Reaching Net Zero: Local Government Role

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

We know that the Government’s plan to reach net zero is totally inadequate; that is the context for today’s debate. Thirteen years of failure has left us exposed to higher bills, energy insecurity, lost jobs and climate delay. As the Chair of the Climate Change Committee—a former Conservative Cabinet Minister—has said,

“This has been a lost decade in preparing for and adapting to the known risks that we face from climate change.”

The right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) —another Conservative—found in his net zero review that the Conservatives had failed on nearly every aspect of net zero policy. How are the Government responding? They have doubled down on fossil fuels, with billions in taxpayer cash being handed out to oil and gas giants. They are blocking the cheap renewable power that Britain needs; there is a de facto onshore wind ban, and war-torn Ukraine has built more onshore turbines in the past year than the UK. There is still no response to Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. There is dither and delay. There is no ambition and no urgency.

Thankfully, as we have heard today, local councils across the country are doing their best, albeit with scarce resources. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the need for greater certainty and continuity of funding, and an end to the piecemeal, competitive approach that sets one council against another, and that can be unduly restrictive when it comes to how money can be spent. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave a wide-ranging speech, as usual, which covered everything from electric vehicle charging points to lobsters. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) talked in very strong terms about the need to tackle air pollution, and set out what the Mayor of London is doing on that front.

I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing the debate. I share her pain when it comes to the cuts to bus services in our region. I would imagine that she is having the same conversations with the Mayor for the West of England as I am, about how we can subsidise non-commercial routes. It is interesting that she mentioned only Liberal Democrat councils when talking about the positive contribution that local authorities can make. I will make up for that by talking a bit about what Labour councils are doing. I do not need to say more about Wakefield, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Simon Lightwood) did a sterling job in speaking about it.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I celebrate all local councils’ work to reach net zero. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is going to make up for my not mentioning Labour councils. I am sure that there are many good councils across the political divide that are making good progress on net zero.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the hon. Lady for that, although she has eaten into about 30 seconds-worth of my saying nice things about Labour councils. In Bristol, the Labour council set up a 20-year city leap project in partnership with Ameresco—a £424 million public-private investment in green infrastructure. It is groundbreaking. It is helping Bristol to go carbon neutral by 2030—the same ambition as Wakefield. Bristol will retrofit all our housing stock by 2030, reduce our CO₂ output by 140,000 tonnes, and create over 1,000 green jobs in the process. England’s biggest wind turbine will open shortly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones). It is community-owned, will provide low-carbon electricity to 3,500 homes, and save nearly 2,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year. It will mean that energy can be sold back to the grid, and the money can be reinvested in local communities.

I turn to Hull. There was a recent event in Parliament with the aptly named “Oh Yes! Net Zero” campaign. It is a really good example of collaborative local working; it involves 150 local organisations that support the city’s efforts to reach net zero. In Oxford, the Labour-led authority has been leading the way with innovative solutions, particularly on battery technology. Redbridge is home to Europe’s most powerful electric vehicle charging hub, and a project called Energy Superhub Oxford launched in July last year with the wider aim of decarbonising the city, uses the latest in battery technology, and, for the first time in the UK, infrastructure that links directly to the national grid’s high-voltage network. I echo what was said about the need to ensure that the grid has capacity to support local innovative projects. To give one last example, in Liverpool, there is a groundbreaking project: an agreement between the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the Korea Water Resources Corporation to create what could be the world’s largest tidal power scheme in the Mersey.

Taking a placed-based approach to net zero is vital in ensuring that the opportunities from the transition start to finally level up the towns and cities of the UK, as opposed to letting them down as this Government have done. Around 95% of Britain’s population lives in areas where the local authorities have declared a climate emergency but, as has been said, councils and combined authorities must be given the resources and powers they need to act. As one contributor to the right hon. Member for Kingswood’s net zero review put it:

“Net Zero achievements at local government level are in spite of government, not because of it”.

That would change under a Labour Government, which would recognise and value the role local authorities can play and the immense difference local action can make. We would work in tandem with local authorities to deliver our green prosperity plan of capital investment. That would support the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs in every corner of the UK, doubling our onshore wind capacity, tripling solar capacity and quadrupling offshore wind capacity. It would be financed by Labour’s national wealth fund, ensuring that, when investment flows into new industries, in partnership with business, the British people will own a share of that wealth, as happens in other countries.

Surprisingly, we did not talk much in the debate about retrofitting homes. We have the least energy-efficient housing in Europe. Millions of homes are going cold and premium-priced heat is escaping through roofs, windows and walls. Labour’s warm homes plan would upgrade the 19 million homes that need it, cutting bills and creating thousands of good jobs for electricians, engineers and construction workers across the country. It is important to stress that this is about economic growth. It is about a future industrial strategy. It is about jobs for the future. It is about the prosperity of our local communities. And it is about saving the planet at the same time. Local government has a key role to play in that. I just hope the Government step up and help it.

Marine Renewables: Government Support

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman answered his own question earlier by flagging up the investment allowances attached to the windfall tax that are being given to the fossil fuel companies. That money should be directed towards this investment and not towards fossil fuels. It is not money for nuclear versus money for renewables; it is money for fossil fuels versus money for clean energy sources.

We have talked about the UK having the potential to develop around 1 GW of tidal stream by 2035 and up to 11.5 GW by 2050. National Grid’s future energy scenario models up to 3% of UK electricity demand being met by marine renewables by 2050, but we need to do more to release that potential. According to Energy Monitor, 14 GW of planned UK power capacity has been cancelled, is dormant or is stuck in the early stages of development but, as has been said, lack of investment and of a clear sense of direction are not the only barriers.

The grid has been talked about—it is a massive issue—and we have heard about the Welsh Affairs Committee report. The same issues come up time and again when I talk to people as part of my shadow role: long waits—sometimes of up to 10 years—to connect clean power sources to the grid, delays to projects and investors being deterred.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Lady give way briefly?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am conscious of the fact that the Chair said I have only 10 minutes. I am already nine minutes in, so I think I need to crack on. I want to hear what the Minister has to say about what we are doing to sort out the problems with the grid. I am sure he is well aware of them.

We also need action across the board to simplify and streamline the planning system, not in the way proposed by the previous, short-lived Administration, who were all about scrapping vital environmental protections and riding roughshod over the wishes of local communities, but by ensuring we do not place unnecessary burdens on renewable energy developers that delay or even derail new projects.

Other Members have mentioned the UK Marine Energy Council’s suggestions for speeding up approval for tidal stream projects—for example, reducing baseline surveys, decreasing the regulatory review from nine months to three and so on. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

We hear good things from around the country—for example, what the Labour-led authority in Merseyside is doing. Labour has made a plea for certainty and clarity from the Government, and I hope the Minister is looking at what Labour has said about the drive for a clean power system by 2030, a national wealth fund and establishing Great British Energy to help give investors that certainty. GB Energy would have a remit to invest in marine and tidal power to harness the huge potential of this island nation. We would support new marine energy projects, and we need to see something similar from the Government that would give people a signal that those projects are very much on the radar, rather than coalmines and fossil fuel exploration.

Fracking: Local Consent

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we must continue to put pressure on the Government to end fracking once and for all or it might come back under the next Government—and who knows when that will come along?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Exactly. Because it is not clear why the last Prime Minister felt obliged to lift the ban on fracking, despite all the arguments against it, we will always have that scintilla of doubt that it has not completely gone away. There was no logic to her decision, so—who knows?—perhaps equally illogical decisions will be made in the future. The current Prime Minister has not embraced the moratorium on fracking out of any green credentials of his own. It is clearly an issue of party management. It is very sensible to reverse the U-turn and go back to the 2019 manifesto, but during the summer leadership election, he actively supported the return of fracking in areas where there was local support.

The Prime Minister also came out against solar power. I do not suppose the Minister is in a position to reply, but I am trying to find out through parliamentary questions whether there has been a change to the mooted policy of the previous Administration—we almost need names for each of the Administrations, because it gets confusing talking about the former this and former that—to bring other, less fertile agricultural land into the “best and most versatile land” category, meaning a ban on solar on that reclassified land. Having talked to the National Farmers Union and other farmers, I hope that that policy has now been reversed. Obviously, we do not want the entire countryside to be covered with solar panels, but we do want to see them in the right places. Solar can also be mixed with farming, as farmers can grow things under solar panels in some cases. I would like to think that there is now, under this Administration, more support for solar on our farmland.

I would say that the policy on onshore wind is still unclear, but actually, when the Prime Minister was pressed on it at Prime Minister’s questions, it seemed clear that the ban remains. Considering that there were plans to allow fracking, I cannot see why onshore wind would be seen as less attractive than that. As I said, the moratorium on fracking was a 2019 manifesto commitment. The problem is that there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State taking unilateral action to lift the moratorium without any oversight or scrutiny from the House or input from local communities.

Our energy policy should be decided by what is best to bring down energy bills, what is best for our energy security and environment and, of course, whether there is public consent. In all those cases, it is clear that fracking should not be on the table. Labour has been clear that we want a full, permanent ban on fracking, and we want it now. It is unlikely, but, if the Minister was able to commit to a ban, I am sure that he would make not just those present but a lot of his Back Benchers happy.

In the debate on bringing back fracking, it was difficult to work out what the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset—or, indeed, a number of other Ministers—meant when he said that the Government would allow fracking only if there was “local consent”. Lots of Government Back Benchers pressed him during that debate on what exactly that meant and it has come up on other occasions in the Chamber. Particularly worryingly, it almost seemed as though it was not really about asking people whether they consented; it was not a local referendum or actually going into a community and asking people if they support fracking. There was quite a lot of talk about compensation being offered, and it almost sounded as though the plan was to buy off local people, and perhaps the council that would issue planning permission, rather than speaking to individuals who would be affected. That would clearly be unacceptable. If we were going back to lifting the ban and allowing fracking—there are so many double negatives in this debate; we are going round in circles with all the U-turns—what does the Minister envisage asking for local consent to look like?

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is the case, is it not? It seems like a futile exercise—I do not think there is any community in the country that actually wants fracking to happen—but the hon. Gentleman is quite right that the energy companies, which have a vested interest in fracking, cannot be in charge of such an exercise, because it would be skewed.

If fracking was treated in the same way as this Government have treated onshore wind, which is a genuinely popular and clean source of energy, a single local objection could be enough to sink proposals. It is very easy to stop onshore wind, although, as we know, the Government currently have a policy not to proceed with it anyway.

No matter how the Government try to bend the definition of local consent, the reality is that fracking is deeply unpopular. The Government’s own polling showed that only 17% of people support fracking, and I suspect that most of them do not want it in their backyard. I think there was a Conservative Minister in the Lords who talked about how fracking was not suitable for the south but suggested that it would be welcomed up in the “desolate” north. I suspect some of those 17% want fracking somewhere, but not where they live.

From the polling on other energy sources, 74% support new onshore wind, yet the Government are sticking with the ban on it. Some 75% oppose the Government’s banning solar panels on farmland, but, as I have said, the current Prime Minister still seems very negative on both of those proposals. My point is that this Government’s energy policy appears to be inherently biased towards fossil fuels. The Minister looked slightly shocked at that, but the Government have just issued 100 new oil and gas licences: if that is not bias towards fossil fuels, I do not know what is. Between a ban on onshore wind, lots of scepticism about solar, issuing licences for oil and gas exploration, and at one point trying to bring back fracking, I think it is very clear where the bias lies.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is this not also a sign that the Government are entirely behind the curve? When fracking was mooted a decade ago as a transition fuel, it might have been something that could be considered, because the legislation at the time was aiming only for 80% renewable energy by 2050. Since 2018, we have known that we need to get to 100%, so transition fuels are a complete nonsense. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I absolutely do agree. Fracking is certainly not greener and, as well as all the other reasons why we oppose it, it is not a cheaper source of energy, either.

The Minister for Climate, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, tried to gaslight the British public with his recent claim that fracking is green. He has also tried to say that oil and gas exploration in the North sea is green because the alternative is importing it, so we would have the extra costs of importing from elsewhere. Clearly, the green alternative is renewables. I would ask the Minister for Climate why, if he was right to say that fracking is a green option, it is opposed by so many of his colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), who was the President of COP26, and the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is conducting the net zero review. Extracting fossil fuels will never be green, and I hope that the Minister who is here today will make that clear when he replies to the debate.

Right now, there is immense pressure at COP27 to secure genuinely ambitious agreements to leave fossil fuels in the ground for good. Sending a clear message about our commitment to net zero and the move away from fossil fuels is vital, but the Government have been sending out such mixed signals—as has been said, the Prime Minister was not even going to go to COP, and had to be dragged there. That sends a terrible message about our global leadership. If our climate commitments are called into question, how can we expect other people to step up to the plate? It is time to end any doubts about the UK’s commitment to climate action. Listening to communities and implementing a permanent ban on fracking, and bringing back onshore wind and solar, would be a good start.

Amazon Deforestation

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 7th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will get to what I think needs to be done. Sanctions could play a part, but change in consumption habits could play a much bigger part, and that is something we each have some control over.

In their recent “Risky Business” report, WWF and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds estimate that more than 40% of the UK’s overseas land footprint—nearly 6 million hectares—is in countries that are at high or very high risk of deforestation and of having weak governance and poor labour standards. The more I read about it, the more I see the links between this trade and modern slavery and human rights abuses, with people being displaced from their land, and so on; they are all part and parcel of the same thing.

WWF and the RSPB looked at seven key agricultural commodities imported into the UK: beef and leather, cocoa, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber, soy, and timber. Of those, beef and leather account for by far the largest proportion of our land footprint overseas, despite the fact that we produce almost 80% of our own beef in the UK and import a lot from Ireland. However, the actual picture is much worse, because we must look at animal feed, too. In the EU, around 90% of soy imports are for livestock feed, so it is not just a case of beef from Argentina or Brazil being bad and British beef being fine, as I often hear people try to argue. Yes, there is a case for pasture-fed livestock—I chair the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming, of which the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association is an active member—but that is not what we are talking about.

Every year, the UK consumes around 3.3 million tonnes of soy, more than 75% of which is related to meat consumption, either as imported animal feed or as soy embedded in imported meat products. We must also consider the feed for chickens that lay eggs, and the feed for dairy herds, as well as soya bean oil, which is the second most widely used vegetable oil after palm oil. This has happened to me many times, but I remember the former farming Minister, Jim Paice, trying to tell me that that was all down to more people eating veggie burgers. I assure people that is not the case. That figure may have gone up in recent years, but I think it is still well below 5%—but yes, it is all the vegetarians’ and vegans’ fault, as usual.

It is interesting to compare what has happened with soy bean oil and palm oil. We import nearly three times as much soy bean oil as palm oil, yet it is palm oil that has tended to receive the attention of environmentalists, probably because of the orangutans. Some 21% of global palm oil production is now certified, whereas soy certified by the Round Table on Responsible Soy or ProTerra accounts for only about 2% of global production.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is true that we cannot be sanctimonious or hypocritical and tell developing countries what to do, given that we deforested our country in the past, but we now know a lot more about the consequences. The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. Should not we all adopt a responsible, conscious approach to consumption, and promote that politically, rather than saying, “We don’t really need to do anything about it, and it’s not about sanctions”? We must all understand that we are responsible, too.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I think so. There have been some interesting global initiatives or attempts at global initiatives. When I was a shadow Minister in the foreign affairs team, I remember meeting representatives from Ecuador. Yasuni national park in Ecuador is almost as biologically diverse and as amazing as the Galapagos Islands, but oil has been discovered there. The representatives wanted to raise funds from across the world by saying to people, “We are a poor country. We need to exploit our natural resources. We need to get the finances in. If you don’t want us to do that and you think that is appalling, then give us some money not to do it.” I understand that was not a successful approach; they did not raise any money and they ended up having to exploit the natural resources.

The Seychelles issued an ocean bond, saying it would protect its marine areas and not overfish if people gave it money to do that. Although there are wealthy people in the Seychelles, there is a lot of poverty too. That blue bond was successful; we need to look at such initiatives, because it is not just about sanctions, but about working together. As the hon. Lady mentioned, I think it is the wrong approach for us to say, “You cannot exploit what you have got,” when we have exploited everything we have got, and we have been to many other countries and exploited what they have as well, over the centuries.”

Some 77% of UK soy imports come from the high-risk countries of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. In its recent report “Money to Burn”, the NGO Global Witness identified the financial institutions behind six key agribusiness companies involved in deforesting climate-critical forests in Brazil, the Congo basin and New Guinea. It revealed that UK-based financial institutions were the second biggest source of financing, providing $6.5 billion, so the UK has a huge responsibility to take action to tackle the source of financing for deforestation. I urge Members to read the report, which is powerful. We must have due diligence regulation across sectors and throughout the supply chain, so people know what their money is being invested in. That would send an important message to businesses, and companies would change the way they operate.

In 2009 I held a debate in this Chamber that was prompted in part by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s report “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, which was released in 2006. It made a compelling case for action to tackle the consequences for the climate and for our natural environment of the ever more industrialised and intensive livestock industry. As I said in that debate, growing animal feed is a supremely inefficient use of land; it takes around 8 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef, and there is a huge water footprint, too. It takes almost 21 square metres of land to produce 1 kg of beef, compared with 0.3 square metres to produce 1 kg of vegetables.

Since then, numerous other highly authoritative reports have made the same arguments. They make the headlines and most people agree that something needs to be done, and yet we seem to be no closer to action, apart from people making their own decisions about what they consume.

I finish by expressing my disappointment at the recent report from the Committee on Climate Change on how we reach net zero; it was, frankly, pathetic. At the launch, the chair of the committee said in his opening speech that his least favourite environmentalists were those who expected people to be cold in their homes or to eat disgusting food. I wondered what he meant by disgusting food, but I can guess. This was from the man who fed his daughter, Cordelia, a hamburger at the height of the BSE crisis; I think we know where he is coming from. We were then told that because people could not be expected to eat disgusting food, the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change was for only a 20% reduction in red meat consumption, which was to be replaced primarily with pork, bacon and poultry rather than plant-based meals.

The Committee on Climate Change was meant to be looking at how deliverable net zero was, primarily from an economic point of view; for example, it was looking at whether we could afford to make the transition to electric vehicles. It also looked at behavioural change and how palatable that would be to the general public. I gather that the behavioural scientist on the committee specialises in shifts in transport, rather than diet, but it took his word on what people would tolerate.

I refer again to the people outside the building today, to people I know and to the people who have contacted me, particularly younger people. I think people are willing to play their part and want to know about the damage their consumption habits cause. It is not just a question of them being able to exercise a choice; the market needs to respond. We need more transparency, so people are educated to make choices, and we need the Government to step in to ensure people are in a position to make those choices.