Climate Change
Luke Murphy Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
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.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Before entering this place, I worked in the energy efficiency industry. I know the potential that we have when we back our home-grown manufacturers across the United Kingdom, and I know how vital energy is to their success; but the Government’s policies on net zero are holding them back. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) said during Prime Minister’s questions, the current Energy Secretary is
“putting up bills and killing jobs.”
I am proud that under her leadership, the Conservative Party is starting to be honest about net zero.
As the Conservative leader of Broxbourne Council, I never joined in the hysteria of council after council declaring a climate emergency, then sitting back and feeling good about themselves. In Broxbourne we focused on action, not words—planting thousands of trees, installing electric car charging points, and getting developers to put solar panels on new houses. Putting net zero into law by 2050 was exactly the same: there was no serious plan to achieve it then, but now Labour have come up with a plan, and we are starting to see what the true costs to our economy and to ordinary people’s lives will be.
Carbon budget 7 sets a target for reducing our emissions by 87%. According to the Climate Change Committee, to achieve that we must cut meat consumption by a quarter by 2040, and sheep and cattle numbers will have to fall by 38% by 2050. Some of these suggestions are completely unworkable. The Climate Change Committee has also said that people should be pushed away from driving to “alternative modes of travel”. That is simply not feasible in large parts of the United Kingdom, especially rural areas like parts of my constituency.
It is very frustrating to turn up at a local meeting about sustainable transport—about trying to increase the number of buses and trains—and then find that the person who is lecturing everyone about how we should all walk everywhere has driven there in their car. We need to come up with practical solutions that enable us to take the public with us. What do I say to my constituents who tell me, “I have to take two kids to school, and they are at different schools, then I have to go to work and do the shopping, then pick them up and go home”? Such targets are unworkable. It is not feasible to say, “Well, that’s fine—everyone can just walk everywhere.” The targets have to be sensible, and we have to take the British public with us, or we will not go anywhere towards achieving some of the stuff that the Government want us to achieve.
We are talking about an average overall cost of £11,157 per household. That is not a price that we should be willing to pay. We have made fantastic progress already, and we should always be committed to leaving a better environment for the next generation, but we also need to leave them a stronger economy and a stronger country, and that means, above all else, cheaper energy. Britain currently has some of the highest energy costs in the developed world. There is no way in which we can achieve the economic growth that people are crying out for throughout the United Kingdom if that remains the case, which is why we need to get Britain drilling and unlock the 2.9 billion barrels of North sea oil. According to this Government, it is okay to get oil from Russia if it is done through a third country, but we cannot use our own resources in the North sea. Obviously, oil coming from the North sea will produce less carbon dioxide than oil that has had to travel halfway across the world.
The Government need to set out a plan for delivery, and they really need to come up with common-sense approaches to deal with the impacts of climate change. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) said, the fact that we are scrutinising Government policy does not make us climate deniers.
Luke Murphy
Does the hon. Member not think that we would give more credence to the scrutiny that the Conservatives are providing if some of their claims could be found in the carbon budget on which we are voting? Could he tell the House where it says that everyone will need to walk and will not be able to use a vehicle?
Lewis Cocking
When I was leader of my council, I went to a number of meetings in my constituency and spoke to a number of constituents. Experts on transport come to meetings and say that everyone should walk everywhere, which is completely impractical. Some of the solutions that the Government have put forward are completely unworkable. They should come up with some common-sense solutions, because this is a serious problem that we need to deal with. Saying that most people should walk everywhere is not a serious solution to the problem that we face.
If the Government want us to reduce our carbon emissions even more, they should come up with serious, practical, common-sense solutions that allow us to take the British people with us and protect jobs in this country. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has said, there is no point putting taxes on business here and cutting carbon here if factories then open in China, where they use coal to produce their electricity rather than what we do in the United Kingdom. That is completely unserious. The Government need to come up with practical solutions to this problem, and I urge the Minister to do so.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
As many Members have mentioned, the temperature outside the Chamber has been climbing towards 40°C and a red heat health alert is in force. Fifty years ago, the summer of 1976 left a mark that many people still remember. We are living through that kind of summer again, except that now we know it is not a freak, but a pattern. We are seeing the impact in that schools have closed, transport has been disrupted and hospitals have cancelled appointments. Indeed, we have already seen a critical incident declared at a hospital in Portsmouth.
None of this is a forecast; it has already happened, and it is happening faster than we were told, but I do not believe that we need to trade in despair, because it is not warranted and it is not useful. We still have time to act and we know what to do. That is the whole point of the seventh carbon budget that we are debating, and it is in that spirit that I support it.
This is something Britain is good at. We were the first major economy to write a binding climate framework into law. We have cut our emissions faster than almost any comparable nation. This is not a burden we should carry grudgingly, but a race in which we are leading from the front and, indeed, bringing on other countries to act as well.
A child starting school in my constituency this September will be in their 20s when this budget period ends, and what we decide in this Chamber writes the world that they grow up in. We must leave things better than we found them, and we cannot hand the next generation a wrecked inheritance and a bill, and call it prudence. So to those who say we cannot afford this, I say that the reverse is true.
The Conservative party rightly talks about scrutiny, but scrutiny works both ways. I heard very little about the costs of inaction—flooding, wildfires and heatwaves—or the cost of not capturing the huge economic opportunities. Indeed, the impact assessment, as we have discussed, shows that transitioning away from fossil fuels will lead to a net increase. It mentions not being able to quantify exactly the impact on jobs post 2030, but it very clearly says that that is because of the context: it depends on things such as automation, AI and, crucially, policy.
I agreed with the speech of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), in 2023, because she rightly argued—I did not agree with everything she said, but she made this central point—that while she agreed with the target for net zero, policy would be crucial to shaping whether it worked for families and business. However, rather than doing the hard work of designing policy to ensure that, the Conservatives have abandoned the target completely.
We still have time, and we have the framework, the evidence and a national habit of leading when it counts. We should not duck this moment just because it has got difficult, and I urge the Government to keep Britain leading from the front.
Climate Change
Luke Murphy Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK’s progress towards achieving the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate. I am also grateful to the members of the all-party parliamentary group on climate change—of which I am the chair—whose commitment reflects the strength of feeling on this issue in this House and across our constituencies. I also thank the APPG’s secretariat for their dedication to ensuring we have the evidence and expertise to drive forward meaningful discussion on climate progress.
Some still ask why progress on tackling climate change matters at a time when living standards, economic growth and public services are much higher up the list of the public’s priorities. The truth is that action on climate change is inextricably linked to those priorities. Just in the past few weeks, it has been demonstrated that our energy security and living standards are indivisible from our climate ambitions. Many of our constituents are already feeling, or worrying about, the severe instability that the Iran war has caused for prices at the pump, heating oil and future energy bills, as well as its wider indirect impacts on the cost of things like the food they put on the table.
That is because this is not an energy crisis; it is an oil and gas crisis, one that comes only a few years after the last oil and gas shock, which was caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That crisis caused household energy bills to soar by 80% and inflation in the economy to increase to 11%, and resulted in a taxpayer bail-out of nearly £60 billion. These crises are not new—history is repeating itself. Since 1970, half of our country’s recessions have been caused by oil and gas price shocks. The truth is that the UK is paying the price for a broken global energy system, upon which every household is dependent. Indeed, research has shown that the cost of cutting UK emissions to net zero is less than the cost of a single fossil fuel price shock.
We see the consequences in our communities every day, with rugby and football clubs across the country unable to open daily as their energy bills rise, local pubs struggling to keep the lights on and established industries and start-ups alike struggling to cope with energy costs, yet there are those inside and outside of this House who argue for yet more dependence on this broken system. They call for us to slow down our action on climate change—to slow the sprint to clean energy or, worse, to hit reverse gear. They believe that more oil and gas will solve our problems, ignoring the fact that our reserves are heavily depleted and extracting what remains is far more expensive than it is in other North sea nations. They ignore the fact that even if we increased oil production today, it would take five to seven years before any new oil supplies became available, far too late to help families facing costs right now. Even then, UK-produced oil would still be sold into global oil markets, where international supply and demand set the price.
Similarly, increasing gas production would not offer short-term relief. Any additional UK-extracted gas would also take years to come online and would represent only a tiny fraction of the global gas market, leaving gas prices effectively unchanged. Of course, oil and gas will be used in the UK for many years and decades to come, but the idea that expanding oil and gas exploration would cut bills or materially improve our energy security is a fantasy. The impact would be marginal.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I agree with many of his points. Tackling the climate emergency is vital, but that does not mean that green energy companies should be allowed to do whatever they want. Does he share my concerns about the conduct of Bute Energy, a green energy company that has spent—at the very least—thousands of pounds on courting his colleagues in Cardiff?
Luke Murphy
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I do not know the circumstances of that particular issue, but I agree that renewable energy companies, like all companies, should act in the public interest.
Those who actively oppose the transition to clean energy, such as Reform, prefer instead to expose every family, business and community in Britain to the boot of the fossil fuel dictator stamping on their neck forever. More broadly, tackling climate change matters because its impacts are no longer a distant threat—they are part of everyday life. Across the country, extreme weather means more patients on hot hospital wards, children struggling to learn in stifling classrooms, and families worrying about how to protect and insure their homes from flooding.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I completely agree with the hon. Member that this is exactly the wrong moment to turn our backs on the promises that this House made to the children of this country. He may remember that it was the Fridays for Future movement that had children literally coming out on to the streets, out of school on Fridays, to make the case to their elected parliamentarians that they wanted us to commit to net zero. We would be reneging on our commitment to those children’s futures as well as affecting their presents.
Luke Murphy
I fully agree with the hon. Member. I will say more about the impact on future generations later, but as she says, the burden will weigh heaviest on them if we do not take action today.
In my constituency of Basingstoke, we have already seen the reality of our changing climate, with more than 500 heat-related deaths in the south-east in 2022 alone. In 2023, extreme weather caused a landslip that severed our town’s rail connectivity for days, and in 2024, the south-east NHS saw a 13% increase in emergency hospital admissions for a respiratory condition linked to rising temperatures. Climate change is already affecting our health, our infrastructure and our economy, placing immense pressure on the public services we rely on. That is before we even consider the other serious economic risks posed by climate change.
The Climate Change Committee estimates that unchecked climate change could impact UK economic output by up to 7% of GDP by 2050. Businesses and investors already recognise that climate risk is economic risk, and small businesses are already feeling the impact. Shops on Pontypridd high street in Wales are finding it impossible to get insurance; flooding in Yorkshire and Cumbria is disrupting national supply chains; and whisky distilleries in Scotland face water scarcity. Failure to manage these challenges today will only increase costs and disruption later.
Climate change is also a critical matter of national security. For decades, and notably in the Pentagon’s 2014 quadrennial defence review, security experts have identified climate change as a major threat multiplier—it drives instability, heightens resource pressures and accelerates displacement. The Ministry of Defence’s 2021 “Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach” document warns that climate change increases the risk of conflict through competition for scarce resources and undermines military effectiveness.
Then there is the impact on nature and our wider environment. There are those who try to separate the issues of climate and nature—the Reform party, for example, claims to care about nature while planning to tear up legislation, policies and investments to tackle climate change—but this is a false choice. Climate change is inseparable from the health of our wider environment; the stability of our forests, rivers, soils and seas is inextricably linked to our climate. As temperatures rise, we see damage to biodiversity and agriculture. The Government’s own nature security assessment warns that on our current trajectory, every critical ecosystem across all regions is heading towards collapse. Nature also plays a crucial role in safeguarding us. Our forests and wetlands absorb carbon; chalk streams, like the beautiful ones we have in Hampshire, support drainage; and urban trees help cool our temperatures. Protecting the climate and restoring nature must go hand in hand, as the resilience of one depends on the health of the other.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
As always, my hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the breadth of issues that underline why it is so important that we act on climate change. It is often seen as a future issue, but my farmers are feeling the effects of volatile weather right now, just as some of my households felt the effects of rare flooding just last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that the land use framework published yesterday will be a really important document for ensuring we get adaptation and mitigation strategies right when it comes to protecting nature, as well as delivering the carbon reduction goals that are vital to ensuring we get our climate change action back on track?
Luke Murphy
I completely agree. If my hon. Friend will forgive the pun, the land use framework is a landmark document. It reflects the Government’s acknowledgement that the public understand many of the threats that we face and want to see climate action. Polling shows that 70% of the British public say that tackling climate change is important to them, with more than two thirds supporting ambitious action. For years, there was a broad cross-party political consensus on such measures. That consensus stretches back all the way to Margaret Thatcher, who said:
“The problem of global climate change is one that affects us all”.
That consensus delivered. We implemented the world’s first Climate Change Act in 2008 under Gordon Brown, and built on it under Theresa May. In 2015, we announced that we would phase out coal by 2025, which was brought forward to 2024. With the closure of Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, the target was met. Domestically, we have more than halved our emissions since 1990 while growing our economy by nearly 80%. Clean energy drives economic growth, with the clean economy growing three times as fast as the rest of the economy.
Our leadership has secured action around the world. The Climate Change Act 2008 inspired nations such as Denmark, Mexico, Sweden, France, New Zealand, Ireland and Germany to adopt similar measures, and has contributed to reductions in emissions around the world. Successive Governments have shaped the global agenda, but that leadership is now at risk. The current leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), would scrap the vital Climate Change Act, as would Reform, sacrificing the health of our environment, economy and society at home, and Britain’s global climate leadership and action abroad. Such action is reckless.
We have the capacity to drive meaningful progress at home and abroad, and we must continue to exercise our leadership. I was really proud to hear the Prime Minister say at COP30 that the UK is doubling down on the fight against climate change, and I am pleased that that commitment has been met by decisive action over the past 20 months
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Year 6 pupils from Reigate Park primary academy in Mackworth have written to me in some beautiful handwriting to say how concerned they are about climate change. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential that this Labour Government are committed to tackling the climate and nature crisis, and to accelerating to net zero? Does he agree that going further and faster on clean energy is the only way to secure energy security and cheaper bills?
Luke Murphy
Like my hon. Friend, I am so pleased when I get letters from children at schools in Basingstoke. I am able to tell them about the Government’s ambitious plans and their commitment to an issue that so many children are concerned about.
The Government have taken action. Great British Energy is rolling out solar in schools and hospitals, meaning that they are no longer paying for high energy bills, but are instead investing in education and in treatment for NHS patients. We have secured record-breaking offshore wind capacity, meaning more energy than ever and lower bills. Our warm homes plan is delivering £15 billion of investment to upgrade 5 million homes, meaning that every home is built for the future, with lower bills. We have invested £14.2 billion in Sizewell C, providing low-carbon electricity for 6 million homes and 10,000 good jobs. We have launched the clean energy jobs plan to support workers transitioning out of fossil fuels, ensuring that the move to a clean economy benefits us all. We have expanded apprenticeships and technical training, so that young people can build careers in Britain’s modern economy. And we have introduced the environmental improvement plan to restore nature and meet our legally binding targets, so that future generations can continue to enjoy our beautiful countryside and nature.
Current events demonstrate that, through their ambitious commitment to clean energy and tackling climate change, the Government are on the right track. If anything, we must go further and faster. In an unstable world, where energy prices are rocketing, the most effective step we can take is to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster.
Sitting in this House is a privilege that comes with responsibility. Every one of our constituents is affected by climate change, as future generations will be. We often talk about the economic inheritance that we leave behind—public finances, growth and opportunity—and we should talk about those things, but what about everything else that our children and grandchildren will inherit? The choices we make today will determine the environment that we leave for generations to come. It is our duty to ensure that those who come after us are not left to shoulder a far greater burden than the one that we face today. I want to leave my nephews, and my friends’ and neighbours’ children, a world that is safe, healthy and sustainable. We must reject those who want to turn the clock back, or to use climate as a wedge issue. The stakes are too high to leave this to those who will come after us. The responsibility is ours, and the time for bold action is now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Murphy
I, too, celebrate the achievements under the previous Government. Why, then, given that those achievements came about under the framework of the Climate Change Act, which was then recognised internationally and led to progress elsewhere, are you now going to throw that framework in the bin?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It has been over 18 months and Members are still using “you” as if it were confetti. Please, can we all be a bit better?
Luke Murphy
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why is the hon. Member and her party proposing to throw out the framework that underpinned all the achievements that she is listing?
Harriet Cross
I will not skip forward a few pages of my speech now, but we will touch on that matter in the coming few minutes.
As I said, the things that we have done are notable. Between 2010 and 2019, the UK Government oversaw the planting of 15 million trees, and during our time in office, the UK was home to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest wind farms in the world. We—the UK—have done a lot, and yet the climate is still changing. That is not because there has not been enough ambition or enough action from the UK, and it is not because of a need to just go faster. It is because, first—and I know there will be wails about this—the UK contributes less than 1% of global emissions; and secondly, other countries have not been following our lead.
Luke Murphy
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and all colleagues who contributed. There was broad agreement that it is important to make progress on tackling climate change, not least because it means progress on economic growth, on living standards, on delivering national security, and on leaving a better inheritance for future generations—and who would not want that?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK’s progress towards achieving the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Energy Markets
Luke Murphy Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes his point in a very eloquent and amusing way. It is so important to recognise that crises like this show that gambling on low fossil fuel prices is dangerous, because the impacts of geopolitical instability on his constituents and those across the country are so great.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, although I will gently disagree with one point. He said that he believes the Conservatives have failed to learn, or somehow forgotten, the lessons from Ukraine. I think that it is worse than that, and nothing more than short-term opportunism. They hoped that nothing like Ukraine would happen again and they forgot to learn the lessons, so bills were driven up and significant damage was done to our economy. Does he agree that the Conservatives’ short-term opportunism on energy security and national security is not in the long-term interest of our country?
Ed Miliband
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is incumbent on all of us to tell people, on the basis of the evidence, what we should be doing as a country. Today we have heard from Members of different parties a recognition that gambling on fossil fuels is incredibly dangerous.
Warm Homes Plan
Luke Murphy Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
Small and medium-sized enterprises will be crucial to the scheme.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The cost of living is the No. 1 issue for my constituents, so I welcome this record investment in warmer homes and lower bills. Measures such as zero-interest and low-interest loans for solar batteries and heat pumps, greater protections for renters, and solar on new homes will all make a huge amount of difference. When will my constituents be able to begin applying for those low and zero-interest loans? For many, there is no time to wait.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We will be working urgently with the banks and others—indeed, I think a roundtable is being convened next week—to work out how quickly we can get on with this process. We want to do this as soon as possible. It will take time, and if there is one lesson from the past it is that we need to get this right. We do not want a green deal and all of that malarkey happening. We want to get it right, but we want to do it as quickly as we can.
Offshore Wind
Luke Murphy Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
Those are incredibly important technologies, and we need to do more to help bring down their cost. Tidal schemes will be in the next auction pot, and we are continuing to look at how we can deploy more of them in our country.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on today’s announcement, not least because it draws such a stark contrast. He has announced the largest ever offshore wind auction in history, whereas one of his predecessors came to this House to announce the largest ever Government energy subsidy to households in history—those were the words from the previous Government’s press release. That £40 billion was necessary, but it was the result of the previous Government’s failure to secure our energy supply. That cost our households thousands and taxpayers billions. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this announcement will secure our energy future and ensure that such a catastrophic failure can never happen again?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks so well on these issues and he is so right. This is about energy sovereignty and our security as a country. When the Conservatives were in government, at least under Boris Johnson, they seemed to understand that. That is why it is so regrettable. Of course, this is about the climate crisis, good jobs and lower bills, but it is also about security in an uncertain and dangerous world. The Opposition are, frankly, surrendering our security and what they are proposing is incredibly dangerous.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Murphy Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
Don’t tempt me, Mr Speaker—don’t tempt me!
I want to briefly make one point. In the warm homes plan, which will come soon, we will be making £15 billion of public investment to help people cut their bills. The Conservatives can oppose that if they like, but I think it will be supported across the country, because they were an absolute failure on energy efficiency and all of that, and we are going to succeed.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
State of Climate and Nature
Luke Murphy Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
What I will say to the people of Scotland is that the Acorn carbon capture and storage project has been talked about for years, and it is happening because of a Labour Government. We have a publicly owned energy company, Great British Energy, and we have our clean industry bonus. This is a Government who are actually delivering for the people of Scotland, and those across the UK.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, not least because I called for such a measure before I was elected to this House, under the previous Conservative Government. This is a really important thing to do, not least because it underscores the Government’s approach to clean energy, and to wider climate action to tackle and mitigate the many climate impacts that we already see; we have just had three heatwaves. This action will also lower bills, strengthen our economy and, in a patriotic way, ensure our national security. Does he, like me, lament the loss of the cross-party consensus that he mentioned? The leader of the Conservatives says that net zero is impossible, and the deputy leader of Reform says that climate science is garbage. One denies urgency, while the other denies reality, and both deny the evidence from the Met Office and climate scientists—and, indeed, the experience of their constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that when young people and future generations ask who stood in the way of their precious inheritance of cleaner air and local green space, it will be the Conservatives and Reform—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please! I need Members to help me get colleagues in. All colleagues from all sides of the House want to get in on this statement. Without your help, that will not happen.
Warm Home Discount
Luke Murphy Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I think the hon. Lady has some cheek, given the previous Government’s record on energy bills. When, under their watch, families across the country were paying sky-high energy bills—with people still paying the price of that today—the idea that the Conservatives would try to lecture us on energy bills is pretty rich.
Let me take the hon. Lady’s questions directly. Yes, we are committed to reducing energy bills by £300. We have passed the legislation on Great British Energy and the institution is up and running. We are doing the job of driving down bills—we stand by that commitment, and the way we will deliver it is through investment in clean power. It is very clear that our reliance and dependence on global fossil fuel markets under the Conservatives’ watch was ultimately what led to bills rising. Labour will not make that mistake, which is why we are investing record levels in renewables. That is the way we will drive down costs in the system and drive down bills.
This policy is not about ideology; it is about families across the country. The status quo is not tenable. We do not think it is acceptable to have bills at the current levels and to leave families exposed, which is why we are taking action.
The hon. Lady asked specifically how this policy will be paid for. The warm home discount is paid for under the price cap. We are very clear that we do not want other families’ bills to increase in order to pay for this change. We have worked with Ofgem to look for savings within supplier operating costs, for instance. Given that debt spiked under the energy crisis, meaning that all households are currently paying a bit on the debt allowance, we are also working with Ofgem to get that debt burden down. We will use the savings there to cover the cost of this policy. We are very clear: support for those who need it; protection for all households.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. I think the shadow Minister was right to highlight this statement being made on the warmest day of the year—this is a Government announcing a warm home plan to literally fix the roof while the sun shines, which the Conservatives failed to do. This announcement will benefit nearly 3 million families, no doubt helping thousands in Hampshire, including many in my constituency.
First, on data sharing, one reason it is tough for many families and households to access these benefits is the inability to access data between the suppliers and the Government. Secondly, given that the legacy of the previous Government was to leave us with the highest electricity prices in Europe, can the Minister confirm that the Government are continuing to look at ways to bring down electricity costs for both consumers and businesses?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
As always, my hon. Friend puts it perfectly. I will pick up his point on data sharing, which is critical. My Department and the Department for Work and Pensions have been working over the past few months on the sharing of means-tested benefit data so that this will be automatic; come this winter, all eligible consumers will receive a letter informing them that they will be getting the warm home discount. It will be transferred on to energy bills as a credit—a direct payment for consumers—because we have done the groundwork to put that in place.
On my hon. Friend’s critical second point, the relative cost of gas and electricity is incredibly high, and we know that is a problem for both households and businesses, particularly as we try to make that transition to clean energy. We are continuing to do that work. I am very clear that we need to deal with that question in order, for example, for our plans to upgrade homes to have the bite and traction they need, and we are absolutely committed to doing so.
Nuclear Power: Investment
Luke Murphy Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman asks good questions. On the first, GB Energy Nuclear is a development of Great British Nuclear, which is based in Warrington. On deployment, I am aware of the record of people who promise deployment that is then not delivered, but the truth is that we expect a final investment decision in the next few years, and deployment in the early to mid-2030s—I think that is the fairest way of putting it. I agree with him about the potential. I also agree—this is why I have said that I am open to the role of the private sector—that private sector partners may want to come in and build sooner, and that would be great.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the investment in our energy security and jobs. I know from my visit to Sizewell with the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee that jobs in the nuclear industry are good, well paid and highly skilled. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is in part thanks to the strong relationship between business, trade unions and the Government in that sector, and that there is much to be learned from that relationship in other parts of the energy sector and beyond?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend characteristically puts it incredibly well. The nuclear industry offers us a model of good employee relations, and there is a good, strong role for trade unions in ensuring safety and guaranteeing good terms and conditions for workers. That is a lesson that other parts of the energy industry, including the renewables sector, can definitely learn from.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Murphy Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point that outlines why this work is so important. There are two parts to it. The connections reform is crucial, so that we have a queue of projects that are strategically relevant and ready to be delivered. The second part is that we have to build significantly more grid infrastructure, and it is incumbent on all Members of this House to not oppose that grid infrastructure and then come here and say that they want new demand projects to be able to connect. Instead, they need to take a practical approach and say, “We’re going to have to build some new grid in this country if we want to unlock the huge potential of AI growth zones and other demand projects in the economy.”
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The strategic defence reviews of this Government and the previous Government highlighted the risks posed to our security by climate change. Does the Minister agree that the increasing opposition by the Conservatives and other Opposition Members to clean power infrastructure and increasing our grid capacity across the country is not just economically illiterate but a risk to our national security?
Michael Shanks
As so often, my hon. Friend is correct on these matters. He usually has a quote that shows that, just a few months ago, Opposition Front Benchers agreed with us on many of these matters, but have suddenly changed their position. As my hon. Friend says, our proposals are not only critical to delivering energy security in an increasingly uncertain world, but to tackling the climate crisis, which has such an impact on our lives now and in the future, and to the economic opportunities of the 21st century.