On the 25th of January, as you may already be aware, the Labour Government decided to stop the Climate and Nature Private Members’ Bill in its tracks which I know many of my constituents will be extremely disappointed by.
It is always fantastic to see how much the people in the UK care about protecting our environment, tackling climate change, leading the world in the ‘Green Revolution’ and setting out future measures for sustainable living and nature's recovery. It was, therefore, no surprise the campaign behind the Climate and Nature Bill was phenomenal. It was backed by two Conservative backbenchers, Sir Roger Gale and Simon Hoare who were co-sponsors alongside Dr Roz Savage MP and I received many emails from constituents asking me to support it.
I also received many emails calling on me to oppose it – not because they do not share the aims of the Bill but because of the path it lays out for us to follow. As our frontbench energy spokesman Andrew Bowie MP said,
‘If this private Member’s Bill contained measures to ensure a pragmatic and proportionate response to climate change, with households and bill payers at its core, and defended our British wildlife, nature and countryside, I am sure we would all support its aims and ambitions. Indeed, colleagues and friends who support it do so with the admirable, and indeed laudable, intention of seeing the United Kingdom protect the environment, and it is not that ambition with which we take umbrage. However, it is clear that we should not support the damaging measures the Bill would require. If it became law, it would damage our country, our prosperity, the lives of individuals and industries across the United Kingdom.
A world with a cleaner climate and with thriving nature and wildlife is one we all aspire to; it is the core belief of Conservativism that we should seek to leave the country and the world in a better place than that in which we found them, for both our children and our grandchildren. But I am afraid that this Bill would not do that.’
I am proud the Conservative and Unionist Party has a long history of protecting our environment, often working collaboratively to achieve cross-party consensus on this vital issue. Some may be surprised Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to raise the issue of climate change on the global stage, warning the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 of the “insidious danger” that climate change posed. We were the first major economy to halve our carbon emissions. We stopped the burning of coal for electricity. We were the first to build large offshore wind farms. We legislated for the Environment Act 2021, the 25-year environmental strategy, the creation of new national parks, 34 new landscape recovery projects and 13 offshore marine protected areas including at Beachy Head in Sussex.
While the UK has led the way on emissions reductions—cutting them more than any other major economy—we must remain realistic. The UK accounts for less than 1 per cent of global emissions, and the most meaningful contribution we can make is by innovating and exporting clean technologies to the rest of the world. Setting ever-stricter, centralised targets risks making energy unaffordable and causing unnecessary hardship for British people. Andrew Bowie pointed out,
‘The Secretary of State has already signed the country up to an even stricter target of cutting emissions by 81% by 2035—something the Climate Change Committee said will require people to eat less meat and dairy, take fewer flights, and swap their boilers for heat pumps and their petrol cars for electric vehicles at a pace that will require taxes and mandation.’
If businesses are forced to meet increasingly expensive Net Zero targets, many will relocate to countries like China, which rely heavily on coal for energy. This wouldn’t reduce global emissions; it would increase them. Industries such as steelmaking, chemicals, and energy-intensive manufacturing are essential, but if production moves abroad, we will still rely on their output—only imported from other countries at a greater environmental cost. This approach would cost British jobs, hurt workers and their families, and undermine our economy. I cannot believe this is an outcome anybody wants.
The Bill’s aim to rapidly phase out fossil fuels is widely acknowledged as unrealistic including by the current Secretary of State and his Ministers. Even the Climate Change Committee has said that oil and gas will remain a crucial part of our energy mix for decades to come. Modern life depends on fossil fuels in countless ways. Ending the UK’s oil and gas production would not reduce our reliance on fossil fuels; it would simply force us to import more from places like Norway, the USA, and Qatar. The North Sea oil and gas sector supports 200,000 jobs and generates billions in tax revenue, which could be used to protect nature and invest in low-carbon innovation. Abandoning it would damage both our economy and our energy security. However, the Shadow Minister explained,
‘But even worse, the Bill would require us not only to completely end domestic exploration and production, but to end the import of fossil fuels. Just this week, on Wednesday, gas power stations provided 65% of the UK’s electricity. Just 2% came from wind power and 1% came from solar. If the Bill is successful and we end not just the extraction but the import of all fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, MPs who are backing it will have to explain how we keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, we simply do not have the technology available—we do not have enough clean power from batteries or long-duration electricity storage—to meet demand. ‘
And here Andrew Bowie highlighted a major contradiction in the Bill –
‘it talks about protecting the British countryside from development, but it would require an incredible roll-out—at pace and scale unprecedented—of renewable technologies, pylons, substations and battery storage facilities.’
We can all share Greg Smith, MP for Mid Buckinghamshire’s, frustration when he told the House,
I spend most of my time in this place and in my constituency arguing against the very things that cause nature’s decline. I spend most of my time arguing against the unnecessary greenfield housing developments that concrete over our countryside and destroy nature. I argue against the massive industrial solar installations, battery storage facilities and substation upgrades that take away the farms next door and have fencing around them that disrupts the deer runs and is harmful and dangerous to nature.
So many in this House have argued that those things are the solution to some of the challenges we face, but I do not accept that at all, and I do not accept that the Bill will help us get to the end goal that I think the vast majority of people want to see.’
This Bill also duplicates existing legislation, such as the Environment Act, which already requires ambitious nature recovery targets, including halting the decline of species by 2030. While I support strong action to protect ecosystems, introducing overlapping requirements risks creating confusion without additional benefits. In addition, I do not see any benefit in riding roughshod over the views of communities up and down this country nor in taking decisions out of the hands of democratically elected politicians and placing them into the hands of judicial activists, vague, unaccountable bodies or citizen’s assemblies.
‘That is not how decisions are made in this country, and it is not how decisions should be made in this country.’
Finally, I am concerned about the increasingly centralised approach to climate policy that this Bill represents. Binding Ministers to rigid carbon budgets risks forcing policies that harm British workers and stifle innovation. Instead, we should empower businesses to innovate and develop the technologies that will enable other countries, especially coal-reliant economies, to reduce their emissions. That is how the UK can lead on climate change – in a way that allows us to protect nature, conserve our landscapes and leave the climate in a better state for generations to come.
If you would like to read the transcript in its entirety, you can find the links here:
Climate and Nature Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament part 1
Climate and Nature Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament part 2
