Claire Coutinho MP: Climate Timeline

• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Claire Coutinho's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

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

See Full History

• 14 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Starmer is pushing ever higher climate targets for Britain - raising prices and exporting jobs - in return for more imports from coal-powered China, the world’s largest polluter. Labour must publish an assessment of the increased reliance on China and resulting carbon emissions. https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1857052757816967343/video/1 [Source]

• 13 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Mad. Even the Climate Change Committee says we’ll be using oil and gas in 2050. Why get ‘emotional’? Because 200k British jobs are on the line. £12bn tax revenue which is now being squeezed out of pensioners, farmers and business instead. All for imports with MORE emissions. https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1856449061705937032 [Source]

• 13 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Keir Starmer is signing us up to climate targets that will likely require huge sacrifices from the British people. At the same time, he’s saying he won’t tell people how to live their lives. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1856615740582805853/video/1 [Source]

• 12 Nov 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The Prime Minister is set to announce at the conference of the parties that he is making the UK’s already stringent carbon emission targets even higher. That is despite the fact that we contribute only 1% of global emissions, while the leaders of the world’s highest-emitting countries—making up over 60% of emissions—are not attending. The Climate Change Committee has said that this target will require, for example, an accelerated shift away from meat and dairy, less travel and a gas boiler ban for the British people, yet the Government’s approach would see our reliance on imports from China—which is 60% powered by coal—go through the roof. Does the Minister agree that an approach that is asking for more sacrifice and hardship from the British people, in return for more goods from one of the world’s largest carbon emitters, would mean fewer jobs in Britain and more carbon in the atmosphere?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 10 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Interesting, @thetimes asks readers whether they think Ed Miliband’s net zero plans are realistic. Over 90% don’t. The public can see what Labour politicians seemingly cannot. The question is, how much damage will they do before they course correct? https://www.thetimes.com/article/0da9968b-1d18-42fc-8592-1434516cf231?shareToken=bb1dd5507301a6f12ac3de09f77d4770 https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1855656433351860350/photo/1 [Source]

• 05 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Next, Ed’s entire premise is that by ‘getting off gas’ we will make energy cheaper. But the NESO’s modelling shows in the CCUS pathway, gas will price the system as much as 47% of the time. That’s not ‘getting away from international gas markets’, nor ‘100% clean power’, is… https://x.com/i/web/status/1853788359820202254 https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1853788359820202254/photo/1 [Source]

• 05 Nov 2024: Tweet

  Today @neso_energy published the advice that @Ed_Miliband commissioned on his target to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030. I am disappointed but not surprised that he has not come to the House to answer our questions. Because it poses very difficult questions for Labour… https://twitter.com/neso_energy/status/1853693955898057160 [Source]

• 04 Nov 2024: Tweet

  On days like these, if not gas then what? If gas then it should come from Britain. We get c. 50% of our gas supply from the North Sea. Labour will leave us reliant on foreign imports. (If CCUS or hydrogen then the first still needs gas, and both are more expensive). https://twitter.com/kathrynporter26/status/1853224701289443390 [Source]

• 02 Nov 2024: Tweet

  As I said in the House last week, far from bringing bills down, Ed Miliband’s plans to ramp up renewables at breakneck speed are sending bills up. The IFS agrees. Industry will just go abroad (worse for climate change) and households will be poorer. https://www.thetimes.com/article/4f27fdaf-8b7d-4ad9-ab30-164b80a7d545?shareToken=2ef8886656dd35e9d8caa017fab1aea1 https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1852601383301640455/photo/1 [Source]

• 31 Oct 2024: Tweet

  RT @GaiaFawkes: IFS Chief: Net Zero Splurge Doesn't Help Growth at All http://order-order.com/2024/10/31/ifs-chief-net-zero-splurge-doesnt-help-growth-at-all/ https://x.com/GaiaFawkes/status/1851975609951334872/photo/1 [Source]

• 29 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  New clause 3— Prohibition of investments which would increase greenhouse gas emissions —

  (a) greenhouse gas emissions and

  (2) Where the assessment carried out under subsection (1) showed that the investment was expected to contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, Great British Energy must not make that investment.”

  This new clause would require Great British Energy to publish an assessment of potential investments on greenhouse gas emissions and the production or combustion of fossil fuels. Any investment which the assessment showed was expected to increase greenhouse gas emissions would be prohibited.

  (f) the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.”

  This amendment would set objects for Great British Energy of facilitating, encouraging and participating in an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.

  “(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to require any renewable energy development located in Wales that Great British Energy owns or invests into offer a minimum of 10% community and 10% local ownership for each project.”

  This amendment seeks to ensure that all renewable energy projects in Wales which are owned or invested in by Great British Energy would be required to offer a 10% stake in community ownership i.e. for individuals and households, and a 10% stake of local ownership, i.e. any Wales-based organisation.

  These were not one-off promises; it was the party line, as dictated by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. These promises are still up in writing. In fact, the Labour party website still says that its energy plans will cut bills by £300 on average. Oddly, Ministers now do not seem so keen on that pledge. We have asked them about it in this House, as have the media, but the number seems to have vanished. They have even taken down the Great British Energy website, and the newly appointed chair even said in Committee that cutting bills is

  The Secretary of State can talk about skills passports and Government transition projects all he likes, but the truth is that they do not pay the bills. He likes to say that we need to cut carbon at an extreme pace, faster than any other major economy, in order to show climate leadership and save the planet, but if our gas production, steelmaking or energy-intensive manufacturing moves to Asia, which is still powered by coal, he will be adding to emissions. That would mean more carbon in the atmosphere, and would be devastating for the hundreds of thousands of people who would lose their livelihoods here in Britain. I say that as someone who, before entering Parliament, worked on regenerating some of our most deprived communities once the jobs were gone.

  As I have said previously, Great British Energy is pretty much a carbon copy of the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to provide loans, equity and guarantees for infrastructure to tackle climate change, backed by £22 billion. No Minister has been able to tell us the real difference between Great British Energy and the UK Infrastructure Bank, or why the taxpayer has to pay for two headquarters, two chief executives and so on. The one difference appears to be that Great British Energy will mean additional powers for the Secretary of State.

  Full debate: Great British Energy Bill

• 18 Oct 2024: Tweet

  If the widespread burning of forests is part of the solution to climate change, then we need to ask what problem we are trying to solve. Read my piece on why Ed Miliband needs to think again on Drax's power BECCS plan???????? https://www.thetimes.com/article/01e2bc29-5788-47ce-b9eb-d47d291a8bcf?shareToken=c3e32be0b3b19c61d6b3080a6b237070 [Source]

• 13 Oct 2024: Tweet

  RT @NeilDotObrien: This week I asked Ed Miliband if he would publish a costing of his plans for a net zero grid (a costing was commisioned… [Source]

• 08 Oct 2024: Tweet

  Ed Miliband is out on a limb with his approach to energy and net zero. Whether you’re Blue Labour or Blairite - even his own party is now sounding the alarm. The question is how long will he last and how much damage can he cause in the meantime? https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1843631634433946062/video/1 [Source]

• 7 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  In 2022, in the Energy Security Bill, we set out £1 billion of investment and the business models to support the CCUS market. Our aim was to have four industrial clusters by 2030. I must pay tribute to all who have worked together on those plans, including BP, Equinor, Eni, and all those involved with HyNet and the East Coast Cluster.

  The Secretary of State says that CCUS was not funded. Let me remind him of the extent to which he is resting his laurels on a set of draft policy statements for nuclear from back in 2009 that had no Treasury funding attached. I had agreement that at least £20 billion would be spent following the next spending review. The Secretary of State is a former Treasury spad, so he knows what that means. As always, it is the cheap politics that he reaches for. He is, I am afraid, the ultimate career politician. In fact, the funding that we had announced, which would run for 20 years, was about £200 million more per year than what he has set out today. Can he confirm that the projects have not been scaled back, and if they have been, will he tell us where the losses will be?

  We have also had no word on the track 2 clusters, Acorn and Viking, on which we were due to make progress over the summer; they were conspicuously absent from the Secretary of State’s statement. Many people will be deeply concerned, so can he update the House on those two projects? More widely, while his announcement rightly drew attention to the importance of British industry, both the TUC and the GMB have warned repeatedly about his net zero plans and what they will mean for British industry. In the words of Gary Smith, the leader of the GMB, the Secretary of State’s approach has been to export jobs and import virtue.

  The Secretary of State has talked about the importance of UK decarbonisation in tackling climate change, but will he acknowledge that his plans to target UK production will not mean that we use less? They will just leave us importing more from abroad—importing more oil and gas from the United States and the middle east, and importing more steel from China, which is still 60% powered by coal. Will he acknowledge that both those developments will actually increase global emissions? It would be carbon accounting gone mad. It might leave some in the green lobby cheering at our reduced emissions, but overall there would be more carbon in the atmosphere and fewer jobs here in Britain. Is the Labour party seriously going to be responsible for the end of steelmaking in the UK, with the added cost of the loss of more than 10,000 jobs in our most left-behind communities? The Secretary of State must acknowledge that a better balance has to be found.

  That is the reality. As for the other stuff that the right hon. Lady said, I think that she has a decision to make. She began her political career in the Conservative Environment Network, and she has ended up backing a net zero sceptic for the Tory leadership. I think it is a little bit sad. She should take some time to reflect on that, and on the utter contrast between her failure and this Government’s delivery.

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

  The Secretary of State mentioned just how important it is that we have this technology if we are to decarbonise; he quoted James Richardson in making the case. It will be crucial for the abatement of heavy industries such as chemicals, glass—the Secretary of State went to visit a glass factory in the north-west on Friday—and cement, but it will also be crucial for hydrogen production, for the new gas-fired power stations and, indeed, for converting waste into energy. How long does he think we will need this technology for the abatement of heavy industry, and how long does he think we will need it for hydrogen production and production from gas?

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he makes a really important point. Some people are sceptical about the use of carbon capture and storage. The truth is that for hard-to-abate industries—cement, for example—unless we have CCS technology, either there will be no future for these industries or they will not be able to decarbonise. Yes, it is an investment, but it is absolutely crucial, and I am struck by what the IEA said. We are talking about probably 20% of industry, and we are doing the right thing for Britain and setting an example to the world.

  I always say on these occasions that, when it comes to blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, we need all the technologies at our disposal on this decarbonisation journey. It is going to be a primarily renewables-based system, but nuclear has an important role and we need dispatchable decarbonised or low-carbon generation as well. All these things have a role, and the pathway will become clearer over time, but this issue is so urgent that I want to have all the technologies at our disposal.

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The Liberal Democrats are committed to supporting British industries in cutting carbon emissions and getting the country back on track towards meeting our climate targets. It cannot be emphasised enough how significant it is that this announcement comes at the same time as we hear about the UK being the first industrial nation to close its last coal-fired power plant. We had been dependent on coal for 150 years, so that is absolutely key.

  It is clear that the future lies with renewables and clean energy, where we need to bring urgency and the necessary scale of investment. The Conservative Government’s irresponsible roll-back from key climate pledges, and their failure to invest properly in renewable energy and home insulation, has left thousands of households vulnerable to fuel poverty as another winter approaches. The failure to move forward at pace in decarbonising our industries, our transport and our homes has left us needing to take difficult decisions. We support the need, recognised by the Climate Change Committee, for at-scale, long-term investment in CCS, particularly for hard-to-decarbonise industries such as chemicals, cement and steel manufacturing. We would like to see investment in existing industries, and we want it to meet environmental requirements.

  While we are discussing history, I should mention that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) who launched carbon capture and storage, which was yet again cancelled by the Conservatives. However, although carbon capture and storage is a key tool in reaching net zero, it is also very expensive and complex, and evidence of its efficacy is still scant. Understandably, as the Secretary of State mentioned, there is much concern about the focus on incentivising industries to invest in CCS as an alternative to radically reducing their emissions. Therefore, it is important that the Government set out clearly and transparently the path to delivery for any CCS they invest in and show the milestones for progress. What will the Secretary of State do to increase investment—

  On the hon. Lady’s broad points about CCS, my philosophy is that we want zero-carbon power where possible, but we also need carbon capture, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors and so that we can have not unabated gas, but gas with CCS or hydrogen power. She raises the question of cost. Imagine if we had had this conversation 15 years ago, when I was Secretary of State and much younger—15 years younger, to be precise. [ Interruption. ] Yes, I am good at maths. Some people were saying at the time, “Why are you subsidising offshore wind? It can never be competitive with fossil fuels.” Now, it is among the cheapest technologies to build and operate. That is what deployment does for us, and that is what the combination of public and private sectors working together does for us. Yes, there is an investment here, but a far-sighted, forward-looking Government have to make such investments, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s support.

  I had rather hoped that my right hon. Friend was going to start his statement by saying, “As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted—”. I have waited so long to hear a Secretary of State make such announcements from the Dispatch Box, and I am delighted. However, my right hon. Friend knows that carbon capture technologies reduce the energy intensity of fossil fuels by up to 25%, which makes such electricity much more expensive than that produced from renewables. Can the Secretary of State confirm that CCUS will be used not simply to allow the continued extraction of fossil fuel for our power sector, but only for the hardest-to-abate heavy industries and for the production of green hydrogen, thereby keeping domestic fuel bills low and delivering on this Government’s commitment to decarbonise our power sector by 2030 through much cheaper renewables and nuclear, not more expensive gas with CCUS? Finally, may I caution him against swallowing too much of the hype around blue hydrogen?

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he speaks with great knowledge and expertise on these issues. He is absolutely right about the hard-to-abate sectors. I say to him what I said to the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson): there is a role for both blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, but that is within the context of a primarily renewables-based system that uses nuclear as well. It goes back to the point about needing all the technologies at our disposal if we are to surmount the challenges we face.

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I talked to the UK chair of ExxonMobil last week about this issue, and I believe that the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), is going to meet him later this week. For the benefit of the House, this was not in either track 1 or track 2—it was part of the Solent cluster—but we want all the projects to go ahead and the Solent cluster has real potential and is an important part of this. The UK chair told me that this temporary pause was certainly nothing to do with the actions of this Government, but, frankly, was to do with the time it had taken the previous Government to get going on this. I undertake to the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue our dialogue with the company about these issues, including on the more technical issues that he is talking about.

  My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of this subject. She is unusual in this House, in that she is an engineer by background and actually knows about these issues. She is absolutely right about this. Our world-leading scientists and engineers are a crucial part of our playing a world-leading role in this technology. I also say to those who are worried about the risk of this technology that the much, much greater risk is in not acting. The risk before us is the climate crisis that grows every day, and it is the right thing to do to get CCS moving.

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today. Could he say a bit more about how this important project will sit alongside other investments in green energy as we move towards the 2030 and 2050 targets? Could he also explain more about the potential for job creation across the country in a wide range of industries and regions?

  On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, that is very much part of our plans for the future. On his second point, we will obviously set out all those details in response to the work of the Climate Change Committee. Frankly, one thing that we are struggling with is the delays under the last Government. I have set out the impact of this project and will be setting out the impact of future projects when they are announced.

  The Secretary of State says he is absolutely committed to the Acorn project. Well, the way to show that would be to fund it, because yet again the UK Government have failed to announce funding for carbon capture utilisation and storage projects in Scotland. This is a disaster economically, industrially and environmentally. I am sure he will agree that without Acorn, the UK cannot meet its net zero targets and will miss them by some margin. The last Tory Government failed to back this project in Scotland for years, and despite offering change, Labour has done exactly the same thing, following the same path with broadly the same budget and prioritising less developed, less substantial and less deliverable projects in England while offering the Scottish cluster no funding at all to date. People in Scotland remember well how eager the Treasury and the Westminster Government were to get their hands on revenues from North sea oil and gas. When will we see that returned with investment from Westminster into the north-east of Scotland to support the Acorn project?

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and it is why one of the projects we funded is an energy from waste project. This is exactly the kind of role that CCS can play.

  Given the Chancellor’s rhetoric about black holes, it is perhaps a little surprising that the Government have managed to magic £22 billion for this, but I wish the Secretary of State well. I hope his plan works. Does he share my concern that, in doing this, we will reduce the drive to decarbonise industries, just as the use of waste incinerators has reduced the imperative to reduce, reuse and recycle waste, including in Westbury in my constituency?

  I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s question, although I do not agree. First, this is a long-term investment in the country’s future, and I think the Chancellor is far-sighted in recognising its importance. Secondly, there are hard-to-abate industries that, without carbon capture, will find it very hard to enter a decarbonised world. We have to protect those industries, but I agree that, where industries can decarbonise without CCS, of course we want them to do so.

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I congratulate the trade unions, communities and campaigners that have campaigned for this for so long. His leadership stands in stark contrast with the asset-stripping of jobs, hopes and investment that we have seen in too many of our industrial heartlands. Does he agree that carbon capture is about not just net zero or boosting cluster areas, but boosting jobs, skills and futures in the supply chain in communities such as mine in Peterborough and across the country?

  It is early, but I worry about the hon. Gentleman’s opposition to new grid infrastructure, so goodness knows what will happen to the renewables. He also opposes carbon capture, so goodness knows what will happen to the hard-to-abate industries. I am all in favour of investing in woodlands, but we need all of these things. I want to be generous to the Green party— [ Interruption. ] I am a generous person, and I am sure the Green party has the best of intentions, but the scale of the transition means this country needs all of these technologies. It is not about choosing to invest in the woodlands and not investing in grid infrastructure or CCS. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about this, because we need all of these technologies.

  I welcome the Government’s announcement on moving forward with the track 1 projects, which will create thousands of well-paid jobs, attract inward investment and accelerate us towards net zero. With the closure of the blast furnace at Port Talbot, the two largest carbon emitters in Wales are now in my Mid and South Pembrokeshire constituency, but they have no access to pipeline CO 2 transport. What measures is the Secretary of State taking to encourage the decarbonisation of sites such as those in Pembrokeshire, which rely on non-pipeline solutions for CO 2 transport, to achieve a just transition?

  The Secretary of State has boasted about spending £27 billion of public money on carbon capture and storage, and on promoting what he calls renewable energy. Does he feel any sense of irony in taking £27 billion from a financial black hole and putting it into a carbon-absorbing black hole? Does he not recognise that his own green policies are generating the very CO 2 he condemns? The Drax B power station needs American forests to be chopped down and brought halfway around the world to be burned, emitting CO 2 , at a cost of £1 billion a year in subsidy.

  This Government have shown in the last three months what can be achieved by rejecting the climate denialism that the last Government often seemed at risk of sliding into. However, this announcement is important because it underlines the opportunity we have to also reject climate delivery denialism—the idea that we can somehow make the transition to net zero work without making big, bold investments or by focusing only on narrow solutions that align with our ideological priorities. The International Energy Agency and the Climate Change Committee could not be clearer: CCUS is not just an economic opportunity for this country, but a scientific necessity if we are to meet our climate targets. Will the Secretary of State therefore leave no stone unturned and no opportunity off the table, doing everything we can not just to deliver on our targets, but to ensure that we make the most of the opportunity to reindustrialise parts of this country that have been neglected for far too long?

  My hon. Friend makes such an important point. I was with the Prime Minister in New York in the last couple of weeks, talking to international partners about where the new British Government stood, and there is a sense that British leadership is back. However, if I had said to them, “We can’t do carbon capture; that’s just not an answer,” they would have said, “Well, what are we going to do about our industries?” My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to have all the solutions at our disposal, both for British leadership and for global decarbonisation.

  The Secretary of State will know that it is vital that we reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid the worst ravages of a climate crisis that is already manifesting. Given that this deal risks incentivising hard-to-abate businesses to continue with business as usual, will he outline what steps the Government intend to take to ensure that those industries also invest in reducing their emissions?

  I welcome the hon. Member to the House. We have all kinds of projects in place to encourage business to decarbonise; indeed, our drive for clean power by 2030 is part of ensuring that we decarbonise the electricity system to help businesses to be part of the decarbonisation journey. However, I just do not recognise the picture that he paints—that this proposal is somehow a disincentive for companies. I hear lots of businesses asking how they are going to exist, frankly, in a decarbonised world. What is the answer, for example, for the cement industry in a decarbonised world? That is why CCS is so vital.

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for decarbonisation and carbon capture, particularly in heavy industry, including cement. However, the track 1 projects include new gas power stations and new blue hydrogen, which will carry a huge greenhouse gas penalty caused by upstream methane emissions. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to reviewing the full-lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for any project before it goes to a full investment decision?

  I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to delivering for Teesside and to delivering thousands of good green jobs in clean industries—delivery after years of delay. He mentioned Solent earlier, and he knows the risk that delay can pose to CCUS and to jobs. Does he therefore agree that it is absurd for the Conservative party to try to claim credit for this proposal after failing to deliver for 14 years, failing to commit any resources and leaving our industries in the lurch?

  The Secretary of State will know that investment in these CCUS projects would not be possible without the private investment generated from our oil and gas companies. In the light of that, of him again confirming his policy on no new licences and of other policies that are set to close down the North sea, how will he ensure that that private investment continues so that more CCUS projects come forward in the future?

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but carbon capture can be done in a number of ways. Anaerobic digestion plants, for example, produce as much CO2 as methane, which can be ducted into greenhouses to produce bigger tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuces. Will such natural carbon capture be included in the project, thereby helping to enhance our food security?

  I am all in favour of big tomatoes and improving our food security. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the potential uses of CCUS. On Friday, we were at a glass factory that will be using hydrogen from a new project and will be the beneficiary of a decarbonised supply. I look forward to further discussions with the hon. Gentleman.

  Full debate: Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

• 02 Oct 2024: Tweet

  The end of British steel-making 10,000 jobs lost Importing steel from China which is 60% powered by coal Those cheering this as decarbonisation have lost the plot. This is bad for global emissions. https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1841074826569490929 [Source]

• 02 Oct 2024: Tweet

  The end of British steel-making 10,000 jobs lost Importing steel from China which is 60% powered by coal Those cheering this as decarbonisation have lost the plot. This is bad for global emissions. https://twitter.com/tylerdu50887305/status/1841205667081633971 [Source]

• 27 Sep 2024: Tweet

  If we don’t focus on cheap energy then our industries will move abroad to countries which are still powered by coal. There is no point in being world leading if no one will follow your lead. We’d be better off investing in tech to help the rest of the world decarbonise cheaply. https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1839410052127424847 [Source]

• 19 Sep 2024: Tweet

  Ed Miliband is pursuing a 2030 decarbonisation target that no other major economy is aiming for — with no analysis of what it will do to the cost of our energy or our reliance on Chinese imports. Everyone who cares about energy bills should be asking him these questions. https://twitter.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1836783312100114498/photo/1 [Source]

• 17 Sep 2024: Tweet

  This is important because countries around the world - the 99% - are watching. If an ideological approach to net zero makes our energy more expensive, businesses will move abroad to countries with dirtier systems, prices go up, and developing countries won’t follow our lead. [Source]

• 5 Sep 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The Secretary of State is setting up a new body when our energy sector is not short of state-run bodies. We have Ofgem, the National Energy System Operator, the Climate Change Committee, Great British Nuclear and, of course, the UK Infrastructure Bank, with £22 billion to provide debt, equity and guarantees for infrastructure finance to tackle climate change, set up by the former Prime Minister.

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill sets out huge powers for the Secretary of State—he will be like the slim controller of the energy system, as he tries to interfere. But he has a track record in such cluelessness—the 2030 decarbonisation target. “We need more ambition,” he said. We had therefore hoped that the self-confessed nerd would know how to do it, but we had the letter in August to Fintan Slye of the Electricity System Operator, which set out the fact that the Secretary of State did not have a clue about how to deliver 2030 decarbonisation. The answer from Fintan Slye, if he were not in such an impossible position, would have been short: “It can’t be done. You need to do your homework.”

  In a debate just before the summer recess, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), would not repeat the promise either. That is because they all know that it is not true. In fact, one of Labour’s first acts in government has been to take away up to £300 from 10 million pensioners this winter, including two thirds of pensioners in poverty. It takes some nerve for the Labour party to say that it never wanted to do this, because the winter fuel payment was in the manifesto of the Secretary of State’s party when he wrote it in 2010. It was in there when he was leader in 2015, it was in there in 2017 and in 2019, but in 2024 it was omitted. There was no mention at all for the first time in 14 years.

  My right hon. Friend referred to the letter that was sent by the Secretary of State to Fintan Slye, the head of National Grid ESO and, curiously, there is nothing in the Secretary of State’s letter that refers to the need to lower electricity prices. The term “electricity prices” does not appear in the letter and neither does the term “security of supply”. Does she agree that those are the two great concerns about rushing the 2030 decarbonisation target?

  The second promise is clean power by 2030. GB Energy was supposed to be the silver bullet to reach the Secretary of State’s target of a decarbonised grid by 2030. We will come on to whether that is a good idea a bit later. To do that, he said that he needed £28 billion a year. His Chief Secretary to the Treasury talked about hundreds of billions of pounds, and he has in fact secured from his Chancellor £1.6 billion a year. He talked about national ownership. This is not enough money to do that, and he knows it. He himself thought that his plans would cost vastly more, yet he is promising to do it all now with 6% of the funds. That is just not credible.

  That is what the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen said on 26 July—it is in Hansard if Members want to check. It says “in every single project”.

  Here is the problem. If the Secretary of State’s goal is to give taxpayers a good deal, he should be investing on commercial rates, which would just displace private sector capital and would not speed up his decarbonisation targets, produce more energy or lower bills. But if his goal is to de-risk more speculative projects—that is the line that he is giving industry and the thing that he said today—then by definition he will be throwing taxpayers’ money into the least attractive parts of investments, by which I mean the parts that multimillion-pound companies do not want. The risk is that GB Energy, far from generating any profit for taxpayers, will become a skip for all and everyone to put their problems and their failures inside. This is crucial, because we cannot let the Government repeat at a national scale what Labour councils have done at a local level. [Interruption.] Labour Members groan, but they should think about what local taxpayers have had to face.

  Finally—this is really important—the Secretary of State pays lip service to nuclear, but we know that when Labour was last in power it did not start a single nuclear power plant in all its 14 years. All summer, there has been an eerie silence. On the capital raise for Sizewell C, which should be out by now—nothing. On the small modular reactor competition, which should be deciding its final projects now—nothing. We committed to a third large-scale nuclear power plant at Wylfa—again, nothing. We wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen, but once again he has refused to confirm any detail or, with regard to Wylfa, whether those plans are even in place. Can the Secretary of State say whether the creation of GB Energy is slowing down those projects and causing the timetable of these programmes, which will provide clean, cheap energy, to slip?

  Once again, we simply have no answers. I find all this very strange, because at our last encounter in this House, the Secretary of State was keen to confess that he was a “super-nerd”. As someone who has been a lifelong mathlete, I am the first person to want to champion a fellow super-nerd, but when I meet super-nerds they normally like evidence, facts and numbers. Whenever we look at what the Secretary of State has set out, there are no numbers attached. He talks about decarbonising the grid by 2030, but he has not set out the full system costs of that. He promises profits and bill savings from GB Energy, but he cannot tell us by when or how much.

  I thank the right hon. Member for giving way—finally. She is criticising the Government for the rushed target of decarbonising the grid by 2030. Can she enlighten the House on when the Conservative party would do it?

  I will. This is a critical point, which I have made in recent weeks. The point about having longer to decarbonise is that it gives time to develop British supply chains. That is exactly what I was doing. The green industries growth accelerator and some of the other things that I have talked about gave us time to set up British companies. Those things cannot be done in five years. There is a need to get project finance, to hire workers and train them, and to get planning permission. There is a huge amount that needs to be done. The fact that the Secretary of State wants to rush the transition and make it happen at breakneck speed is risking British jobs and livelihoods, and making us dependent on Chinese supply chains.

  Full debate: Great British Energy Bill

• 03 Sep 2024: Tweet

  It’s shame that Ed Miliband/Labour are reverting to statist central planning policies for net zero. The market solutions we put in place created the largest price falls in new technologies for consumers. We must learn from this. [Source]

• 23 Aug 2024: Tweet

  Instead of prioritising cheap energy, Ed Miliband is pursuing reckless net zero targets with no thoughts to the costs to ordinary families. Unions and industry leaders have already sounded the alarm that that Labour’s plan will leave us colder and poorer. [Source]

• 22 Aug 2024: Tweet

  Consumers get the best products when they drive the market through choice. An overly-centralised approach to net zero risks slowing down take-up, and requires higher incentives or stricter punishments to force consumers to buy products that govt dictates is ‘right’ for them. https://twitter.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/1826654579997704667/photo/1 https://twitter.com/edconwaysky/status/1826504242234098150 [Source]