I want what supporters of Net Zero want: to leave the environment in a better state for the next generation. This is a commitment our party has had for decades now.
This important agenda has been enthusiastically pursued and, in recent times, somewhat hi-jacked, by political parties across the board for years but the reality should be dawning on everyone that achieving Net Zero by 2050 is impossible without devastating consequences for our economy and our energy security.
Despite having abundant natural resources, we are still paying over the odds for electricity while becoming increasingly reliant on imports. This is the result of years of decisions that have prioritised targets over practical solutions. The Net Zero agenda, as currently pursued, has been poorly managed, set in law without a proper plan for delivery, with huge costs being passed on to households and businesses. We are now seeing the consequences in record energy bills, industries struggling under high costs, and a power grid that cannot guarantee reliability when we need it most.
The cost of energy in the UK is far too high, and this Labour Government’s Net Zero approach has only made things worse since coming into office.
A balanced, considered and sensible energy policy must recognise that renewables are intermittent and unreliable, and that nuclear and gas still provide the firm, dispatchable power we need as part of the mix required. Yet instead of investing properly in nuclear, the Government has stalled progress, leaving the UK with a shrinking nuclear fleet. Similarly, its job-costing, ongoing hostility to North Sea oil and gas has risked thousands of jobs and is making us more dependent on foreign imports, often from countries with much lower environmental, human rights and working practice standards than our own.
We need an updated and serious plan that balances affordability, global and energy security, and sustainability. That means committing to new nuclear power stations, including getting on with building Small Modular Reactors rather than delaying further. It means removing unnecessary green levies and subsidies that drive up bills. It means making sure the grid is fit for purpose, rather than forcing unreliable generation onto a system that simply cannot cope. And it means recognising that climate policies must be achievable without damaging British industry or driving up the cost of living.
People deserve an energy policy based on reality, not wishful thinking. That’s why, as part the Opposition's policy renewal, we are developing a credible alternative, one that will deliver cheap, secure, and sustainable energy without making people poorer in the process.
It is simply a fact that Net Zero by 2050 is impossible without bankrupting the country or leaving us utterly dependent on other countries for energy and critical minerals, probably both, so something has to change.
The challenge for the Opposition's energy policy commission is to work out how to run a responsible energy and economic policy, and move away from fossil fuel dependency. This is not the time to agree to arbitrary targets and pluck a date out of thin air; this is a time to plan.
Below, I have provided a link to the transcript for the Great British Energy debate. I want to draw attention to the Consideration of Lords Amendment 2. Dealing with the issue of modern slavery in the Renewables Industry and with cross-party support, it was still rejected by the Government.
I believe this is a matter of huge importance in discussions around Net Zero and is, perhaps, an area overlooked by many in their current, single-minded focus to reach Net Zero targets at speed. Below are a few important extracts from the debate:
Sarah Champion Labour MP:
‘Although I welcome this Bill, from the moment it started its journey through Parliament I have been issuing a warning. Without proper safeguards in place, our transition to net zero will be carried through on the backs of those in slavery.
Renewable energy is vital for our transition to a low-carbon economy, but we know that human rights abuses are inherent in our green technology. There is evidence of child labour in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and of labour exploitation in nickel processing in Indonesia. Forced labour is committed at scale in Xinjiang in China, with the abuse of Uyghurs in steel production—a material that makes up nearly 80% of our wind turbines—and, of course, there is well-documented abuse in the production of solar panels.’
Alex Sobel – Labour/Co-op MP:
‘If GB Energy becomes reliant solely on solar panels from China, we will not just be complicit in human rights abuses but will create an enormous point of strategic vulnerability in our energy system. That would give the Chinese state a lever of influence over our critical infrastructure and undermine our sovereignty.
Professor Laura Murphy, who until January this year was senior policy adviser to the United States Department of Homeland Security on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, and is perhaps the world’s leading expert on Xinjiang supply chains, stated:
“From a human rights and climate perspective, the alternative of basing our green energy future on Xinjiang coal’s high carbon emissions and on the forced labour of oppressed communities is a higher and longer-term price to pay.”
If we allow GB Energy to contract with companies that profit from modern slavery, we directly undermine fair competition. No British worker can compete with a system that relies on forced labour. In our manifesto, we pledged secure, well-paid green jobs. My amendment seeks to ensure that British workers are not undercut by Chinese renewables companies that profit from modern slavery, and that GB Energy promotes not only the development of the UK’s renewable sector, but improved human rights conditions for all workers at each point in the supply chain.’
Andrew Bowie MP -Opposition Shadow Minister for Energy for my party:
‘Turning to today’s proceedings, far from the Secretary of State and the Minister’s insistence that Great British Energy will free us from reliance on foreign dictatorships, this headlong rush to clean power by 2030 will, in fact, make us more reliant than ever on the People’s Republic of China. He and his Ministers are quick to note the reluctance to rely on petrostate dictators. I wonder how he would characterise the People’s Republic of China, where political opposition is illegal, where citizens have more limited political rights than in the Russian Federation, where dissent is invariably punished and where the use of forced labour is proven…
Yet despite serious concerns about the national security implications, the ethical implications and the high climate emissions, the Secretary of State and Ministers are opening the gates to Chinese technology in our North Sea wind farms, to solar panels made with slave labour and to using coal power….
…it was on this day in 1807 that the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received Royal Assent, and 218 years on, Labour MPs are going to be whipped to allow the state to directly fund imports of goods built by slave labour in China…
…it is right that we recognise now that the protections against the use of public money in supply chains with exposure to the use of modern slave labour need to be more robust. They are voting against this incredibly sensible amendment that seeks to protect some of the most oppressed people in the world, and to ensure that our net zero objectives, whatever one’s view of them, will not be built on the back of slave labour..
…what we are seeing today is not simply the offshoring of our emissions, although we are, and it is not just about the offshoring of our energy security, although that is also true. Today we are seeing the offshoring of the Labour party’s moral compass, and we all know why: because clean power by 2030 demands it. The fact is that the Government will not achieve that target that they signed up to without the help of China and without importing this green revolution from coal-powered factories thousands of miles away. They are pursuing a made-in-China energy transition built on the back of slave labour and powered by Chinese coal.
It is quite ironic that the Minister is willing to stomach the higher carbon emissions associated with importing liquefied natural gas from abroad. The emissions are four times higher than those from drilling at home. The Government want to import solar panels manufactured using coal power and tainted by human rights abuses, rather than giving our domestic supply chains the time to grow. It is an irony that is not lost on us, and neither will it be lost on the country. This is, I am afraid, the pyrrhic victory of ideology over sense, and of zealotry over the national interest. It is bad for Britain, it is bad for bill payers and it really is quite bad for the climate.’
You can access the full transcript here: Great British Energy Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament and I hope this update is helpful.
