net increase in job creation”.
I believe the right hon. Lady said a moment ago that it does not mention at all the impact on jobs. I invite her to correct the record.
Claire Coutinho
The analysis that the hon. Gentleman points to refers to TIMES modelling. That is used for the baseline. A few pages away, its says that the TIMES modelling specifically does not look at the impact of jobs on the overall energy transition. It is in there in black and white.
The hon. Gentleman might desperately google it now in the Chamber, but the truth is that no Labour Members read and scrutinised the impact assessment properly because none of them cares. Let’s be honest: they are all here to read their boilerplate speeches, which will all be exactly the same, to virtue signal how much of a good person they are. That is the truth. Most of them come from climate NGOs and green lobby groups—the Minister does too, I am afraid—and they care more about ideology than evidence. How many of them have ever had to turn a profit for a living? How many have had to work out how to pay someone else’s wages? How many have had to consider all the costs that go into manufacturing and selling something in Britain?
The thing is, we could do this so differently. We are 1% of global emissions; 99% are happening elsewhere. Those countries are not persuaded by Britain driving itself into poverty while the Secretary of State preaches at them from his pulpit. In fact, they are asking themselves why they should follow the path that Britain is taking when we are such an obvious example of what not to do. We are a country that is making its energy scarce and expensive, and deindustrialising and impoverishing its own citizens.
What is the solution? First, we must reject decarbonisation by deindustrialisation. Therefore, we must measure the offshoring of emissions and get rid of the unilateral carbon tax and the stringent targets killing off British industry by repealing the Climate Change Act.
Richard Tice
Given that we have reduced our carbon emissions by some 54% since 1990, perhaps the shadow Secretary of State agrees with me that we have led the way and done our bit. It is now time for others to do theirs.
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The question is, can we protect the environment, the economy and living standards? Is what the Government are proposing today going to help us do those things? I would argue that it is not. [Interruption.] Well, let’s talk about it: Labour Members will vote today to increase the cost of aviation and shipping when our competitors in Asia, the middle east and the US are not doing so. That is mad.
The first part of our plan is to save British industry. The second is to make electricity cheap. Just 10% of our emissions are in the electricity system; the vast majority are in transport, industry and buildings. Our electricity is clean. Does Labour even realise that? It is some of the cleanest electricity in the world. The problem is that it is too expensive and deterring electrification. I am not someone on the right who thinks that all clean tech is stupid, but I do think that cheap electricity and consumer choice should be king.
Thirdly, we should wholeheartedly embrace innovation and exports of British clean tech, whether that is the next generation of nuclear, software or consumer products. Finally, we should pay much more heed to nature—something that we were proud to do but this Government are much less keen on. Funnily enough, they are much more attracted to net zero than nature. Perhaps that is because the former gives them unlimited powers to dictate to people what they can and cannot do, and to tax people who do things that they do not like. That is, after all, a socialist’s dream.
I would bet everything that our approach is better for the British economy and the environment, but it would mean wresting this agenda away from the incredibly well-funded green lobby groups with vested interests, who provide these figures that Members on the Labour Benches all merrily cite without having actually read the reports. And, frankly, they do not have the balls to do it—they do not even have the balls to take on their out-of-control Secretary of State.
I will end on this. The public keep being promised cheaper energy and more jobs, yet those things are not materialising. If people want to know why Governments keep failing, they should look at this impact assessment, which I am afraid is mumbo-jumbo that does not tell the reader what the target will do to the cost of food or energy, or the cost of business. They should consider the fact that parliamentarians are prepared to wave it through today. The Minister did not even take any questions. This is meant to be a debate in which we scrutinise these important decisions, but she did not want to answer any questions.
Who in the public voted for this? Who in the public voted for more expensive food, energy bills and boilers? Who voted to increase our goods imports from China? Let us be very clear: this legislation takes control away from Ministers and gives it to civil servants, unaccountable bodies and activists who will tell Ministers that they cannot prioritise the cost of living or the economy, even if they were elected to do so.
The Energy Secretary might not be in post for much longer, but the legacy of his target will be to make us poorer and weaker. Ministers will be more bound by red tape and less able to deliver on their promises, but it does not have to be that way. This is the moment to take back control for our constituents and say that Ministers should not be bound by legislation waved through with no scrutiny—by Ministers who will not take any questions. Ministers should be bound by the democratic promises they have made to the electorate. That is how we fix this. That is how we put our constituents back in the driving seat, and that is why Members should vote to reject this legislation today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Pippa Heylings
I thank my hon. Friend, as always, for her passionate defence and her knowledge on this issue. I worked for 20 years in east Africa, southern America and the Caribbean on UK climate policy, including under the previous Conservative Government. I saw countries already facing water shortages and what that meant: devastating crops and economies, and putting countries into recurrent economic recession. We must be committed to net zero emissions by 2050 because the science when the former Government agreed this—
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Member is making an emotional speech, and I understand she cares deeply about this issue. This target is imposing costs on our businesses in Britain, which is driving them away from one of the cleanest energy systems in the world. Our refineries now pay more on their carbon tax bill than they do on their wage bill. What does that mean? It means we are importing back those same goods from countries such as India that have higher emissions—twice the emissions, in fact. Why should we set a target more onerous than that in other countries, driving production away, only to import goods with higher emissions? What does she think that will do for climate change?
Pippa Heylings
Perhaps I would contest the fact that we cannot equate the emotion with a rational mind as well. These are science-based targets that the hon. Member’s Government agreed to set. What is recommended in the carbon budget order is set by the independent Climate Change Committee, with robust figures, and the science has shown us that this is our best chance to limit warming to under 2°. Global collective action avoided—at least for now—a 4° warmer world, and as I understand it, the Treasury has accepted modelling to show that we have accepted a 2° warmer world. It means that every Department will have to look at what a 2° warmer world means and how we adapt to that. I agree, however, that the impact on our industry, with some of the highest energy prices, means that it is less competitive. Let us therefore work together and focus directly on how we can get energy bills down.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the seventh carbon budget, and we are glad that the Government have accepted the advice of the robust and science-based Climate Change Committee, which puts us on a consistent and achievable pathway to meeting net zero while building a fairer and thriving new economy.
Pippa Heylings
I very much appreciated the work that the hon. Member did in her former role, and we were together at that COP meeting. Yes, I congratulate the Prime Minister, but I also congratulate former Prime Ministers. I was working internationally, and I worked on the macroeconomic budgets of developing countries, particularly the emerging economies, and we saw what they could do to follow the UK’s lead and leapfrog technologies in their economies. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, which is why it is disappointing to hear from those on the Conservative Front Bench that they want to delay science-led targets and oppose environmental action, which would lead the world in a more insecure and uncertain place, and leave businesses without the certainty they need. I urge them to help us rebuild the consensus that we need. It can only smell of a desperate attempt at political opportunism to join Reform and gamble with the lives and livelihoods of future generations.
Claire Coutinho
If the evidence is so science-led, will the hon. Member explain why the Climate Change Committee was out by a factor of three—300%—on the cost of offshore wind, which is one of the key inputs for the target that she will be voting for today?
Pippa Heylings
I will look forward to seeing its answer when you send a letter back—
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is 40°C outside in some parts of the UK. We are obviously not ready for what is coming, so there could not be a better day to discuss climate change and carbon targets. The seventh carbon budget should be welcomed—it is good that the Government have accepted the Climate Change Committee’s advice—but it falls far short of what is needed.
We are making good progress on renewable energy and I, for one, believe that is to be celebrated. However, I will not focus on energy because many other Members in the Chamber have done so already. Instead, I will focus on key sectors where we have seen pitiful progress, but which are absolutely central to meeting our emissions targets and making the transformational change needed to meet more ambitious, longer-term targets. This is not just about net zero; it is about making people’s lives better through lower bills, warmer homes and stronger, more sustainable communities, and it is about improving the quality of our lives as we struggle with the soaring temperatures and devastating floods—and doing so through more than just investing in renewables.
First, I will talk about farming. I welcome the reopening of the sustainable farming incentive, which we heard about earlier today. But yet again, it is a first-come, first-served subsidy that will work against the smaller, poorer farmers—the ones who need it most. The bigger operations will dive in first and get that money. We need long-term sustainable incentives for long-term sustainable agricultural planning.
We also need a land use framework, so that we can prioritise the most productive land for producing food and other less productive land for renewable energy. We should not be using our most productive agricultural land for solar power, but we need both and we have to have a land use framework to make that work. And yes, we also need to look at the carbon emissions from soils and peat. If we do not have healthy soils, we cannot produce food. Going back to what the shadow Minister said, perhaps she needs to think about the role of soil—
Caroline Voaden
No, because I do not have much time.
We also need massive progress on tree planting, and I commend my local district council for planning to plant one tree for every resident in the South Hams. It is making cracking progress.
Secondly, I would like to talk briefly about transport. If we do not have a major shift towards public transport, we are not going to get people out of their cars. That shift means buses in the south-west. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has promised that he is going to revolutionise buses all over the country in the way that he did in Manchester, and I really look forward to seeing how he is going to do that in Devon, where many communities do not even have buses, let alone affordable buses.
We need to look at EV charging, especially for people who have to park on the road. That is a real challenge. We are certainly not seeing it where I live. I would also like to talk about active travel. Devon county council has told me that it will take five years to get a cycle path, even once it has been agreed by all the landowners. That is absolutely ludicrous. If we want to get people on bikes and walking to cut emissions and improve health, we have to cut the red tape and make this easier to achieve.
Lastly, the Climate Change Committee’s target for heat pumps for 2035 is 1.5 million a year, yet we are installing only a third of that. The cost of Heathrow expansion could pay for 4 million heat pumps to be installed across the country. Expanding airports while we are trying to cut emissions makes absolutely no logical sense to me at all. The economic benefit is not proven, the social impact will be catastrophic and the emissions impact on the climate will be unbelievable. I think we should take that budget and put it instead into helping households with heat pumps—
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the leadership she has shown on this issue, not just since taking up her role, but long before she came to this House—that is a powerful lesson at the heart of some of today’s debate. We have heard a lot from some Opposition Members about how inherently global this problem is, and that the UK decarbonising alone will not tackle climate change. They are obviously right—it is an inherently and intractably global problem that we cannot tackle alone—but they seem somehow to build from that to an argument that we will get other countries to go faster by going slower ourselves. The lesson that the Minister showed in a previous job by arguing for the Climate Change Act is that by showing global leadership, we can bring other countries along with us on this difficult journey. We brought in the Climate Change Act, and now 75% of the country’s GDP is covered by binding emissions targets. We know we need to go further, which is why the debate about how we meet those targets is so important—but it must be a debate about how we meet them.
There has been a lot of loaded language about climate denialism, and I accept that Conservative Members are not denying the existence of climate change. However, by denying the real and existential consequences of not meeting the science-backed targets, they are engaging in a subtler, but no less pernicious form of denialism. That is betraying our constituents and their futures by failing to recognise the existential challenge of climate change, and by failing to engage with the real and important debate that we should all be having about how we meet those targets and the policy trade-offs needed.
Claire Coutinho
I appreciate the hon. Member’s tone and the quality of his remarks, but does he not agree that denying that the Government are making electricity more expensive and deterring electrification—something the former Labour Prime Minister has acknowledged—and denying that we are offshoring emissions by putting extra carbon taxes on our businesses that other countries do not face, therefore increasing global emissions, is also part of the problem?
Alistair Strathern
The right hon. Member is right to highlight that we need to do more to drive down the costs of energy and bring others with us on the journey of decarbonisation, but that is not the debate we are having today. We are having a debate about scientifically binding and informing climate targets that will have existential implications if we do not meet them. By not engaging with some of the deeper policy conversations about how we get there, the right hon. Member is letting us all down. There will absolutely be areas where we can go further, because we have already shown that we can. Whether that is by renewing some of the renewable energy auctions to get better value out of the outcomes for consumers, by evolving the way we are delinking gas from electricity markets to deliver better outcomes for consumers and the environment, or by reforming some of the planning costs that have been holding back the new nuclear and clean energy that we desperately need to get cracking with, we have already made progress.
There will absolutely be areas where we need to go further, and many hon. Members have made good contributions to highlight some of them. That could be thinking about how we can do more to take policy costs off electricity to speed up the electrification journey, or how we can deregulate better some of the innovate start-up technologies that will make some outcomes possible in ways that we might not even be able to imagine today, or thinking carefully about how we manage the industrial costs and implications of the journey to net zero, to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect the fantastic industrial heartlands that our country has relied on for far too long, and which we should be preserving long into the future. Those are big important questions, but that is not the discussion and argument that has so often been thrown back from the Opposition Benches today. That argument has denied the implications of failing to meet the target, and it is deeply disappointing, because it lets down our constituents and all our collective futures.