Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Clive Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in which Members will find no money from oligarchs, Saudi Arabia, oil barons or oil companies—nothing but from trade unions, and I am quite happy with that.

Here we are, a little more than 18 months since the end of lockdown, and the Government have gone from clapping to slapping key workers. It did not have to be this way. In the wake of covid, the Government had a choice. They could, like the 1945 Labour Government at the end of world war two, have chosen a new path, a different path, and a new social settlement that recognised the sacrifice and efforts of key workers. They could have rewarded them by embarking on collective sectoral bargaining, and invested in rebuilding our public services and in housing after more than a decade of decay. They could have built a new social settlement, recognising the role that those workers played in that national crisis. Instead, they chose to look to the first world war, and to the Geddes axe, when the post-war Conservative Government slashed public spending, attacked workers’ rights, and told the poor they and not the wealthy must bear the brunt of the costs of the war.

The Bill puts beyond a shadow of doubt whose side this Government are on. It is certainly not the public, because those public sector workers who are being denied their democratic rights are the public. They are the ones defending public services, not the Government, and they are the ones fighting to stop trains without ticket offices, and railways with a reduced number of safety precautions. They are the ones fighting to stop a healthcare system that is run from silicon valley by surveillance companies such as Palantir, and fighting for our education system, which 44% of teachers plan to leave within five years. The Government, however, are on the side of employers such as P&O, British Gas and British Airways, with a Bill that gives a green light to the practitioners of fire and rehire, poverty pay and a race to the bottom. And yes, as ever, the Government are on the side of the rich and wealthy, as they have always been.

But the Bill is also part of a longer term, anti-democratic trend, and part of a raft of anti-democratic legislation passed by the Government. It is a trend of transferring power away from workers and citizens, and eliminating their limited rights and freedoms in the workplace and across society. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 criminalised political protest. The Elections Act 2022 will disenfranchise millions through voter ID, and it undermined the independence of the Electoral Commission. The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 limits the power of courts to remedy unlawful Government action on the part of the Executive. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 means that 6 million in this country could now be stripped of citizenship at the whim of the Home Secretary, and although the Government have temporarily gone quiet on this, we know they also want to repeal the Human Rights Act.

The British public have had enough of being told by this Government to suck up failing privatised public services, corrupt politicians, collapsing living standards, a dying environment and a falling democracy. They have had enough of being told that there is no alternative, that politicians will always be caught on the take, that the rich and powerful will always be able to buy influence, that foodbanks are inevitable, that the NHS will always be in crisis, that our rivers will always be polluted, and that a race to the bottom on employment rights is inevitable. History will show that the Bill is the act of a Government on the ropes, bereft of direction, and lashing out at the very public they claim to protect. This grim 50-year-old ideological experiment is in tatters all around, and I will be voting against this piece of rubbish.

Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

If I were not being heckled, I might get on with it.

As most of the House knows, and as most reasonable people will accept, the recent rise in energy prices in the United Kingdom has largely been driven by the increase in the wholesale price of gas caused by growing demand and broader geopolitical issues as we emerge from the pandemic. Those price rises are visible across many parts of Europe and beyond, and they demonstrate the importance of long-term security of supply and energy resilience, to which I will return in a moment.

With that in mind, it is important to answer the questions that have been asked, although it was wholly absent from the speech of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North that the Government are already doing much to support those in the greatest need.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

Is the hon. Gentleman not making an excellent case for a just transition, where taxes such as this, on those who have made billions—perhaps trillions—over the past century from sucking our resources out of the ground and making excessive profits, are invested to ensure that his constituents and the workers in those oilfields are entitled to a decent, sustainable, well-paid job?

[Stephen Flynn]

A just transition is at the forefront of my thoughts almost every day, because I see first-hand the impact of the decisions taken in this place on oil and gas. My own constituency contributes £14.4 billion of gross value added to the economy. How many other people’s constituencies can say that? However, I am aware of the poverty that exists notwithstanding that.

We need to see a just transition, which is why we have tabled our amendment today, but I must repeat that I have concerns about Labour’s proposal. Without their detailing what they believe the impact on investment would be and what the subsequent impact of that would be on workers, it is a proposal I simply find difficult to support in its current form.

That is not to say that the Government should be let off the hook, because the just transition, as has been said, is incredibly important. It is important to my constituents and to the constituents of Government Members, because there will be a change in the coming years and a transition to net zero. From the Scottish Government, we have seen a £500 million just transition fund put in place, with £80 million put towards the Acorn project, which the UK Government continue to drag their heels over supporting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

Over the past two years, the North sea oil and gas that was exported doubled. It is not our oil and gas. It belongs to the corporations that bring it out of the ground, and they sell it to the highest bidder. It does not increase our energy security. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about Biden inheriting fracked shale oil and gas in the US, but he failed to mention the ecological costs, which every year run into hundreds of millions of pounds of damage to the natural world. That is the price the United States is paying for its fracking, which I imagine the right hon. Gentleman would expect us to take up here as well.

[John Redwood]

I was not talking about onshore gas at all; I was talking about North sea gas, which comes from under the sea. A variety of reservoir easing techniques have been used for many years and never caused political controversy. I was recommending that we review again the opportunity to explore for more, to develop more and to bring into production the fields that we know are out there. That would also help the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), who would rightly like more jobs or to sustain jobs in his successful oil and gas city, which faces the problems that he described. I was interested in his warning about how a windfall tax could, like last time, collapse investment and reduce the amount of extraction and future investment that we get.

The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) said that not all the gas produced in the North sea would be sold to us. That may be right, but the European market in general is chronically short of gas and the continental market is cruelly dependent on Russian gas, which today we can see is not a good idea. A North sea supply would therefore help when we are trying to ease supply pressures and bring prices down.

The second reason why it makes much more sense to use our own gas—or to extract more of it—rather than rely on imports is that we collect much more tax on it, and we are losing all that tax revenue on imports. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we now import 53% of the gas that we need, and we do not get anything like the revenue that we could if we extracted more of our own. Preferably, we would sell it to ourselves, but even if we exported it—we may well do that—we would still collect the extra revenue. There would also be a benefit in jobs and prosperity, because the industry tends to create quite a lot of well-paid jobs, which is good for the communities that sponsor those activities.

I hope that Ministers will look favourably on the idea that, during this transition, we will burn a lot of gas—as will everyone else—so it makes a lot of sense for the UK to produce gas and offer it on long-term contracts, trying to smooth some of erratic prices that we see because of what is happening on the continent, and make our contribution to greater security of supply for ourselves and—indirectly—for Europe.

Finally—I know that time is limited—electricity is much in demand, and it will be much more in demand if the electrical revolution that the Government wish to unleash comes true. One reason why we had a big spike in gas prices was that the wind did not blow, which added to the need to burn a lot more gas in power stations. That can happen again, because the wind clearly is an unreliable friend, and it is particularly difficult if it goes down at times of peak demand or when it is very cold. We therefore need to ensure that we are putting in enough reliable electricity capacity, because that has a direct relationship with the gas supply and demand issue as well as with gas prices, and I do not think that the current plans have nearly enough new capacity in them.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

The RAB model has been used successfully for some infrastructure projects, but as outlined earlier it has not been very successful in the United States when applied to nuclear power stations. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of a successful application of the RAB model to a nuclear power station?

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

May I answer the intervention from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) first? We are more interested in what has been tried and tested here in the United Kingdom than in what may not have succeeded in a different model in a different sovereign country. Obviously, this is the first time it has been used for nuclear power here, but let us not forget, as I have pointed out, that there was a whole generation in which no nuclear power stations were built at all. When it came to the funding for Hinkley C in around 2010-11, I remember well the debates that we had at that time and, of course, the uncomfortable truth that we had lost the expertise to build these things ourselves, so we needed to bring in both foreign finance and foreign expertise. The situation today is different, because we are building on what we have already learned and achieved so far in the process at Hinkley Point.

I agree with the Government that this is a time to choose to move to regulated asset financing, because the crucial difference is that the businesses involved will be able to finance at lower rates and, as I understand it, two thirds of the cost of electricity from Hinkley Point C will come from the cost of capital. Making access to income available during the construction period will both reduce the costs of the project and make it more attractive to institutional investors, who are quite happy with a lower but steady return on their investment. I believe that that is the key reason—and I am comfortable with it—for adopting that approach to this nuclear power station and, I hope, others to come in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I was coming on to what seems to be a curious irony in the position of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, particularly the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for whom I have a lot of respect on energy issues. It seems ironic that, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, amendment 2 would make it virtually impossible for a company partly or wholly owned by a foreign power to build and run a nuclear entity. Of course, since British Energy was sold by the last Labour Government in 2009, it is not possible for a company that is entirely British owned to do the work. In that context, the amendment seems rather ironic. Perhaps the fact that it would be a UK subsidiary of EDF answers the question; otherwise, I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that amendment 2 should be ruled out immediately by Members on both sides of the House on the basis of it being wholly impractical.

I am conscious that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham wants to intervene, but I think the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) was first.

[Clive Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous. Some of us on the Opposition Benches consider energy to be a public good, and therefore if we are talking about the optimal way of funding this public good, it would be via the state. The RAB system that he is talking about is very complex and is actually being backed by the state, not the market. Ultimately, if he wants to bring the costs down and make the system more cost-effective and to be optimal—that is the term he used—we would have the state funding this area fully, as well as the rest of the energy roll-out that he is talking about.

The final point I will make is that the hon. Gentleman gave some examples about Heathrow and other large-scale projects, but the difference here is that the system that he is advocating will mean that bill payers will foot much of the risk and much of the bill if there is an overspend. The problem is that that proposal is regressive—it is like a poll tax on energy. The far more progressive way to fund things would be through progressive taxation.

[Richard Graham]

We may be straying a bit from the subject and scope, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will try to come back to the road of virtue as quickly as I can, but the hon. Member raises interesting points about what structure of ownership is required to develop nuclear power stations effectively. To be honest, it was his party that decided to sell—to privatise—British Energy. I think it is too late to try to row back on that and recreate that situation, unless he is proposing an interesting new Anglo-French argument over nationalising EDF Energy in the UK. We have to accept that things have moved on, and we must focus on the amendments proposed today.

Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I concur with my hon. Friend, who is a tireless champion for his Warrington constituents. We are delighted with today’s announcement. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is a huge opportunity for the UK. When I talk to the industry, it makes strong points about how the UK is geologically, geographically and economically well suited to make sure that carbon capture, utilisation and storage is a big part of our low-carbon future, and I commend him for his support for the HyNet cluster in the north-west of England and across into north Wales.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

There are two problems with the Government’s net zero strategy: “net” and “zero”. The latter because it is not zero—we know there are sectors, such as aviation, that will be pumping out millions of tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere beyond 2050—and the former because we know the Government are relying on negative emissions technologies that, frankly, are based on science fiction and for which there is no prospect of mass roll-out. We are banking on this to rescue us from the climate crisis, but it is a “burn now, pay later” strategy that is not fit for purpose.

[Greg Hands]

That is sort of a question, for which I thank the hon. Gentleman. He might be a proponent of the Labour party’s net zero by 2030 policy. I am not sure whether the shadow Secretary of State supports that policy, which I think was ratified at the Labour party conference.

We have already talked about carbon capture, utilisation and storage, which is a sound technology in which the UK will look to be a world leader. The Climate Change Committee itself has said that it will not be possible for every single part of the UK economy to be net zero. That is the importance of the word “net” in all of this. It is about making sure that we get to net zero by 2050, so it does not have to apply across all sectors. Of course we want it to apply across all sectors, and the North Sea transition deal for the oil and gas sector has a commitment to go to net zero, but overall it is about making sure the country gets to net zero by 2050.

A Green Industrial Revolution

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher). I think everyone on the Labour Benches would thank him for his kind words about Dennis Skinner, who was more than just an MP to us; he was a link to a period when people had dignity at work and felt respected in what they did, and when we had real communities that were strengthened by the work and the ethos that people had as part of their community. For Labour Members, Dennis is a link to so much more than just the Labour party, and to hear the hon. Gentleman’s warm words meant so much.

On the idea of a statue, I cannot speak for Dennis, although I can think of one word, or perhaps two words that he might say as one word: something like “Give over!” The thought is appreciated, though, and who knows what will happen on this side of the House and how far that will go? Even though it came from the Conservative Benches, I think Dennis would have appreciated that and the hon. Gentleman’s warm words, for which we thank him.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my friend for allowing me to intervene. I speak as a friend of Dennis Skinner. The lesson for everyone new coming into this place is to realise that there is a difference between politics and friendship. Friendship stretches across the House; politics may differ, but friendship is firm. Dennis is one of those sorts of people who would be very welcoming when one sat down and had a chat with him.

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he makes an important point. I hope that in the coming weeks, months and years we all remember each other’s common humanity. It is important that we hold on to that.

Let us understand the backcloth to this debate: Australia is currently on fire; 2,000 homes have been destroyed; 27 people have lost their lives; and half a billion animals have been incinerated. An area larger than either Hungary or Portugal has been razed to the ground. Meanwhile, to its north, the rains that never reached Australia are flooding Indonesia. This pattern is being repeated across the globe.

We are already in an era of wild weather: seasons appear at the wrong times; food harvests are diminished; pollinating and insect-mating seasons are being disrupted; and, without our noticing, the seas have been warming and storms increasing at an alarming rate. This is the beginning of climate disruption. We have talked about it for a long time. It is now here. We are at a stage that cannot easily be reversed, but that can be stopped from heading into runaway breakdown. The key is what we do within the current decade, which is what makes the Queen’s Speech so important.

If the Prime Minister understood the emergency, the Queen’s Speech would have included measures such as: introducing UK carbon budgets to reduce CO₂ emissions by 20% a year; removing planning permission for new buildings connected to the gas grid; reinstating Britain’s zero-carbon homes standard; putting in place a national fuel poverty, home energy efficiency programme; raising the UK tree planting targets to 3 billion within a decade; transferring the roads budget into new public transport networks; and, because building resilience into every part of our economy from infrastructure to food security is now critical, making a huge investment in flood prevention programmes and everything else that goes with that.

Later this year, the UK will host the COP26 gathering of nations still struggling to set up a robust framework to avoid climate breakdown. It is an opportunity for Britain to lead rather than just to host. Are there any measures in this Queen’s Speech to show how we will do this? No, of course there are not. Has anyone actually told the PM that one cannot just turn up to COP and go, “Bing, bang, boom, bong, phwoar, climate crisis!”? We have to stand on our record, and this Government do not have one. Members do not have to take my word for it. In its latest assessment, the Committee on Climate Change said that the UK is not

“on track to meet the fourth carbon budget. To meet future carbon budgets and the 100% target for 2050 it will require the government to apply more challenging measures.”

To you and me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that means pull your finger out because: the world is burning; biodiversity is collapsing; the oceans are warming; the ice caps are melting; and the world is watching us here in the UK this year.

Ultimately, I fear that nothing we say in this place will change the mind of this Government. The entirety of this Government’s mandate has been founded on one thing, which is to get Brexit done—it pains me to say that. When we understand that this is a hard right political project, we will understand that this Government have no intention of facing up to the climate crisis. Brexit has always been about trade deals that do not give a damn about climate, inequality or the global south. It is about deregulation that lets corporations raping our planet do so with ever more impunity. That is what Brexit is actually about, and that is why the Queen’s Speech has failed even the most basic of tests.

Ultimately, little we say in here will make a difference with this Government. The only way that millions of people in this country will see any real change is to build a climate mass movement, the likes of which the world has not yet seen, to force them to act. Greta Thunberg, the youth climate strikers and the global climate movement have shown us all the way. It is now time for us in this place to join them, to build a movement and show that our democracy is capable of changing course and building a better and more sustainable future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Contain yourself, man. I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the provision of the voice of Wantage.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

11. What plans he has to help ensure that solar power is (a) accessible to and (b) affordable for all households.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

19. What plans he has to help ensure that solar power is (a) accessible to and (b) affordable for all households.

[The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Chris Skidmore)]

I am pleased to inform hon. Members that yesterday the Government launched their smart export guarantee, which will ensure that all small-scale generators are paid for the power they export to the grid. Supported by Government investment, residential solar installations are now 50% cheaper than they were in 2011 and, alongside technologies such as batteries, will help consumers to export energy to the grid when it is needed, reducing their bills and making solar more accessible and affordable than ever before.

[Clive Lewis]

With all due respect, only this Government could dress up a 94% collapse in domestic solar installations as a success. They now plan to slap 20% VAT on solar and storage and to replace the certainty of the feed-in tariff export payments with a lick-and-a-promise scheme with no certain payment rates and no guaranteed periods. Why does the Minister not just admit that, as ever, the Tories always side with big and dirty rather than with clean and local?

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the drop in solar installations, which came about at the end of the feed-in tariff scheme. March was a record month for installations in the last two years, as we saw a rush for applications before the scheme closed. We had a question earlier about fuel poverty, and the point about the feed-in tariff is that, although it was important at the time and helped 850,000 people to use solar panels on their households, it was going to cost £30 billion, which would mean an average of £14 on every single household’s bill. We must now look into moving forward so that we can take a locally adopted position and ensure that we can generate a market.

Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

It would be a pleasure to come and visit. We have had several debates on geothermal heat, in particular from old mine workings. It seems only fitting that the blood, sweat and tears of those thousands of men who dug up the energy source of our first industrial revolution could somehow be reused by using hot water as another source of energy.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s comments about listening to and acting on the science. If that is the case, the Committee on Climate Change has questioned whether support for oil and gas may become incompatible with the Government’s long-term climate change objectives. In the spirit of not disappearing down a rabbit hole of conflict, perhaps we can agree, on both sides of the House, on whether there is a sustainable way to reduce fossil fuel extraction to move from maximum economic recovery to sustainable economic recovery.

[Claire Perry]

That is a very important point. The oil and gas industry, which employs hundreds of thousands of people, has contributed billions to our Exchequer and is extremely important to communities north of the border. It is one of our most productive industries. It is part of the transition, and the exciting thing is that technologies such as offshore wind, the sector deal for which I announced just recently, will be a brilliant industry for many of those employees to transition into. In fact, our world leadership in working in very difficult offshore conditions in oil and gas exploration is perfect for offshore wind, so there is a natural transition. Of course, these are important industries, which I believe also recognise the role that they have to play in the transition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Quite the opposite is true. One of the reasons why it has proved impossible to finance privately some of these nuclear power stations is that the cost of renewables was falling and the availability was increasing so rapidly that they are being muscled out of the system. The forecast electricity margin for this year is now over 11%, the highest for five years. To put this into context for the hon. Gentleman, the contribution that the Wylfa nuclear power station—3 GW—would have made was procured in a single contract for difference auction for offshore wind. That shows the abundance that we have, rather than the shortage.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

14. What steps he plans to take to support small and medium-sized renewable power generators after the scheduled closure of the feed-in tariffs scheme.

[The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)]

Solar is a UK success story: 99% of the solar capacity in the UK has been installed since 2010 when I became an MP. The feed-in tariff, however, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a very expensive way of delivering small-scale generation. It has cost us almost £6 billion to date, and as the price of solar panels has fallen by 80%—I can see the hon. Gentleman sighing but numbers and value for money tend to matter on the Government Benches—I decided to bring forward the smart export guarantee, which opens up the market for small-scale generations and ensures that everybody is paid for power they export to the grid.

[Clive Lewis]

From listening to the Government’s rhetoric on climate change, we could be forgiven for thinking that the school strikers are coming out in support of them; they are coming out against them, and if we cut through the greenwash we see the feed-in tariff axed, the solar energy sector decimated, and now the exports payments framework about to be ended and no replacement put in place. So let me ask this: will the Government ever announce a cut to the lavish support they dole out to their friends in the fossil fuel industry?

[Claire Perry]

It is news to me that the Labour party’s policy is to be anti the oil and gas industry that employs so many hundreds of thousands of people. And when it comes to rhetoric, the hon. Gentleman should just go and practise in front of the bathroom mirror. I am happy to share the facts with him again—[Interruption.] Perhaps he is going to ask me to get on my knees next, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] What we do on the Government side of the House is focus on facts—[Interruption.] You know, Mr Speaker, the hon. Gentleman was very clear that he was not a misogynist bully boy; I think his activities and behaviour today suggests quite the opposite. If he would like me to answer the question——[Interruption.] The answer to the question is this: we have not slashed support for renewable energy. We are now moving to a point where renewable energy no longer requires subsidy to deploy. If the hon. Gentleman could just stop equating Government spending with success and look at the results, he will see that we do not subsidise things that we do not have to, which means we can focus on bringing other technologies to market.

Net Zero Carbon Emissions: UK’s Progress

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), the Chair of the Select Committee, of which I am proud to be a member. I am delighted that we are having this debate today, and I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who secured it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) said, this is the most important issue. In an effort to chip away at my gigantic constituency majority in Richmond Park and North Kingston, one or two local opponents enjoy telling my constituents that I care more about the environment and climate change than I do about Brexit, and they are right—I do, for all the reasons we have just heard. So they can stick that on their leaflets.

This is already a year of records. Last year, we had record snowfall in March in this country. We had the joint hottest summer on record. Two days ago, we had the record temperature in any February ever. Clearly, we cannot attribute individual weather extremes or events to climate change, as that is just not scientific and not possible to do, but the trends do tell a story. The most recent Met Office report, from November last year, tells us that the UK is experiencing an increase in weather extremes: hottest days have become hotter; the number of warm spells has increased; the coldest days are not as cold; and there has been an increase in rainfall levels. None of that, individually, is catastrophic, but it is a sign.

Globally, the signs are even more alarming. The five warmest years in recorded history have been since 2010, with 2014 being the hottest year ever recorded—until 2015. It became the record year—until 2016. In 2016, at the time the warmest year on record, eight of the months were the warmest the individual month had ever seen in history. So the implications of all this, if the science is right, are truly alarming: ecosystems forced through such rapid changes that they are unlikely to be able to adapt; lands becoming harder and harder to farm; and refugees on a scale we have never had to deal with before as a species. We heard in an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) about Bangladesh, which is probably the most extreme and alarming example. We should commit right here and now to trying to secure a debate on the issue—it is extraordinary that we have not debated it—but Bangladesh is just one among other examples. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that an average of 21.5 million people are already displaced each year because of weather-related sudden onset hazards. That figure will only grow if any of these predictions are correct.

Last year’s IPCC report painted the most alarming picture yet. The House will remember that the Paris agreement of 2015 commits the world to a target of limiting global warming to 2°C. The report looked into the difference between what we can expect if we achieve the 2°C target and what we can expect if instead we limit increases to 1.5°C. It tells us that the number of people exposed to water stress would be 50% lower if we kept to 1.5°C. It tells us that half a degree would mean hundreds of millions fewer people, particularly in the world’s poorest countries, being at risk of climate-related destitution. The half degree of extra warming would lead to a forecasted 10 cm additional pressure on our coastlines. That half degree is the difference between losing all our corals and managing to hold on to 10% of them.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the IPCC report on a 1.5°C target said that we need to make the necessary reductions to our greenhouse emissions by 2030? Unfortunately, the Government are telling the Committee on Climate Change that they cannot look at that reduction until 2050. That seems to me to be a little bit late in the day.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I will address exactly that point shortly.

Let me conclude my remarks on the IPCC report. If one looks at the trends, one sees that currently we are not heading for that apocalyptic 2°C rise; we are heading towards something that looks more like 3°C, the consequences of which we cannot possibly estimate. In that light, the idea that children missing a few hours of geometry or physical education to ring the alarm bells and wake up our political system is somehow a wasted opportunity or the wrong thing to do just seems churlish. It seems absurd and mean-minded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I am going to be slightly partisan in what I say, and not for the sake of it, but more as a polemic. I genuinely feel that those young people called their school strikes because they think this place is sleepwalking off a cliff edge, not in terms of Brexit—although we may well be doing that—but ecologically. I am happy for Conservative Members to challenge me at any point.

I am speaking from the Back Benches, but I was appointed by the shadow Chancellor as the first ever shadow Minister for sustainable economics. The next Labour Government understand that we can no longer allow the Treasury’s short-termism and obsession with neo-classical economic orthodoxy to block the bold and radical fiscal, monetary and regulatory changes we need to deal with the climate crisis. Labour understands the scale of the challenge before us and the national and international purpose that we must set ourselves. It can be nothing less than a radical transformation of the way our economy works.

That is a problem for people who are tied to an economic system, as the Conservative party is—it is a conservative party, so it wants to keep the economic model we have. Some Labour Members understand that if we want to make these radical changes in the timeframe we are talking about, we need to radically change how the economy works and who it works for. That will be a challenge to some Conservative Members, and I will tell the House why.

We know that the wealthiest 10% are responsible for more than half of all greenhouse gas emissions on our planet and in our country, and yet we also know that the poorest 50% are responsible for just 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. This is not about a false choice between consumption for the poorest and the environment. The poor cannot cut what they are not consuming. We need to see a contraction and a convergence. The poorest in the world and in this country will need to consume more, and the wealthiest—not just individuals, but corporations—will need to do more of their fair share. That is a challenge to the economic orthodoxy that those on the Conservative Benches champion.

That is the challenge before us, and we can see what happens when we do not ensure that social justice is at the heart of the changes we make. If we look at the gilets jaunes movement in France, we see that it happened because of the technocratic centrist fixes the Macron Government were trying to make. There were €40 billion of carbon taxes, yet only a small fraction of that was invested in public transport or for the poorest, and it fell disproportionately on those least able to pay, who are actually those consuming the least carbon. As a result, there was not one single tax on French aviation fuel. That is what caused the frustration and anger in France—inequality and a lack of justice at the heart of that economic policy.

This is why the green new deal mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is capturing the public imagination. There does not need to be a trade-off between the environment and jobs, or between economic and social justice and the environment.

How did we respond to climate change and the sustainability issues facing us in the UK? We decided to expand Heathrow—fantastic! I think the Heathrow issue is probably one of the most decisive splits we will see in politics in the coming years. It is the biggest single source of emissions in the UK, and the expansion has now given the green light to 300 million tonnes more of carbon being poured into our atmosphere. No Government who aspire to tackle the climate crisis and to keep temperature rises below 1.5°C would ever allow Heathrow to happen.

Let us quickly run through some of the failings of this Government. They have slashed solar subsidies, blocked onshore wind and prevented a closed-loop reuse and recycling sector. They have supported fracking, privatised the Green Investment Bank and supported Heathrow expansion. They have blocked mandatory climate risk-related reporting for the finance sector, they have never issued a green bond, and they have axed their own flagship energy efficiency policy. Those young people were not just calling for incremental change. They were calling not for climate change, but for system change.

Smart Meters Bill (Sixth sitting)

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman could argue that we can dispense with procedure and just get good things through this House. Clearly, that would not be a terribly good idea because of how we need to structure our legislation.

I can see that the hon. Gentleman is a little concerned about the relationship between what everyone in this Committee can agree in terms of the wording of the amendment—

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I believe the expression is, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed, my hon. Friend puts it more succinctly.

It is important not only that we do good things in this House, but that we do good things in the right way so that, in those circumstances where there might not be such good things coming forward, we are protected from doing those less good things in the wrong way. Whether or not it is technically in order, my contention is that it appears to be a very strange way of taking a piece of legislation through the House.