PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Net Zero: Evidence-based Policy - 14 October 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

This Government’s approach is founded on the bedrock of the best scientific evidence, which, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says that net zero by 2050 is essential to limiting global warming to 1.5°. That is why we supported Baroness May’s decision to put net zero by 2050 into law; that was based on advice from the Climate Change Committee. That decision was right for the climate, for energy security, and for the jobs and growth that it can bring to our country.

This Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower is not only delivering against climate targets, but delivering jobs and investment in places like Durham and the wider north-east, where around 500 renewable energy companies already employ around 17,000 people in good-quality jobs—a figure that is set to rise to 24,000. Those who take a stand against climate action would put that growth at risk. Does the Secretary of State share my concerns that the fearmongering by some in this House about the cost and safety of renewables is not only misguided, but fundamentally against our national interests, and will he work with local teams to provide suitable knowledge and education, as suggested by Retrofit Reimagined?

Order. I think the Secretary of State has got it.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, the Climate Change Act 2008 is now an issue that divides this House. I think Rain Newton-Smith, the director general of the CBI, put it very well recently when she said,

“The Climate Act has been the bedrock for investment flowing into the UK.”

Ripping up the framework that has given investors confidence that the UK is serious about sustainable growth through a low-carbon future would damage our economy. Seeking to abolish the Climate Change Act is not just a betrayal of young people—it is anti-jobs and anti-investment.

I will give the hon. Gentleman the answer I gave him last time. Action by the UK makes a difference here. Of course, we are 1% of global emissions, but our action means that other countries act. Where is the evidence for that? Well, it actually happened. When the Climate Change Act passed, 60 other countries passed their own versions of it. Net zero was signed into law in this country, and now 80% of global GDP is covered by net zero. That is the difference the UK makes. I believe in Britain; the hon. Gentleman does not.

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

Lord Stern reminded us just today that

“Investment in climate action is the…growth story of the 21st century,”

while expecting growth from fossil fuels is

“futile because the damage it causes ends in self-destruction.”

The Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed the same thing in the summer, referring to the huge cost of not taking climate action. Is it not the truth that the energy transition is essential, not only to address climate action, but to exactly how we deliver economic success?

The Chair of the Select Committee speaks very wisely on this matter. The net zero economy grew three times faster than the economy as a whole last year. This is the growth opportunity of the 21st century. Now, we could let China or India take that opportunity, but I say that we need that opportunity for Britain.

The Climate Change Act forces Ministers to meet rigid, legally binding emissions targets, regardless of the economic consequences. Does the Secretary of State accept that this law has directly contributed to higher energy bills, the loss of British industry and declining competitiveness, and that the only sensible course of action is to repeal it?

No, and British business roundly condemned the Conservatives when they came out with that argument. The hon. Gentleman should have a word with the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), sitting on the Front Bench, who said just in March last year—life comes at you fast, Mr Speaker—that Britain was the “poster child” for net zero. She was lauding everything associated with that, and now she wants to abolish the Act that made it possible.