Climate Change

Debate between Claire Coutinho and Luke Murphy

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

Let me try this question: how many Members present can say, hand on heart, that they have read the impact assessment for this legislation?

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I have read it.

[Claire Coutinho]

The hon. Gentleman says that he has. Could he cite the number of jobs the legislation will create or lose in the overall economy?

[Luke Murphy]

The right hon. Lady’s argument would have a lot more credibility if she had not said, in 2023:

“Nothing will distract us from achieving net zero or driving forward renewables…I want people to feel nothing but unadulterated optimism…We are absolutely committed to our targets.”

The facts about climate change have not changed, yet the right hon. Member has changed her mind. Could that be because of those Members sitting on the Reform Bench?

[Claire Coutinho]

The hon. Gentleman also did not answer my question on jobs. I inherited my party’s position on net zero. I made it clear from the outset that my priority was affordability for Brits in this country, and that net zero should not impoverish consumers. In fact, I made some changes that meant that Labour called me a climate denier and a flat-earther. The hon. Gentleman now comes to this Chamber, not to scrutinise the legislation that will have a massive effect on his constituents, but to criticise me for scrutinising it, asking questions and changing my party’s position.

I am proud to have changed my party’s position, because I care about the consumer, about jobs, and about the price of food and energy. None of the Members on the Government Benches seems to care about those things, because if they did—[Interruption.] I will make some progress, because nobody is answering these questions. If they cared about those things, they would have read the Government’s impact assessment.

[Luke Murphy]

I have read it.

[Claire Coutinho]

Well, the hon. Gentleman could not answer the question on jobs. If he had read it, he would know that the Government’s own impact assessment admits that the modelling does not consider any upside, or downside risks, to the economy arising from the energy transition. It specifically says that it does not consider the impact on jobs. That means that Government Members are voting on legislation without any idea of what it is going to mean for the British worker.

The impact assessment is clear and explicit: the modelling does not analyse energy security. The Government do not know what the legislation will mean for the energy security of our nation. The head of Unite was spot on when she said at the weekend that the Secretary of State

“only seems to be interested in one side of the equation, rushing Britain to net zero with almost no thought for jobs, skills and national security.”

The transition has literally not been properly assessed. What is worse is that Government MPs want to make their political points, but none of them seems to care. Considering how much people are struggling and how much growth is flatlining, are Labour Members really happy to wave through those legal targets without the foggiest idea of what it will do to the economy, the cost of living or energy security?

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Coutinho]

I have taken interventions from so many Labour Members, and none of them could give a figure—[Interruption.] I will happily give way.

[Luke Murphy]

Point 299 of the impact assessment says:

“The transition away from fossil fuels will lead to a net increase in job creation”.

I believe the right hon. Lady said a moment ago that it does not mention at all the impact on jobs. I invite her to correct the record.

[Claire Coutinho]

The analysis that the hon. Gentleman points to refers to TIMES modelling. That is used for the baseline. A few pages away, its says that the TIMES modelling specifically does not look at the impact of jobs on the overall energy transition. It is in there in black and white.

The hon. Gentleman might desperately google it now in the Chamber, but the truth is that no Labour Members read and scrutinised the impact assessment properly because none of them cares. Let’s be honest: they are all here to read their boilerplate speeches, which will all be exactly the same, to virtue signal how much of a good person they are. That is the truth. Most of them come from climate NGOs and green lobby groups—the Minister does too, I am afraid—and they care more about ideology than evidence. How many of them have ever had to turn a profit for a living? How many have had to work out how to pay someone else’s wages? How many have had to consider all the costs that go into manufacturing and selling something in Britain?

The thing is, we could do this so differently. We are 1% of global emissions; 99% are happening elsewhere. Those countries are not persuaded by Britain driving itself into poverty while the Secretary of State preaches at them from his pulpit. In fact, they are asking themselves why they should follow the path that Britain is taking when we are such an obvious example of what not to do. We are a country that is making its energy scarce and expensive, and deindustrialising and impoverishing its own citizens.

What is the solution? First, we must reject decarbonisation by deindustrialisation. Therefore, we must measure the offshoring of emissions and get rid of the unilateral carbon tax and the stringent targets killing off British industry by repealing the Climate Change Act.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Claire Coutinho and Luke Murphy

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I am enjoying the right hon. Member’s lecture on energy security, but where was that argument during the last Government, when they left our country reliant on Putin and volatile fossil fuels, and when we saw energy bills soar? This Government are cleaning up 14 years of mess that the right hon. Member’s Government left behind.

[Claire Coutinho]

I suggest the hon. Gentleman does some homework. We do not get our oil and gas from Putin. Instead, some 50% of our domestic gas supply comes from the North sea, which the party in government is trying to shut down. If he wants to talk about energy markets, he should do some reading about how they work. On that note, I commend our amendments to the House.