Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

1. What recent discussions she has had with trade unions on the future of Grangemouth oil refinery beyond 2025.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)]

My Department attended the Grangemouth industrial just transition leadership forum alongside Scotland Office Ministers and representatives of Unite the union on 28 March. We remain in close contact with the Scottish Government and the owner Petroineos. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero met Scottish Government counterparts and Petroineos management on 15 May and raised the importance of working with the unions.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Warm words are one thing; tangible support is quite another. If Grangemouth closes, Scotland faces the possibility—indeed, the probability—of being the only major oil producing nation without refinery capacity, yet €700 million has been found by the UK Government to support an Ineos plant in Antwerp while not a penny is available for Grangemouth. Is it to be a Brexit bonus for Belgian workers and a P45 for those Scots at the refinery?

[Claire Coutinho]

We are working with the Scottish Government and Petroineos to understand all possible options for the future of the refinery. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservatives are the only major party who are backing the North sea, the biddings it brings in each year and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that it supports, while a new report last week showed that Labour’s plan could lose as many as 100,000 jobs in the next five years.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

2. What progress she has made on reaching the Government’s 2050 net zero target.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)]

We are on track to reach net zero by 2050, and we will do so in a way that brings the public with us. We overachieved on our third carbon budget by 15%, and we announce today that we will not be rolling that over as we think that we will be able to overperform on carbon budget 4 as well.

[Henry Smith]

I congratulate the Government on us being one of the first major economies in the world to set out the ambition for net zero carbon emissions by 2050. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport with regard to a revenue support mechanism for sustainable aviation, as well as ensuring that feedstock for sustainable aviation fuels takes priority?

[Claire Coutinho]

I know from experience that my hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his local area and for the aviation sector. My Department is in regular contact with the Department for Transport and the Treasury on aviation decarbonisation and the important role for sustainable aviation fuel in that transition. On 25 April, DFT published a consultation on options for a revenue certainty mechanism alongside details of the SAF mandate, which together will support both decarbonation and the growth of the sector.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)]

Tapadh, Mr Speaker.

There are many criticisms of the Government—I am sure they are aware of them—that they are too slow and indecisive about giving signals to the market for particular technologies, which means that, when they need to commission new energy, they are stuck with only one option: gas, which, as we know, is not exactly the way to net zero. What will the Secretary of State be doing to move things a bit quicker and give the market signals as to which energy path the UK will be taking?

[Claire Coutinho]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have one of the most remarkable records when it comes to renewable energies. The only country that has built more offshore wind than us is China, we have set out the largest expansion for nuclear, and we are at the forefront of cutting-edge technologies such as fusion, hydrogen and carbon capture.

[Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

Meeting our net zero targets, which will be extremely difficult and eye-wateringly expensive, has been enforced on my constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must be more honest and open about the enormous costs of net zero on the British taxpayer? Will the Government commit to publishing a detailed analysis of those costs in advance of my Westminster Hall debate?

[Claire Coutinho]

There is a balance to be struck, which I believe we are striking, in ensuring that we can make the most of the jobs and opportunities of the energy transition, which will support up to 480,000 green jobs in 2030. But, yes, when it comes to additional costs, we are taking a measured approach because we want to protect households.

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

In the Climate Change Committee’s latest progress report, it was made clear:

“There continues to be an overly narrow approach to solutions, which crucially does not embrace the need to reduce demand for high-carbon activities.”

So when the Secretary of State goes back to the drawing board to revise the Government’s carbon budget delivery plan, as she now must, will she finally reduce the reliance on unproven technofixes and look instead at demand reduction measures—or, following the recent embarrassing judgment from the High Court, is she aiming for a hat-trick, with her Department’s climate plan declared unlawful for a third time?

[Claire Coutinho]

I would find the hon. Lady’s questions more credible if she would at least once welcome the fact that we are the first country in the G20 to have halved emissions. On our progress, I am proud that one of the reasons that we have come so far is technological fixes, because of the remarkable progress that this country has made in renewable energy. That is why we overshot on our first, second and third carbon budgets, and we are on track to overshoot on our fourth.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago the Government were found, for a second time, to be in breach of the law over their climate targets. That failure will mean that families across the country will pay higher energy bills. The Court found:

“The Secretary of State’s conclusion that the proposals and policies will enable the carbon budgets to be met was irrational”.

Last time, the Government claimed that their breach of the law was just on a technicality. What is the right hon. Lady’s “dog ate my homework” excuse this time?

[Claire Coutinho]

Let us be clear: the Court did not question the policies that we have set out, which we have done in more detail than any of our peers. It did not question the progress that we have already made, as the first G20 country in the world to halve emissions, and it did not question the ambition of our future targets, which are among the most ambitious of our peers. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to look at what would smother the transition and private investment in this country, he need only look at his own mad, unachievable 2030 target.

[Edward Miliband]

With a defence like that, I can see why the Government lost in court not just once but twice. Buried in the court documents is the confidential memo that reveals the real reason they lost the case—officials were telling Ministers that they had low or very low confidence that half their carbon reductions would be achieved. That is why they were found unlawful. The right hon. Lady comes to the House each month with her complacent nonsense, but the court judgment exposes the truth: the Government are way off track, abysmally failing to meet the climate emergency and pushing up bills for families as a result.

[Claire Coutinho]

I have learned in this role that the right hon. Gentleman likes to call people who disagree with him names. Last week, representatives from the Tony Blair Institute said that his plans would raise bills and harm our energy security. Are they flat earthers? An industry report said last week said that his plans would see up to 100,000 people lose their jobs. Are those people who are worried climate deniers? When will the right hon. Gentleman admit that his plans are based on fantasy and ideology and are the last thing that this country needs?

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

3. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of public ownership of the energy system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)]

Since I was last at the Dispatch Box, we have been building up Britain’s energy security. We have taken the next step in the biggest expansion of nuclear in 70 years, making Britain a producer of advanced nuclear fuel and pushing Putin out of the global energy market. Just today, Rolls-Royce announced that it will invest millions of pounds in bringing new jobs to Sheffield to manufacture small modular reactors. We have overachieved in our third carbon budget, which is keeping us on track to reach net zero, and we are building on our proud record of being the first major economy to halve emissions. We have invested over half a billion pounds to help cut energy costs and bills for schools and hospitals, and we are taking our next steps on PumpWatch to protect motorists from unfair prices.

[Liz Twist]

Latest figures by National Energy Action show that there are still 1,875 homes in my constituency with legacy prepayment meters. What action are the Government taking to remove this costly burden on families?

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. During my career, I have looked at the issue of prepayment meters for a long time, and one of the things that I am proudest of is our taking out the premium that people on prepayment meters were paying.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

T3. I welcome Ofgem’s ongoing review of standing charges in electricity bills. In the North Wales and Merseyside region, the standing charge is 67.04p per day, compared to an average of 60.10p across the UK. Will the Minister commit to coming back to the House to provide further comment on this geographical variation once Ofgem has published the findings of its review?