Maria Eagle MP: Climate Timeline

• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Maria Eagle's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Maria Eagle

• 05 Jul 2024: Tweet

  RT @10DowningStreet: Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP @Ed_Miliband as Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero @energygovuk. https://t.co/b… [Source]

• 10 Nov 2022: Tweet

  RT @UKLabour: Rishi Sunak refuses to back onshore wind, putting his party first and the country second. Tackling the climate crisis requir… [Source]

• 19 Oct 2022: Vote

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

• 26 Sep 2022: Tweet

  RT @LiamThorpECHO: .@Ed_Miliband confirms Labour’s plans for a new National Wealth Fund that will ‘lead the world in green energy and green… [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]

• 13 Dec 2021: Vote

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

• 30 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @RachelReevesMP: Northern Powerhouse Rail could have helped futureproof transport networks, tackle climate change and create good jobs.… [Source]

• 01 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @UKLabour: Labour is serious about tackling the climate emergency. We would invest in: Electric vehicles Green spaces Warmer homes Job… [Source]

• 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

• 13 Jan 2021: Vote

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

• 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

• 05 Feb 2020: Vote

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

• 25 Jun 2019: Vote

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

• 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

• 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

• 18 Jun 2015: Parliamentary Speech

  In a message to all the people of the world, Pope Francis will say that climate change is mainly caused by human activity, and threatens unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem. Does the Secretary of State agree with the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), her predecessor as Environment Secretary and a well-known climate change denier, or does she agree with the Pope?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 10 Jun 2015: Parliamentary Speech

  The fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, completed in 2014, makes it clear that to control these risks, we have to limit global temperature rise. That is why 2° of warming has long been accepted by economists, climate scientists and world Governments as the level above which the risks associated with climate change become unacceptably high. Dangerous climate change beyond 2° means natural disasters and human suffering on a massive scale in the decades ahead.

  We in the UK will not be immune. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change here, with increasing incidence of severe weather events such as the flooding of winter 2013. Indeed, the chance of a catastrophic flood happening in England within the next two decades, causing in excess of £10 billion in damage, is one in 10, so inaction is not an option—a point with which the Secretary of State agreed.

  This year will be a critical one for efforts to keep global climate change below 2° of warming. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change talks in Paris at the end of this year are a massive opportunity to get Governments from all over the world to agree to binding emissions reduction targets. This is a moment when politicians world wide need to be ambitious about what we can achieve through international co-operation. That will include agreeing in September a stand-alone commitment to combat climate change in the sustainable development goals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) said. It also means pushing for success in Paris in December, with all nations committing to emission reduction targets for the first time. More work needs to be done, however. Based on the pledges made by Governments so far, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said, global warming would be limited only to around 3°—insufficient to prevent the worst possible consequences of climate change.

  We welcome the historic commitment by the G7, led by Germany, to agree to phase out fossil fuels by the end of the century, but let us be clear—that is 85 years from now, and the truth is that it would be better if we were able to go faster. That is why our own domestic targets, enshrined in the Climate Change Act 2008, commit the UK to an 80% reduction of carbon emissions by 2050.

  We need the UK Government to push for ambitious emission reduction targets for all countries, which the Secretary of State said she would. We need them strengthened every five years, based clearly on the scientific evidence, which she also accepted. We need to see net zero global emissions in the second half of this century, alongside transparent and universal rules for measuring them, which apply to all nations. It is simply not enough just to set targets if each country has a totally different method of accounting for its carbon emissions. Again, the Secretary of State appeared to be sympathetic to that call.

  We also need a global deal that recognises the unique responsibilities of each nation. Richer countries that have played a far greater role in contributing to global emissions need to support and empower poorer nations, so that they can combat climate change and deal with its consequences. That point was made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), whom I welcome to his Front-Bench responsibilities.

  Let us be clear: such a deal would be good for the United Kingdom. Achieving a global deal will mean reducing our own exposure to costly climate impacts, but it also presents an almost unparalleled economic opportunity to create new jobs and growth throughout the world. Many of our own citizens and UK companies could be part of that. The International Energy Agency, of which the UK is a member, expects nearly $7.8 trillion to be invested in renewable energy over the next 25 years in what Lord Stern has described as the “new energy-industrial revolution”. The UK should take advantage of that rapidly growing market. It should grab a slice of the worldwide action to enable UK companies to innovate and succeed, creating the good jobs of the future here in the UK.

  We must have an active industrial strategy for the green economy, with the potential to create 1 million new green jobs by 2025. We need a legally binding target to take the carbon out of our electricity supply by 2030, and we need borrowing powers for the green investment bank. We also need to protect our homes and businesses from the impact of climate change, including flooding. Opposition Members do not think that the current national adaptation programme is good enough to meet the challenges of the times, which is why we have called for a new national adaptation programme to protect our most vulnerable communities and ensure that all sectors of the economy are adapting to climate change. We also hope that the £83 million cuts in the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that were announced last week will not come from the funds that have been set aside to maintain our existing flood defences.

  The Government should accept that we cannot separate the need to take action on climate change from the need to protect nature. Climate change is a serious long-term threat to nature, but restoring nature is also part of the answer to the problem of reducing emissions and increasing our resilience.

  “Failure to tackle climate change could put economic prosperity at risk. But the right action now would create jobs and boost competitiveness.”

  This Government must wean themselves off the Chancellor’s misguided idea that to be in favour of action to reduce carbon emissions and adapt to climate change is somehow anti-business. Persisting with that view will put at risk our ability to lead the world in securing high-skill jobs as we innovate our way to a low-carbon future.

  In the run-up to the Paris climate negotiations, we need a Government that set out real solutions to the problem of reducing our emissions and adapting to climate change. If that is to happen, there must be a huge increase in commitment from the Conservative party. All too often over the past few years, what we have seen from it has been equivocation on the science, and warm words instead of real action. We have high hopes of the new Secretary of State: we hope that she will be able to change that. The last Government were too fast to slash investment in flood protection in the early years of the last Parliament, and even their revised plans following the 2013 winter floods actually allow an increase in the number of households that are at significant risk of flooding.

  Over the past few months and years, the debate about our national security has been dominated by calls for 2% of our GDP to be spent on defence, but we have heard far less about the 2° target towards which we shall be working at this year’s Paris climate talks. We need to hear more. If we fail to keep global climate change below 2° then I fear the threats to our national security in future will dwarf those that we face today. We could not, and we should not have to, justify to future generations why we failed to mitigate and adapt to climate change caused by human activity. The UK has a proud history. It falls to this Government to make sure it continues to have a good reputation. I wish them well and I hope they are up to the task.

  Full debate: Climate Change

• 29 Jan 2015: Parliamentary Speech

  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), said on Monday in the House that the severely redacted report on the impacts of shale gas on the rural economy was prepared by a junior member in another Department

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 19 Nov 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  The reality is that this Government have been poor on flood protection. They slashed the budget when they first came into office and crossed their fingers and hoped it would not rain, but we know that the impact of climate change is increasing the risk of flooding in the UK. The Committee on Climate Change, the Government’s advisers on this, say that the chance of a £10 billion-cost event in the next 20 years is 10%. That event would be 10 times worse in cost than last year’s floods and more than three times worse than the catastrophic floods of 2007. The Government’s failure to take climate change seriously is putting more homes at risk of flooding. We have heard clearly from Government Members that they take climate change seriously. Perhaps they would like to ensure that their Government do so, too. This debate is obviously part of that effort.

  The Labour party has clear plans to get the country back on track in managing flood risk. We will reprioritise long-term preventive spending, which is essential, as all the Members who have spoken today have made clear. We will establish an independent national infrastructure commission to identify the UK’s long-term infrastructure needs, including flood defences. That will enable us to try to reach a consensus that lasts beyond general elections on what is necessary with this kind of infrastructure spending. That is the approach we need. It is what the Committee on Climate Change and the National Audit Office say we need, but we have not seen a lot of it from this Government.

  The Government’s independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, say that Government plans will leave an additional 80,000 properties at serious risk of flooding in the next Parliament alone if they are not improved. When I pointed that out over the summer, the Conservative press office—not the Minister’s party—briefed against the Committee on Climate Change’s figures rather than setting out what the Department was planning to do to get to grips with the problem. All the signs are that the Government spend far more time trying to spin their way out of trouble instead of putting in place proper plans to reduce flood risk, which are what is needed.

  I have already said that if I was Secretary of State, I would start by reprioritising flood risk. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), removed that from his Department’s priorities. We would introduce a new national adaptation plan to ensure that all sectors of the economy are prepared for climate change. It is unacceptable for Britain to have a plan for adapting to climate change drawn up by a Secretary of State who openly said that climate change would benefit Britain. We must end this Government’s short-term approach to flood investment and prioritise preventive spending by establishing a national infrastructure commission to identify our long-term infrastructure needs and get cross-party support to meet them.

  Full debate: Winter Flooding (Preparation)

• 12 Jun 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  That is an interesting reply. Which of the unscientific policies insisted on by the Secretary of State makes the most of our evidence? Is it his denial of climate change? Is it his ineffective and inhumane badger culls? Is it his fantasy biodegradable plastic bags? Or is it his national air quality strategy, which would make air pollution worse? Does this not illustrate that in practice the Secretary of State, who appears to be allergic to science, routinely ignores evidence in favour of his own eccentric, ideological views?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 26 Feb 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  That this House notes the recent severe weather which has caused widespread and distressing flooding of homes, businesses and farmland; praises the work of communities, the Environment Agency, the Armed Forces, the emergency services and local councils in assisting those affected; calls on the insurance industry to ensure pay-outs are made as quickly as possible; recognises that continued support will be needed for the communities and businesses affected in the months ahead as homes and infrastructure are repaired; acknowledges the clear scientific evidence that climate change is contributing to the increased frequency of severe weather and the consequent risk of flooding; notes the advice from the Committee on Climate Change that current and planned levels of investment are insufficient to manage future flood risk given the increased threat from climate change; calls for further reports on the implementation of the recommendations contained in Sir Michael Pitt’s report into the 2007 floods to be made to Parliament; and supports cross-party talks on the impact of climate change and the funding and policy decisions necessary to mitigate the consequences of more frequent severe weather on communities and the economy.

  “cross-party talks on the impact of climate change”,

  and I very much hope that the smaller parties will be included in those cross-party talks. Does the hon. Lady agree that protecting UK citizens from the worst of climate change means that we need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground and that the last thing we should be doing is exploring for yet more sources of oil and gas, whether or not that includes shale gas?

  I will say a little about climate change later in my remarks, but the hon. Lady has certainly made her point.

  In total, 290 shovel-ready flood defence projects were cancelled and 966 delayed as a result of those decisions. Appallingly, these appear to have included 13 schemes along the Thames and 67 in the south-west. Does not that highlight the cost of the Government’s misguided approach? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also cut more than 40% from his Department’s budget for domestic climate change initiatives last year. Therefore, just 0.7% or £17.2million of the Environment Department’s budget is now dedicated to preparing or adapting Britain for the impact of climate change, and his is the lead Department. Of course, we only know this thanks to an freedom of information request, because the Secretary of State sought to disguise the cut by lumping it in with the funding to meet our obligations to the international climate fund.

  The Government have demonstrated a complete lack of urgency in securing the legal basis for the proposed flood reinsurance scheme. Thanks to three years of inaction from Ministers, this scheme will not be in place until 2015 at the earliest. As we have warned throughout the passage of the Water Bill, which is still being considered in another place, the scheme is deeply flawed. In Committee, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of this House voted down Labour amendments to improve the Bill. Those amendments included requiring Ministers to consult the Committee on Climate Change on the number of properties that might need to be added to the scheme in future; incentivising owners of at-risk properties to invest in flood protection measures; enabling people to search whether or not a property is included in the scheme; and establishing an appeal mechanism for those excluded—all measures opposed by the Government.

  I hope that the Government will also consider the call by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the national consensus on climate change to be rebuilt. The events of the past few weeks have shown that that is now a matter of national security, with people’s homes, businesses and livelihoods under threat from extreme weather. All the evidence points to that happening more frequently in future.

  Before the last election, we were edging towards that consensus. The Stern report set out clearly the catastrophic impact on our economy of a failure to act on climate change. The Committee on Climate Change and carbon budgets was established. Targets to reduce emission were set. Investment in flood protection was rising. The leader of the Conservative party was hugging huskies and pledging to lead the greenest Government ever.

  Just three years later, however, the progress that was being made appears to have stalled and the Prime Minister is allegedly wandering around Downing street talking of his wish to be rid of all this “green crap”. Tellingly, he has appointed an Environment Secretary who talks up the alleged benefits of climate change and refuses to be briefed on the subject by the Government’s scientific advisers.

  We urgently need to re-establish the consensus on the threat to the UK of climate change. The science is clear. The evidence is overwhelming. The Committee on Climate Change warns that current planned funding will

  These floods must be a wake-up call: a wake-up call on whether dedicating just 0.7% of DEFRA’s budget to climate change mitigation and adaptation makes sense ; a wake-up call on the folly of ignoring the impact of climate change in the Food Re insurance scheme; and a wake-up call on the consequences of cutting investment in flood protection. For the communities that have suffered such appalling flooding in recent weeks, that is the very least they deserve.

  Full debate: Flooding

• 13 Feb 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  As I saw for myself in Somerset earlier this week, the severe floods are causing unimaginable distress for many people as they see their homes wrecked, farmland submerged and businesses suffer. As all the evidence suggests, and as the Minister has just accepted, climate change will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent, so will he explain why his Department has been forced to admit, thanks to a freedom of information request, that total spending on climate change mitigation and adaptation has been cut by more than 40% since last year?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

  The figures for the domestic spend were £24.7 million in 2011-12 and £29.1 million in 2012-13, but that has decreased this year to £17.2 million, which is a 40% cut. The decision to cut the climate change mitigation and adaptation budget by 40% was a serious error of judgment, one that the events of the past weeks must lead the Government to reconsider. The Minister will know that funding for flood protection remains £63.5 million below 2010 levels, even after the additional funding announced last week. Will he now agree to review the stringent cost-benefit ratio of eight to one applied by his Department to flood defence spending, which appears to have prevented so many vital schemes from going ahead?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 10 Feb 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  Today we have had a summary of the short-term, overdue measures that the Government are taking, but what about the long-term implications? What about climate change? Will Cobra, when it meets, look not only at adaptation, but at mitigation? Will the right hon. Gentleman speak to the Chancellor and ensure that we implement the fourth carbon budget review?

  Of course, we take climate change into consideration in all the modelling we do with regard to flooding, but the hon. Lady will accept that the weather patterns we have had have been truly remarkable—nothing like them have been seen since the latter part of the 18th century. I will ensure that her remarks on flooding are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

  Have those preliminary investigations come to any conclusions, and what will be done about it, given the threat to the Thames barrier from climate change and other issues?

  May I invite the Secretary of State, if he has not already done so, to view Friday’s edition of “Newsnight”, which showed the powerful impact of the flooding in Somerset on individuals? When will he give us a report on the impact of climate change on these events? That is an important determinant of present policy, and we must assess the impact of present policy on the future.

  Sadly, I missed Friday’s “Newsnight”, but I will do my best to pick it up on iPlayer. With regard to climate change, the best advice I have received is that the flooding probably has something to do with climate change. That is not necessarily the case—some of it may be the result of changing patterns—but the effects that we have to deal with are the same. I have no doubt that as part of the process of looking at how we can improve the response of the Government and the Environment Agency, we will consider that and give the hon. Gentleman, who asks a very sensible question, that kind of outlook.

  As the former chair of Flood Risk Management Wales, charged with adapting Wales to climate change in respect of flood risk management and flood systems, may I ask the Secretary of State why he has failed to apply for EU solidarity funding, which gave this country £162 million in 2007 and has given another 23 countries £3.5 billion since 2002? Is it because he is against European money because he is prejudiced or is it because he thinks there is a greater priority for investment than flood risk management for devastated communities? They are upset in Somerset—very upset.

  Communities in my constituency, particularly along the Penarth coastline, have also been affected by these unprecedented events in recent weeks, albeit not, thankfully, to the extent we have seen elsewhere in Wales or, indeed, in the south-west and the Thames valley. Can the Secretary of State please assure the House that he has, and will continue to have, close co-operation with Welsh Ministers, Welsh local authorities and Natural Resources Wales given that climate change, wind, waves and rain respect no boundaries?

  Full debate: Flooding

• 3 Feb 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  Is the Secretary of State still refusing to be briefed by his own chief scientific adviser on climate change and the implications for more extreme weather conditions? Will he confirm that he has had to correct previously published figures on flood prevention funding, contradicting his claims that the Government are spending more in this four-year period than in the previous four years? Will he admit that the corrected figures reveal that funding for flood protection has fallen from £670 million in 2010-11 to £576 million in the current financial year? Will he admit that £67.6 million of partnership funding has been raised since April 2011, not the £148 million that he repeatedly claims?

  Full debate: Flooding (Somerset)

• 9 Jan 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  Those priorities do not include flood protection. How can people facing an increasing risk of flood damage due to the effects of climate change have any confidence in a Secretary of State who has downgraded flood protection as a priority and thinks that climate change is benefiting Britain?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 6 Jan 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  Finally, it is disappointing that Ministers have rejected each of the sensible and modest proposals to improve the Flood Re scheme. The Secretary of State will have today heard the clear warnings from Sir David King, the Government’s special envoy on climate change, that changes to the climate will lead to

  and more frequent severe flooding. Requiring the Committee on Climate Change regularly to advise on the increase in the number of properties likely to be at risk of flooding as a result and the consequence for the Flood Re scheme was surely a sensible move, yet it has been rejected by the Government.

  Full debate: Water Bill

• 6 Jan 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  Will the Secretary of State reassure us that his failure to protect flood defence expenditure over other potential cuts has nothing to do with his personal scepticism about climate science? Has the Secretary of State listened to Sir David King, the Government’s special envoy on climate change, who has today again warned that

  “storms and severe weather conditions that we might have expected to occur once in 100 years, say, in the past may now be happening more frequently....and the reason is—as predicted by scientists—that the climate is changing and as the climate changes we can anticipate quite a radical change in weather conditions.”

  In the light of that clear warning, does the Secretary of State stand by his view that climate change will benefit the UK because of warmer winters? Will he now listen to the advice from his own independent advisers—the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change—who wrote to him towards the end of last year to express concern that his flood reinsurance scheme misses simple measures that would reduce cost, increase value for money and cope with increasing flood risk?

  Is it not the case that the sum being spent is way below what the Environment Agency said in 2009 would need to be spent to keep pace with climate change? Is not the real fact that, as the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change’s report states, the

  How does the Secretary of State expect people to believe his claims that flood management is a priority for the Government when, in addition to the Environment Agency cuts, he has seen the decision to slash DEFRA’s team working on climate change adaptation from 38 officials to six and when the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has scrapped the obligation for councils to prepare for the impacts of climate change? Will the Secretary of State not acknowledge that that illustrates an incredibly reckless approach to the risks that extreme weather presents? Will he confirm whether he has found time to hold even one meeting with his Department’s chief scientific adviser on this matter—something that he had failed to do until a few months ago?

  As the former chair of Flood Risk Management Wales, which is charged with investing in flood defences and flood risk-management systems across Wales on behalf of the Environment Agency and the Welsh Government, I am very aware that although the Welsh coastline is more than a quarter of the size of the English coastline, we get only 5% of the money, because that is allocated on the basis of population. Given the severity of the conditions we face, will the Secretary of State look at the case, with the Treasury, for some contingency funding to deal with the damage caused in Wales and review that balance in the light of the growing risk from climate change?

  Over Christmas, it was clear that households and businesses in Snape, Eyke and Southwold were still suffering from the floods earlier in December. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the role of internal drainage boards will continue to be enhanced, and will he consider with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and others a sensitive scheme of felling trees in sensitive areas to prevent trees from bringing down power lines?

  Full debate: Flooding

• 04 Dec 2013: Vote

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

• 25 Nov 2013: Parliamentary Speech

  We support the measures on flood reinsurance—however belated they may be. It was disappointing that the Government were adding clauses to the Bill at such a late stage, but they are welcome, and we will scrutinise them carefully in Committee. The Government’s climate change risk assessment states that floods are the greatest threat that climate change poses to our country. That is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State should take the issue far more seriously, and why it is, frankly, incredible that he has talked of the benefits that could come to the UK from climate change.

  There are real risks and far-reaching consequences for the UK from climate change, yet the Secretary of State’s complacent approach, combined with severe cuts to investment in flood defences, is deeply worrying. I hope that he has seen the letter that he has been sent in the past week by Professor Lord Krebs, chairman of the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change. In that letter, Professor Krebs raises serious concerns about the failure of the Government’s proposals to strengthen incentives for the uptake of household flood protection measures. He warns that the consequences will be

  The Committee on Climate Change has therefore made five proposals that it believes believe would reduce Flood Re costs and improve value for money, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider those proposals carefully.

  Full debate: Water Bill

• 2 Sep 2013: Parliamentary Speech

  I am clear that supporting cycling is a hugely cost-effective way of improving our personal and national quality of life. When nearly a quarter of all car journeys are for less than a mile, making cycling a more attractive option has great potential to cut congestion and boost the economy. With families facing a cost of living crisis, making more journeys by bike is a good way to reduce the impact of rising fuel costs on the household budget, and as a cost and time-effective way of staying fit, to which many Members have attested this evening, cycling has real health benefits. Of course, it also benefits the environment, helping us to cut emissions and reduce transport’s contribution to climate change, which remains significant.

  Full debate: Cycling

• 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

• 30 Jan 2012: Parliamentary Speech

  If the Government’s green credentials had not already worn so thin, no ulterior motive might have been seen in their decision, but there will be considerable suspicion that it is yet another example of giving in to vested interests, coming on top of the Government’s failure to reassert the aviation emissions targets that we set in government, let alone to listen to the calls to look seriously at the UK’s share of international emissions and to include both in the UK’s carbon budgets. When the obligation on other sectors is to reduce carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels, the aviation industry has agreed to work towards achieving the lower target of the same reduction but compared with 2005 levels. However, the industry believes that it can achieve the same reduction compared with 2000 levels. On that basis, we believe that the Committee on Climate Change should advise on the case for a tougher target. It is clear that the Bill sends out completely the wrong signal to industry.

  It is one thing for us to agree on a credible regulatory regime for the aviation industry—and I believe that over the course of the passage of this Bill we will be able to agree these issues—but what the industry desperately needs is for us all to agree a credible long-term strategy for the sector, which will last across Parliaments and will not become a political football again at the next general election as it was at the last. So let us work together on the right way, consistent with the need to tackle emissions and the threat of climate change, to provide the capacity that the industry needs.

  Full debate: Civil Aviation Bill

• 15 Nov 2011: Parliamentary Speech

  On carbon emissions, I hope the Minister agrees that we will simply not achieve the goal set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 to reduce emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared with 1990 levels, unless aviation does more. That is why we believe that future aviation growth must go hand in hand with a greater cut in aviation emissions than we agreed when we were in government.

  The Government have failed even to re-affirm their commitment to the existing emissions target for aviation that we set in government. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to do that today and that she will support our call for the Energy and Climate Change Committee to set out what it would mean for aviation to go further and ask it to update accordingly the carbon budgets that have been set.

  Full debate: Aviation Industry

• 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