State of Climate and Nature

15:45:00

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the climate and nature crisis. On the day that the Met Office publishes its “State of the UK Climate” report for 2024, the Environment Secretary and I want to share with the British people what we know about the scale of the crisis and explain the actions that we are taking in response. We intend this to become an annual statement to Parliament. Let me start by setting out what we know from the science. According to the World Meteorological Organisation, the past decade has seen the 10 warmest years on record globally. It says that long-term global warming, assessed by a range of methods, is estimated to be between 1.34°C and 1.41°C above pre-industrial levels, and last year was the first time we saw an individual year above 1.5°C. Today’s Met Office report shows that, in line with what is happening globally, the UK’s climate is getting hotter and wetter, with more extreme events. The central England temperature series shows that recent warmth has far exceeded any temperatures observed in at least 300 years. Over the past 50 years, the number of days above 28°C has doubled, and the number of days above 30°C has trebled. This spring was the UK’s warmest on record, beating the record broken last year. Meanwhile, warming oceans and melting ice sheets have contributed to sea levels around the UK rising by 13.4 cm over the past three decades, and this is accelerating. The science is unequivocal about why this is happening. As the Met Office said this morning: “This…is not a natural variation in our climate…human emissions of greenhouse gasses are warming the atmosphere and changing the weather we experience”. We know that climate change and nature loss are fundamentally linked and contribute to each other. Globally, we are losing species at a much faster rate than at any other time in human history. Here in Britain, a quarter of our mammals and nearly half of our bird species are currently at risk of extinction, with birds such as starlings, turtle doves and grey partridges under threat. The abundance of species in England has fallen by an estimated third since 1970, and Britain has become one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. The impacts of extreme weather and nature loss are not simply a future threat to our country; they are already here and having impacts on our way of life. We know that heavy rainfall made last year’s harvest the second worst in at least four decades, costing farmers hundreds of millions of pounds. According to the Environment Agency, more than half of our best agricultural land and over 6 million properties in England are already at risk of flooding. According to the UK Health Security Agency, there were more than 10,000 excess deaths—10,000 people losing their lives—during English heatwaves between 2020 and 2024. As we know from recent events, rising temperatures place pressures on every aspect of our national life. We have seen this again over the past few days, with incidents of wildfires from Surrey to Scotland, disruption due to trains overheating, and hosepipe bans announced in Yorkshire, Kent and Sussex. The climate crisis is also a massive threat to our economy; the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report, published last week, says that the damage caused by climate impacts in a near-3°C world is forecast to cut our GDP by 8% by the early 2070s. Based on current GDP, that will be roughly £200 billion. These are uncomfortable, sobering facts, and we should make no mistake: we must act on the climate and nature crisis to protect our British way of life, because no sector or part of our society is immune from those risks. Unfortunately, all the evidence suggests that this is just the start of the threat we face. I want to acknowledge in particular the anxieties that many young people feel about these issues. My candid message to them is this: yes, there are real reasons to worry about the world they will inherit, but we can do something about it. Every fraction of a degree of warming that we prevent, and every step we take to preserve nature, helps to limit the severity of impacts and protect our country from irreparable harm. It is our generations today who have a unique opportunity to act, because unlike previous generations, we can see the evidence of the climate and nature crisis all around us, yet we still have time to limit the worst effects. The only answer is to reduce emissions, protect and restore nature and adapt to the impacts that are now inevitable. Let me take those in turn. To those who doubt whether Britain can have any impact on the pathway of global emissions, the lesson of history is that we can. Before the Paris climate agreement was negotiated 10 years ago, the world was on course for 4ºC of global warming. Now, national commitments imply 2.6ºC of global warming, or below 2ºC if countries meet their full climate targets. We remain way off track from where we need to be as a world, but we in this country have helped make a difference across parties. In 2008, this House came together to pass the world’s first Climate Change Act. That was under a Labour Government, supported by Lord Cameron, the Conservative party and parties across the House. Now, thanks to the power of our example, nearly 60 countries have similar legislation. In 2019, under Baroness May, the UK became the first major economy to legislate for net zero by 2050, supported by the Labour party and parties across this House. Now, in part thanks to the actions at COP26 in Glasgow, including the leadership of Lord Sharma as COP president, some 80% of global GDP is covered by net zero commitments. In 2021, England became the first country to introduce a legal duty to halt species decline by 2030, led by Boris Johnson and supported by parties across the House. Now, 196 countries are signed up to the global biodiversity framework to halt and reverse nature loss. The lesson is clear. The choices we make as a country influence the course of global action and, in doing so, reduce the impact of the climate and nature crisis on future generations in Britain. To those who say that Britain cannot make a difference, I say, “You are wrong. Stop talking our country down. British leadership matters.” We also know that climate and nature action has huge potential upsides, and not just for future generations. It has the potential for better lives today in energy security, lower bills, cleaner air, good jobs, better health and wellbeing, and improved access to nature. This Government believe in sticking to our traditions as a country of climate and nature leadership. Indeed, turning away now, at this moment of all moments, when the threat and opportunity are clearer than ever, would be the greatest dereliction of duty and betrayal of future generations. That is why one of the Government’s five missions is to achieve clean power by 2030 and to accelerate to net zero across the economy. It is why at COP29 we announced a 1.5ºC-aligned target for 2035, based on legislation passed under the last Conservative Government. It is why we are driving forward on our commitment to protect 30% of our land and seas for nature and to halt species loss by the end of the decade. It is why we made the most significant investment in clean energy, climate and nature in the UK’s history at the spending review, which will drive jobs across the country. Because the actions we need are not just about Government, we are also determined to help communities take climate and nature action in their own area, whether that is driving the expansion of local and community-owned clean energy projects through Great British Energy or supporting mayors and local government to accelerate action. At COP30 and beyond, we are determined once again to use the power of our example to work with others to uphold the objectives of the Paris agreement, including with ambitious climate targets, action to accelerate the clean energy revolution and the protection of nature and forests. As I have said, action on emissions is not enough on its own. We must also protect the British people from the impacts that we already see, and sadly, the greater impacts that we are likely to see in the future. This work, led by my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary, requires action across society, from homes and buildings to critical infrastructure and our natural environment. We are now delivering Britain’s largest ever flood defence programme, investing £7.9 billion over the next decade in flood barriers and nature-based solutions such as wetland restoration. That comes alongside pioneering local nature recovery strategies, with measures such as tree planting and peat restoration, which deliver adaptation and nature recovery together. In my Department, as we drive forward our plan to upgrade millions of homes, we have consulted on expanding the boiler upgrade scheme to include air-to-air heat pumps, which can offer cooling as well as heating. However, I must be candid with the House: we know that this is just the beginning of the reckoning that we need on how our country needs to adapt across all parts of society in the years to come, and this Government are determined to put climate resilience at the heart of our decision-making. We have been at our best in the House when we have worked across parties on these issues. I want to thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the Climate and Nature Bill, and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for our discussions earlier this year in the run-up to that Bill, as well as the other co-sponsors, who highlighted the need for today’s statement. Let me also take this opportunity to pay tribute to current and former Members across the House for their tireless advocacy on climate and nature. The safety of our citizens, our natural world and the country that we pass on is not a Labour cause, a Conservative cause, or the cause of any other party; it is a British cause, a cause of us all, and a cause that requires all of us to consider our responsibilities to the generations of today and the generations to come. I commend this statement to the House.

15:56:00

It is a rare pleasure to see the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today, given that he turned down the opportunity to defend his plan for clean power by 2030 or the report from the National Energy System Operator that was published earlier in the year. Perhaps that is why we are being given a slightly longer statement than usual, making up for missed opportunities. However, we welcome the Met Office’s report, which makes for interesting reading. I think we can all attest to the fact that Britain today is warmer than it was before. We all agree that the challenge of the changing climate is vast, and it is one of many challenges facing the United Kingdom today, but I must tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that ridiculous statements such as that made this morning by the Environment Secretary, labelling opponents of net zero “unpatriotic”, is as offensive as it is risible, and does nothing to advance the cause. I must also express my growing sense of unease, and that of many others, about the language emanating from those surrounding this Secretary of State, accusing anyone who dares to question the policies or plans being worked on by his Department of being “deniers” or being supportive of an “end to our British way of life”. We need to bring back a sense of rationality, or proportion, to this debate, because out there, language such as this is alienating more and more people from the important cause of ensuring that the planet we pass on to our children and their children is in a better state than the one we have inherited. The Secretary of State calls this “radical truth telling”, but I am afraid that he is not being honest with the British people about the impact of the Government’s plans on the climate, bills and jobs, or about the sacrifices it demands. The Leader of the Opposition has been very clear: chasing “Net Zero by 2050” is unachievable without making the country worse off. That is the truth. Global warming is a global issue, which we cannot face alone. The global climate challenge will not be solved by the UK alone, and it cannot be solved on the backs of British workers or British bill payers.

Order. We need to be careful about what we say. I think that the hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Secretary of State was not honest, and I think we are all honest Members here.

I completely agree, Mr Speaker, and I apologise if I insinuated the opposite in any way. The UK accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. That is also the truth. In fact, now that I come to think of it, it is rather shameful that the Secretary of State should be using this report from the Met Office as cover, while ratcheting up the language and increasing the shrill criticism of all who question the Department and its policies, all to distract from the fact that the plans mean that Britain will be poorer and that no one looking at how we are decarbonising could ever claim that this is a model to follow. We are proud to have been a world leader—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Members do not give way when making or responding to a statement. We are proud to have been a world leader, but it is not a race if no one else is running. If we are leading the way, we need to make sure that it is a path that others will follow. We must decarbonise in a way that creates energy security and prosperity, rather than forcing industry abroad and impoverishing British people. Why is that so hard for the Labour party to understand? We see in the Met Office’s report that the demand for cooling has approximately doubled—a strong case for introducing more air conditioning into homes, which would improve comfort and reduce the burden on the health system during heatwaves. Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to expand the boiler upgrade scheme to include air-to-air heat pumps, which, as he says, offer cooling as well as heating, may I urge him to speak to the Mayor of London and get the ridiculous restrictions on air conditioning units in newbuilds in London removed? We must move away from this poverty mindset on reducing energy usage. Paying for solar panels to be switched off, while refusing to absorb the excess demand to cool homes, is truly ridiculous. It is time to take the global scale and nature of this challenge seriously. Offshoring manufacturing, like ceramics, does not solve global warming, but it does make Britain poorer and Brits unemployed. To build this Government’s 1.5 million new homes, we will use more bricks that at any time since the second world war, but thanks to this Government, fewer than ever before will be made here in Britain. While the Secretary of State admired the fast-paced build out of new renewable generation, new nuclear and low-carbon energy on an unseen scale on his recent visit to the People’s Republic of China, perhaps he was able to reflect on the factors enabling that: the opening of two new coal-fired power stations every week, and the cost of industrial energy in China being less than a third of our domestic cost. We cannot innovate, manufacture, and create growth and prosperity while our energy costs are killing manufacturing. I am afraid that this Government’s plans will drive up the underlying cost of energy for industry, and Britain will pay the price. Only a year ago, Labour candidates were trotting out lines on how they would cut bills by £300. Since then, network charges, which account for 22% of an energy bill, have risen by over £100 as a result of the rush to build out the grid for new renewables. Cornwall Insights, an independent energy analyst, has called for the Secretary of State to be “transparent about what the money is being spent on”. Its principal consultant has urged the Secretary of State to be honest with the public about the impact of net zero policy costs on bills. Of course, a clean, secure and reliable power source exists in the form of nuclear. We welcome the announcements of the commitment to Sizewell C and the small modular reactor programme, but the lack of ambition, the refusal to commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor—preferably on Anglesey—the decision to decommission the UK’s stockpile of plutonium, the selection of only one small modular reactor technology, and the refusal to repeat the 24 GW ambition that we set out for the nuclear industry are frustrating. We could do so much more. Will the Secretary of State commit to protecting Wylfa for a new gigawatt-scale reactor in the future? It is indeed time for a policy of radical honesty. Global warming is a global challenge, and I am afraid the Secretary of State’s plans will have a negligible, or even negative, impact on global emissions. Sadly, he is driven by ideology, not by the practicalities of facing this challenge while growing the economy. We are telling the difficult truths; the Government are running from reality.

I will be honest, Mr Speaker: I just feel incredibly sad when I listen to the hon. Gentleman—and not in a good way. The trouble is that we are now in a situation in which the shadow Secretary of State goes into hiding when there is a statement about the climate crisis, because it is just too embarrassing to try to articulate the Opposition’s position. The central chasm at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s response is that he and his colleagues have taken the decision to abandon 20 years of bipartisanship on climate. Theresa May’s promise to deliver net zero by 2050 was one of the great strides forward, but he is now trashing that and saying it was a disaster. Let us be honest: it is grossly irresponsible. We are expected to believe that the Conservatives oppose net zero because they know, 25 years in advance of the target, that it cannot be achieved, but they cannot possibly know that. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee says exactly the opposite in its latest report. The hon. Gentleman says he is worried about costs, but all the evidence suggests that delaying action costs more, not less. The CCC says net zero will cut energy bills and the cost of motoring. We do not even know whether the Conservatives want a net zero target at all, or no net zero target ever. The hon. Gentleman said something the other week—I read his interviews with care in my spare time—about reaching net zero by 2050 not being based on the science, but he is absolutely wrong. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says: “In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030…reaching net zero around 2050”. The point is that net zero was a target that Theresa May adopted, driven by the science. What are the Conservatives? They are anti-science, anti-jobs, anti-energy security, and anti-future generations. I have to say that I cannot put it better than Theresa May—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) should be quiet, because he used to work for her. This is what Theresa May, the Conservative Prime Minister just five or so years ago, has said: “Those of us who advocate accelerating our progress towards net zero emissions are labelled fanatics and zealots. Ironically, the name-calling often emanates from ideologues at the political extremes or from populists who offer only easy answers to complex questions.” I could not put it better myself.

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

Select Committees look at the evidence, follow the evidence and make recommendations on the basis of the evidence. Today, we have heard from the Secretary of State the evidence from the Met Office about the seriousness of the threat, the reality of the nature of the crisis and the fact that that will only grow. The shadow Minister missed something because he needs to acknowledge not just the costs of taking action but the costs of not doing so. The Secretary of State read out those costs: £200 billion or 8% of GDP if we get 3° of warming, according to the OBR. Those opposing climate action in this place can also see the evidence that cheaper driving and home heating are already available to many people, and we should be making them available to as many people as possible. They also know that switching to low-carbon electricity as much and as fast as we can will make this country safer by getting control of our energy generation and supply. Does the Secretary of State agree that the patriotic approach is to work together to cut emissions for financial, security, nature and climate reasons?

My hon. Friend puts it very well. As I have experienced over the last 20 years, we have not had a culture war on climate, because the Conservative party and the Labour party chose to say that this really matters. The Conservative party has apparently abandoned its belief in climate action at precisely the time, as the CCC has shown—in carbon budget 7, for example—that this is the way to reduce costs for people. I would make another point. I notice there are young people watching in the Public Gallery and elsewhere. What message do we send to them by saying, “Look, we just can’t act on this”? It is such a betrayal of future generations, who have genuine anxiety about what world they are going to inherit from us.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank both the Energy Secretary and the Environment Secretary for today’s momentous statement, which I trust will be the first of many annual climate and nature statements. I also thank them for recognising the role of Zero Hour and the campaigners behind the Climate and Nature Bill—the private Member’s Bill that I am proud to have brought to this House, with cross-party support. I warmly welcome the move to more joined-up thinking between the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and applaud the willingness of the Government to work across the House, even if that willingness is not always reciprocated. However, this statement has missed a trick. The Secretary of State promised collaboration with campaigners, non-governmental organisations and communities. In reality, engagement so far has been very limited. If stakeholders had been involved, he might have acknowledged calls from the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to remove the threats to nature protection in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, or the Nature Friendly Farming Network’s concern over the suspension of the sustainable farming incentive. He told the Environmental Audit Committee that this would be a “public participation issue”, yet there was no consultation of the Climate and Nature Bill campaigners ahead of this statement. If we want to bring communities with us, we have to include them and listen to them. People across the country are already driving change in their communities, schools, farms and businesses, and to build a better, greener future, the Government should be tapping into that Great British human energy—to coin a phrase. The Liberal Democrats are proud to be doing exactly that, with policies such as an emergency home insulation programme, solar panels on every new build, investment in cheap renewable energy, support for community energy, local nature recovery strategies and an extra £1 billion for nature-friendly farming. People need hope and a role in shaping the solutions. Despair is not a strategy and action is not optional. It is essential and urgent to protect our health, our economy and our national security. So I ask again: when will the Secretary of State meet me, my fellow Liberal Democrats, Zero Hour and the environmental non-governmental organisations to create an annual climate and nature Bill that is bold and ambitious, brings transparency and hope, and shows that the Government are genuinely bridging the gap between policy and delivery?

Let me start off in the spirit of continued generosity by reiterating my praise for the hon. Lady for bringing forward the Bill, and for the Zero Hour campaigners whom I met in a previous incarnation of mine. Their role over a long period, in pushing forward the Bill, has been important. I am very happy to meet her and the campaigners. This will be a continuing process, as I discussed with her, and I am happy to take forward those discussions. Let me address the substantive point the hon. Lady made about climate and nature, because it is important. What the Government are striving to do is build the low-carbon energy infrastructure that we need in a way that is nature-positive. For example, the nature recovery fund that we are putting in place is absolutely about doing that. Some people do not agree with that approach, but we are trying to do two things: build the clean energy infrastructure required to get us off fossil fuels, which I know she wants to see; and at the same time, protect and restore nature. I am convinced that we can do that. The point that I will end on is this. I just urge the hon. Lady to think. If we are to fulfil our net zero ambitions—these are stretching targets—we have to build the infrastructure. I say to all Members that the easy thing is to say no, but the right thing to do is very often to say yes to the energy infrastructure we need.

I welcome the statement, in particular the importance and emphasis that my right hon. Friend places on how climate change and nature loss are fundamentally linked and contribute to each other. I also remind the House that after the national health service, the thing that this country loves the most is its natural environment. Understanding the vital role that nature itself plays in tackling climate change will be vital in the years ahead. I refer in particular to the importance of saltmarsh. I talk quite often with my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about the importance of peatland, but saltmarsh is also vital as a valuable habitat. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the light of what he has been talking about today, we will have a properly integrated spatial energy plan, national planning policy framework and land use framework, so that such climate-valuable habitats are properly protected?

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority and conviction on these subjects, and she is absolutely right about the role of nature. I add—and I will come on to her question in a second—that the biggest threat to nature that we face is the climate crisis. The figures I read out from scientific authorities show the scale of the threat that is already there to our countryside. As I said in my statement, the threat will only get worse. On the land use framework, we are currently consulting and will come up with a final document later on this year. She makes a crucial point about the need for co-ordination between the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan, which together mean that we use our land in a sensible way and that we build the energy infrastructure we need.

I agree with the Secretary of state that it is very important that other countries follow our example. Of the five countries that are the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, emitting over 50% in total—the USA, Russia, Brazil, India and of course China—can he tell us how many have adopted similar legislation? What hope does he have that those five in particular will follow our example?

The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question. Let me give him three examples from those five. India has a target of 500 GW of renewable capacity by 2030, and a target of reaching net zero by 2070. China has nearly half the world’s renewable capacity, is committing to peaking its emissions by 2030, and has a target to reach net zero by 2060, but of course I want it to do more. Brazil has set out an ambitious nationally determined contribution. I think I am right in saying that as of March 2025, fossil fuels accounted for less than 50% of electricity generation in the US. He is right to ask this question. Not every country is going at the same pace, and there are countries that are more sceptical, but there has been a decisive shift across the world on this matter; when I was Climate Change Secretary from 2008 to 2010, net zero was not even talked about. There has been a transformation in the extent to which countries are taking it seriously.

I really want to get everybody in—I am sure the Secretary of State wants that—so I need a lot of help from those on the Front Bench to speed things up. A good example will be set by Toby Perkins, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

I share the Secretary of State’s despair at the fact that the consensus on these matters appears to be dissipating. Does he agree that this is incredibly damaging for investment in the sector? Investors really need to see that whoever is in government, and whatever happens in elections, they have a Government who are committed to this agenda. Does he agree that it is completely wrong to say that Britain is the only country taking this issue seriously? In fact, China is absolutely leading the way in investing in the necessary technologies. We need to catch up and ensure that everyone knows that Britain is open for business in this sector.

My hon. Friend, who speaks with such expertise on these matters, is 100% right. The biggest enemy of investment is uncertainty. That is why I appeal to all parties to stick to what we have legislated for in this country, in order to give that certainty.

I rise not to call the Secretary of State an eco-warrior, as Members of this House are so keen on doing from time to time; in fact, I agree with him on the scale of the climate and nature emergency. I do not want to spoil the cross-party support here, but the fact is that when the Labour party was in opposition, it promised an investment of £28 billion in the just and green transition. Will he apologise to the people of Scotland—no, to the voters in Scotland—for reneging on that promise?

What I will say to the people of Scotland is that the Acorn carbon capture and storage project has been talked about for years, and it is happening because of a Labour Government. We have a publicly owned energy company, Great British Energy, and we have our clean industry bonus. This is a Government who are actually delivering for the people of Scotland, and those across the UK.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, not least because I called for such a measure before I was elected to this House, under the previous Conservative Government. This is a really important thing to do, not least because it underscores the Government’s approach to clean energy, and to wider climate action to tackle and mitigate the many climate impacts that we already see; we have just had three heatwaves. This action will also lower bills, strengthen our economy and, in a patriotic way, ensure our national security. Does he, like me, lament the loss of the cross-party consensus that he mentioned? The leader of the Conservatives says that net zero is impossible, and the deputy leader of Reform says that climate science is garbage. One denies urgency, while the other denies reality, and both deny the evidence from the Met Office and climate scientists—and, indeed, the experience of their constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that when young people and future generations ask who stood in the way of their precious inheritance of cleaner air and local green space, it will be the Conservatives and Reform—

Order. Please! I need Members to help me get colleagues in. All colleagues from all sides of the House want to get in on this statement. Without your help, that will not happen.

That bit was great, though. My hon. Friend is so right: that is not where the British people are on this issue. The British people want action on climate, not a culture war. Frankly, wherever they live in the country, people want to pass on a liveable country to their kids and grandkids.

Those of us who advocate for the North sea oil and gas sector are not climate change deniers. We are realists who understand that we will need oil and gas for years to come; that we would be replacing our domestic supply with imports that have four times the carbon intensity; that China emits in 10 days what we emit in a year; and that we will not transition to cleaner energy if we make ourselves poorer. I recognise what today’s report says, but does the Secretary of State accept that increasing our use of imported gas will only make us more carbon intensive in the future?

We have to get our use of imported gas down, and that is why we have to build clean energy infrastructure. This is what the Conservatives just do not seem to understand. If they go around the country opposing our clean energy infrastructure, it keeps us stuck on fossil fuels for longer—and look where that took us: to the worst cost of living crisis in generations.

The Secretary of State will know that my constituents know more than most what it means to host clean energy infrastructure. However, the failure of the cross-party consensus is giving rise to quite a lot of concern in my area, where we face job losses at Prax Lindsey oil refinery. Can the Secretary of State reassure the hundreds of workers who face a very uncertain time that this is the result not of a move towards clean energy, but of mismanagement by the company’s owners?

My hon. Friend speaks about an important issue, and I am deeply concerned for those workers and their families. There are serious questions to answer about the running of that company, and how it ended up in this state. On the day that the insolvency happened, I wrote to the Insolvency Service to ask it to look into this matter, because those workers have been badly let down by the company.

Nobody knows better than farmers the reality of climate change and the importance of tackling it immediately, so it is bizarre that their expertise is being ignored. We should stand with them. Extreme weather conditions are a threat to animal welfare, agricultural productivity and farming business survival. We desperately need a food security strategy. Already, we produce only 55% of the food that we eat in this country. How will the Secretary of State help our farmers to be resilient against the twin threats of drought and flooding?

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great expertise on these matters, partly because of his constituency. He is right about the threat to farmers’ livelihoods from the climate crisis, which I talked about in my statement, and the need for food security, which my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary takes incredibly seriously. Indeed, the land use framework is partly about making sure that we have the land we need for our food security.

I thank my right hon. Friend for this statement; I have waited 14 years for it, and I look forward to such a statement being given to the House in each of the next 14 years. One of the key drivers of climate change is deforestation. One of the key drivers of deforestation is cattle ranching and soy production. One of the key drivers of cattle ranching and soy production is City of London finance, which is used to bankroll what is happening. What restrictions can he place on the financial giants of the City to make sure that we stop this at source?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the role of the City of London. There is also its potentially positive role. We are consulting on a mandatory transition plan for large companies and financial institutions, including in the City of London, precisely so that we can make sure that investment goes to the right places.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, including what he said about the importance of Britain showing leadership and rebuilding cross-party consensus. Even if we have not quite got cross-party consensus on the need for a transition to a green economy, does he agree that the fact that we have seen hundreds of deaths in London alone in the second heatwave of the year, that our farmers are facing the driest start to a year in my lifetime, and that people around the country have suffered from floods in recent years means that our need for resilience in the face of a changing climate cannot be a political football? If so, would he support a sixth Government mission—a mission to protect the British public from changes in the climate?

On that last bit, that is very much part of our mission to tackle net zero. The first part of the hon. Member’s question was very important. We hear what some folks say in the House, but we see what is happening all around us. It is not like we are gazing into a crystal ball, because some boffins have told us that something bad might happen in the future. This is happening now. If anyone had said 15 years ago that we would have wildfires in Surrey and in Scotland, people would have said, “You’re mad. There’s no way that’s going to happen. We’re not going to have wildfires in Britain.” The hon. Member spoke well about something very important. We need to look with our own eyes at what is happening.

I very much welcome the Energy Secretary’s statement. Adequate electric vehicle charging infrastructure, depot charging and onshore power for shipping are all critical to the Government’s net zero challenge, and businesses and providers across the transport sector who are making investment decisions need a route map. What steps is he taking to prioritise grid connections? Will he commit to reforming the grid queuing system, so that projects that are essential to decarbonising our transport sector are brought forward more quickly?

My hon. Friend speaks about an important subject. We are dealing with the grid zombies and the zombie queue. The reordering of the queue is designed to open it up to projects like those she talked about. The energy Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks)—is having a series of roundtables with the Department for Transport on precisely that.

The Secretary of State has said that he wants to tell some hard truths, so can he tell the House directly—without spin and waffle, and without dodging the question—how much in cash terms it would cost the UK to get to net zero, who would pay the cost, and how much the UK getting to net zero would reduce global temperatures by?

All those details are set out in the Climate Change Committee report. The right hon. Member can look for herself. [Interruption.] They are set out in carbon budget 7. Actually, the cost of getting to net zero has been coming down. When I set the 80% target, the cost of getting there, according to the committee, was higher than the cost now of getting to net zero. I make the point gently that the costs of inaction are much greater than the costs of action.

I commend the Secretary of State for his statement. I share his view that we have a responsibility to generations to come, and my constituents want to be part of a just transition. Is he committed to a just transition that protects jobs and prevents decarbonisation through de-industrialisation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we take this journey, we must ensure that we do everything we can to protect existing industries and workers and give them a smooth transition. We do that by ensuring that we have levers that the Government can use, such as Great British Energy, the national wealth fund and our clean industries bonus, to intervene and create the jobs of the future. To give the example of the North sea, 70,000 jobs have been lost there in less than a decade because it is a declining basin. The answer must be to create the jobs of the future, and that is what the Government are determined to do.

The impact of climate change is being felt today in my constituency. At Pegtop farm, there is a race to bring in the harvest after such a dry, hot spring, and yields are expected to be less than half of what they would normally be. On 23 and 24 September last year, we had extensive surface flooding, which flooded many homes. What share of the flood defence budget will deal with surface flooding, rather than river flooding? How would the Secretary of State characterise the relevant responsibilities of national and local government, developers, water companies, insurers and householders?

The hon. Member asked a complex question, so I might volunteer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to write to him on that, so that we get it right. I know—because he was whispering the answer to me—that he takes this seriously.

I thank the Secretary of State not just for his statement today, but for his continued commitment to tackling the climate and nature crisis facing us. He said that this is something we must all tackle together, and there are huge parts of our communities, the faith communities, that want to do exactly that. While we welcome Great British Energy’s roll-out of solar panels on hospitals and on schools, can he outline any support that is available for religious buildings that want to do the same?

Following the successful roll-out to schools and hospitals, we have had a lot of requests to expand the scheme and I am very enthusiastic about doing so. It is something we are looking at.

I am as passionate as the Secretary of State about achieving net zero across the world and about the decline in species in our natural environment, but that cannot be the only thing we worry about. I do not know whether he has had time to read the “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report produced last week, but it shows that the cost to the public Exchequer of achieving net zero will be 21% of GDP. We know that an argument is going on inside the Government and inside the Labour party about this very issue. This is a question of balancing the risks, because if the Government run out of money because they are overspending, there will not be any money to spend on reversing climate change.

I have read the report, and the bit that the hon. Gentleman did not mention is where it says that if we end up in a 3°C world, we will add 56% of GDP to net debt. That is the cost of inaction. This is the point. Nick Stern—Lord Stern—produced a report in the 2000s which said that the costs of inaction were greater than the costs of action. This Office for Budget Responsibility fiscal risks report sets out very clearly that we will lose 8% of our GDP by 2070 if we do not act. Of course there is a cost to acting, and the report sets out different scenarios for public and private investment, but the evidence in that report could not be clearer about the costs of inaction, and they are far greater than the costs of action.

I was privileged to host a net zero roundtable in my constituency involving many people from a wide variety of backgrounds, who were all appalled to see net zero becoming a political football and part of an ongoing culture war on the right. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising the important work of organisations such as Humshaugh Net Zero and the North Tyne climate action group in bringing together widespread support for net zero, bringing it into our communities and embedding it across the body politic?

My hon. Friend is a great champion for Hexham and it is with great pleasure that I recognise the role of those groups. He and I have talked on a number of occasions about the importance of climate action to so many of his constituents, and I look forward to working with him on these issues in the months ahead.

Last week, 20 of my constituents from the Climate Coalition, the Mothers’ Climate Action Network, Our Grandchildren’s Climate, the Hampstead Neighbourhood Forum and the Camden Fixing Factory came to see me. They were very clear that COP30 will be a pivotal moment to restore momentum on tackling climate change and to tackle the misinformation that is on the rise not just online but in mainstream political parties. Can I ask the Secretary of State what leadership the UK will be showing at COP30 to ensure that we tackle this misinformation? More importantly, what is he doing to ensure that powerful international partners who may not be on the same page as us when it comes to climate change are coming along with us on this journey, because it is only collective action that will solve this serious crisis?

My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise and passion on these issues, and she is absolutely right. This is about what we do to engage with other countries. We had an environment dialogue with the Chinese Minister a couple of weeks ago in London. I engage with China, India and Brazil, all of which are absolutely key; Brazil is obviously the host of COP30. She is right to say that COP30 will be a crucial moment when we will show that we are continuing to take action, and that is what we are determined to do.

As a sponsor of the Climate and Nature Bill, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this afternoon. He is right to highlight that this is a national crisis, and many of us across the House are right to point out that it cannot be ignored and that inaction has too great a cost, but he will be aware that the costs are politicising this issue for many people in this country. Legislation is before the House regarding where and how pension funds are invested. Can he assure the House that he is talking to Treasury and local government Ministers to ensure that the maximum amount from those pension funds—particularly, but not exclusively, the local government pension fund—can be invested in green energy projects? That will widen the investment base and therefore hopefully reduce costs, depoliticising the issue and resulting in the greening of our energy generation that we all want to see.

I warmly thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his sponsorship of the Climate and Nature Bill. He is the voice of good sense—I hope that is not the kiss of death—on the Conservative Benches. He raises an important issue about pensions and pension investments, and it is one that I will take up.

Order. I want to get all Members in, so can we please have shorter questions and answers?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the fact that my local hospital will have solar panels on it thanks to this Labour Government, saving thousands of pounds that can go directly back into frontline services. What more can he do to ensure that public buildings like hospitals and prisons have solar panels fitted so that we can lower costs and contribute to our climate goals?

My hon. Friend is completely right, and it is a scheme that we want to expand. It has been incredibly successful, and it is a no-brainer—using the natural resources of the sun to cut energy bills and release money for frontline services.

The statement from the Energy Secretary sounded like a desperate attempt to save his own job, but he is right that the British people need protecting: they need protecting from the Energy Secretary, because businesses that I visit say every single week that his madcap ideas are killing growth, business and jobs. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he can answer one simple question, which he has already refused to answer: by how much would the Earth’s temperature be reduced if the UK became net zero tomorrow?

The answer, which the hon. Member just does not want to accept, is this—[Interruption.] If he just listens, the answer is this: I believe in British leadership and in Britain’s ability to make a difference. The truth is, as I said in my statement, that when we passed the Climate Change Act 2008, 60 countries followed. When we legislated for net zero, many other countries followed. He talks Britain down; I believe in Britain.

Thank God there is somebody in this Chamber trying to actually save the planet! Net zero makes good common sense for lots of our constituents when they recognise that this is not just about climate security—those of us who have faced floods in our constituencies know how expensive that is—but about national security and the cost of living. Moving towards sustainable electricity would put both Rosebank and Putin out of business, but the Secretary of State will know that, on current plans, bill payers will be wasting £8 billion a year switching off wind farms by 2030 if we do not take action. How can we stop this transfer of wealth from citizens to corporations, so that we can invest in community energy?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The infrastructure we inherited was in a shocking state, and there was a failure to build grid infrastructure. The best thing we can do is accelerate building that grid infrastructure. If we can do that, we can reduce those constraint payments, and I look forward to support from all parts of the House on this.

The Secretary of State rightly says that British leadership matters and that the choices we make as a country will have an impact on future generations. I do not doubt his personal commitment to tackling climate change and delivering net zero, but is he sure that all his Cabinet colleagues are on the same page as him, not least the Chancellor of the Exchequer given her unwavering commitment to expanding not just Heathrow, but Gatwick, Luton, City and Stansted, despite the advice and concerns of the Climate Change Committee?

Yes. I can tell the hon. Member that we have never had a Chancellor of the Exchequer so committed to these issues because we had the biggest investment in clean, home-grown energy in our history in the recent spending review.

Welwyn Hatfield stands to be a big beneficiary of the social housing warm homes plan. It won a grant of £6 million, meaning that hundreds of homes will be upgraded and retrofitted, which will see bills and emissions coming down. Our colleagues from Reform have a flair for language, and they talk about “net stupid zero”. I am interested to know what language my right hon. Friend would use to describe a party that opposes a policy that will cut emissions and bills for people living in council homes in my community.

We are just advocating common sense. Why not use our natural resources to have warmer homes and cut emissions? I think that Reform Members are the extremists, frankly.

The real driver of this statement is the fact that the Secretary of State is losing the argument with his colleagues, who are now challenging the impact of his policies on economic growth. He is trying to cover up the cost, which the OBR revealed last week will be £30 billion per year and £800 billion over the period. Businesses are struggling with power bills that are bankrupting them, and consumers are resisting the net zero demands to fly less, eat less meat and buy cars that they do not want. Does he not see a connection between what he says about young people’s anxiety and his disgraceful scare tactics today, all of which are to enable him to say that Britain is taking the lead? All I say to him is this: since the Paris agreement, emissions have gone up by 30%, so he might be leading, but he does not have too many followers.

The right hon. Gentleman and I have been arguing about these issues for about 20 years, so I think that I am unlikely to persuade him. We usually have good-natured discussions about this, but on the idea that this is scaremongering, we can see with our own eyes what is happening, as the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) said earlier. What the right hon. Gentleman is advocating would be a total betrayal not just of future generations but of today’s generations.

The Secretary of State has been a global leader in this space for 20 years. We all know about the Climate Change Act 2008, but without his singular intervention at COP15 in Copenhagen, the world would not have agreed and would be on a worse climate trajectory today—the whole House needs to hear that. We now need significant afforestation and the repair of the world’s ecosystems—be they peat bogs, permafrost or seagrass—so what plans does he have to lead in that space at COP30 in Belém?

My hon. Friend is very kind. To be frank with him, when I met a group of young people earlier today, I felt a sense of responsibility, because no country is yet doing enough on these issues and we need to do more. They are fearful about the world that they will inherit and look to the Government to show leadership. The issue that he mentions is important, and we will ensure that we make it part of our agenda at COP30.

Hosepipe bans rightly anger my constituents. The bans frustrate them and me because they speak to decades of failure to put in place provisions to prepare so that the changing climate is liveable for our children. How can people be expected to support large-scale house building, which those same children will need, when water companies fail to fix leaks, pollute our rivers and too often fail even to provide clean drinking water?

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has commissioned a review of the whole system of regulation of the water companies. I think I am right in saying that a new reservoir has not been built in Britain for 30 years, but we have plans for nine new reservoirs as part of our action to address the issue the hon. Lady raises.

I had the real pleasure of visiting York Road nursery school in my constituency this morning to celebrate its securing Eco-Schools green flag status—with distinction no less. As well as being a sobering reminder of my inability to hold the attention of four-year-olds for very long, it was a powerful reminder that future generations will bear the brunt of our failure to take this crisis seriously. The truth is that we do not have to look to the future to see the cost—my local farmers are beset by flooding, for example. We in Hitchin are already feeling the pain of the failure to take climate change and the nature crisis seriously and to tackle them head-on. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that we will not shy away from tackling climate change at source, and that we will invest in mitigation schemes to tackle the issues that we are already facing right across our towns and villages?

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s school on what it is doing and on its green flag status, which is really important. It shows that local action can really make a difference. Globally, I can give him the assurance that he seeks. What is so important—I say this to Members across the House—is that people look to Britain and say, “Are you going to lead? Are you going to show the power of example?” That is what we have done over 20 years, under Governments of both parties, and we need to keep doing it.

I call Llinos Medi.

Diolch, Madam Ddirprwy Lefarydd. Climate change is a huge threat to food security. In 2018, losses in the Welsh livestock sector due to extreme weather reached £175 million, which is equivalent to 9% of the total Welsh agricultural output. Farmers need support to protect their livestock and crops. Will the Secretary of State listen to the concerns of the farming unions about the removal of the ringfence for Welsh agricultural funding? It could mean less money for climate adaptations, at a time when they are most needed to safeguard food security.

The hon. Lady raises an issue that I believe is essentially about devolved funding, but the wider issue she raises about the costs facing farmers is so important. We are not talking about theoretical events or theoretical future costs; they are happening now. Farmers are facing those costs, and the hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that.

When I speak to young people in Kettering, and in fact when I have conversations with my friends, they tell me that they are worried about the future of the world that we have inherited. With that in mind, the climate delay rhetoric coming from the Tories and Reform is both deeply irresponsible and really disappointing. Can the Secretary of State outline that only if we work with urgency to take action will my constituents see the restoration of our natural world—a world that we can pass on to the next generation?

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. This is an obligation that we owe to young people. We hold the planet in trust for future generations. The young people of today speak for themselves, but they also speak for future generations. Frankly, we owe it to them to act when the evidence is before our eyes.

The Met Office report and the Climate Change Committee have made it clear that we are unprepared for climate change, with progress on food security and nature restoration either insufficient or limited. The Lang partnership in Curry Rivel has proudly championed regenerative farming and nature-friendly farming methods for more than 30 years. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his colleagues in DEFRA to ensure that farmers like the Langs can farm productively and sustainably and be resilient to climate crisis?

I congratulate the hon. Lady’s constituents on what they are doing to find regenerative ways of farming. My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary takes the matter incredibly seriously, and we have structures in place that can help to incentivise that, but I think he would say that of course we need to do more on these issues. The hon. Lady has put it very eloquently.

I thank my right hon. Friend for making such a pertinent statement when the planet is in such a critical condition. I also thank him for his domestic and global leadership. The BioYorkshire project will create 4,000 jobs, helping us to see a green transition but also ensuring that we have future agriculture at the highest level of science. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that this Government, unlike the last, fund that sufficiently so that we can see a real transition in farming and in other areas of climate-mitigating science?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising what sounds like an incredibly exciting project. On all sides of the House—well, on a number of sides of the House—we can hear fantastic examples of what local people are doing. In a sense, that should be our inspiration. Government is trying to do its bit, but local people in communities across Britain are doing theirs as well.

Tackling climate change is a top topic among children and young people when I visit schools and colleges across Telford. Switching to renewables is a top topic among employers; it will help to reduce the cost of their energy supply. Renewables companies tell me about the fantastic, well-paid jobs that are available. Climate security, environment security and energy security are national security. Does my right hon. Friend know a single reason why this is not a key mission to rebuild Britain and protect our planet for generations to come?

My hon. Friend is right, and the emphasis that he places on national security is important. Our exposure to fossil fuel markets, controlled by petrostates and dictators, leaves us exposed, and that is what the previous Government did. This is an energy security issue and a national security issue, and that is why we need clean, home-grown power.

As the Secretary of State outlined, the climate crisis is also a nature crisis, especially in nature-depleted cities such as London. In recognition of that, Ealing’s Labour council has imaginative plans for a new regional park from Horsenden hill in the north, to Warren farm in my constituency, creating new habitats, wetlands, and rewilded areas. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government’s new nature recovery fund could help to support initiatives such as Ealing’s regional park, and that in contrast to the piecemeal approach of the previous Government, the fund will allow a more strategic and effective approach to restoring our natural environment?

My hon. Friend is right, and if we think about the recent hot weather, access to green spaces is a massive issue. It is also a massive issue of inequality, because in certain parts of the country people have such access, and in certain parts they do not, so the project that my hon. Friend talks about sounds incredibly important.

I thank my right hon. Friend for placing this issue on the agenda. Nothing could be more existential or vital than tackling our climate and nature crises, because we live within the natural system, not outside it. We and nature are in this together, and nothing could be more important, or better for building the foundation of how we shape our communities and economy into the future. Industry understands that, and I have had the chance to convene industry and bring forward ideas such as the diversification of technologies, which we support, and the build-up of strategic national clean energy reserves. Would the Secretary of State meet me to discuss those ideas that are coming from industry?

We definitely look forward to discussing those ideas, and my hon. Friend is right about the interlocking nature of the climate and nature crisis, and climate and nature solutions. Those things go together. There are big economic opportunities, and my hon. Friend is a great champion of them.

Does the Secretary of State agree that rural and coastal communities are on the frontline of the climate and nature crisis, and that investment in clean energy, nature recovery, and resilient infrastructure is essential not only for protecting areas such as South East Cornwall, but also for unlocking new jobs, strengthening my local economy, and ensuring our future national security?

My hon. Friend was a fantastic champion of these issues in her previous incarnation, as she is in her current incarnation. I know her constituency, and I could not agree more with the work she is doing.

Rugby borough council and Warwickshire Wildlife Trust are hosting a “Nature in Focus” event this Sunday, and partnering together to buy trees for farmers to plant. In December 2024, my right hon. Friend joined me to visit the Urban&Civic-led Houlton development, where we saw Francis Jackson Homes fitting air-source heat pumps to its new build homes. We talked of our hope to go further, so does my right hon. Friend agree that through the future homes standard, which ensures that the vast majority of new builds will have solar panels, we are showing that a Labour Government and Labour-led councils believe in the concept of government and taking responsibility, and that we can change things for the better for future generations?

I wish my hon. Friend luck with the event on Sunday, which sounds important. He is absolutely right: for millions of people the whole warm homes plans is about cutting their energy bills, creating warmer homes and cutting emissions—and they go together.

Today’s Met Office report says that we need to put in place a highly localised network of rain gauges, as extreme rainfall can be very dangerous. In July 2021, Stockbridge in my constituency faced flooding after a torrential downpour one afternoon, following several days of soaring temperatures. A network of rain gauges will help to analyse the impact of climate change, and also help communities such as Stockbridge to prepare. Will my right hon. Friend outline the Government’s plans in that regard?

My hon. Friend draws attention to what sounds like an important recommendation, and as somebody whose constituency saw two once-in-100-year flooding events within about a decade, I know from local experience how serious such issues are. I am glad she has drawn my attention to that recommendation, and we will look carefully at it.

I welcome this Government’s focus on the urgency of the climate crisis, and I know that many climate activists in my constituency will as well, because the evidence is unequivocal: only sustained reductions in greenhouse gases will slow global warming and the only way to that it is to accelerate the transition to net zero. Will the Secretary of State commit to staying resolute in the face of opposition on the commitment to net zero? Does he agree with me that as the first country to industrialise, the UK has a special responsibility to show global leadership in this area?

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. As the Prime Minister says, action on clean energy and net zero is “in the DNA” of this Government. I was in the last Labour Government, but now we have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who are more supportive of this agenda, and who have moved it from the margins to the mainstream more than anyone else before.

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly his encouragement for Members from across the House to support the Government’s efforts—and those of any future Government who maintain that commitment—to reach net zero by 2050. Does the Secretary of State agree that the announcement by the newly elected Reform county council in Kent that it will axe all investment in net zero is not only a betrayal of my constituents in Dartford and residents across Kent, but particularly of young people, who deserve to inherit a sustainable planet?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was not aware of that announcement, but it sounds like it is anti-job and a betrayal of future generations and will make people poorer.

I thank the Secretary of State for his important statement. I say to him gently that I was a Mili-fan before it was cool. When I visit schools in my constituency of Harlow, including the wonderful Freshwaters primary academy, which I visited on Friday, and the Downs primary school, where one young child asked me about the declining number of blackbirds, the No. 1 issue that students raise is climate change. What would the Secretary of State say to young people in Harlow about the action he has taken to protect my constituents, who will face the cost of inaction?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words; I am not quite sure how to deal with them—it is a tough one. It has been so interesting to hear hon. Members from across the House talking about these issues in relation to the strong feelings of their constituents, so I reassure people in Harlow, including young people, that this Government are absolutely committed on these issues, and we are determined to ensure that they inherit a liveable planet.