Bill Esterson MP: Climate Timeline

• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Bill Esterson's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Bill Esterson

• 26 Nov 2024: Tweet

  The Government's leadership at COP29 and commitment to clean energy, help with investment, jobs and lower bills here in the UK and encourage climate action globally. https://x.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1861470571730526508/video/1 [Source]

• 25 Nov 2024: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: COP29 was a step forward in the fight against the climate crisis. The deal is not everything we or others wanted, but is… [Source]

• 21 Nov 2024: Tweet

  The PM’s leadership at #COP29 is in Britain’s national interest. Amid threats from Russia, uncertainty in the US & challenges in China, the UK is leading on climate & energy security. Stability and policy certainty in the UK encourages investment, driving growth and creating jobs https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1859574092942254469 [Source]

• 21 Nov 2024: Tweet

  The PM’s leadership at #G7 & #COP29 is in Britain’s national interest. Amid threats from Russia, US uncertainty & challenges from China, the UK is leading on climate & energy security. Government certainty is encouraging investment, driving growth and creating jobs. https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1859574092942254469 [Source]

• 18 Nov 2024: Tweet

  RT @ChamberVoice: “So many opportunities, so much potential” Chair of the Energy Security and @CommonsESNZ Net Zero Select Committee Chair,… [Source]

• 22 Oct 2024: Tweet

  A major step forward for UK energy today with the launch of @neso_energy. NESO will oversee the UK's energy infrastructure, guiding us towards #NetZero with a whole system approach. Great discussions with NESO CEO @FintanSlye_neso + committee member @JoshMacAlister #NetZero https://x.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1848785114911945016/photo/1 [Source]

• 16 Oct 2024: Tweet

  RT @ClimateAPPG: Yesterday the @ClimateAPPG hosted Minister @KerryMP to discuss #COP29 and international climate. The session focused on:… [Source]

• 27 Sep 2024: Tweet

  Excellent news that GB Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen and have locations across Scotland and the UK. My full statement is on the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee website: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/664/energy-security-and-net-zero-committee/news/203004/chairelect-of-the-energy-security-net-zero-committee-welcomes-first-steps-in-establishing-gb-energy/ [Source]

• 26 Sep 2024: Tweet

  Fantastic speech by @Keir_Starmer at the UN General Assembly just now. Proud to hear his commitments to global leadership on climate change, addressing poverty and on peace in the Middle East. [Source]

• 23 Sep 2024: Tweet

  Thrilled to be part of a packed Big Net Zero Breakfast this morning. Key role for local government alongside national government and industry in delivering energy security and net zero. #LPC24 #Lab24 https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1838166062384202136/photo/1 [Source]

• 23 Sep 2024: Tweet

  A great evening yesterday with @thisispurpose and @eonenergyuk stressing the need to restart home insulation installations and ensure consumers reap the benefits of the drive to Net Zero. #lpc24 #lab24 https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1838103324786041040/photo/1 [Source]

• 22 Sep 2024: Tweet

  A great pleasure to make the welcome speech to @labour_business delegates this morning and to join their small business discussions this afternoon. Much interest in how the drive to Net Zero can unlock investment and growth for businesses of all sizes. #Lab24 #LPC24 https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1837879393600868674/photo/1 [Source]

• 11 Sep 2024: Tweet

  RT @CommonsESNZ: Following an election, the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee is @Bill_Esterson https://twitter.com/CommonsESNZ/status/1833930459098800414/photo/1 [Source]

• 20 Aug 2024: Tweet

  Robert Jenrick says “There’s no prizes for being the first country in the world to decarbonize.” The first country to decarbonise will sell low carbon technologies to the world and benefit early from cheaper energy, more jobs and energy security. Jenrick couldn’t be more wrong. [Source]

• 31 Jul 2024: Tweet

  Last government’s 2023 clean energy auction was a fiasco. No bidders for new offshore wind and onshore wind banned. Very encouraging to see the budget for renewable energy 7 times higher this year. Let’s hope it delivers the jobs and cheap energy we need. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/31/labour-tries-to-attract-clean-energy-contracts-with-record-15bn-for-auction?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other [Source]

• 30 Jul 2024: Tweet

  Thrilled to be standing for election as Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee. A fundamental area of policy for jobs, growth and the future of the planet. Here's my letter to my 649 colleagues who elect the chair. Please encourage your MP to vote for me! https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1818313968978464832/photo/1 [Source]

• 25 Jul 2024: Tweet

  In 2013, David Cameron said “Cut the green crap.” Last year Rishi Sunak scrapped his commitment to net zero. Today @Keir_Starmer is setting up publicly owned GB Energy to help grab with both hands the opportunity that clean power offers us. What a wonderful contrast. [Source]

• 24 Jul 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  Q12. The Liverpool city region has one of the biggest concentrations of offshore wind in the world, and 100,000 homes could be powered by the Mersey tidal project, yet some Opposition Members want to block the jobs, the lower bills and the energy security that come with renewable energy. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to resist the siren voices opposite and support a range of technologies, including the Mersey tidal project, to maximise the benefits of clean energy for our country? ( 900061 )

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 24 Jul 2024: Tweet

  I asked @Keir_Starmer about the Mersey Tidal Project at his first #PMQs It could power 100,000 homes Some MPs want to block the jobs, lower bills & energy security which renewable energy offers Happily we now have a government which has clean power at the heart of its plans https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1816123962981507479/video/1 [Source]

• 18 Jul 2024: Tweet

  Great to ask @Ed_Miliband about @UKLabour's exciting plans to deliver energy security, jobs, lower bills and climate action. The Liverpool City Region is already making a big contribution to the renewable energy transition. I hope that we can add tidal energy to the mix. https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1813919239583170951/video/1 [Source]

• 18 Jul 2024: Tweet

  The Committee on Climate Change says that by rowing back on net zero, the Tories have undermined the national interest. Contrary to what Tory MPs say, the transition to clean energy is a huge opportunity for jobs, lower bills, energy security and climate action. [Source]

• 17 Jul 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  In the Liverpool city region and across the country, it is absolutely right that we make the most of opportunities in fixed and floating offshore wind. I am so pleased that one of the Secretary of State’s first acts has been to end the ban on onshore wind, and indeed that he has announced three new solar farms. In the north-west and elsewhere there are plans for hydrogen, for carbon capture and storage, and for nuclear, and uniquely in the north-west, in the city region, we have great plans for the Mersey tidal project. They are all key to growth, to prosperity and to addressing the climate crisis, so I am thrilled that this is front and centre of Labour’s plans for government.

  The Liverpool city region and the north-west are part of the HyNet project, which is a commitment to a series of green hydrogen generation units. We are also committed to improvements in green transport through the roll-out of EV charging points—something that has to happen much more quickly right across the country—and there are already net zero hydrogen buses in service in the city region. Elsewhere in the city region, Glass Futures is leading the way internationally in decarbonising the production of glass, and we are also looking at battery storage.

  Full debate: Debate on the Address

• 19 Jun 2024: Tweet

  Madness. £22 billion of madness through higher bills from the Conservatives. This is why Labour’s plan is for self sufficiency in renewable energy generation, investing in home insulation and supporting the transition to electric vehicles is so important. Time for change. https://twitter.com/carbonbrief/status/1803086649443635276 [Source]

• 14 May 2024: Tweet

  A pleasure to visit Alliance Healthcare Leigh Service Centre with our wonderful parliamentary candidate @JoPlattLeigh. We discussed the facility’s vital role in delivering medicines to community pharmacy and hospitals, and how we can work together to hit Net Zero https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1790333355088642249/photo/1 [Source]

• 16 Apr 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  4. What recent discussions she has had with businesses and investors on the Government’s net zero targets. ( 902276 )

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 26 Mar 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The UK committed to reach net zero by 2050 when we signed the Paris agreement in 2015. It is not good enough that it took nine years for net zero to finally be integrated into the NNNPS. Since 2015, we have moved backwards on net zero. Just look at the Prime Minister’s delaying of the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans. This rowing back on net zero is not just a disaster for the planet; it will worsen the cost of living crisis for drivers, with an estimated cost to consumers of an eye-watering £13 billion in higher fuel costs as a direct result of the Prime Minister’s decision.

  Then there is the mess he made of HS2. The irony and symbolism of where he made the announcement is lost on no one: a disused railway station at the end of the proposed line. Everyone recognises the impact of the decision on net zero. Even the writers of “The Thick of It” would have dismissed such a plotline as far too implausible.

  Is it any wonder that the Transport Committee has warned us that there is still a lot of catching up to do when it comes to our climate change commitments and to ensuring that we deliver major infrastructure projects on time and to budget? The Transport Committee’s members made their concerns crystal clear when they said that

  “the Government should have been proactive and reviewed the NPS upon the introduction of Net Zero targets, and should do when any changes are made to net zero target policies”.

  There is a further lack of clarity over what “residual carbon emissions” means in practice, and the policy statement does not offer a process to distinguish between acceptable residual emissions and emissions that would mean carbon targets would not be met. The Transport Planning Society has even warned that the contradiction between the NNNPS and the transport decarbonisation plans is “potentially incredibly dangerous”.

  Labour is serious about learning the lessons from the staggering failure of the last 14 years. We accept that this national policy statement improves on what came before in some areas, which is why we will not oppose it today, but the Minister really should set out why he believes that the policy statement’s lack of clarity on crucial points, particularly on climate change commitments, will not worsen the delays that are already slowing our planning system to a crawl.

  If the Minister cannot or will not provide those answers today, Labour will look again at the provisions when we embark on our own review of the national policy statements. As we seek to ensure that we both respect our climate change commitments and deliver on our mission to get Britain building again, Labour does not accept the managed decline of our vital infrastructure. We will not accept barriers and blockages to the upgrades we need for smoother, greener transport and to enable everyone to benefit from the enhanced economic opportunities that will follow from better transport connections.

  Full debate: National Networks National Policy Statement

• 25 Mar 2024: Tweet

  RT @vaughangething: Great to welcome @Keir_Starmer to Ynys Môn today to discuss the massive green energy opportunities on the island. Our… [Source]

• 06 Feb 2024: Tweet

  .@UKLabour’s Automotive Strategy will support battery manufacturing, build gigafactories necessary in the UK, and deliver self-sufficiency in renewable energy. Labour's support for investment will deliver the low cost energy that will make switching to an EV a no brainer. https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1754878850494865501/photo/1 [Source]

• 21 Jan 2024: Tweet

  RT @LewisSteele_: Sky Sports: promotes a “green weekend” to tackle climate change Also Sky Sports: puts Bournemouth v Liverpool on at 4.3… [Source]

• 16 Jan 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  6. What recent discussions she has had with businesses on the Government’s net zero targets. ( 900968 )

  Full debate: Net Zero Targets: Businesses

  Contrary to what the Minister has just said, and to what he said about onshore wind, this country has fallen on his party’s watch to seventh in the world for attracting investment in renewables. Well-paid jobs, lower bills and economic growth will all follow, but only if we attract investment, so why are the Government enabling what EY has described as the “diminishing of green policies” and undermining the economic benefits of net zero?

  Full debate: Net Zero Targets: Businesses

• 16 Jan 2024: Tweet

  Contrary to the rant from Energy Minister, Graham Stuart, the UK has fallen to 7th for investment in renewables. It's the result of what EY call the "diminishing of green policies". So, actually Graham, your government is allowing this country to fall behind on net zero. https://twitter.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1747241829970444509/video/1 [Source]

• 16 Jan 2024: Tweet

  Energy Minister, Graham Stuart ranting in response to @UKLabour questions. He can’t accept that this government has undermined investment in the massive economic opportunities available in net zero. The UK has slipped to 7th on renewables investment on this government’s watch. [Source]

• 5 Dec 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  What do people think about the road safety measures that are in place? Let us look at a report that the Government published, which shows strong support for the 20 mph limits that have been introduced. A Government study found that 75% of residents and 67% of non-resident drivers found the speed limits that have been introduced appropriate. Even certain Ministers seem to recognise that these decisions are best made locally. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), said recently:

  Full debate: Road Humps and 20 mph Speed Limits

• 02 Dec 2023: Tweet

  Rishi Sunak is taking double speak to new levels. He’s telling other countries to phase out fossil fuels while seeking to extract every last drop at home. #cop28 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/02/rishi-sunak-accused-of-hypocrisy-after-backing-phase-out-of-fossil-fuels-at-cop28?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other [Source]

• 02 Dec 2023: Tweet

  RT @implausibleblog: Left: Rishi Sunak at #COP28 , "We have choices about how we act. We've scrapped plans on heat pumps and energy efficie… [Source]

• 01 Dec 2023: Tweet

  Rishi Sunak’s row back on net zero was designed to stoke the fires of culture wars in Britain. But the impact of his rhetoric has not been unnoticed at #Cop28 The UK’s credibility as leaders in addressing the climate crisis has been undermined. [Source]

• 29 Nov 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  Labour supports the introduction of the ZEV mandate. The Minister said much that I can completely agree with. Decarbonising cars and vans is an absolute priority in delivering net zero, as he reiterated throughout his remarks. He set out extremely well the opportunities for the industry in this country. However, there are significant challenges, sadly, of the Government’s own making. I understand that there are problems in the Conservative party with this subject.

  I will look at how the ZEV mandate, which we support, can be best rolled out and how the incentives can be used to deliver the agenda that the Minister set out. The confirmation that 80% of new cars and 70% of new vans will be zero emission by 2030 moves the UK towards net zero in cars and vans—that is true. However, the question we should address is how to balance the supply of vehicles, which the mandate sets to manufacturers, with demand from consumers. That is why what the Prime Minister said in September, and the way his party conference speech was trailed in advance again and again, caused so many problems. The change in date from 2030 to 2035 has created a problem for consumer confidence. We therefore support the end of new sales of petrol and diesel cars in 2030, not 2035. In Government, if we are given the responsibility in the coming year, we will revert to 2030 to emphasise the importance of taking the earliest possible steps to decarbonise.

  The Prime Minister announced the change in date. After 2030, the remaining 20% in the mandate includes petrol, diesel and hybrids whereas it previously covered only hybrids. However, the problem is that consumers heard, “Don’t worry; you don’t have to switch”. That leaves manufacturers that have already made sizeable investments—the Minister set out the commitment of the industry very well—in zero-emission vehicles with the serious concern that drivers will not buy their electric vehicles because the Prime Minister told them not to worry.

  Let us look at some of what industry said. Emma Pinchbeck, the chief executive officer of Energy UK, said of the net zero roll-backs:

  “I just came out of a meeting where a chunk of the British economy was assured by ministers that net zero was a top priority and that policy stability was crucial for investors. Now this.”

  The Climate Change Committee stated:

  “The cancellation of some Net Zero measures is likely to increase both energy bills and motoring costs for households…any undermining of their roll-out will ultimately increase costs”—

  In 2020, the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), announced the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars after 2030. He said that it would put the UK at the forefront of the zero-emission vehicle revolution with vehicles built right here in the UK. I agreed with him then, and I still agree with him now. I am concerned that there are Members on the Conservative Benches who do not agree with him.

  “Stellantis is committed to achieve 100% zero-emission new car and van sales in the UK and Europe by 2030. Our range will progressively move towards 100% electric, ahead of”

  “For many years the UK has been a leader in the transition to the green economy of the future. Government policies have attracted investment to the UK and created well paid, high quality jobs. Members of ChargeUK have committed over £6 billion to roll out EV infrastructure in all parts of the UK at an unprecedented rate, turning on a new public charging point every 20 minutes, creating good, sustainable jobs, supporting the switch to EVs and thereby reducing emissions and improving air quality for all. This has been made possible by a clear commitment from the UK government to decarbonise our economy, with the 2030 phase out date for new petrol and diesel vehicles, 2030 acting as an essential catalyst. In his first speech as Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak said ‘I will place economic stability and confidence at the heart of this government’s agenda’.”

  The Climate Change Committee Chair said at the time:

  “The Government not only has a legal obligation to meet its Net Zero 2050 target. It also has a commitment to hit the interim emission reduction targets it has put into law. The Climate Change Committee has an obligation to assess progress towards those targets. In June, we said in our Progress Report that we were less confident in the Government's ability to deliver its 2030 and 2050 commitments than we were a year previously. We need to go away and do the calculations, but today’s announcement is likely to take the UK further away from being able to meet its legal commitments. This, coupled with the recent unsuccessful offshore wind auction, gives us concern. More action is needed, and we await the Government’s new plan for meeting their targets and look forward to receiving their response to our Progress Report, expected at the end of October.”

  The regulations refer to charge point infrastructure. The Government are 10 years behind their stated 2030 date for the roll-out of 30,000 charge points—that is from the latest figures that the Government published. What changes will the Government make to increase the rate of roll-out? That is a key element of securing consumer confidence to buy the electric vehicles being produced as a result of the zero-emission vehicle mandate.

  Full debate: Draft Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023

• 10 Nov 2023: Tweet

  Great visit to @TarmacLtd test centre in Wolverhampton with @patmcfaddenmp The company has been going for 120 years and is working on how road surfacing can play its part in the drive to net zero. Fantastic to see the exciting technology being developed. https://www.expressandstar.com/news/business/2023/11/10/shadow-ministers-visit-tarmac-laboratory-in-wolverhampton/ [Source]

• 06 Nov 2023: Tweet

  Tory ministers admit that continuing with their reliance on fossil fuels won’t help with the cost of living crisis. Their continuing reliance on oil and gas is a desperate attempt to stoke division when the country needs cheap renewable energy to help cut bills. [Source]

• 29 Oct 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: Rishi Sunak has given up even the pretence of having a serious plan for energy security and tackling the climate crisis, a… [Source]

• 24 Oct 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  I agree with much of what the Minister said. His points about the need to raise confidence among drivers and to address our net zero targets and obligations are set out well in section 7 of the explanatory notes. I welcome the fact that the price will be displayed on charge points and that the use of contactless will be obligatory. There is much to commend about the step forward taken by the draft regulations. However, a series of questions emerge from the regulations regarding how we improve on what has been set out.

  Full debate: Draft Public Charge Point Regulations 2023

• 16 Oct 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  The Secretary of State says that we must have infrastructure that allows us to move towards zero-emission vehicles as quickly as possible, but the biggest 14 cities in the north of England have fewer electric vehicle charge points than the City of Westminster alone. How does the chasm between the number of charge points in London and those elsewhere demonstrate levelling up?

  Full debate: Regional Inequalities: Coastal Communities

• 01 Oct 2023: Tweet

  Rishi Sunak set up a false choice between supporting working people and delivering net zero in his @bbclaurak interview. The way to support working people (and everyone else) is to deliver the economic benefits of net zero as quickly as possible. [Source]

• 25 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: The British people want a plan to cut energy bills, boost wages, and tackle the climate crisis. That is why Rishi Sunak'… [Source]

• 24 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @LucyMPowell: Rishi Sunak’s net zero & other short term policy shifts are acts of weakness from a desperate PM. Dodging scrutiny, disr… [Source]

• 23 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @SkyNews: Rishi Sunak 'does not give a damn' about climate change, Ed Miliband claims https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-does-not-give-a-damn-about-climate-change-ed-miliband-claims-12968023 [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  Yesterday the Transport Secretary said: “Now above all else I know that businesses want certainty and a level playing field, which is what our zero emissions vehicle mandate is for. It will require a minimum number of zero emission car sales by 2030.” So much for yesterday. https://twitter.com/uklabour/status/1704579533838467547 [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @theCCCuk: The UK Government has announced a new approach to reaching Net Zero. The CCC has issued its response. https://twitter.com/theCCCuk/status/1704549301316092408/photo/1 [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @CBItweets: Today’s announcement makes the implementation of our long-term net zero target less credible and its achievement more expens… [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  Yesterday Transport Secretary, Mark Harper said the govt "...will require a minimum number of new zero emission car sales in the run-up to 2030...one of the most advanced and ambitious regulatory schemes of its kind in the world." Today Rishi Sunak scrapped the commitment. [Source]

• 18 Sep 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  Over the last few months, I have—high vis and hard hat at the ready—been blown away by the possibilities in our automotive industry, but I have also felt the force of the headwinds facing the sector, including EU rules of origin, high electricity prices in manufacturing, the slow roll-out of EV charge points, the shortage of gigafactory capacity, delays to the zero-emission vehicle mandate, and, of course, the continuing fallout from the way in which the Conservatives crashed the economy this time last year.

  Labour’s plans for energy generation are inextricably linked to the transition to low-carbon road transport. Our plan to make the UK a clean-energy superpower by 2030, with net-zero carbon electricity, will deliver capacity and lower energy costs for UK manufacturing. Those costs, including electricity costs, which are 62% higher in the UK than in Germany, are a barrier to our competitiveness. The motor industry and motorists are being let down by this Government. They are being let down on the ZEV mandate; on rules of origin and local content; on the slow progress of gigafactories and EV charge points; and on energy prices. Above all, they have been let down because of the damage done by 13 years of Conservative mismanagement of the economy, which culminated in last year’s disastrous mini-Budget. All of that has led to the further let-down of high interest rates, which are higher than in competitor countries.

  Full debate: UK Automotive Industry

• 15 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @jreynoldsMP: Labour has pledged £3 billion for investment alongside industry to decarbonise steel in partnership with workers and indus… [Source]

• 15 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @jreynoldsMP: Labour would invest £3 billion alongside industry to decarbonise the steel industry in partnership with workers and indust… [Source]

• 02 Aug 2023: Tweet

  .@UKLabour will introduce an industrial strategy. We’ll back the automotive sector by turbocharging the industry's move to net zero, unlocking private investment, growing the economy and providing safe and secure jobs for all. [Source]

• 02 Aug 2023: Tweet

  Further reflections on the government’s backtracking on net zero. The car industry has been told no more sales of new petrol or diesel cars from 2030. Investment decisions have already been taken on the basis of the ZEV mandate. [Source]

• 02 Aug 2023: Tweet

  RT @LouHaigh: The transition to electric vehicles is essential to net zero, essential to growth and essential to the future of our automoti… [Source]

• 29 Jul 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: The cost of living crisis can only be beaten by tackling the climate crisis. That’s what Labour’s Green Prosperity Plan w… [Source]

• 25 Jul 2023: Tweet

  RT @CSkidmoreUK: Net zero isn’t a crusade. It has always been a proportionate and pragmatic approach to protecting our environment and ec… [Source]

• 19 Jul 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: Businesses are sounding the alarm ???? The Conservatives have given up on climate leadership Their failure means higher ene… [Source]

• 4 Jul 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  2. What steps his Department is taking to help energy intensive industries decarbonise. ( 905767 )

  Full debate: Energy Intensive Industries: Decarbonisation

• 02 Jun 2023: Tweet

  Great discussion on decarbonising the automotive sector hosted by @BoschUK at The RAC Club. Thanks everyone for your policy ideas and positive responses to Labour’s plans for an industrial strategy and a partnership with the sector. Happy 125th anniversary to @BoschUK https://x.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1664593564456632326/photo/1 [Source]

• 24 May 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  11. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support the decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries in Wales. ( 905030 )

  Full debate: Energy-intensive Industries: Decarbonisation

  The UK is the only country in the G7 whose steel industry is currently in decline. Why will the Government not end their sticking-plaster approach, match Labour’s commitment to a £3 billion green steel fund, and invest in a long-term plan to decarbonise the vital steel sector in Wales?

  Full debate: Energy-intensive Industries: Decarbonisation

• 24 May 2023: Tweet

  RT @NEPIC_Ltd: Our industry speakers addressed the topics of: ???? Inward investment ???? Skills ???? Energy ???? Decarbonisation @RedcarCollege @SAB… [Source]

• 08 May 2023: Tweet

  RT @TithebarnStreet: @ShehabKhan @Bill_Esterson Ed Davey was Secretary for State for Energy and Climate Change in the Coalition government… [Source]

• 26 Apr 2023: Tweet

  The Conservatives are ignoring the climate crisis by supporting new coal mines, oil and gas exploration. And they won’t help with energy bills. Labour will slash energy bills for good, create good jobs, and make the UK energy secure with our plan for clean power by 2030. https://x.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1651208218968743941/photo/1 [Source]

• 19 Apr 2023: Tweet

  RT @SustAviation: Thanks to all who attended tonight’s Parliamentary Reception to launch our updated Net Zero Road-Map. Fantastic to hear… [Source]

• 28 Mar 2023: Tweet

  .@frugalpac is exactly the kind of British business @UKLabour will encourage with our #NetZero plan. Bottles from recycled paperboard. Less waste, less water & lower carbon. Thanks to Malcolm Waugh for introducing me to the excellent wine which goes in their bottles! #Frugalpac https://x.com/Bill_Esterson/status/1640741293591519239/photo/1 [Source]

• 07 Mar 2023: Tweet

  RT @BASF_UKandI_MD: Very welcome discussion w/@Bill_Esterson & @IndustryForum last week on ????????opportunities to ramp up net zero industry.Th… [Source]

• 01 Feb 2023: Tweet

  RT @Keir_Starmer: My Labour government will work in partnership with businesses to enable a successful transition to net zero. Meeting wit… [Source]

• 19 Jan 2023: Tweet

  “Ministers need to be honest about the true cost of reaching net zero.” The US and EU are leading the way. Labour’s climate transformation plan sets out what’s needed in the UK. This Conservative government can do what’s needed by adopting Labour’s plan. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-need-to-be-honest-about-the-true-cost-of-reaching-net-zero-ftcbzj5kl [Source]

• 24 Nov 2022: Tweet

  RT @darrenpjones: High carbon emitting and fossil fuel based companies need to be investing in low carbon and renewable energy as much as p… [Source]

• 15 Nov 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  The motion in my name and in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends should be self-evident. We want to see the great British industries that have shaped our nation last long into the future, securing our transition to net zero while bringing the jobs and skills so desperately needed in many of our communities. Those skills need to be skills of the future. That is why Labour is committed to 100,000 extra apprenticeships each year and flexibility in the use of the apprenticeship levy to support the training of existing workers. This Government claim that they want to level up the country, but can they deliver well-paid jobs in the areas of the country that they claim to care about? Sadly, it seems that those promises, as we have seen with so many other Conservative promises, are simply not worth the manifesto they were written on.

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that what Conservative Members seem to be failing to recognise is that they have had 12 years to deal with the massive disparity in electricity costs between ourselves and our nearest competitors? There has been a total failure to have a procurement strategy that works for the UK steel industry and a complete absence of any action to support the transition to net zero. So rather than us take any lectures from Conservative Members, it is time they showed some humility and actually started to take some decisions about this vital foundation industry.

  I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who has led the steel MPs on this side of the Chamber, and has often led cross-party as well, in fighting the cause of steel communities. As he says, a core foundation industry is crucial to jobs and prosperity; to our national defence and security, with its role in procurement in defence; and to decarbonisation for climate security. It is right that we should be supporting our steel industry and our other core industries.

  When I visit companies developing new technologies, they are excited by the prospects and the ideas they are developing. Whether on decarbonising air travel, installing insulation in millions of homes, as our energy efficiency plans will do, or our world-class defence companies delivering economic prosperity while keeping us safe, all the businesses I meet want to work with Government. They want a Government who offer stability and are a willing partner, who will lead the world in renewable technology, who will herald the vanguard of new electric vehicles and will supply the world with cutting-edge green steel.

  Full debate: Britain’s Industrial Future

• 10 Nov 2022: Tweet

  RT @Keir_Starmer: Britain should be leading the way to tackle the climate crisis. Visiting a wind farm in Grimsby, I spoke with industry l… [Source]

• 06 Nov 2022: Tweet

  RT @RachelReevesMP: Labour will grasp the growth opportunities fighting climate change brings. That means a future of lower bills and grea… [Source]

• 02 Nov 2022: Tweet

  Of course Rishi Sunak should be going to #COP27 But let’s not kid ourselves, he wasn’t going until he was shamed into it, possibly by Boris Johnson. He’s flip flop Sunak. Weak, weak, weak. [Source]

• 1 Nov 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  This Government have a terrible record on infrastructure over the last 12 years, whether it is their cancellation of Northern Powerhouse Rail or their dismal failure to invest in renewable energy or take decisions on new nuclear. Their lack of strategy and planning was also shown when they closed the UK’s gas storage facility. Indeed, these 12 years of failure on infrastructure are central to the Conservative Government’s failures of low growth, low productivity and low investment.

  A strategic approach to infrastructure is essential, and it is Labour’s industrial strategy that follows the evidence from across the economy. Unlike the Conservatives, our plan follows evidence from around the world. At the heart of our plan is Labour’s green energy plan. We will invest in the energy sources of the future. Our plan will deliver self-sufficiency in renewable energy by doubling onshore wind, trebling solar and quadrupling offshore wind, all supported by the creation of a publicly owned “Great British Energy” company. Our plan will create half a million jobs in renewable energy and a further half a million jobs in insulating 19 million homes over 10 years. Our plan will invest in the technologies and industries of the future, from EV charging points, supporting a burgeoning electric car industry, to clean steel and developing shorter, more resilient supply chains. Our plan will create jobs, cut bills and deliver energy security, and it will transform our prospects after 12 years of economic failure by this Government.

  It is worrying that, just last week, the Prime Minister answered a question about onshore wind by talking about offshore wind. I wonder whether he understands the difference. His refusal to end the moratorium on onshore wind is telling, and it certainly is not an indication that this Government intend to make a bold, ambitious commitment to benefiting from the opportunities of a low-carbon economy. A good test of whether this Government really are committed to infrastructure investment is whether the new bank will deliver the decarbonisation we need and whether it will enable this country not just to survive but to thrive, by making the most of the massive economic opportunities available from the energy transition.

  Full debate: UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

• 28 Oct 2022: Tweet

  RT @SkyNews: Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says it's a "failure of leadership" if PM Rishi Sunak doesn't go to COP27 and use it as an oppo… [Source]

• 28 Oct 2022: Tweet

  Rishi Sunak is not going to #COP27 He has demoted his climate minister. This is climate avoidance. Is it any different to climate denial? Whether it’s avoidance or denial, it will produce the same result - a catastrophic delay in taking the action needed to protect our planet. [Source]

• 28 Oct 2022: Tweet

  RT @DavidLammy: It’s 2022. I cannot accept that any commentator is seriously still denying the climate crisis exists. #bbcqt https://t.co/M… [Source]

• 27 Oct 2022: Tweet

  RT @Keir_Starmer: My Labour government will show climate leadership. Britain showing up to work with world leaders is an opportunity to gr… [Source]

• 27 Oct 2022: Tweet

  RT @RachelReevesMP: It is vital to both grow our economy and tackle climate change. Labour will do that with our Green Prosperity Plan - i… [Source]

• 27 Oct 2022: Tweet

  RT @Ed_Miliband: This is a massive failure of leadership We were the COP26 hosts and now the UK PM will be missing in action What Rishi S… [Source]

• 19 Oct 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  I turn to the Government’s claims. First, on the gas price, fracking will not help because the price is set on the European market. Secondly, on the immediate challenge of supply, fracking will take time to produce gas even if the Government choose to ignore local people. It will not deliver in the short term. Thirdly, on the climate, producing more fossil fuels will just make the climate crisis worse. Have we not seen enough evidence of the acceleration of the climate crisis, with storms, floods and extreme heat in this country, let alone around the world? We need to do everything we can to end our reliance on greenhouse gas-producing fuel. Introducing fracking will add carbon emissions to our atmosphere. Fracking is climate action delay, and to delay is to deny the reality that we face a climate disaster and all its consequences unless we act with all speed.

  The only sensible way forward is to invest in wind and solar to deliver renewable electricity self-sufficiency, as the Opposition would do by 2030; to invest in insulating 19 million homes; to invest in new nuclear, in tidal, in hydrogen and in carbon capture and storage; and to create a publicly owned Great British energy company that we can be proud of and that will deliver in the national interest. Labour’s energy plan would lead to a million jobs, lower bills and energy security. Labour’s long-term plan will create a world-leading renewable energy industry that enables us to export our technology around the world.

  Our plan is the right way to address the energy challenge. Fracking, whether in Formby or anywhere else in Britain, is completely the wrong way. My constituents are right to oppose fracking. Labour in government will make that investment in renewable energy and ban fracking for good.

  Full debate: Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

• 19 Oct 2022: Vote

  Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 11 Oct 2022: Tweet

  RT @UKLabour: Businesses like @vaillantuk are taking renewable energy seriously, providing local, green jobs. This would be central to Lab… [Source]

• 28 Sep 2022: Tweet

  RT @Keir_Starmer: Climate crisis. Prices through the roof. Energy security at a premium. There’s no higher priority for me than fixing… [Source]

• 26 Sep 2022: Tweet

  RT @REAssociation: ???? Next up for the REA is listening to the @instituteforgov's "Net Zero Energy System" fringe, alongside the Institute fo… [Source]

• 25 Sep 2022: Tweet

  RT @instituteforgov: And to finish up day 1, we will be asking, how would a Labour government shift the UK to a net zero energy system? We… [Source]

• 22 Sep 2022: Tweet

  RT @instituteforgov: How would a Labour government shift the UK to a net zero energy system? Join us at #Lab22 on Monday 26 September wi… [Source]

• 19 Aug 2022: Tweet

  We will support the decarbonisation of key industries such as steel through our climate investment fund, specifically through our green steel fund of £3 billion. And we will commit to support our steel industry through greater use of government procurement. [Source]

• 04 Aug 2022: Tweet

  RT @RachelReevesMP: And with our Climate Investment Pledge and plan to buy, make and sell more in Britain, a Labour government will build t… [Source]

• 25 Jul 2022: Tweet

  RT @labourpress: Rishi says his children know more than him about climate change. Errrrm, OK. [Source]

• 25 Jul 2022: Tweet

  RT @labourpress: Faced with the threat of climate change, Truss and Sunak talk about how much they recycle at home. [Source]

• 25 Jul 2022: Tweet

  RT @SkyNews: "A plan for net-zero needs growth, a plan for growth needs net-zero" says Sir Keir Starmer - adding that if we "fail to tackle… [Source]

• 25 Jul 2022: Tweet

  RT @jreynoldsMP: The @uklabour plan for growth: ???? Public Investment - our Climate Investment Pledge ???? Reform - replacing business rates… [Source]

• 22 Jul 2022: Tweet

  RT @RachelReevesMP: When it comes to tackling climate change, the Tories are dangerously detached from reality. Labour will provide the l… [Source]

• 07 Jul 2022: Tweet

  Not to mention global warming and greenhouse gases https://t.co/J1hAdJLeI4 [Source]

• 03 Jul 2022: Tweet

  RT @jreynoldsMP: Labour will re-energise our economy with good jobs and investment to meet our climate objectives We will create 30,000 j… [Source]

• 17 Mar 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  The UK needs 480,000 EV charging points if we are to transition to electric vehicles. So far there are 28,000 publicly available charging points, and only 1,000 on-street charging points outside London. Last year, just 7,600 new charging points were installed. At this rate, we will have to wait until 2080 for everyone to be able to use an electric car. These figures are from the National Infrastructure Commission. How does the Secretary of State expect motorists to be able to play their part in the move to net zero if the Government are not delivering the charging infrastructure?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 16 Mar 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  10. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on promoting renewable energy generation in Scotland. ( 906019 )

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

  Promoting renewable energy generation in Scotland is critical to supporting jobs in Scotland, but without action from the Government, it is not inevitable that Scotland’s renewable potential will lead to job creation at home. In fact, we have seen ScotWind sold off to foreign owners. Can the Minister tell me what discussions he is having with Scottish Ministers about the creation of jobs in Scotland in renewable energy?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 15 Dec 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  1. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on supporting renewable energy generation in Scotland. ( 904684 )

  Full debate: Renewable Energy Generation

• 13 Dec 2021: Vote

  Subsidy Control Bill — Schedule 1 - The subsidy control principles - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 28 Oct 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  I completely agree with everything the hon. Member for Aberdeen North says and with what my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston said in moving the amendment. What is needed from Government is the commitment to hit net zero and the mechanisms to do so. That needs to go right across Government, in everything we do.

  I take on board the point the Minister has already made in today’s deliberations that not everything is in the Bill; I understand that and I accept it. However, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North argued extremely well, there is a strong—we would say an essential—case for net zero to be at the heart of the regime put in place by this legislation.

  Schedule 2 does not mention transport, agriculture or housing insulation, to name just three examples, so it is not comprehensive as currently drafted. That is why we need to go much further to meet the scale of the challenge in the subsidy control regime that we are debating putting in place. The Budget yesterday did not address net zero, and it is frankly extremely worrying that it did not, especially in the run-up to COP26.

  I am afraid the announcements last week did not constitute a plan and were nowhere near meeting the requirement to hit the net zero targets this country is committed to in the timely fashion that is needed, especially in terms of the front-loading we all now understand is essential in all areas except the energy industry. It is needed in transport, in building insulation and in agriculture; it is needed across industry. Unless this is in the Bill, setting out the requirement for net zero to be at the heart of the subsidy regime, I am afraid we as a country, and this Government as a Government, will not be doing what is needed.

  Do we need to put net zero down on the subsidy as it is? If the hon. Gentleman remembers our Paris agreement only a few years ago, he knows we agreed to get to net zero by later this century. Now we have moved it forward to 2050, and I hope—I am sure the Government hope—that we will move our net zero agreement even further forward as time progresses. Will this proposal not make the Bill a bit out of date in a few decades’ time, when it should stand for longer?

  The amendment, because of the way it is phrased, envisages those changes and the increasing urgency. Let us remind ourselves that, on our present track, we are looking at a temperature rise of more than 1.5 °C through the existing commitments and policy decisions not just of this country but of Governments around the world. It is important to acknowledge that we cannot do it on our own, as we are responsible for only 1% of emissions, but when we are trying to show world leadership with the presidency of COP26, it is incumbent on us to show that leadership in everything we do, and we, as Members on this Committee, have an opportunity right here, right now to support making that commitment and putting it into legislation.

  “the United Kingdom reaching its net-zero commitments”,

  The hon. Gentleman is making some salient points in response to the hon. Member for Rother Valley. However, once the Government eventually hit their net zero targets, will they not want to maintain those targets and not reverse that journey? In such case, the remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley would be completely irrelevant.

  That is a good point. The hon. Gentleman is right that this does not end when we reach net zero—that is the first point. The second point is that if we need a change, we can amend the legislation later. Right now, however, this is the crucial change that the country and the world need to make. I reiterate that we as Members of the UK House of Commons—those of us here today—have an opportunity to make a statement and a commitment and to put this change on the face of the Bill.

  I got so carried away with my attempts to convince the Government to get to net zero as soon as possible that I forgot to ask questions when I stood up previously. It would be useful if the Minister could clarify why there are two schedules. Why does the treatment differ between the two areas? There is a difference in the treatment of subsidies in relation to energy and the environment compared with subsidies relating to any other area, and I do not quite understand the logic of having two different things. One set of principles could have covered everything, including moving toward net zero. If the Minister will explain why there are two separate schedules and why the two areas are being treated differently, that would be incredibly helpful.

  Hon. Members can rest assured that our new subsidy control regime will support the UK in meeting our net zero target by 2050, first by facilitating strategic and appropriate subsidy interventions with minimal bureaucracy and delay and secondly by ensuring that energy and environment subsidies are assessed against additional principles that promote carbon neutrality and sustainability.

  The hon. Member for Sefton Central said that he could not see net zero in the Budget, but the spending review backs up the net zero strategy published the week before. The Budget will fund our strategy, which will then leverage private money and create jobs and opportunities in markets that will drive towards net zero.

  Turning to amendment 7 itself, it is unnecessary explicitly to require public authorities on the face of the Bill to consider the negative effects of subsidies on the UK’s net zero commitment as part of their compliance with principle G. Public authorities will clearly need to consider the effects of subsidies in the round before awarding them, but the amendment would give undue prominence to net zero considerations with respect to subsidies that may have entirely unrelated objectives, such as high street regeneration or providing training opportunities for young people.

  Does the Minister agree that this is the most important thing for every single one of us? Whether people are regenerating high streets or doing anything else, they should be ensuring that they are also moving towards net zero.

  I agree that we should be doing so, but what I am saying is that we do not need to do it in a process-driven way. It should be done, in the first place, in the devising and implementation of policy. I do not want to create two separate processes, because that might lead to public authority having to make assessments for every single subsidy that is awarded or made, even when there is no meaningful impact—just look at that bureaucracy. What we need to do is ensure that we enmesh net zero thinking in our policy development at every layer of government, rather than just listening for signals. Clearly, we need to take that leadership at COP26. We realise that this is the time to lead and to act, for all international Governments.

  We have established the green jobs taskforce, which advises on how Government, industry and the education sector can work alongside other stakeholders to realise the opportunities of a green industrial revolution, supporting green jobs and skills, and ensuring that those opportunities are open to all. The evidence collected by that taskforce and its recommendations are being considered by Government as part of the development of the ongoing net zero strategy, which was published last week. We will develop that.

  Those are the clear leadership principles that we should be promoting and pushing out to international colleagues from Governments around the world, who are coming to Glasgow this week and next, ahead of COP26. However, we do not need just this one principle, understandable as it is, in the Bill. Principle G already singles out negative effects on competition or investment within the UK and on international trade and investment. That is appropriate, as such distortions go to the very heart of what the subsidy control regime is for. By definition, a subsidy must have effect on competition, investment and trade, and distortion is common to all subsidies, regardless of what they seek to achieve.

  Net zero considerations, however, are not inherent to all subsidies. Some subsidies will of course help businesses to reduce their emissions, but a great number will not have any meaningful or, importantly, measurable impact on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions.

  Amendment 8 would add to schedule 2 a requirement for energy and environment subsidies and subsidy schemes to deliver, or to incentivise the beneficiary in delivering, the UK’s net zero commitments. The intended effect is that a public authority planning to grant an energy or environment subsidy or scheme would not be able to proceed unless it was satisfied that that subsidy or scheme contributed towards net zero commitments.

  We share the commitment to the net zero agenda, as I expressed. We believe that subsidies correctly designed and targeted can be a powerful means to achieve that.

  There is a wide definition of environmental protection beyond net zero, as big and important as that is. The principles in schedule 2 fully support the UK’s priorities on net zero and the wider protection of the environment. The additional requirement to assess the subsidy or scheme against the net zero priorities is therefore unnecessary and may actually discourage public authorities from granting energy and environmental subsidies designed to achieve other valuable aims, such as an affordable energy system or increasing biodiversity. I humbly ask the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston to withdraw the amendment.

  Full debate: Subsidy Control Bill (Third sitting)

• 21 Oct 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  I add my welcome to the Secretary of State. She was asked in the previous question about a leaked document, which suggests that economic growth is a higher priority for this Government in trade negotiations than climate protection. I know that must be embarrassing for her, given that the Government are supposed to be showing leadership in addressing the climate crisis ahead of COP26, but she can confirm the Government’s priority once and for all by making a definitive statement now about whether the Government and her Department will rule out trade deals with countries such as Brazil and Malaysia so long as they continue to destroy their rainforests. Will she make that commitment today?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 07 Jun 2021: Vote

  Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill — New Clause 1 - Human Rights Abuses - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 26 May 2021: Vote

  Environment Bill — New Clause 24 - Prohibition on burning of peat in upland areas - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 21 Apr 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Next we come to environmental standards. Palm oil is used in food products, detergents, shampoo, cosmetics, biofuel and even ice cream, but palm oil production is wreaking untold destruction on jungle habitats. Palm oil plantations cover more than 27 million hectares of the earth’s surface. The industry is pushing endangered species ever closer to extinction, and with their carbon dioxide and methane emissions, palm oil-based biofuels are estimated to have three times the climate impact of fossil fuels. Although the UK has a ban on palm oil imported through biofuels, Malaysia—a CPTPP member country—is one of the largest producers of palm oil, and Malaysian officials want the Government to scrap the protections that we already have against the import of palm oil. Palm oil is just one example, and it is emblematic of the potential dangers of signing up to a deal such as CPTPP. Will we be rule takers on imports of palm oil, or will we be able to insist on maintaining our high environmental standards? Parliamentary scrutiny would tell us.

  Full debate: CPTPP

• 28 Jan 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Moving freight off the roads and on to rail is crucial if we are to cut carbon emissions. The changes that the Minister announced will be a very small contribution because the Government are planning a new road from the port of Liverpool through the Rimrose valley into my constituency, which will have precisely the opposite effect and increase emissions. Earlier, the Secretary of State told us that transport decarbonisation is at the heart of his plans. Do Ministers want to play their part in meeting Government targets or not? If they do, will they think again, look at the report produced by Arup for Sefton Council on alternatives to road from the port of Liverpool, and invest properly in rail freight?

  Full debate: Port of Liverpool: New Rail Link

• 26 Jan 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  I wish to comment on the group of amendments on oversight and environmental protection. The Bill is welcome, but we have to take the opportunity to make sure that it really hits the spot—that it has the strength to protect our environment locally and nationally and also contributes to environmental protection internationally and globally. From talking to many environmental organisations, it is clear to me that there is widespread agreement that we need to build stronger measures into the Bill. We need targets and we need to build in independence for the Office for Environmental Protection. Most of all, we need to see the Bill become law. It is sad that there is a delay, but we must see this Bill become law urgently, and certainly before COP26 in Glasgow.

  I would like to speak briefly about new clause 9. This House has already declared a climate emergency, so it is right that the Bill really tackles that emergency in a consistent and ambitious way. New clause 9, as we have heard from previous speakers, provides that anyone with duties under the Bill must comply with an overarching environmental objective.

  Finally, I want to speak very briefly in support of new clause 17. The pandemic has laid bare the need for a new outlook on our economy and wider society. We need to look, therefore, at a new, more holistic and inclusive economic model, including more sophisticated economic objectives and indicators such as environmental regeneration, renewable energy and the UK’s impact overseas, alongside health, incomes, security, equality, inclusion, affordable housing and the wellbeing of future generations.

  Full debate: Environment Bill

• 13 Jan 2021: Vote

  Financial Services Bill — Schedule 2 - Prudential regulation of FCA investment firms - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 15 Dec 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  What assessment he has made of the level of greenhouse gas emissions generated by (a) imports to and (b) exports from the UK. ( 910312 )

  Full debate: Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Imports and Exports

  When emissions from the production of imports, and from sea and air transport are included—minus those of exports—the UK has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 0.6% a year, not the 1.5% that the Government quote for territorial emissions alone. This country depends on imports, including the emissions that they produce. Ministers can kid themselves all they like, but is it not the case that unless the UK cuts the emissions that we are responsible for around the world, we are not going to make the contribution that we need to in order to deal with the climate emergency?

  Full debate: Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Imports and Exports

• 16 Nov 2020: Vote

  Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] — Clause 124 - Climate change risk - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 12 Oct 2020: Vote

  Agriculture Bill — After Clause 42 - Contribution of agriculture and associated land use to climate change targets - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: No

• 29 Sep 2020: Vote

  United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — New Clause 6 - Economic development: climate and nature emergency impact statement - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 20 Jul 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  I said at the start that the Bill is really about social responsibility, environmental protection and democracy. The lack of scrutiny threatens to leave the NHS wide open to pharmaceutical giants and to undermine farmers and consumers. Chemical washes of chicken, hormones in beef, ractopamine in pork and GM crops are banned in the UK. What is wrong with keeping it that way? If the Government are saying, “We are going to do it anyway”, what is the objection to putting it all in primary legislation? The trouble is that we all know what is really going on here: they do not want to put protections for our NHS farmers and consumers in law or take the action needed on the climate crisis, because they have no intention of keeping their promises.

  Full debate: Trade Bill

• 23 Jun 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  One last concern to flag about a UK-US deal is Donald Trump’s hostility to action on climate, and therefore the possible lack of potential for Ministers to make progress on bringing carbon dioxide emissions down and helping to tackle the climate and nature emergencies that the world and our country face. Those are the potential concerns being talked about around the headline free trade agreement being negotiated by Ministers, which merit proper parliamentary scrutiny.

  Full debate: Trade Bill (Fifth sitting)

• 23 Jun 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  (a) the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;

  The Government say they are committed to addressing the climate crisis and to net zero by 2050, even though they have missed the targets set by the fourth and fifth carbon budgets and the gap is getting worse, and even though their own analysis shows that their spend on nuclear export finance for energy projects has favoured the fossil fuel sector substantially, to the point where 99.3% of that budget spend over a five-year period went to fossil fuel projects, including recently to Bahrain. There is no sign of a real and meaningful switch away from fossil fuels and to renewables.

  The Government can say that they are committed to something, but unless something is in legislation and in writing, and unless there are meaningful commitments, the situation does not change. That is why it is important to amend legislation such that we confirm our commitments to the Paris agreement, the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, and the convention on biological diversity, including the Cartagena protocol on biosafety.

  There are real problems in international trade that affect our ability to meet our climate obligations. Trade agreements are used to liberalise regulations, including environmental regulations. The Bill is an opportunity to redesign trade policy to support our environmental ambitions, as the Government set out. The target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and associated commitments are in our amendment. The opportunity is there for the UK to require trade partners to ratify and implement key climate change agreements, such as Paris, before entering into trade negotiations, and for us to suspend ISDS agreements.

  Environmental policy has been the object of investor-state dispute settlement litigation. Companies that have fossil fuel interests have sued other companies’ Governments because of the impact of Government regulations and legislation on their interests. That undermines investment and support for the renewables sector, and efforts to decarbonise economies and meet our climate obligations. Similar points are made about the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, and the convention on biological diversity. If the Government want to address this agenda, they have an opportunity to do so with this amendment, and I hope they take it.

  Given that the Bill is widely drawn and has the potential to address future trade agreements, let us look at what the US has been saying. This should worry us, given the damage that could be done by international trade agreements. In December, the US ruled out talk of a climate crisis in trade negotiations—yes, that is what trade representative Lighthizer said. He was categorical about that when the UK inquired—I am pleased that the UK did this—about the possibility of including reference to climate change in a future UK-US trade agreement, given that the UK has a strong historical stance on climate change and pushed strongly for the Paris agreement. The UK also highlighted in those talks the pressure for that that would come from civil society and non-governmental organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to the evidence that the Committee received.

  “responded emphatically that climate change is the most”

  “are bound by Congress not to include mention of greenhouse gas emission reductions in trade agreements. US stated this ban would not be lifted anytime soon.”

  We should be worried about what the US is saying on this subject. We should take note of it and make sure that if the price of an agreement with the US is to oppose action on addressing the climate crisis, it is a price far too high for us to accept. I hope the Government will take the amendment on board, because there is nothing in it that is not in accordance with Government policy.

  In doing so, we will be safeguarding life in water and on land. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050 and boldly stated that “we will crack” the climate emergency. As a global leader on climate action, the UK must set an example to the rest of the world by honouring its international obligations under the Paris agreement and other multilateral environmental agreements. Trade policy is an integral part of that, so it should not be left out of the Bill.

  Trade agreements can foster good climate action, but they can also impede Government implementation of climate commitments. They could threaten to increase fossil fuel use, for example, which we explicitly decided not to do in declaring a climate emergency. They could also hinder the sharing of green technology.

  Trade agreements typically include national treatment for trade in gas, thereby locking in dependency on a fossil fuel with high greenhouse gas emissions, while incentivising increased fracking and fossil fuel infrastructure. We would not want continuity agreements that include those. The EU’s own impact assessment of TTIP—the EU-US trade deal—predicts that it would generate an additional 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. That is fundamentally at odds with our international climate obligations, so we must bring our trade policies up to date with our environment obligations.

  To conclude, the Bill gives us an opportunity to ensure that our trade policy supports our environmental ambitions by explicitly putting them into the Trade Bill, including the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Amendment 11 is a positive step towards that goal and is consistent with the Government’s own commitments and obligations, so everyone should agree to it, to ensure that the UK complies with international law and that we remain a world leader on climate action.

  The UK has often led the way and exceeded EU minima on environmental issues, such as greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. I predict that we will continue to do so, thus making the amendment redundant. For example, the UK was the first country to introduce legally binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets through the Climate Change Act 2008. We were also the first major economy to set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from across the economy by 2050. We have cut our carbon emissions by nearly twice the EU average since 1990—by 42%.

  Full debate: Trade Bill (Sixth sitting)

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney: it is absolutely right that we set an example to the world by honouring our Paris commitments, and honouring them in primary legislation is a formidable way of doing that. I am glad that she reminded me about fracking. There is fracking a mile from my constituency, and it causes enormous problems. Its relevance to the amendment is that the same companies engaged in fracking are able, under ISDS provisions if they are in place, to take action against the UK Government to defend their fossil fuel interests, even if the Government do not want to support such an industry and want to pursue a renewable energy agenda, so it is an important consideration.

  That is why the amendment or something similar—if the Minister wants to bring it back, I will be very happy to look at it on Report—is the way to deal with this matter. We need to ensure that it is there, specified and clear in primary legislation, as part of our international trade framework, which is what the Bill should be. It is great of him to reference the Labour Government’s Climate Change Act 2008, but it is time for this Government to put such things into law as well, and this is their opportunity. I will press my amendment to a vote.

  Full debate: Trade Bill (Sixth sitting)

• 18 Jun 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  In March, the Government said that Japan must show “increased ambition” and set a higher headline target on reducing carbon emissions ahead of COP26. Is that still the view of the Secretary of State? Will she show increased ambition and include more stretching, measurable and binding climate targets in the new free trade agreement she puts in place with Japan?

  Full debate: Free Trade Agreements: Environmental Protection Standards

• 20 May 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  International trade agreements have the potential to undermine our public services, favouring foreign multinationals eyeing up our NHS, for example. They can be used to undermine workers’ rights here and abroad, and to damage food safety and animal welfare. They can prevent action to tackle the climate emergency. That is why there is so much concern about the Bill and why the lack of scrutiny envisaged under it is wrong—wrong for the agreements covered by the Bill and wrong because of the precedent it sets for future trade agreements, such as that with the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) was one of a number of Members who expressed similar concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) called for human rights to be strengthened, and not ignored, as part of trade negotiations.

  Full debate: Trade Bill

• 11 Mar 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  Fair trade is about international trade agreements that support human rights and workers’ rights, combat exploitation and undermining of trade union activity, and support environmental and climate justice. It is no coincidence that those on the frontline of the climate crisis in the developing world are those who face the most difficult economic times and those most in need of support through a fair trade system. It cannot be right that this country continues to promote and fund the export of fossil fuel projects, which, sadly, the Government still do, as we saw most recently at the Africa summit. We should promote renewable energy and help the developing world to move to a low-carbon and net-zero future at the same time as we do at home. That would also be an opportunity for our domestic technology and export potential.

  That would be the responsible thing for us to do it but, equally, it would be wrong of us to accept—in a distressed state—whatever terms we are offered by the United States. We have discussed the poor standards that come with such an agreement and that are the consequence of the negotiating objectives set out by the Government. The Government include the dispute settlement paragraph—only a short one—but the problem, as the hon. Member for Dundee East set out clearly, is that that dispute settlement mechanism is the back door to undermining, or running roughshod over, all the commitments not to allow US pharmaceutical companies access to our markets to sell their medicines, not to undercut workers’ rights, not to undercut our ability to address the climate crisis, and not to support our domestic manufacturing industries.

  Full debate: Trade Deals and Fair Trade

• 3 Mar 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  If the Government want to help clean growth, they can invest in the Mersey tidal power project. It is clean, entirely predictable, and could power 1 million homes. It offers high-quality jobs and has massive domestic and export potential. Steve Rotheram and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority have just committed a further £3.5 million to the project, so will the Government back the people of the north-west by supporting investment in this exciting new project? It is a chance to demonstrate that they are interested in and serious about tackling the climate crisis.

  Full debate: Clean Growth Industries: New Jobs

• 2 Mar 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  The negotiating objectives contain references to a level playing field with the US and a commitment to prevent either side from enjoying an artificial advantage—a commitment not being offered to the EU. Does the Secretary of State believe that the EU has not noticed? Or does she think the EU does not have access to translators? Dispute mechanisms are used by the US in international trade agreements to enforce its standards as a matter of course. It is noticeable that the EU negotiating objectives specifically exclude environmental protections and workers’ rights from the proposed dispute mechanism, but no such exclusions have been set out in the objectives published today, so will the UK end up having to back down, or are the rights and protections really the red lines that the Secretary of State would have us believe? Will she insist that the US signs up to International Labour Organisation conventions? How will the agreement reinforce the UK’s commitment to net zero by 2050?

  The hon. Member is right to highlight this issue. However, a free trade agreement is specifically about the rules around trade. There are other organisations that set global standards in other issues. The World Health Organisation will, of course, be taking a lead on the environment in terms of COP26. There is always a bit of a danger in trying to pile too many issues into free trade agreements. This free trade agreement is all about ensuring that British consumers and businesses benefit from increased trade with the UK.

  North-east Lincolnshire is a major centre for the renewable energy sector, and a number of US delegations have already visited to look at opportunities. Would the Secretary of State give an assurance that her Department will support the small and medium-sized companies that want to get into the supply chain in this sector?

  Full debate: UK-US Trade Deal

• 26 Feb 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  The consequences of poor regulation are spelled out in “Dark Waters”, which will be released on Friday in the UK. The film depicts what can happen to tens of thousands of people and to wildlife without adequate safeguards. In our addressing the climate crisis and moving to net zero, the chemical industry has a vital role to play in ending the use of fossil fuels, recycling plastics and finding sustainable alternatives, including for the types of forever chemicals depicted in the film.

  Full debate: UK Chemical Industry: Regulatory Divergence

• 26 Feb 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  Q8. The Prime Minister has a laundry list of climate promises. No doubt he will read them out shortly, but he cannot escape the fact that, on current rate of progress, net zero will not be reached until 2099—not the 2050 that he claims, let alone the 2030 that we probably need. Even J. P. Morgan says that human life, as we know it, is under threat. The Prime Minister cannot be a climate denier, can he, so when will he take climate crisis seriously? ( 900853 )

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 11 Feb 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  T3. Funding for coal mining ended in 2012, but it carries on for oil and gas, as we saw at the recent Africa summit and in the lobbying for the Petrofac oil refinery in Bahrain. When is the Chancellor going to end funding for fossil fuel projects and take the action that is needed to tackle the climate crisis? ( 900750 )

  Full debate: Topical Questions

• 05 Feb 2020: Vote

  Transport - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 23 Jul 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  To succeed in international trade, we must align our domestic and international strategies. That means delivering on the Government’s stated aim of moving to a zero-carbon economy. Labour recognises the benefits to be had in jobs and prosperity from investing in the $26 trillion global opportunity of moving to a zero-carbon world. That figure comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  The Government say that they are committed to net zero by 2050. However, that does not stack up when we remember that we are funding fossil fuel development overseas; 99.4% of UK Export Finance provision in the energy sector went on fossil fuel development in places such as oil refineries in Bahrain. Just £1 million was spent on renewables, but £4.8 billion went on oil and gas. Raiding the international development budget—something announced yesterday by the Secretary of State—is not the answer. We should use aid to help developing nations, not to give further support to the fossil fuel industry.

  UK Export Finance should be helping with the development of renewables; otherwise, we are just exporting our emissions to the developing world and elsewhere, as of course is the case when we do not include emissions from shipping and air freight in our carbon reduction targets. The emissions do not go away as if by magic just because we pretend they are not part of our carbon footprint. Christian Aid rightly says that the support for fossil fuels is incoherent. We have world-leading marine technology in tidal energy. Where is the focus on renewable energy at the heart of an exciting and financially rewarding export strategy?

  Under article 2(c) of the Paris agreement, the Government’s policy priority should be:

  “Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.”

  The figure of 99.4% going to fossil fuels from UK Export Finance is the exact opposite of the stated policy of our Government. As Global Witness told the Select Committee, UK Export Finance should measure the greenhouse gas impact of the projects it funds. The US Overseas Private Investment Corporation adopted a greenhouse gas cap for its projects in 2007, and it is no surprise that it has shifted towards clean energy investments. If the private sector in the United States can do that, why cannot we? Labour believe we can.

  Global Witness says that, for trade and domestic policies to match, UKEF should no longer invest in fossil fuel projects. Ministers like to remind us that UKEF is an award winner—but why should it not win awards for its low-carbon policy? The Canadian and French export credit agencies have more stringent controls on fossil fuel support. One of the two Swedish agencies did not lend to any fossil fuel projects in 2015 or 2016. If they can do that, why cannot we? Global Witness also says that the Department for International Trade should realign export support to renewable energy. There is an export opportunity for us, if we want to grasp it, in what it describes as floating offshore wind. Why not? UKEF has stopped investing in businesses that rely on child labour. Why not take the same approach to global warming?

  Full debate: UK Trade and Investment Strategy

• 18 Jul 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  Yesterday, Highways England wrote to me to confirm that it is going ahead with the road through Rimrose valley, an area with some of the worst roadside emissions in the country. Why are the Government not proceeding with the option of rail? Putting more freight on rail addresses the urgent need to address the climate emergency. Why are they so complacent about this existential threat to the world?

  Full debate: Topical Questions

• 3 Jul 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  The hon. Lady spoke about the impact of greys. They impact not only on red squirrels, but on trees, which are the habitat for the reds. The damage that greys cause is widespread. I am tempted to wander into a debate on climate change at this point, because when trees are damaged, it reduces their effectiveness at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Greys certainly cause damage that undermines the habitat for red squirrels and the other species I have mentioned. It is extremely important that we protect native species, and this debate contrasts the importance of native species against those that have come from overseas.

  Full debate: Red Squirrels: Potential Extinction

• 25 Jun 2019: Vote

  Delegated Legislation — Value Added Tax - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: No

• 6 Jun 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  Between 2016 and 2018, the prosperity fund financed 16 fossil fuel projects across the world, including two in fracking. Is not this obsession with fossil fuels, despite the fine words of the Secretary of State, just confirmation that this Government could not care less about addressing the climate emergency, which is, after all, one of the biggest threats to alleviating world poverty?

  Full debate: Prosperity Fund

• 6 Jun 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  The Secretary of State’s damascene conversion to addressing the climate emergency is welcome, but, as we have heard, some of those with whom he wishes to conclude trade agreements are less enlightened. Given what he has just said, will the Minister commit to introducing climate clauses to all future trade agreements? Will he publish specific details of the support his Department offers the fossil fuel sector through export finance, and say how that support conforms with the Equator Principles?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 15 May 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  Q2. This Government say they are committed to tackling climate change, yet too often the evidence suggests otherwise. Take the examples of their support for an oil refinery in Bahrain but their refusal to help award-winning tidal energy specialists Nova Innovation. The reality is, 99.4% of UK export finance in the energy sector goes on fossil fuel projects. If this Government are serious about addressing the climate emergency, will they prove it by investing in the future, not the past? ( 910902 )

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 1 May 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  It is fitting that we are debating the future of international trade at the same time as Members in the main Chamber are discussing Labour’s call to declare a climate emergency. The opportunities in the low-carbon economy for trade in goods and services as part of—as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said—the global economic benefits of $26 trillion, need to be at the heart of our industrial and trade strategy. However, before concentrating on the export potential of renewable technology, I will spend a few minutes on other topics.

  I want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond, so in the time remaining I will speak about the low-carbon economy and the need to address the climate emergency. This Government’s record in international trade is a cause for concern in relation to the low-carbon economy: £2.362 billion of UK export finance over the past five years has been spent on exports to low and middle-income countries in the energy sector relating to fossil fuels, with just £1 million invested in the renewables sector. If we are serious about tackling climate change, those figures need to be completely reversed, so it is disappointing that after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report last autumn, this Government announced that they were considering support for a Bahrain oil refinery.

  We have many success stories in renewable energy; we are often world leaders in technology—Windhoist, for example, sells wind turbines to Taiwan and Australia—but for other companies there is only frustration. Award-winning exporter Nova Innovation exports tidal energy equipment. Its chief executive officer, Simon Forrest, says:

  We cannot afford to let that happen in sectors such as tidal energy. We can be leaders in the low-carbon economy. Meeting the challenge of the climate emergency can deliver future prosperity through a proper industrial and international trade strategy in renewables, not fossil fuels. It is time to develop the future, not the past.

  Full debate: Future International Trade Opportunities

• 24 Apr 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  Q9. It is complacent to claim that we are on target to meet our climate change obligations when emissions from air freight and the shipping of imports and exports are excluded from the figures. Will the Government be honest about the scale of the challenge of climate change? We need to invest fully in renewable energy, drop the fascination with fracking and declare a climate change emergency, because that is the reality of what we face. ( 910502 )

  Full debate: Engagements

• 21 Mar 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  Nuclear, solar, tidal, offshore wind, onshore wind: all are forms of renewable energy that have been cut on this Government’s watch. Forty thousand people die prematurely each year as a result of poor air quality, and we all face the threat of climate change. This reckless approach to emissions must stop, so when are the Government going to end their reliance on fossil fuels and make the switch to electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 21 Feb 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  Distance is important. The value of our trading relationship with Ireland is higher than the value of UK trade with Italy or Spain, even though Ireland’s economy is much smaller than that of either Italy or Spain. Members should not just take my word for it; that is the view of the Office for National Statistics. If the Government have their way, we will abandon the deal that we have on our doorstep for a deal—or a series of deals—on the other side of the planet. Trade by teleport is not a reality, however. I am glad that the Secretary of State has acknowledged the fact that we are on the other side of the world from the Pacific. It is also a fact that he is proposing that we become a nation that is reliant on carbon-pumping trade deals, which is somewhat at odds with the claim in his opening speech that he is going to uphold our climate change obligations.

  Full debate: Future Free Trade Agreements

• 31 Oct 2018: Parliamentary Speech

  Sefton Council unanimously opposes fracking—there will be no fracking approved by it—but the Government have overruled. That is simply not acceptable. We need alternatives to fracking. The science is there and the climate change effects are there. Members on the Government Benches have to oppose their Government when they make cuts to renewable energy. There must be an alternative to fracking, and it has to be renewables and hydrogen. That is the way forward, not supporting fracking.

  Full debate: Shale Gas Development

• 25 Jun 2018: Parliamentary Speech

  One very good way of offsetting the impact on climate change of expanding airport capacity would be to expand renewable energy production. Is not it remarkably ironic that this statement has been made on the same day as the Heathrow vote? There is a fine judgment to be made on Heathrow tonight. Giving the go-ahead to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon would have made supporting Heathrow just that little bit easier.

  As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I can say that value for money is very important to the House and should always be, and I accept the Secretary of State’s assessment in this regard. However, will he confirm to and reassure the House that the Government are not giving up on marine energy or renewable energy, and set out further plans in due course?

  Full debate: Energy Policy

• 28 Feb 2017: Parliamentary Speech

  Intellectual property is the sum of a person’s or a business’s creativity and unique knowledge: their industrial designs, trademarks and inventions. Intellectual property gives ownership to ideas. It secures, for the creator, a stake in the value generated by their creations. Whether we are talking about the knowledge economy, the digital sector, high-end manufacturing or renewable energy, the UK has a deserved global status in all those fields. We have that status not just because British people are particularly good at having ideas, but because we are very good at safeguarding the ownership of those ideas, although, as we heard in great detail from hon. Members, we have a significant amount more to do to protect that ownership. Intellectual property is a catalyst for growth and jobs—for a successful economy. That is becoming increasingly apparent and it will be increasingly important if we are to be an economy of high pay and prosperity, and not an economy of low skill and low wages, competing on the basis of price alone, in an uncertain world.

  Full debate: Intellectual Property: British Economy

• 7 Sep 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) about the worrying loss of UK influence on tackling climate change, like so much else that results from the Brexit vote. He also mentioned his grave concerns about the damage being done to the international community’s ability to tackle climate change, given our leading role up till now and the likely dramatic reduction in our influence outside the European Union.

  Earlier, the Minister spoke about what he called the Government’s fantastic record, but he rather ignored the fact that investor confidence has plummeted, subsidies have been cut and jobs, not least in the solar industry, have been lost. He blamed the European Union for our not having ratified the Paris agreement, while acknowledging that other European countries had done so. The Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been happy enough recently to act against the rest of the EU. The UK recently blocked action by the rest of the EU to protect our steel industry. The Government are happy enough to take unilateral action when it suits them, but we had enough false claims about the EU during the referendum campaign, thank you.

  It is astonishing how quickly the Government have trashed our hard-won reputation for leading the world in responding to the challenges of climate change. Our role as key EU negotiators at Kyoto, our world-leading Climate Change Act 2008 and our progressive reputation at the Paris climate conference all risk being left in tatters if we are seen to be dragged to the table at the last minute as a result of being outside the EU. Whereas China, the US and France, among many others, have all ratified the Paris agreement, despite what the Prime Minister said earlier today, we are being left lagging behind.

  At least the Government have moved on from the position under the previous Business Secretary, who refused to let the words “industrial strategy” pass his lips. The new Business Secretary will have to develop a strategy. That is especially true in respect of green energy. The argument for energy, particularly green energy, to be at the heart of our industrial strategy was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, and the Minister made similar remarks in his speech.

  Last year, we were going to lead the way in Paris with a £1 billion carbon capture and storage competition. The United Nations framework convention on climate change identified CCS as one of the interventions that could help countries worldwide meet emissions reduction targets, yet just a week before the Paris climate conference the Government scrapped their plan, despite the international praise it had received. After the Paris agreement had been signed, the Government abolished DECC, precisely when the Department’s expertise would most sorely be needed. They cut subsidies for green household energy initiatives by 65%, and then they increased subsidies for fossil fuel production at the same time as cutting investment in green technologies. While the cost of green energy has been falling, the Government have instead focused on fracking.

  Labour in local government and in the devolved Administrations wants to deliver on the green agenda, but it cannot do these things alone, and they should not have to be done in a piecemeal way. Why is the green agenda not a national priority, on which Government, local authorities and Assembly Administrations can all work together to deliver as full partners? Where is the underwriting by the Government of the development of our green industries? Where is the Government-backed green energy company to challenge the market and to address complacency from the energy cartel, which is simply not set up to put the needs of residential or business customers first? That is what follows from the short-term nature of the stock market-listed companies that make up the cartel and from their need to put shareholder returns above all else. Where is the development of a national energy strategy to address the very real security concerns about supply? If the Government are committed to the green agenda, why, oh why, did they privatise the Green Investment Bank?

  There is an overwhelming economic case for the UK to build infrastructure and cutting-edge technologies, not just to meet our Paris agreement commitments. We are well placed to serve the market that exists given that 180 countries signed the Paris agreement. There are nearly 100,000 low-carbon and renewable energy businesses in the UK. UK Government figures value the green economy as a whole at £122 billion a year—double the size of the automotive industry, twice the size of the chemicals industry and five times the gross value added of aerospace.

  Green energy is a major trade opportunity. We have signed deals for low-carbon trade of £6.7 billion with China and £3.2 billion with India. The global green energy market is growing at over 4% a year and is expected to reach £5 trillion this year. Trade in green energy has the potential to transform our export prospects just at the moment we most need it, following the Brexit vote.

  Then there is the long-term cost of failing to invest. The decision to cut the pioneering CCS project might have saved the Exchequer £1 billion this year, but it is forecast to push the bill for meeting climate change agreements up by more than £30 billion, according to the National Audit Office—a very clear example of false economy. So where is the strategy: where is the coherence? Where is the Government’s fabled long-term plan? Whether we are looking for an environmental, economic or business rationale, the plan simply is not there. No wonder the 100,000 members of the public who signed the petition on ratifying the agreement on environmental grounds were joined by investors worth £13 trillion arguing the business and economic case for early and enthusiastic ratification of Paris.

  Full debate: Paris Agreement on Climate Change

• 06 Sep 2016: Vote

  Finance Bill — VAT on Installation of Energy Saving Materials - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 09 May 2016: Vote

  Housing and Planning Bill — Planning obligations and affordable housing - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: No

• 03 May 2016: Vote

  Housing and Planning Bill — Neighbourhood right of appeal - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: No

• 14 Mar 2016: Vote

  Energy Bill [Lords] — New Clause 8 — Decarbonisation target range - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 14 Mar 2016: Vote

  Energy Bill [Lords] — New Clause 3 — Carbon capture and storage strategy for the energy industry - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 13 Jan 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  From green and renewable energy to high-end manufacturing and digital technology, the United Kingdom is not short of opportunities. It is not short of innovative entrepreneurs who want to put it at the global forefront of those emerging sectors. Under this Government, however, the UK spends less on research as a share of GDP than France, Germany, the United States and China. It has embarked on real-terms cuts to Innovate UK; it has axed the Business Growth Service, including the Manufacturing Advisory Service and the growth accelerator programme; and it is stifling game-changing innovation by converting grants for bold start-up companies to loans.

  Full debate: Trade, Exports, Innovation and Productivity

• 26 Oct 2015: Vote

  Finance Bill (Ways and Means) (Payment of Corporation Tax) — Chapter 5 — Supplementary provisions - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 08 Sep 2015: Vote

  Bill Presented — Devolution (London) Bill — Clause 45 — CCL: removal of exemption for electricity from renewable sources - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: No

• 13 Feb 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  Last year the Secretary of State claimed that climate change could help the UK. He said:

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 04 Dec 2013: Vote

  Recall of Elected Representatives — Schedule 4 — Application and modification of emissions limit duty - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: No

• 04 Jun 2013: Vote

  Energy Bill — Clause 133 — Financial provisions - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 04 Jun 2013: Vote

  Energy Bill — Clause 10 — Direction to offer contract - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 04 Jun 2013: Vote

  Energy Bill — Clause 1 — Decarbonisation - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 03 Jun 2013: Vote

  Communities and Local Government — Clause 42 — Duty not to exceed annual carbon dioxide emissions limit - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: Aye

• 19 Dec 2012: Vote

  Charities Act 2011 (Amendment) — Energy Bill - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 17 Oct 2012: Vote

  Relationship, Drug and Alcohol Education (Curriculum) — New Clause 22 — Interpretation of the green purposes: duty to assess impact on the Climate Change Act 2008 - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 11 Jun 2012: Vote

  Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 14 Sep 2011: Vote

  Prime Minister — Clause 42 — Domestic energy efficient regulations - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 14 Sep 2011: Vote

  Prime Minister — Clause 42 — Domestic energy efficient regulations - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 14 Sep 2011: Vote

  Prime Minister — New Clause 1 — Energy efficiency aim - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye