Climate Change

Debate between Claire Coutinho and Pippa Heylings

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings]

I thank my hon. Friend, as always, for her passionate defence and her knowledge on this issue. I worked for 20 years in east Africa, southern America and the Caribbean on UK climate policy, including under the previous Conservative Government. I saw countries already facing water shortages and what that meant: devastating crops and economies, and putting countries into recurrent economic recession. We must be committed to net zero emissions by 2050 because the science when the former Government agreed this—

[Claire Coutinho]

The hon. Member is making an emotional speech, and I understand she cares deeply about this issue. This target is imposing costs on our businesses in Britain, which is driving them away from one of the cleanest energy systems in the world. Our refineries now pay more on their carbon tax bill than they do on their wage bill. What does that mean? It means we are importing back those same goods from countries such as India that have higher emissions—twice the emissions, in fact. Why should we set a target more onerous than that in other countries, driving production away, only to import goods with higher emissions? What does she think that will do for climate change?

[Pippa Heylings]

Perhaps I would contest the fact that we cannot equate the emotion with a rational mind as well. These are science-based targets that the hon. Member’s Government agreed to set. What is recommended in the carbon budget order is set by the independent Climate Change Committee, with robust figures, and the science has shown us that this is our best chance to limit warming to under 2°. Global collective action avoided—at least for now—a 4° warmer world, and as I understand it, the Treasury has accepted modelling to show that we have accepted a 2° warmer world. It means that every Department will have to look at what a 2° warmer world means and how we adapt to that. I agree, however, that the impact on our industry, with some of the highest energy prices, means that it is less competitive. Let us therefore work together and focus directly on how we can get energy bills down.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the seventh carbon budget, and we are glad that the Government have accepted the advice of the robust and science-based Climate Change Committee, which puts us on a consistent and achievable pathway to meeting net zero while building a fairer and thriving new economy.

[Pippa Heylings]

I very much appreciated the work that the hon. Member did in her former role, and we were together at that COP meeting. Yes, I congratulate the Prime Minister, but I also congratulate former Prime Ministers. I was working internationally, and I worked on the macroeconomic budgets of developing countries, particularly the emerging economies, and we saw what they could do to follow the UK’s lead and leapfrog technologies in their economies. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, which is why it is disappointing to hear from those on the Conservative Front Bench that they want to delay science-led targets and oppose environmental action, which would lead the world in a more insecure and uncertain place, and leave businesses without the certainty they need. I urge them to help us rebuild the consensus that we need. It can only smell of a desperate attempt at political opportunism to join Reform and gamble with the lives and livelihoods of future generations.

[Claire Coutinho]

If the evidence is so science-led, will the hon. Member explain why the Climate Change Committee was out by a factor of three—300%—on the cost of offshore wind, which is one of the key inputs for the target that she will be voting for today?

[Pippa Heylings]

I will look forward to seeing its answer when you send a letter back—

Oil and Gas

Debate between Claire Coutinho and Pippa Heylings

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

We need to be clear that this energy crisis is, in effect, an oil and gas crisis and shows us yet again just how dangerous our overdependence on fossil fuels is. Just as with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the middle east conflict shows how a single geopolitical escalation can send energy prices soaring, leaving households and businesses here in the UK exposed to shocks beyond their control. History is now in danger of repeating itself: families struggling with higher gas, petrol and food prices while energy companies’ profits surge. Forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest that, if the conflict continues, energy bills could rise by £332 this July—a £332 Trump war tax on our energy bills.

Yet what do we see in the Conservative response? More drilling, more dependence, more of the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuel prices. Alongside Reform UK, the Conservatives who are here today to mislead the public on the need to “Drill, baby, drill” are the same ones who were gung-ho in urging the Prime Minister to join Trump in the illegal war that caused this very crisis.

[Claire Coutinho]

Can the hon. Lady explain why the production of oil and gas makes us more reliant on the consumption of oil and gas? Will she consider the example of Norway, which, despite exporting oil and gas, and getting tax revenue from it, has high electric vehicle penetration? Why does she conflate these issues?

[Pippa Heylings]

I believe that the Minister answered that question. Norway has a very different system, and it made different decisions about consumption, based on the faster and greater adoption of techniques and heat pumps. The dither and delay under the previous Conservative Government meant that we did not move forward and reduce consumption.

The truth is that expanding oil and gas production in the North sea—a mature basin from which we have already extracted 93% of resource—would do nothing to cut people’s energy bills, because any oil and gas extracted is sold on international markets to the highest bidder. Nor would it influence global prices, given that the UK can contribute only a tiny fraction of the global supply, even if new licences were granted. It would neither cut bills nor increase the security of supply.

Research by Uplift shows that fields licensed by the previous Conservative Government over 14 years have produced just over a month’s worth of gas to date. Energy security is national security; as long as we rely on fossil fuels, we rely on foreign dictators and petrostates. Trump’s national security report was clear: he will use his gas to project power, turning it on and off at will. The Conservatives and Reform have shown that when Trump says “jump”, they ask, “How high?” That is not energy security; it is energy surrender.