Blog

How should Parliament handle the Seventh Carbon Budget - and why does it matter?

18 Apr 2024
©Adobe Stock / Stefan_E
©Adobe Stock / Stefan_E

The Climate Change Act 2008 established a framework for setting carbon budgets every five years. But the role of Parliament in approving these budgets has been widely criticised, including by the Prime Minister. The Environmental Audit Committee has proposed improvements in the scrutiny process to ensure effective climate action, particularly in the context of the UK’s commitment to achieving 'Net Zero' emissions by 2050. These reforms will significantly alter the way Parliament handles the Seventh Carbon Budget in 2025.

Rt Hon Philip Dunne MP, Chair, Environmental Audit Committee , House of Commons
,
Chair, Environmental Audit Committee , House of Commons

Rt Hon Philip Dunne MP

Rt Hon Philip Dunne MP
Chair, Environmental Audit Committee , House of Commons

Philip Dunne has been the Member of Parliament for Ludlow since 2005. Following service as an Opposition and then a Government Whip, and ministerial roles in the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health, he was appointed to the Environmental Audit Committee in 2018 and was elected as its Chair for the 2019 Parliament.

Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox

Subscribe to our newsletter

We will never share your data with any third-parties.

Share this and support our work

The Climate Change Act, enacted in 2008, has rightly been held up as a model of detailed, considered legislation to achieve significant and lasting reductions in the UK’s carbon emissions.

The Act established:

  • an independent, respected body—the Climate Change Committee—to provide detailed, impartial advice to Parliament, the UK Government and the devolved institutions on the measures required to deliver these reductions; and

  • a process to set statutory carbon budgets—the UK’s maximum net emissions permissible in a five-year period—in a way which gives governments flexibility to decide on the policy measures required to achieve the budgets and for Parliament to approve them.

So far this process has been successful: the Government has recently trumpeted the UK’s achievements in delivering the largest reduction in emissions of any peer economy since 1990, while achieving 80% GDP growth, below the emissions ceilings set under the First, Second and Third Carbon Budgets.

The Climate Change Committee is required to provide advice to Ministers on the recommended carbon budget for each five-year period consistent with achieving the overall emissions targets set by the Act. Until 2019 the target was to reduce UK emissions by 80% by 2050 from a 1990 baseline. In 2019 both Houses agreed to a Government proposal to change the law by secondary (or delegated) legislation so as to require 'Net Zero' emissions by 2050.

Once Ministers have received the advice, they decide on the level of carbon budget they wish to set in law. Having done so, they present the headline sum to both Houses for approval by means of secondary legislation. Once both Houses agree, the proposal is signed into law. Only after that is the Government required to prepare and lay before Parliament its detailed strategy֫—the policy measures it plans to take to achieve the emissions reductions required.

The current process worked well for the setting of carbon budgets before the 'Net Zero' target was established.

But there has been relatively little political debate in Parliament about the policy choices needed to achieve the overall emissions reductions the law requires: and frankly surprisingly little demand for such a debate.

In 2021 the measure to set the Sixth Carbon Budget—the first to be consistent with a 'Net Zero' emissions goal—received a mere 17 minutes’ debate in a Commons Delegated Legislation Committee, with no debate on the floor of the House. In both the Commons and the Lords it was agreed to without a division.

But the Government’s plans to deliver its 'Net Zero' policies were disrupted in July 2022, when the High Court ruled that the Net Zero Strategy—which the Government had presented to Parliament in October 2021 elaborating the policies to achieve the Sixth Carbon Budget reductions—had not taken a number of relevant considerations into account. Ministers were ordered to submit a revised analysis to Parliament before the end of March 2023 explaining in greater detail how the policies in the Net Zero Strategy would contribute to the UK’s emissions reduction targets.

By the summer of 2023 the Prime Minister was concerned that the cost to consumers of implementing measures to deliver the Net Zero Strategy was at risk of alienating the public from delivering the behaviour change envisaged.

On 20th September he declared a reset of the tone towards 'Net Zero', announcing a relaxation of some specific targets and measures in a more pragmatic way which he argued would make the 'Net Zero' transition more affordable for families.

In a landmark speech he was critical of the way in which Parliament barely scrutinised the introduction of carbon budgets into law, passing through both Houses with minimal consideration of the policy implications. He committed to ensure this would not occur again with parliamentary scrutiny of the Seventh Carbon Budget.

This commitment in September 2023 to improve parliamentary scrutiny was very welcome. On behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee I wrote to the Prime Minister asking for further details of the assumptions behind his policy changes. There was universal approval in the Committee for one element of his speech—the commitment to have the Government’s proposals for the Seventh Carbon Budget fully debated before Parliament is asked to approve the legislation.

The Committee followed this up in February this year with a detailed proposal for greater parliamentary engagement in the carbon budgeting process. Last month we were very pleased to receive confirmation that the Government agreed with our proposals: I had confirmation from the Prime Minister himself when I questioned him (see Q87) at the Liaison Committee on 26th March.

Philip Dunne MP, Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, questions the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak MP, about parliamentary scrutiny of carbon budgets at the House of Commons Liaison Committee, 26 March 2024 (©UK Parliament/parliamentlive.tv)

What we have proposed is simple and effective. Before Ministers seek approval from Parliament for the emissions ceiling in the Seventh Carbon Budget, they should present to Parliament a draft delivery plan which sets out the main measures they plan to take.

We propose that this plan ought to be before Parliament for a minimum of three months. During that period the Environmental Audit Committee and other interested committees can take evidence on the Government’s plans. The Climate Change Committee will be asked for its view on whether the plans stack up. Departmental select committees will want to question Secretaries of State about the emission-cutting measures they propose. Committees will be able to report their findings to their Houses.

At the end of the scrutiny period the Government will present its budget-setting legislation to the House for approval.

This time there should be no cursory debates in obscure committee rooms followed by agreements on the nod. In the Commons, Ministers will have to secure approval for their plans following a full day of debate on the floor of the House, during which MPs will have the benefit of the detailed scrutiny work undertaken by committees.

There will inevitably be criticism of the Government’s approach. Good. The place to have these principled disagreements and debates is in public, around the Committee Room horseshoes and across the green benches in the Commons Chamber, in full view of our constituents on whose behalf we are elected to legislate and who will be directly affected by the decisions we take. Ministers will have to think through the potential implications of the strategies they are proposing, in a way they can defend to their peers in the House of Commons.

The legislation itself will not change. Following parliamentary approval of the Seventh Carbon Budget figure, the Government will have to lay before Parliament its full strategy to deliver emissions reductions. I imagine that scrutiny of the draft delivery plan will ensure that the strategy is far better prepared, in a way which is more responsive to concerns expressed across the House on behalf of our constituents—who not only face the reality of climate change but also the challenges of adapting to 'Net Zero' Britain.

Dunne, P. (18 April 2024), How should Parliament handle the Seventh Carbon Budget—and why does it matter? (Hansard Society blog)

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 20-24 April 2026

The Prime Minister will make a statement on recent revelations concerning the security vetting of Peter Mandelson. The Foreign Affairs Committee may hear from Olly Robbins, the civil servant who headed the Foreign Office who was sacked last week. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper is also set to face oral questions from MPs. Legislative “ping-pong” between the two Houses continues on the English Devolution, Victims and Courts, Pension Schemes, Crime and Policing, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools, and Tobacco and Vapes Bills. The assisted dying bill reaches its final scheduled day of debate before the Session ends. There are general debates in the Commons on allied health professionals and on reform of the DVLA, and in the Lords on clean energy and rural communities and on cancer outcomes. The Joint Committee on Human Rights will question the Northern Ireland Secretary on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

19 Apr 2026
Read more

News / Dynamic alignment and Henry VIII powers: What will the Government’s EU reset mean for Parliament? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 139

A major “EU reset” bill could allow Ministers to dynamically align UK law with EU rules using so-called Henry VIII powers, raising fresh questions about Parliament’s role and scrutiny. We are joined by Professor Catherine Barnard to explore the trade-offs and implications. We also examine Parliament’s surprise block on Church of England governance reforms and ask whether shutting down Parliament for a two-week prorogation – when it cannot be recalled – is wise in an increasingly unstable world. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

17 Apr 2026
Read more

Submissions / Written Parliamentary Questions - Our evidence to the House of Commons Procedure Committee

The use of Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) is rising sharply. Since July 2024, MPs have tabled questions at unprecedented levels. By late 2025 MPs were tabling over 600 per sitting day, more than double the long-term average. WPQs are a cornerstone of parliamentary scrutiny, helping MPs obtain information, challenge government policy and put issues on the public record. But this surge raises important questions about how Parliament balances transparency and accountability with the practical limits of the system. The House of Commons Procedure Committee is now examining the issue and has just published our submission containing our latest data and analysis.

06 Mar 2026
Read more

News / Will key Government bills pass by the end of the parliamentary Session? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 138

With the King’s Speech set for 13 May, attention turns to the end of the current parliamentary Session and the frantic “wash-up” period before prorogation, likely in late April. We assess which Bills can still make it through in the remaining sitting days. With major Lords amendments on issues including revenge porn, social media access for under-16s, court transcripts and AI safety, Ministers face intense pressure and possible concessions. We also examine the political stakes around the Chagos Islands Bill and the stalled Hillsborough Law. The episode also answers listener questions on parliamentary procedure and reform, before exploring the sharp rise in Written Parliamentary Questions and what it means for effective scrutiny in Westminster. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

27 Mar 2026
Read more

News / Who really decides Immigration Rules: Parliament or the Home Secretary? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 137

Who really controls immigration law when Ministers can rewrite key rules with minimal parliamentary scrutiny? Jonathan Featonby of the Refugee Council explains the Home Secretary’s far-reaching powers over Immigration Rules. We also discuss the Crime and Policing Bill, where amendments on AI and abortion highlight the challenges posed by rushed law-making and executive overreach. And we look ahead to the next phase of the assisted dying debate, as supporters in the House of Commons prepare for a renewed legislative push in the next parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

20 Mar 2026
Read more