Andrew Bowie MP: Climate Timeline

• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Andrew Bowie's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Andrew Bowie in the last 90 days

See Full History

• 12 Feb 2025: Tweet

  RT @tomhfh: Genuinely impressive to scramble around and discover four policies that somehow both oppose net zero *and* increase the cost of… [Source]

• 10 Feb 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of this statement. In the past few weeks it has been difficult not to feel at least a little sorry for Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. First, their Secretary of State was forced out of hiding to defend a third runway at Heathrow—something that he once said that we could not do because it would make us look “completely ridiculous”. Cornwall Insight has stated that Ministers will miss their clean power target by a country mile, and I think it was clear during the urgent question that they are getting ready to be overruled by the Prime Minister on approval of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields—something that we on the Opposition Benches would welcome.

  Now the Secretary of State has sent the hon. Gentleman to the House this afternoon to defend the farce of chopping down trees in forests in Canada, converting them into pellets, shipping them across the Atlantic on diesel-chugging ships and burning them in a power station in North Yorkshire, all in the name of net zero. The Conservative party is under new management, and that means confronting hard truths, so let us get one thing straight from the outset: Drax’s biomass plant is neither clean, nor cheap.

  As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has said, burning wood from the other side of the Atlantic—releasing more carbon dioxide in the process—and labelling it renewable is a product of a carbon budget system that forces politicians to make perverse decisions. Those decisions result in an extortionate level of subsidy, deliver a bad deal for British taxpayers and bill payers, and make the climate worse. We have started a reset on net zero, and we will not shy away from arguing for a more pragmatic approach that prioritises cheap, stable and reliable energy.

  Will the Government set a date for the burning of the last tree in a British biomass power station? This Government have been promising us clean, cheap, home-grown energy, but burning trees at Drax is not clean or cheap, and the trees are certainly not home-grown. If the widespread burning of forests is part of the solution to climate change, we have to ask ourselves if that is the problem we are trying to solve.

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

  Climate change and nature loss are undoubtedly the greatest twin threats we face. While pursuing the clean power by 2030 goal, the Government need to reconsider their decision to indeterminately extend the burning of biomass as part of the energy mix, despite overwhelming evidence that it is neither sustainable nor truly renewable, especially with the threat to virgin forests. The Minister says biomass is vital for energy security, supplying 5% of the UK’s electricity. However, he fails to mention that biomass emits 18% more carbon dioxide than coal and that it takes nearly a century for new trees to absorb those emissions. That is not energy security; it is a carbon ticking time bomb.

  We are told by the Minister that NESO advised that Drax was a necessity between 2027 and 2031 to prevent supply risks. That is due to the reckless rowing back by the former Government, the absence of accelerated investment in renewables and the continued investment in Drax as part of their strategy, but what kind of future are we building if it depends on burning forests rather than investing in real renewable energy sources?

  Drax has exploited UK taxpayers for far too long. It has lied about meeting sustainability rules, burned 1 million tonnes of wood from primary forests, gagged whistleblowers with non-disclosure agreements, and pretended that it could sequester carbon from replanted forests in time to meet our 2050 targets. Today, the Government have brought that a stop. They have debunked Drax’s lies, cut its subsidy, and set a clear and sensible exit strategy that will maintain security of supply. After 15 years of campaigning, I welcome this breakthrough for honesty and common sense.

  The Minister should be commended for ending the terrible deal negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, which led to higher bills, excess profits and poor sustainability standards, but it is worth saying again that there seems to be no end to the Conservatives’ rank hypocrisy on energy policy. In government, the then Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), signed off planning consent for the Drax carbon capture project, saying that

  The net zero madness coming from this place is truly staggering. Bearing in mind that this power station used to burn coal from a coalmine less than 20 miles away, we are now transporting wood from 3,000 miles away. We are paying over £10 billion in subsidies for this power station, and it is producing four times more CO 2 than a coal-fired power station. Can the Minister explain how this is contributing to net zero?

  I am proud that, as a country, we have moved past coal-fired power generation, which is incredibly destructive for our environment. We closed the last coal power station, at Ratcliffe-on-Soar, last year. Its workforce proudly recognised the role they played in powering the country for many years, while also recognising that the drive to net zero is important. While we are building a clean power system that delivers energy security for the future, the Reform party would take us back to the stone age.

  The right hon. Gentleman is right that we want “credible low carbon alternatives”. I will look at the specific points he mentions, but we do not see such generators as key to the review we want to undertake. We want to look at carbon capture and other technologies and, crucially, how we store some of the renewable energy that we are generating in abundance that we cannot use at times of peak demand, including long-duration energy storage and, increasingly, short-duration energy storage batteries that are powering more than they have done in the past. I will look at the specific points the right hon. Gentleman raises.

  My hon. Friend also touched on the important work we need to do in the broader energy space to deliver energy security. That is why clean power 2030—our sprint to deliver decarbonised power—is so important, delivering good jobs in supply chains across the country.

  This statement should be a warning to all those across the House who are cheerleaders for renewable energy. Let us not forget that, in 2010, Drax power station was the poster boy for green energy policy. Of course, it turned out that instead of green energy, it has produced more CO 2 . We have chopped down natural habitat 3,000 miles away to bring it and burn it in a power station in England, and consumers pay the grand total of £1,000 million a year for the pleasure of doing so.

  At the risk of getting into trouble with those responsible for tax matters, I simply say that this is a windfall mechanism that does exactly the same thing, and it does exactly what the Conservatives failed to do in 14 years, which is to ensure that there is a good deal and good value for money for the British public, delivering on energy security and, crucially, getting us to a point where our clean power plan for 2030 delivers energy security, climate leadership and jobs right across the country. It is the ambition of doing something different in this country and doing it fast, and we are committed to delivering it.

  Full debate: Biomass Generation

• 10 Feb 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  (Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the ruling on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields as unlawful.

  The Labour party seems to misunderstand this simple point: if we shut down our oil and gas industry, we will not use any less oil and gas—even the Climate Change Committee knows that. The Department seems to ignore the fact that we will simply rely on more imports instead. If those imports are liquified natural gas, they will come with four times the production emissions, and if we import from Norway, we will be shipping in gas from underneath the very same North sea. Sacrificing our domestic industry, only to rely on foreign imports and compound global carbon emissions, is utter madness for our economy and for the climate. It makes a mockery of our prospects for growth, and it will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue. To put that figure into perspective, it is equivalent to eight and a half years’ worth of winter fuel payments.

  Contrary to what has been said by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), approving these oilfields this will not protect UK workers. Despite promises of jobs, not a single UK design or construction role has been created. Instead, that work has been outsourced to Dubai. Business leaders agree that a fair transition away from oil and gas will boost our economy, create jobs and attract investment. The Liberal Democrats oppose the oilfields at Jackdaw and Rosebank. Instead of pouring money into an energy source that is not consistent with our climate commitments, we should be calling on the Government to invest in renewables and an ambitious green energy strategy that lowers costs, creates jobs and secures our future. What assessment will the Minister make of our climate commitments?

  On the point at issue, there must be balance in the necessary transition from carbon to renewables. It is not an either/or. We have been in the North sea for two generations, and we will be there for two generations more as we wind down the basin. Politics is often about symbols, and the renewed consents for Rosebank and Jackdaw, if they come, offer an opportunity to reassure workers in this industry that they will not be left behind when we plan for a fair and just transition from the old to the new.

  The Chancellor was very clear in her speech that there is no conflict between our net zero commitments and the industrialisation that we want to see. Economic growth projects such as the runway at Heathrow will be important but, as the Chancellor said, they will have to be in line with our climate obligations.

  I urge the Minister and Labour colleagues to take no lessons from the Conservative party on a fair and just transition away from fossil fuels, because our coalfield communities in this country were destroyed by Tory Governments over decades. In contrast, we need to look at the growth we are now providing by lifting the onshore wind ban, investing in carbon capture and storage, and establishing GB Energy.

  I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is one of the Scottish National party cohort seeking to move to our other Parliament, but the SNP’s position in Holyrood is the same as ours, which is that we must be cognisant of climate change obligations with regard to any new licences. Perhaps he has a different position from his colleagues in Holyrood—I am not sure—but the SNP recognises, rightly, as we do, that the future requires investment in oil and gas for many years to come, to which we are committed, and that investment must match our climate obligations. The transition that is now under way must have Government at its heart, supporting the jobs and industries that come in the future. If the hon. Gentleman supported some of the investment that we propose, such as at Great British Energy in Aberdeen, instead of deriding it at every single turn— [ Interruption. ] Mr Speaker, I have again united all the Members of Parliament from north-east Scotland who oppose investment in their own constituencies. If the hon. Gentleman supported that investment, maybe he would see the jobs of the future coming.

  I thank the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he is proceeding. We all recognise that climate change is a threat to growth rather than a driver of it, whether that is through flooding, fires or the chaos that it causes. It is therefore shocking that the previous Government did not take account of emissions and the impact that they might have on our economy in making the decision to proceed with Rosebank, and it is right that we rethink that.

  My hon. Friend is right to make the point that climate change is not a future threat but a present reality. This year alone there have been a number of examples around the world of that present reality already having a huge and devastating impact on people’s lives.

  I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of the just transition and the need to move gradually to renewables. He quoted from our party’s manifesto that

  “they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis.”

  Can he confirm that the 3 million oil barrels that would come out of Rosebank would in fact not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure and would only worsen the climate crisis?

  The Minister talks of the threats of the climate crisis and the need for us to meet our climate commitments, which is encouraging to hear. What steps are the Government taking right now to improve the energy efficiency of homes across the UK to help us reduce our dependence on oil and gas?

  I give credit to the hon. Lady for the ingenious way she got that important question into the urgent question. She makes the good point that, as well as ensuring we have built the clean power system for the needs of the future, we want to reduce as much as possible the need for households to heat their homes by making them much warmer in the first place. We are doing that by improving the standard of homes through the work being done by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh) on the warm homes plan. We know that some of the poorest people in our country live in substandard homes that are cold and that take far too much of their monthly budgets to heat. We are determined to do something about that, as well as working across the piece on energy-efficiency measures that reduce demand in the years ahead.

  My hon. Friend outlines again the importance of tackling the climate crisis that is with us now. That is why the Government have been determined to move faster, through our clean power action plan and through the Department’s wider work to decarbonise across our economy. That is incredibly important and we do not have a moment to waste.

  The Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields could supply 8% of the UK’s gas needs. The Minister has talked about the court cases, but will he clarify why the Prime Minister let the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero take Government lawyers off the defence of this case? If their push for growth is to mean anything, will the Government look again at changing judicial review processes?

  Conservative Members are speaking up now, but I was present at the United Nations General Assembly when they risked investor confidence in the UK. The then Prime Minister rowed back on net zero commitments, risking investor confidence in the UK and risking our global reputation on climate leadership. This Government are putting us back on the world stage when it comes to climate leadership, and we have a goal: to deliver clean power by 2030. Does the Minister agree that the UK’s key growth sectors of the future include renewable energy, and that there will be jobs for the future in renewable energy and our own Great British Energy?

  It matters that this country takes a leadership role on climate, because the transition that we want to deliver here is also being delivered right across the world. The country with the fastest transition to clean power last year was China. In some cases, Members of this Parliament are trying to row back on our net zero commitments. We are determined to double down on those commitments, because that is the best way to deliver stability and energy security, bring down bills and create the industrial future and jobs that this country needs.

  However, the right hon. Gentleman and I will always disagree on the fundamental point that tackling climate change is in all our interests. Right around the world, we see the impact of not tackling climate change. It is a clear and present danger to our country and our national security, and we will tackle it.

  Another day, another Labour Minister cleaning up the mess of the Conservatives who came before them. The only reason why we are having this discussion today, and why there is any lack of clarity for workers in the north-east, is that the Conservatives messed up in government. However, does the Minister agree that supporting projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw is entirely compatible with our drive towards a net zero economy? We will continue to need domestic oil and gas to 2050 and likely beyond, and therefore we should maximise UK production, since we can do so with the highest possible labour and environmental standards, and should secure and create jobs in Scotland and the rest of the UK.

  My hon. Friend mentions environmental standards. In my past few months in this job, I have been pleased to hear about the huge amount of work that oil and gas companies have undertaken to decarbonise their work through electrification and other means. This question is about the scope 3 emissions, however, that the Supreme Court ruled must be taken into account; that is about the end use of the hydrocarbons as well. We will put in place a process to deal with that.

  Last week, in excess of 400 redundancy letters were issued to workers at Grangemouth, Scotland’s only oil refinery, so perhaps the Minister will start matching his warm words about the just transition with action. On the North sea, what the industry, the investors, the workforce and our journey to net zero require is certainty. He obviously cannot comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw, and so cannot provide the answer that I think we all know is ultimately coming, but can he give us some certainty on when he expects the Government to issue the updated environmental guidance?

  I will not be drawn on the applications in this case, but I agree with my hon. Friend’s broader point about the important leadership role for the UK in building the green industries of the future, and on climate change. At COP29, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero communicated the importance of leadership on this most pressing issue, and of seeing it not as a future threat, but as a present reality. The UK has an important leadership role to play and, critically, can help deliver the industrial future that we need and the clean power of the future.

  The Minister will be aware that fuel in Northern Ireland is exceptionally costly, and the rise of all other costs of living is leading to businesses finding it difficult to keep their head above water, let alone turn a profit. The cost of energy is sewn into every facet of business and home life. How will the Minister ensure that the vast resources that we have at our fingertips are utilised? Does he acknowledge that while renewable energy is something to work on, we need energy now? Consent must be considered quickly, and the correct decision must be made on behalf of every home and business in the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

  In terms of the tone of the debate, the Government and the Opposition will of course disagree on many things—by the sounds of it, we increasingly disagree on the importance of tackling climate change and net zero—but generally we all want to see a transition in the North sea that is fair and prosperous, particularly for the workers in that industry, to ensure that they have confidence that they will have well-paid jobs to go into. I spend every day in this job taking that incredibly seriously, and whatever disagreements we might have across the Dispatch Box, I hope that is understood. We want to build a transition that recognises that it is already under way, that thousands of jobs have been lost and that it is our duty and responsibility as a Government to ensure that we put in place the industry and jobs that come next. That is what I will spend every day doing while I am privileged to have this job.

  Full debate: Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields

• 4 Feb 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The capacity market is responsible for ensuring that the right incentives are in place to deliver during periods of electricity system shortage and stress. As we mentioned when the previous amendments were introduced in November, the previous Government identified over a decade ago that, while introducing renewable energy sources into the energy mix,

  Full debate: Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2025

• 24 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  As referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)—and he is a friend—Margaret Thatcher, who became the leader of our party 50 years ago next month, was famously the first world leader to raise the issue of climate change on the global stage. She warned the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 of the “insidious danger” that climate change posed through

  If this private Member’s Bill contained measures to ensure a pragmatic and proportionate response to climate change, with households and bill payers at its core, and defended our British wildlife, nature and countryside, I am sure we would all support its aims and ambitions. Indeed, colleagues and friends who support it do so with the admirable, and indeed laudable, intention of seeing the United Kingdom protect the environment, and it is not that ambition with which we take umbrage. However, it is clear that we should not support the damaging measures the Bill would require. If it became law, it would damage our country, our prosperity, the lives of individuals and industries across the United Kingdom.

  I recently visited a pioneering company in Epsom and Ewell called Sunswap. Its zero emission technology for refrigerated transport is enabling the transition from polluting diesel to solar power. Does the hon. Member agree that such innovation thrives in times of challenge and drives economic growth?

  The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need to focus on the provisions of the Bill, so will he outline which provisions he is opposed to? Is it net zero ambitions, increasing net biodiversity, or developing a nature and biodiversity plan?

  Does my hon. Friend agree that one organisation that fits his description is the Climate Change Committee, which is charged with various responsibilities but has neglected its responsibility to promote adaptation and resilience?

  I agree in part with my hon. Friend—indeed, the committee has neglected some of its responsibilities—but I want to make progress on the Bill, which does not address the Climate Change Committee.

  “reduces its overall contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at a rate consistent with…achieving its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) emissions reduction targets”

  in accordance with the 2015 Paris agreement. That would entail reducing UK emissions in line with the 1.5° objective.

  to levels in line with the Paris agreement’s 1.5° objective. What does that mean? The Bill stops short of providing year-on-year limits for overall emissions, but does not indicate that our current carbon budget system is not sufficient for the objectives of the Bill.

  Aligning to the targets, which the Bill would oblige the Secretary of State to achieve, would require even more drastic action to reduce emissions. The Secretary of State has already signed the country up to an even stricter target of cutting emissions by 81% by 2035—something the Climate Change Committee said will require people to eat less meat and dairy, take fewer flights, and swap their boilers for heat pumps and their petrol cars for electric vehicles at a pace that will require taxes and mandation. That is not sensible, nor is it feasible.

  I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but how do we get away from the problem of double accounting for those emissions? If, for example, India is counting them as part of its global emissions and we start to count them too, in addition to what we are doing within our borders, how will we ever get an accurate picture of emissions across the globe? If we were to take into consideration the global effect of our consumption emissions and the carbon footprint of what we import, the British people would soon realise that there is no way to decarbonise consumption as rapidly as possible, as the Bill seeks, without a huge economic challenge, and that is not recognised in the Bill.

  I am sorry to say that that is not a serious proposal. Even the Climate Change Committee has said that oil and gas will remain a crucial part of our energy mix for decades to come—something that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have accepted. As we have been saying, turning off the taps in the North sea will result only in higher imports—something the Labour Government seemingly accept.

  Does the hon. Member agree that the investment in and setting up of GB Energy, the location of which is not far from his constituency, will ensure that the transition to clean, green energy generation happens quickly, and that the failure to invest happened on the Conservatives’ watch?

  The hon. Member is drawing me into setting out what a great record the previous Conservative Government had on investment in new technologies. I would love to believe that Great British Energy will make a positive difference to the direction this country takes on investing in technologies, creating new jobs and driving the transition, but we have seen no evidence that that will actually be the case. Indeed, every time we ask the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero what it expects GB Energy to do, it singularly fails to come up with a response. Far from GB Energy being welcomed in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, it is that part of the country that is being decimated more than any other by her party’s position on oil and gas and our industry in the North sea.

  It is slightly worse than that. We heard the debate earlier about the word “and”. Many of these large-scale renewable energy projects such as battery storage are surrounded by such severe fencing that local nature—for example, deer runs—is severely disrupted or destroyed.

  My hon. Friend knows that I am in complete agreement on that, given that a significant number of renewable energy projects, battery storage facilities, substations and pylons have been proposed for my constituency as a result of the plans brought forward by the Government. He is, as ever, absolutely right.

  Full debate: Climate and Nature Bill

• 23 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  I refer the Minister to the last words in her statement, which were that the Government will “ensure that families have lower bills.” There will always be a problem with insulation in a country with a massively degraded and older housing stock, which underlines the vital importance of cheap energy. We have had a month with virtually no wind and no sun, and so-called green energy is producing hardly any of our energy. We are importing energy, we are stopping drilling in the North sea and we are not building gas-fired power stations. What about old people? Their heating allowance has been taken away, and we are crucifying them with ever higher bills. Meanwhile, China—its annual increment in emissions is more than our entire emissions—is going on pumping out emissions, and “Drill, baby” Trump is pumping out emissions. Why are we crucifying our old people?

  Full debate: ECO4 and Insulation Schemes

• 16 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Sadly, there was no mention of tidal in the “Clean Power 2030” document published by the Government. There is a perception—it might not be the reality—that tidal technology has fallen through the gap. In the rush to decarbonise the energy system, the Secretary of State seems to be putting all the eggs into two baskets. It would be good if the Minister could set out that that was not the case and that the Government were as committed to tidal and wave power as they should be. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, wind and solar will not keep the lights on in the United Kingdom.

  The previous Government looked at the Swansea tidal lagoon in great detail and depth, but the decision was taken before my time in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero not to proceed with it. I am informed that it was due to a combination of the cost and the reluctance of those involved to make the case that the technology would be successful. However, if it can be presented as a viable project—if the costs can be brought down and the technology can be proved to work—of course the current Government could look at it again. We should be investing in things that work and that return a benefit to the taxpayer.

  Full debate: Marine Renewables Industry

• 14 Jan 2025: Tweet

  Labour's rush to Net Zero means Britain 'on brink of blackouts' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14280271/Labours-Net-Zero-Britain-teetering-brink-blackouts.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton [Source]

• 13 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on gas storage levels.

  With their rush to meet the Secretary of State’s ideological target to decarbonise the entire electricity grid by 2030, this Government are playing fast and loose with our ability to keep the lights on. They are rushing headlong into a renewable energy dominated system—a Chinese renewable energy dominated system—but Ministers cannot escape the fact that when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, wind turbines and solar panels will not keep the lights on in Britain. We should be in no doubt that this Government’s ideological plans for our energy supply will leave the UK dependent on foreign imports, send bills soaring, and leave us teetering on the brink of blackouts.

  Full debate: Gas Storage Levels

• 13 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Now they are asking us to support the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who clearly has no interest in the cost of living in this country, having unfettered power to interfere with the price of people’s boilers. Last year, when we were in government, the then Secretary of State was clear that we would not introduce a policy that punishes people who choose not to install a heat pump. The current Secretary of State has an ideological obsession with going further and faster than any other country. Handing him the powers to push up the cost of installing new gas boilers in this country is a recipe for piling extra costs on to consumers. Because people usually have to replace their boilers at short notice, that will come at a time when families are least expecting it and can probably least afford it. The British people will once again be forced to pick up the bill for this Government’s ideological approach to net zero.

  During the election campaign, the Minister and her colleagues promised the British people £300 off their energy bills, a promise that we hear no Labour MP repeating at the moment. As soon as they got into Government, they snatched the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners in poverty, taxed family farmers and taxed the North sea oil and gas sector. Now, they are taxing people’s boilers, too. The evidence is increasingly clear that the Government’s rush to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 will increase the cost of electricity in this country, so that all those who have been told to move over to heat pumps—in fact, all our constituents—will face higher electricity bills as a result.

  Last week, the Secretary of State said that we will only tackle climate change by working with other countries. But there is no sense in making our own people poorer and enforcing hardship on them in the name of reaching net zero, because no other country will want to follow our lead. Only by increasing prosperity and living standards will we convince the world’s largest polluters to cut their emissions. Once Ministers have snuck this power on to the statute book, they will be free to ramp up the fines dramatically in the years ahead in order to meet the Secretary of State’s targets. In fact, if they are to meet their legally binding climate targets, they will have no choice but to ratchet up the fines and to inflict more hardship on the British people.

  Ministers should ask people why they do not want heat pumps, not force people to have one by making gas boilers increasingly unaffordable. The Conservatives believe that consumers get the best products when they drive the market through choice. As the Secretary of State has said, an overly centralised approach to net zero targets will slow down the take-up of new technology, requiring ever larger subsidies and ever stricter punishments to force consumers to buy the products that Ministers in Whitehall have decided are right for them.

  Full debate: Draft Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024

• 7 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The impact of Budget 2024 on Scotland is, in one word, disastrous. Our small and medium-sized businesses have been hammered by additional taxes; our family firms and family farms fear for their future; our whisky industry is punished yet again for its success; our oil and gas industry, and its workers, have been sacrificed on the altar of the eco-mania, or possibly the egomania, of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; our agricultural sector has been ignored; and our Union, frankly, has been undermined.

  Full debate: Budget: Scotland

• 7 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The capacity market scheme was introduced in 2014, as part of the electricity market reform, to ensure security of electricity supply by providing payments for reliable sources of electricity generation capacity, or in some cases for reduced demand. In 2013, the Government identified that while introducing renewable energy sources into the energy mix,

  That prediction rings true, and truer still when we acknowledge the intermittent nature of weather-dependent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. That is why in a speech made at Chatham House in March, the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), called for new unabated gas power plants, to make sure that we can keep the lights on when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

  As the Secretary of State charges toward grid decarbonisation, it is imperative that we retain our capacity for gas generation and maintain the capacity market scheme to facilitate that, but due to the decisions made by the current Government it will be more expensive —one of the many pitfalls of their “renewables at any cost” approach. I am sure we will soon debate this at greater length and in greater detail; it is not for today’s Committee. We have no problem with the specific provisions of the draft regulations before us.

  Full debate: Draft Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024

• 10 Dec 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  As the Minister has set out, the instrument introduces requirements for new combustion plants and for those being refurbished, including regulatory requirements for a new decarbonisation readiness report as a prerequisite for environmental permitting approval. It also requires new combustion plants be built with regard to how they could be decarbonised in the future—for example, by converting to hydrogen firing or retrofit carbon capture technology, under environmental permitting regulations.

  As I said, we are very supportive of the regulations. In fact, I think we are all supportive of the growth of new technologies like carbon capture, usage and storage, and their potential to cut carbon emissions. For combustion plants, where it is economically and technically viable, the implementation of such technology should be considered. I note that no impact assessment has been produced as the regulations are not expected to impose significant costs to businesses. However, it is noted in the explanatory memorandum today that they are expected to have an economic impact on small and micro businesses affected by the change to the 300 MW threshold. We all want a future where small businesses can thrive—the Chancellor herself has said that growth is her No. 1 priority —so will the Minister provide more detail of what support might be made available to the small and micro businesses that feel this new burden on them as they seek to decarbonise along with the rest of the country?

  This instrument is a sensible move, although we worry and have some reservations about its impact on small and micro businesses, and would be keen to see more detail about what engagement the Department has had with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. As it says in the explanatory memorandum, this is a devolved area—but decarbonisation is a UK-wide effort.

  Full debate: Draft Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

• 05 Dec 2024: Tweet

  RT @NJ_Timothy: ????Climbdown alert!???? Starmer has gone from promising to decarbonise the grid 100% by 2030 to a new 95% target. Maybe he’s… [Source]

• 3 Dec 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  It is no wonder, therefore, that the Government have backed down from claims of saving households £300 on their energy bills. It is clear that this rush for electricity decarbonisation by 2030 will see bills going up and up; the industry admits that. The signal to the market from the Secretary of State is “renewables at any price”—they will pay exorbitant amounts to create the capacity to achieve a hugely ambitious political target. We cannot be naive about the economic implications of that political choice.

  Full debate: Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

• 26 Nov 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  It is good to see so many people attending this debate. It shows the groundswell of feeling outside this Chamber on what we need to do, whether that is on upgrading the grid and making our way to our net zero, cleaner future—everybody in this room acknowledges that we need to upgrade the grid in order to do that—or in representing communities who are concerned about the pace and direction of travel, and the inability, or refusal, of those in positions of power to consider alternative technologies.

  I thank the hon. Member. He said that all parts of the United Kingdom are keen to achieve and be part of this goal. Renewable energy in Northern Ireland makes up 50% of the electricity generated, but it has to reach 80% by 2030, as I know he is aware. That is six years away. When it comes to scale, pace and complexity, does he agree that there is a need for the whole of the UK to have additional support and funding to reach these goals? That means Northern Ireland needs to be part of this process as well.

  The hon. Gentleman knows well, I hope, that my commitment to our entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is just as firm as his, and when I speak about the UK, I reference Strangford and Northern Ireland more widely. The situation in Northern Ireland is unique in that the number of homes that are off-grid far outweighs the number of off-grid homes in mainland GB. That brings its own complexities with regard to decarbonisation, moving away from gas or oil, and boilers for heating and other such purposes. I completely understand the unique complexities of decarbonising in a Northern Irish environment, and he is absolutely right that when the Government take decisions on UK-wide infrastructure projects, they should be cognisant of Northern Ireland’s unique situation, being in an all-Ireland grid and having so many off-grid properties. That should never be far from our minds.

  I say that because I stress that my constituents and so many others around the country who are raising this issue are not doing so because they are being needlessly obstructive. They are not doing it because they are being anti-net zero, or because they do not agree the grid needs to be upgraded. They just know, due to their experience working in the industry, that there are other ways forward. It is for this reason, and the overwhelming desire on the Conservative side of the House to exhaust all the options in our pursuit to find the best technology at the best cost that would deliver our decarbonised grid—and not, as the National Energy System Operator report suggested, that we favour pace over perfection—and to do so in a way that does not blight so many communities and our great British countryside, that we committed in our manifesto to take a different approach.

  We have heard in this debate about the importance of expediency. Does he agree that, uniquely, we live in a world in turmoil? We see growing international threats, and one of the surest ways in which Britain can protect ourselves against them is by being energy independent. As a consequence, we need not just to move quickly to meet our climate crisis—our energy defences are down, and it is important that we can protect ourselves in the future.

  I am struck that we have heard a lot about community engagement and consultation, but what does not seem to be clear is exactly what is meant by it, despite the fact that all of us do a lot of community consultation and engagement through the process of democracy. In particular, given how people talk about it, we could quite well end up with a veto by a small number of people of a transformation of our country to increase resilience, reduce costs and tackle the climate crisis. Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is not desirable. That is why we need to change the planning process, so that we can support the transformation we seek.

  Before I conclude, I will say this. Noticeable today and in discussions on this subject in the recent past, is a certain tone that is being adopted by some Labour Members. While we might disagree about the ways to reach net zero and to best upgrade the grid, there are people out there who are genuinely worried about what these plans might mean for them and their communities. I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to please engage in this debate with an element of respect for the views expressed on behalf of those people and communities up and down the country.

  Full debate: Electricity Grid Upgrades

• 25 Nov 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The previous Government brought the emissions trading scheme into UK law to provide continuity during the Brexit transition, and our framework became operational from January 2021. We did that to provide a mechanism for industry and to reduce emissions using cap and trade, to allow the market to take responsibility for our journey towards net zero.

  When the UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme was introduced in 2020, it was decided that its purpose was to encourage cost-effective emissions reductions that will contribute to the UK’s emissions-reduction targets and net zero goal. Today, we address the draft order in the context of satisfying that ambition. We all have a common ambition when it comes to tackling climate change, and the introduction of the cap-and-trade scheme was a component of our national efforts towards that. However, as we know, that comes at a cost, and there are inevitable trade-offs.

  We have seen recently that the Labour Government’s climate policies take precedence over any financial or economic concerns—through the damage done to the North sea oil and gas industry with the extension of and increase to the energy profits levy and the ending of investment allowances, through the £58 billion cost of the Secretary of State’s plan to decarbonise the grid, and through the new ambition for an 81% reduction in omissions by 2035, with no detail on how that will be achieved. On that point, will the Minister clarify whether it is indeed the Government’s policy to see the carbon price rise to £147, as necessitated by the National Energy System Operator report? If so, what assessment has been made of the impact of that huge increase on employment, industry and households?

  Full debate: Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024