14:53 Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)

His Majesty the King said that the Government will lead on action to tackle biodiversity loss. With COP28 approaching, the Prime Minister should get familiar with WWT Slimbridge’s flamingos on our patch. I will take all the help that I can get to have a dedicated domestic wetlands team and strategy in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If he is not persuaded, flamingos are absolutely marvellous for that wonderful Instagram account of his. The King is the WWT president, and wetlands can genuinely help us to reach our net zero targets.

[Source]

15:21 Rishi Sunak (Conservative)

Returning to energy security, the Opposition want to ban all new oil and gas licences, risking our becoming even more dependent on Putin’s Russia for our crucial supplies of energy. What is even more absurd about their policy is this: the Leader of the Opposition is not against all oil and gas; he is just against British oil and gas. Unlike the Opposition, who want to pursue net zero with an ideological zeal—going even faster and further no matter what the cost or the disruption—we on the Conservative Benches are cutting the cost of net zero for working people, saving British families £5,000, £10,000 or £15,000, and that is the choice.

The hon. Lady talks about being straight. It is the Conservative party and me who were straight with the British people about the cost of getting to net zero—something that she and the Labour party would do well to follow. Because we have been honest and transparent and have cut those costs, we will save British families £5,000, £10,000 or £15,000—

[Source]

15:47 Stephen Flynn (SNP)

Another strand to achieve economic growth, if colleagues were so willing, would be to double down on investment in net zero—to do as the Americans are doing, and to follow the lead of Joe Biden with the Inflation Reduction Act. It makes sense. It makes sense to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, so that we are not left behind and can compete for the decades to come. Net zero is not a hindrance; it is a growth opportunity.

It is just seven days since the Government announced 27 licences for offshore oil and gas, and now they have come forward with a proposal to do so on an annual basis. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman chuntering from a sedentary position like a wee dafty. If he chooses to listen, I will get to my point. What he knows I believe is that there must be an evidence-based approach to oil and gas extraction—an evidence-based approach which is anathema to this Government. We need to be considering our energy security and our commitment to net zero, to jobs and opportunities and, of course, to our investment in renewables. What I would like to see the Government do—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me in this regard—is to ensure that in regard to the pre-existing licences for the likes of offshore wind, where the Government have failed, we see improvements to ensure that this actually happens.

[Source]

16:09 Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat)

Let us look just at energy, where today the Government could have brought forward plans to ensure Britain’s energy security and to bring down energy prices, with sustainable energy price cuts, for the long term. The Government could have announced plans to insulate homes to cut people’s energy bills and to invest properly in cheap, clean, renewable energy for the future. Instead, the Conservatives are choosing, once again, to shackle us to the expensive, dirty fossil fuels of the past.

[Source]

16:15 Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)

I draw the House’s attention to two entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am director and chair of the Global Commission for Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and I chair the Aldersgate Group, which brings businesses, non-governmental organisations, academics and others together to champion a prosperous, net zero emissions, environmentally-sustainable economy. Both of those roles are unpaid.

“From net zero to HS2, smoking to education, we are going to tackle the challenges that other politicians have been afraid to even talk about.”

Since I read that, I have been racking my brains as to which Prime Minister put net zero in 2050 into legislation. Answers on a postcard, please.

A couple of weeks ago, I spoke to pupils at Cox Green School in my constituency. We talked about various issues. The teacher asked them to raise their hands if they were concerned about mental health—the majority did—and then to raise their hands if they were concerned about climate change and the environment. Again, the majority raised their hands. In relation to the King’s Speech and the Government’s programme on climate change and environmental degradation, the Government are missing an opportunity. What we need to do now is to press the accelerator on transition to a green economy, not try to draw back. The King’s Speech says that

“my Ministers will seek to attract record levels of investment in renewable energy sources,”

but I fear that that ambition is not sufficiently strong to make sure that the Government make that transition quickly enough to ensure that we reach net zero in 2050. It is no good waking up on 1 January 2045 and saying, “We have five years to do something, let’s do it now” because that will be even more costly for members of the public.

I commend the right hon. Lady for what she is saying. In Northern Ireland, we do not have the contract for difference scheme, but people have it here on the mainland. I have been keen to pursue this matter with the Government. It would help the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to meet its net zero figures if Northern Ireland were part of that. It needs to be a part of it, but the contract for difference scheme—

Order. Mr Shannon, sit down for a second. We know that this is on net zero, but the point is that this is a speech, not a question, so quickly come to the end.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that we in Northern Ireland want to be part of the net zero scheme? Is it not right that we should do that through the contract for difference scheme?

I am tempted to say to the hon. Gentleman that, when he was called to speak, it was only 4.23. Of course we want to make sure that all parts of the United Kingdom are part of our plans. I do not know the contract for difference details that he talks about, but we want to make sure that every part of the United Kingdom is able to contribute to the work to reach net zero, and there are things the Government must do to enable that.

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I completely agree on the need to keep focused on the pathway to net zero. I am a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, and we are told that unlocking the grid and making faster approvals for new energy schemes to come on to the grid is most vital in that pathway. Does she welcome what there was in the King’s Speech about transforming the speed at which decisions can be made about new power coming on to our grid?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that getting those grid connections right and making it easier and faster for people to make them are critical for us to reach net zero. I am pleased that the reform of grid connections was in the King’s Speech; we wait to hear the details of what the Chancellor and the Secretary of State will bring forward on that.

Green skills are important, but I also worry that we are sending mixed messages to investors. They need to have the confidence to invest in our transition to a green economy and we need to show that the Government are pressing the accelerator on that. The best long-term decision we can make is on climate change. The long-term future of this country and its people depends on us dealing with climate change and environmental degradation, so I want the Government to press the accelerator, not to roll backwards.

[Source]

16:28 Meg Hillier (Labour)

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I think she needs to join me on my campaign for slow politics, because clearly we have the same agenda here. Some of the best political decisions are those where we are looking 10, 20 or even 30 years ahead, and she is right that we need to be looking at net zero now and planning ahead. Unfortunately, though, this King’s Speech, and indeed the record of this Government led by the party of which she is a member, are thin gruel in that respect.

[Source]

16:40 David Davis (Conservative)

That is why, unlike the hon. Lady, I welcome what I think of as the common sense in the King’s Speech. There are a number of sensible measures, including on crime and justice to promote safety, justice and closure for victims, which is important, and on net zero, where the approach is intelligent and measured, rather than headline driven. That is important—the old net zero strategy would not have survived the public reaction. Like the hon. Lady, I vehemently welcome the policy on smoking. We have done far too little for many decades to focus on public health, rather than patching people up in the last three years of their life, which is what our national health service has been reduced to doing. In education, we are building on some of our successes, including in PISA—the programme for international student assessment—and our international competitiveness. There is much to recommend in the proposals in the King’s Speech, particularly with respect to apprenticeships and vocational education. The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education is brilliant and is making a great difference.

[Source]

17:01 Sammy Wilson (DUP)

May I first, on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, congratulate the King on his first King’s Speech and the way in which he delivered it? Our gratitude also goes to his mother, who for so long served our nation. I also congratulate the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address. However, when the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) was being praised by some Members on the Opposition Front Bench, I must say that I wondered how they married up their commitment to net zero with the right hon. Gentleman’s pride in having three coal-guzzling steam engines and what that does to the carbon footprint in Yorkshire. Nevertheless, I am glad that some of the mad ideas—that we should change our lifestyles because of the threat from carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere—have not put him off.

I am pleased that the Government have made a commitment to grant licences; the only thing I will say, given that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) is in her place, is this. The one threat that I see to the ability to deliver on that pledge is that those who oppose it have been handed a sledgehammer, which they will be able to use in judicial reviews and court cases, and so on, because we still have a commitment in legislation to reach net zero by 2050. We have seen it already. Every time an infrastructure project is proposed that requires the use of oil and gas, it is challenged in the courts on the basis that to allow it will detract from the ability to meet our target of net zero by 2050.

[Source]

17:13 John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

I welcome very much the emphasis in the King’s Speech on the United Kingdom’s producing more of our own oil and gas in substitution for that which we are currently importing. The logic of substitution is most obvious in the case of gas. We have gas pipelines already installed to bring gas from the fields to the mainland, with capacity in them because gas output has been declining; and, of course, if we deliver it directly through gas pipelines we have none of the extra cost and trouble of transit involved in importing liquefied natural gas, usually from the United States or Qatar. Those who are keenest on the road to net zero should recognise that having our own gas down a pipe greatly reduces the amount of world carbon dioxide because so much more carbon dioxide is generated if it is necessary to liquefy the gas, to transport it for long distances, and then to recreate it as gas when it arrives. All those are very energy-intensive processes which we do not need if we generate more of our own gas from the North sea.

[Source]

17:24 Nia Griffith (Labour)

Take steel, which is a vital foundation industry. For years, this Conservative Government have been half-hearted in their support for the steel industry. They have failed to tackle the high energy prices that make our steel uncompetitive, and they have failed to invest in the future. Worse, there are 20-plus projects across Europe looking at how to decarbonise the blast furnace process, but there is not one project in the UK.

The Conservative Government, in their so-called big announcement back in September, promised only £0.5 billion to invest in an electric arc furnace in Port Talbot, whereas Labour has recognised and committed £3 billion to decarbonise the steel industry. That is the sort of investment needed to get the necessary technologies to green the blast furnace process. Yes, we need electric arc furnaces to recycle more of the 800 million tonnes of steel that are currently exported for recycling, but we also need to develop the necessary technology to transform the blast furnace process for extracting iron from iron ore.

This Conservative Government’s reference to energy in the King’s Speech beggars belief. While the rest of the world is going forward, making huge investment in green energies and technologies, we see the UK Government going backwards, promoting the issuing of more oil and gas licences, which, by the Government’s own admission, will not bring down energy bills for consumers. We have huge potential in the UK to produce cheap energy through renewables, slashing prices for households, businesses and industry, while also cutting our emissions to zero—this is a win-win situation. We have huge potential for wind energy, both onshore and offshore, and some of the highest tidal ranges in the world, with capacity around the UK to produce electricity 24/7, not to mention the potential for wave technologies, hydro and solar. By fast-tracking the development of renewables, we can both slash domestic energy bills and fuel a new green industrial revolution, with a massive roll-out of energy.

That is precisely what we in the Labour party intend to do. We have a plan to supercharge investment in renewables, including with the creation of GB Energy. However, we are seeing an abject failure by this Conservative Government to develop renewables. What do we see on renewable energy in the King’s Speech? The Government are going to “seek to attract” investment in renewables. That went well in the Celtic sea offshore energy auction, didn’t it? Not a single bid was made because the Government failed to respond to the companies’ pointing out that inflation was driving up costs. The Republic of Ireland recognised the problem and got a successful auction; we got not one single bid, but it got a successful auction. The Government have to do better than just trying to attract investment.

[Source]

17:34 Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)

Talking of taking burdens off backs, there is a part of the King’s Speech that is essential, but does not go far enough. A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an excellent speech about lifting some of the net zero burdens and some of that will be coming forward to this House in the coming months, but it is nothing like enough. On the motor cars issue, most of the regulations, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) pointed out, will remain and will still make it harder for people to buy cars; they will make it more expensive. That is a burden on British people. We want to be getting rid of things such as that. We do not want to force people to do things; we want the technology to be there first so that they want to do it. No one had to regulate to make people give up the horse and carriage and move to the motor car—the horseless carriage, as I used to call it—even though His Majesty came to Parliament in a horse and carriage. They did so not because of a regulation or a penalty, but because market forces meant that we favoured the motor car. If an electric motor car is so good, people will buy it; if it is not so good, they will stick to petrol—I am certainly going to stick to petrol for the time being.

[Source]

17:57 Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)

On energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset mentioned the Drax power station and, in doing so, drew attention to a really important issue for this country. The Government are absolutely right to seek to continue to exploit oil and gas from the North sea. The Climate Change Committee itself expects us to still need significant amounts by 2050, so why on earth is it better for this country to ship oil and gas from the middle east in large tankers with higher emissions than simply producing it off the coast of Scotland, creating and protecting jobs in Scotland? It baffles me as to why the SNP seems keen to destroy jobs in Scotland, but it is.

[Source]

18:08 Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)

It has been interesting listening to the speeches today. I have found myself agreeing with Members I do not always agree with. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) made some important points on net zero, and I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on the secondary legislation around deforestation. But the debate on the Humble Address has already signalled the difference between the two sides of this House. On our side, we have a Labour party that is a Government in waiting, with plans to cut the cost of living, improve education once and for all, and get Britain building again. On the other side, we have a Government who have simply run out of ideas. They have nothing new to offer to the people of Sunderland or to the country. My constituents expected the Government to finally understand the damage they have caused up and down the country—the damage they have done to our communities because of a lack of investment, to education through lack of care, and to household budgets as the country still reels from the disastrous mini-Budget of the previous Prime Minister.

[Source]

18:26 Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)

I asked the Government where the plan is, and I want to refer to some of the work that the SNP Westminster group has done over the past year. We have published two papers, and I commend them both to colleagues. One is “The Economic Opportunity for Scotland from Renewable Energy and Green Technology”, and the other is the “Roadmap for a Scottish Green Industrial Strategy”. We have done the hard work in terms of where opportunities for growth, prosperity and jobs will come from. We have heard a lot today about oil and gas, but the Government must be careful about the signalling that is taking place. Whether they like it or not, we have to get to net zero, whether we are talking about Scotland’s aspiration of 2045, or Westminster and 2050. We need to drive that investment in green energy to come to this country.

That is the reality. We either recognise the importance of driving faster to deliver that green energy revolution, and doing so will give us an industrial advantage, or we face the wrong way by prioritising oil and gas, which will not fundamentally make a difference to us or anyone else. Let me just expand on that because in the report that I referred to, which was published last year, we considered the green energy output of Scotland at that point, which was 12 GW. Based on what we know from plans that already exist—there is no fantasy and I challenge anybody to refute the numbers we have published—in Scotland alone we can increase our green energy output to 80 GW by 2050, a fivefold increase.

When we start to think about that, we start to think about all sorts of things. How do we create grid connectivity? Some reference was made to that in the King’s Speech, which I welcome. Where is the plan to ensure that we develop the grid capacity we need to deliver that green energy? For goodness’ sake, let us think about—and let us be honest about—some of the mistakes we have made in the past. We never benefited to the fullest extent from the opportunities for the supply chain in oil and gas, and we certainly have not done that with the first generation of green energy. This is not just about plans on paper to increase green energy production; it is about how we ensure that we benefit from that. How do we ensure that we have the planning and consent, and that the energy revolution, whether onshore, offshore, wind, tidal, solar, or pump storage, actually happens?

There is more I could say, but I recognise that others wish to speak so I will stop here. We have a choice in Scotland of two futures. The United Kingdom is in long-term relative decline. I am saddened that when I look at my country, the country of Scotland, our relative population in the United Kingdom has declined every decade since 1850, and I want to change that. The only way we will change that record is if we drive investment into the Scottish economy. What an opportunity we have with green energy. So I say to the people of Scotland that there is a choice. We can stay where we are, or we can recognise that if we want to drive up our economy and productivity, and create better paid jobs and the resources to invest in our public services, then come with us. Ultimately, Scotland’s future will be as an independent country and away from this place. There is not a single mention of Scotland in the King’s Speech, and people in Scotland need to reflect on that.

There is more I could say, but I recognise that others wish to speak so I will stop here. We have a choice in Scotland of two futures. The United Kingdom is in long-term relative decline. I am saddened that when I look at my country, the country of Scotland, our relative population in the United Kingdom has declined every decade since 1850, and I want to change that. The only way we will change that record is if we drive investment into the Scottish economy. What an opportunity we have with green energy. So I say to the people of Scotland that there is a choice. We can stay where we are, or we can recognise that if we want to drive up our economy and productivity, and create better paid jobs and the resources to invest in our public services, then come with us. Ultimately, Scotland’s future will be as an independent country and away from this place. There is not a single mention of Scotland in the King’s Speech, and people in Scotland need to reflect on that.

[Source]

18:39 Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)

Finally, colleagues have touched on the importance of improving grid connections. That is absolutely right in the transport world. It is easy to think of transport as a stand-alone policy area, but it touches so many other areas. If we are to decarbonise and electrify large parts of our transport system, we need to ensure that we have sufficient generating capacity and distribution capacity. Otherwise, those ambitions will not be realised.

[Source]

19:07 Stephen Doughty (Labour)

One of the starkest contrasts in approach between Wales and those of us on the Labour Benches, and the current Government, is on climate change and the green transition. The Government have abandoned targets and are going backwards when we need to be moving forward with green transition, green jobs, green investment, sustainable housing and adaptation. Communities in my local area, in places such as Sully and Dinas Powys, are already experiencing the consequences of severe flooding and rainfall events. But I also see the opportunities, for example in green steel, the recycled steel already in produced in my constituency, and in green industries and green technologies of the future, many being piloted at our fantastic universities in Cardiff and south Wales.

[Source]

19:34 Rachael Maskell (Labour)

At a time when we face an economic crisis, a climate crisis, a cost of living crisis and a housing crisis, and with the NHS in meltdown, the failure to bring forward a serious legislative programme today only highlights how this Government are out of ideas, out of time and soon to be out of office.

[Source]

20:10 Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)

Global insecurity brings insecurity at home. We have felt that most acutely in our energy prices. On energy security, I agree with the Government that, for so long as this country needs to use oil and gas, we should endeavour to produce that domestically, where the production can be done to a higher environmental standard, where the carbon cost is lower and, most importantly, where we can have more security about the supply. That does not mean that we should take our eye off the ball when it comes to climate change. Climate change not only causes fires, floods and food shortages, but fuels conflict. Addressing climate change remains one of our biggest challenges. We know that it is not easy, and the Government are right that we must bring people with us, but we must not suggest to people that this issue does not matter and we should not lower our leadership on it. As a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State tomorrow.

[Source]

20:24 Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)

The way to respond to the climate crisis and the challenge of the energy crisis is not to simply carry on as if nothing is happening. We have to wean ourselves off the oil and fossil fuels that are changing the planet’s climate, and invest in clean, green, renewable energy from sources that Scotland has in abundance: wave, wind, and—though it may be hard to believe—solar. Investments that can use and develop the skills of our workforce and provide new, well-paying jobs for this and future generations. The petroleum licensing Bill announced today appears to do just the opposite.

Scotland can and must, and in the end will, do much better than this. Independence would give us the powers and opportunity to tackle the cost of living crisis at home and the climate crisis across the globe. It is time, as the late, great Winnie Ewing said, to stop the world, because Scotland wants to get on.

[Source]

20:51 Anna McMorrin (Labour)

With the backdrop of the worst energy bill crisis in a generation, one of the wettest summers on record, and storms and floods ravaging our communities, the world is facing a climate crisis. This Government have used the King’s Speech to announce legislation to award new oil and gas licences annually, claiming that it will ensure energy security when, in reality, it just increases our reliance on fossil fuels, pushing us further into dependency. That is the same dependency that caused the worst cost of living crisis in almost a hundred years. The worst bit is that this Government openly admitted just yesterday that these measures will not cut energy bills by a single penny. If this Government have ever tried to bring down energy bills for British families, it is safe to say that they have now given up.

Instead, the Government choose to hand billions of taxpayer subsidies to the oil and gas companies that are already making eye-watering profits, continuing to undermine our energy security and to contribute to the climate catastrophe—a catastrophe made significant worse by the Government refusing to reappoint a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office special representative for climate change after they scrapped the role. Labour will put that right, and we will put investment in renewables at the heart of our growth plan, creating jobs for the future and ensuring that profits from oil and gas giants go straight into the pockets of those who need them.

I am proud of my Cardiff North constituency for its commitment to the fight climate change. Just this week, I supported the Coed Caerdydd project and planted trees in a bid to make Cardiff a carbon-neutral city by 2030. In the summer, as part of the Keep Wales Tidy campaign, our local community launched the Llanishen litter-pickers group. They meet every Saturday of the month, and we can see the difference that their dedication makes. Incredible local, family-run businesses Iechyd Da and Siop Sero are committed to reducing waste, setting an example of local, climate and environmental leadership. Let us be clear, however, that the climate crisis and cost of living crisis go hand in hand, and we cannot consider one without the other. It is a very real crisis as we enter these cold winter months.

[Source]