Mark Garnier MP: Climate Timeline

• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Mark Garnier's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Mark Garnier

• 18 Nov 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in this area—she been talking about it for the 25 years that I have known her. We agree that it is important. The FCA and the PRA are required to have regard to the UK’s net zero emissions target, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. The Mansion House speech set out the Government’s next steps to deliver a world-leading sustainable finance framework. That will be a huge part of our financial services strategy, as part of the industrial strategy, next spring. I urge her to consult and feed in on that.

  Full debate: Financial Services: Mansion House Speech

• 16 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  CCUS is an exciting technology, and it was the announcement in last year’s Budget by the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), on the delivery of £20 billion of investment that led us here. It is worth mentioning that that is reinforced in paragraph 5.4 of the explanatory memorandum, which says that

  When he gave the recent statement on CCUS, the Secretary of State said that that money had not been allocated; it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm the Government’s position. All the evidence seems to suggest that it was allocated, so the Secretary of State may have misled the House when he said it had not been.

  Much work has gone into getting everything moving forward and making CCUS a reality. I thank officials for the huge amount of work they have done to get these technical regulations over the line. As the new Government are agreeing to continue to support CCUS, we hope that means we will hear more about the track 2 clusters, Acorn and Viking, which were due to make progress over the summer. Again, we asked in the exchanges on the recent statement for a progress report on track 2 clusters; it would be helpful if we could have one.

  Full debate: Draft Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

• 15 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  In his maiden speech, the hon. Member raised valid concerns about the industrialisation of the countryside, which is an issue that all of us, certainly on the Conservative Benches, have consistently guarded against. Our belief is that the need for renewable energy must be balanced with the preservation of rural landscapes, ensuring that development is sustainable and respectful of local communities. Aside from his desire to see money flow back into communities, that is the only way we will get the public to support any plans for net zero and a decarbonised energy grid, as we heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage).

  Even more concerningly, we understand that the Government intend to consult on bringing large onshore wind proposals into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, which would further centralise decision making and diminish local input. It is vital that the Government listen to the views and concerns of local communities about onshore wind. Residents should have a say in projects that directly affect their environment and not be sidelined by top-down diktats from Westminster. We must ensure that local voices are heard and that community consent remains central to the planning process for renewable energy projects.

  Over the last decade, technological advances have made it increasingly feasible to bury power lines, especially in sensitive areas. Unlike the new Government, we would have undertaken a rapid review to assess the advantages of alternative network technologies compared with overhead pylons. By exploring options such as underground cables and other innovative technologies, we can achieve energy grid decarbonisation without the impact on our countryside that Labour is apparently prepared to accept.

  The challenges that we face in transmitting renewable energy, particularly wind power, from areas of generation to areas of demand underscore the urgent need for grid upgrades. The current limitations in grid capacity, most notably the B6 boundary between Scotland and England, have become a major constraint on our energy system. The B6 boundary is the largest single network bottleneck, preventing vast amounts of wind power generated in Scotland from reaching higher-demand areas in England. As a result, we are facing enormous constraint payments, whereby wind turbines are shut down despite being able to generate clean and affordable energy.

  I turn to the biggest concern for many residents, which is how the Government will deliver the infrastructure required for a decarbonised energy grid by 2030. I must say to new Labour MPs that at the next general election in just four or five years’ time, all constituents—Labour MPs’ constituents in particular—will ask, “Did you meet your 2030 target?”, “What did you do to my energy bills?”, and “What did you do to the countryside?” Labour Members claim that their plans will save households £300 a year on energy bills, but it seems incredible that that saving will ever be achieved.

  I asked in the House when we might receive a full systems cost analysis of Labour’s net zero plans by 2030, but we still have not had a proper answer—the answer given was, “In due course.” We need an answer to the question of how much this will all cost.

  I have a number of questions for the Government, which I will put to the Minister. What are the full system costs associated with a net zero power grid by 2030? Will the Government confirm that they still plan to save households £300 a year on their energy bills? What baseline are they using—is it from the election? How do they plan to balance the urgent need for rapid decarbonisation with the development of emerging energy technologies? Will they support some of the innovative technologies that I mentioned or ones with longer lead times, such as nuclear? Will they explore alternatives to large-scale pylon construction, such as under- grounding and undersea cables, to protect communities and landscapes? Will they commit at the very least to match the community benefit regime set out by the previous Conservative Government of up to £10,000 off energy bills over 10 years for families in areas that have new energy infrastructure?

  How we achieve this transition matters to all our constituents as it affects our natural world, our energy security and everybody’s energy bills. It is essential that it delivers real benefits to the communities most affected by renewable energy projects. We need to ensure that those communities are not just sites for energy generation but true beneficiaries, most importantly through lower energy bills. The Government’s rushed approach risks sacrificing long-term gains for short-term targets, leaving rural communities to bear the brunt of the costs without the promised savings.

  The Opposition believe in a balanced approach in which the latest technologies are harnessed, communities are listened to and grid capacity is strengthened without degrading our natural landscape. We should support innovative solutions and new technology while focusing on lower energy bills and decarbonising the energy grid. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who campaigned like a stalwart in opposition but now finds himself on the Front Bench in government—I congratulate him on his post, by the way.

  Full debate: Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits

• 08 Oct 2024: Tweet

  In Parliament today, I highlighted the urgent need for the full systems cost analysis on energy and net zero. It’s vital for evaluating ambitious carbon-neutral targets and understanding how these plans will affect our constituents' bills. https://x.com/Mark4WyreForest/status/1843616576790290796/video/1 [Source]

• 10 Sep 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The hon. Member for Ealing Southall raised a point that we all agree on, and which is the most important thing to remember: all of us in every part of this House want to achieve net zero, become carbon-neutral and get to a point where we are not relying on fossil fuels; but at the end of the day, we have to look at how we achieve that. It is the detail that I suspect we will find ourselves disagreeing on.

  As we discuss the future of our climate commitments, it is essential that we recognise the substantial progress that the Conservative Government made over the last few years. There have been a lot of speeches about how we have not done well, but I remind the House that we had some successes. From 2010, the Conservative Government led the way on climate change by making the UK the first major economy to legislate a 2050 net zero emissions target. We achieved a remarkable feat: the UK cut its emissions by 50% between 1990 and 2022, while growing the economy by 79%. That is a clear demonstration that we can achieve economic growth while reducing our carbon footprint—a very important point. It is worth putting that in perspective. During the same period, France reduced its emissions by only 23%, and the USA saw no change in its emissions between 1990 and 2021. The independent Committee on Climate Change affirmed that our net zero target was feasible, deliverable and could be met at the same cost that was estimated for our previous target of an 80% reduction.

  Since the election, there has been much discussion on the plans to make the grid carbon-neutral by 2030, yet since coming to power the new Labour Government have been relatively quiet on their plans for net zero targets—something that I hope the Minister will change today. We are looking at net zero, not making the grid carbon-neutral, but if the Government’s plans to decarbonise the energy grid are anything to go by, we could face the risk of being over-ambitious. That means they may leave working families faced with the prospects of picking up the bill, and I hope the Minister today will be honest with the public about the costs and the trade-offs that will be involved.

  The Opposition believe it is vital that the Government take a more pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach, to ensure sustained public support for our goals. That is an important point—we have to win the support of the public in doing this. Otherwise, the current Government may find—as we did—that if they get things wrong, there may be a change in Government and a different approach could be brought in by an electorate who do not necessarily understand the technicalities of achieving net zero.

  Before I go into the latest rounds of negotiations in Baku in November, I want to reflect quickly on our global leadership, as well as the success we had at COP26 in Glasgow. It is worth mentioning that Alok Sharma, who was the president, took his seat in the House of Lords yesterday. He attended Cabinet in the last Government and acted as a quasi climate envoy—a point that a number of people have raised. So we did have somebody championing the climate in Cabinet, and he is now in the House of Lords and will continue doing so.

  The historic Glasgow climate pact ensured that we kept alive the 1.5 degree commitment. Since the UK took over the COP presidency, over 90% of the world’s GDP is now covered by net zero commitments, and that is up from 30%. More than 153 countries have put forward new 2030 nationally determined contributions, which effectively amount to climate plans. Record levels of finance have been pledged to help countries adapt to the effects of climate change through the adaptation fund and the least-developed country fund, both of which were established under the UK presidency. Finally, after six years of negotiations, we confirmed the Paris rulebook, which sets out the instructions and products needed to fully implement the Paris agreement on climate change.

  Looking ahead to COP29, we need to focus on balancing our ambitious climate goals with the realities faced by British families and businesses. As a Conservative Government, that meant that we were committed to practical adjustments where necessary, but British families still want to know where a Labour Government stand with the net zero plans. Will they stand by their manifesto commitment to reverse the extension on the ban of petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035? Will they commit to moving homes from gas boilers to heat pumps? How will they help landlords in getting homes ready for their new minimum energy performance certificate requirements? How will they manage to maintain energy security and independence for the UK while banning the extraction of oil and gas in the North sea? I know that point has been raised on many occasions, and the co-leader of the Green party, the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), raised a very important point about Rosebank and what is going on in the North sea.

  While the hon. Lady was making her speech, I checked how the grid was using energy. At 9.45 am we were using about 30 GW of power. Wind accounted for 37.5% of that, which is fantastic, but gas was 17%, nuclear was 16% and solar was 7.5%. We were importing 16.3% from Denmark—where the state of green energy is fantastic—Norway, France, Holland and Belgium. The bottom line is that we all want to get rid of fossil fuels, but we do not want to be reliant on foreign fossil fuels. That is a vulnerability, and that is why we have to be pragmatic. I absolutely take the hon. Lady’s point about getting away from Rosebank, but we do not want to be importing from Russia. We want to have security as we transition to net zero. That is a really important point.

  The hon. Gentleman just said “dispatchable” baseload power, and that is exactly what nuclear is not. If we just have a baseload that trundles along, renewables will be the ones we turn off and the nuclear will keep going; that is a waste of a lot of renewable energy, and it already happens. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to rethink our idea about baseload as we move into a more flexible, renewable world?

  There is a reason why the last COP recognised the importance of nuclear—it was because of such debates among experts. It is not enough to will the ends of net zero goals without willing also the means and being prepared to deal with our reality. Look at the debate in Germany: ideological positions have been taken against nuclear, and some of the industrial processes and hard-to-decarbonise parts of the economy are exposed to that recklessness. I encourage those in the debate to keep that in mind when they make their points.

  Although is right that we continue to lead on climate action, it is also crucial to consider how the cost of these measures is distributed over the long term. We face significant indirect impacts, such as disruptions to global supply chains affecting trade, the rising cost of imported goods, and changes in migration from regions heavily affected by climate change, as we have heard from other Members. How will the Government weigh those challenges against the need to grow the British economy?

  I also want to draw Members’ attention to the briefing published by the Local Government Association ahead of this debate. Local councils are directly responsible for 2% to 5% of local emissions, and they can influence up to 80% of emissions through their roles in housing, transport and energy. Their leadership in place-shaping community engagement is vital. From retrofitting homes and implementing active travel programmes to investing in flood prevention and creating green jobs, councils are actively working to address climate risks and promote sustainability. To empower local government further, the LGA has proposed a number of core initiatives for the new Government. Key to these are a renewed local climate action delivery programme to provide a clear framework for local and national collaboration on climate action. I hope the Minister will update Members on how the Government can work with councils and communities to deliver a grassroots net zero plan, not just one that is internationally driven.

  We know that Baku and COP29 will be focused on climate finance and a vital new deal on the global response. I think all Members appreciate that developing countries are often the most vulnerable to climate impacts. They require significant support to transition to clean energy, build resilient infrastructure and protect their communities from the effects of climate change.

  The new collective quantified goals on climate finance are set to replace the previous target of $100 billion per year. They rightly aim to provide a more ambitious and equitable finance network framework for developing countries. However, success will depend on clear guidelines, transparent reporting and inclusive negotiations that consider the needs of all countries, including those with emerging economies.

  With that in mind, there are several key questions that I am sure Members would appreciate answers on ahead of the negotiations in Baku in November. The new collective quantified goal aims to provide a more ambitious financial framework for developing countries, but the UK Government need to clarify their specific financial commitment. How much will the UK pledge, and over what timeframe? How will that align with the financial needs identified by developing countries? Public finance alone will not be sufficient to meet the vast financial needs of developing countries for climate action, so what role do the Government see private finance playing in meeting our climate targets? Do they see an opportunity for the City of London to develop itself as a world leader in private finance for green initiatives?

  Outside COP29, how will the UK advocate for reforms within international financial institutions such as the World Bank and development banks to channel more finance towards low carbon, climate resilient development in developing countries? With new nationally determined contributions due shortly after COP29, which diplomatic and strategic measures will the UK employ to encourage other nations—particularly major emitters—to set more ambitious and actionable targets for reducing emissions in line with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C?

  I am sure that the new Government will continue the previous Government’s efforts to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in delivering net zero across the globe. The Minister will agree that it remains vital for the UK to meet the commitments set out in the Paris agreement. We must remain committed to reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change, yet we must also be honest about the cost and practicalities of achieving these goals. In the previous Government, we were honest about the need for a pragmatic and proportionate net zero strategy that put British families first while maintaining our global leadership on climate action. Opposition Members will of course continue to hold the Government to account on these issues, and urge Ministers to ensure that climate policies are ambitious but achievable, balancing environmental, economic and social needs.

  Full debate: COP29: UK Priorities

• 05 Sep 2024: Tweet

  A great pleasure to open the new Intergas facility in Kidderminster. More jobs helping deliver net zero locally. https://twitter.com/intergasheating/status/1830983275550028096 [Source]

• 3 Sep 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  It would not be fair to ignore the contribution by the new Secretary of State. As he said, he has increased the pot for this year’s auction by 50%. While that is welcome—frankly, who would not welcome more renewable energy—that does not tackle our energy issues. At the same time as increasing renewable energy production, the Government are decreasing UK gas production. The UK needs reliability of supply of energy, but we all know we cannot predict with any certainty when the wind will blow and the sun will shine. That is why we need baseload, dispatchable energy that can supply the energy needs of our homes and economy.

  The Secretary of State has spoken at length about the need to overcome challenges facing the grid. In Government, we delivered a 500% increase in the amount of renewable energy connected to the grid, but we recognised that so much more needed to be done. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to support this further increase? Has he investigated undergrounding? What plans does he have to protect the countryside from more pylons?

  I note that the Secretary of State today recommitted to decarbonising the grid by 2030. We have previously warned him of the risks of being over-ambitious, which include leaving families facing the cost. It is not only the Opposition who have warned him of that—Chris Stark, his newly appointed head of mission control, once described the 2030 target as “over-ambitious”. Will the Secretary of State please share exactly what his head of mission control believed to be over-ambitious about a 2030 decarbonisation target? His head of mission control also warned that it was entirely fair that people are concerned about the cost of decarbonising by 2030. Will the Secretary of State confirm that neither taxpayers nor bill payers will be left with the cost of the 2030 target? Will he tell the House when we will see a proper, comprehensive estimate for the full systems costs of his decarbonisation plans for 2030?

  In conclusion, the Opposition welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has built on our successes in boosting renewable energy. However, we hold serious concerns about what this round will mean for Britain’s green spaces and whether, given the increased cost of AR6, his commitment remains to cut bills by £300.

  Let me deal with the hon. Member’s specific points. If I may say so respectfully, I feel like he answered some of his own questions. He draws attention to the fact that energy bills are rising from 1 October. He is right about that, and that is deeply regrettable. Why is that happening? Because we are exposed to international gas markets. This is about power that we do not control. Every solar panel that we do not put up, every onshore wind turbine that we do not erect, and every piece of grid that we do not build leaves us more exposed. The Conservative party is in a dilemma on this, because it is facing both ways, but it has to face up to that fact. Of course we will have a proper and orderly transition in the North sea, keeping existing fields open for their lifetime and having a just transition for the workforce, but the idea that the Conservative party and some of its erstwhile friends are clinging to—that fossil fuels will get us out of this—is completely belied by all the facts and the crisis that we went through.

  The shadow Minister says—and I agree with him—that we need to have jobs in this country. He says it as if he finds it hard to remember who has been in power for the past 14 years. It is terrible, he says, that everything is being produced elsewhere. He is right. Germany has almost twice as many renewable energy jobs per capita as the UK. Sweden has almost three times as many, but, most interestingly, Denmark, with its publicly owned energy company, Ørsted, has almost four times as many.

  Will the Secretary of State, who is obsessed with renewable energy, actually be honest with the British people? The truth is that the offshore wind turbine bids today are some 20% above current prices. The floating offshore wind bids are some three times the current prices. His Department says that this requires subsidies of some £1.5 billion a year. That is before the extra transmission costs, before constraint payments, before compensation payments for blighting my constituents’ countryside, and before the cost of back-up when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Why will he not be honest and tell the truth: that renewable energy is more expensive, not cheaper?

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. This allocation round is testament to the continued success of the contracts for difference scheme. As we are now on course to produce more renewable energy than ever and we need to get that power to consumers, does he agree that we need the same political and financial commitment to the development of transmission infrastructure as we do to renewables?

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and his tireless campaigning in favour of unleashing our renewable energy potential. As he knows, Cornwall is ready, willing and able to play a full part in the renewable energy transition. Can he outline his plans to support smaller, co-operative, community energy projects? When it comes to those, once again, Cornwall stands ready to act.

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The latest allocation round is good news and should be welcomed, especially after the fiasco of the last round. It is vital that Britain invests in our sustainable green energy production, so that we can guarantee our energy security and lead the world as a green powerhouse. However, the only way that we can achieve that is if we also push ahead with energy storage and ensure that we boost our capacity to retain the energy that is generated, so what steps is the Department taking to accelerate the roll-out of new storage solutions, including green hydrogen?

  Full debate: Contracts for Difference

• 24 Apr 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  That is an example of how an emerging sector is growing fast right here in the UK. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero sponsored and set up a three-day conference last week to study this area, at which I spoke on the last day. It was astonishing to be in a room with such an extraordinary collection of highly intelligent people, looking at something they all know is not just a probability but a reality that will provide dispatchable, baseload, cheap green energy at gigawatt scale within the next 15 years.

  Although many doubters suggest that that is science fantasy, UK primes, the UK Space Agency, international primes, the European Space Agency, leading universities and the UK Government all know that this is a reality. Space-based solar power will happen, with or without UK involvement. We are fast approaching the time when we need to decide whether we are to be the driver of this innovative approach to net zero or just another passenger.

  Full debate: Space Industry

• 06 Jun 2023: Tweet

  RT @Ambassador_Long: Fantastic meeting with ????????Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero @grahamstuart to discuss how ????????????????enhanced cooperati… [Source]

• 17 Jan 2023: Tweet

  RT @GeorgeFreemanMP: Net Zero doesn’t mean the world using less energy. It means decarbonising to stop global warming & developing clean e… [Source]

• 19 Oct 2022: Vote

  Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 27 Mar 2022: Tweet

  RT @uktradeinthai: ???? 11-12 May 2022 If you are a UK ???????? company in #RailSupplychain with #NetZero expertise and looking for opportunities i… [Source]

• 21 Jan 2022: Tweet

  RT @StOswalds01562: Before Christmas, whilst learning about #COP26 and #ParliamentWeek with Mrs Ashton, all children across school were inv… [Source]

• 13 Dec 2021: Vote

  Subsidy Control Bill — Schedule 1 - The subsidy control principles - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 07 Jun 2021: Vote

  Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill — New Clause 1 - Human Rights Abuses - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 26 May 2021: Vote

  Environment Bill — New Clause 24 - Prohibition on burning of peat in upland areas - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 30 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @AllenUKABC: Excellent conversation with @Mark4WyreForest, PM’s Trade Envoy to ???????? ???????? and ???????? as well as @kenofl, @COP26 Amb for Asia Pac… [Source]

• 28 Mar 2021: Tweet

  RT @AllenUKABC: Looking forward to chatting with PM’s Trade Envoy @Mark4WyreForest and @COP26 Amb for Asia Pacific @kenofl with the Britain… [Source]

• 19 Feb 2021: Tweet

  RT @KMinsterCops: Thanks to our Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) we are out and about in our zero emission Electric Vehicle. Affectionat… [Source]

• 13 Jan 2021: Vote

  Financial Services Bill — Schedule 2 - Prudential regulation of FCA investment firms - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 08 Dec 2020: Vote

  Delegated Legislation — Financial Assistance to Industry - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: Aye

• 16 Nov 2020: Vote

  Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] — Clause 124 - Climate change risk - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 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: Aye

• 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: No

• 02 Dec 2019: Tweet

  RT @CCHQPress: Under the @Conservatives, the UK has led the world in tackling climate change ????We've cut emissions faster than any other G… [Source]

• 28 Nov 2019: Tweet

  RT @Conservatives: Tonight Channel 4 allowed opposition parties to veto @MichaelGove taking part in the climate change debate, so he's answ… [Source]

• 08 Oct 2019: Tweet

  It was great to collect my hornbeam from the climate activists. Positive action for decarbonisation #ReforestGreatBrirain https://x.com/Mark4WyreForest/status/1181598476347592704/photo/1 [Source]

• 25 Jun 2019: Vote

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

• 12 Dec 2017: Tweet

  RT @beisgovuk: Find out how the UK has continued to lead the way in tackling climate change since the historic Paris Agreement in 2015 #One… [Source]

• 06 Sep 2016: Vote

  Finance Bill — VAT on Installation of Energy Saving Materials - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 09 May 2016: Vote

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

• 03 May 2016: Vote

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

• 14 Mar 2016: Vote

  Energy Bill [Lords] — New Clause 8 — Decarbonisation target range - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 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: No

• 26 Oct 2015: Vote

  Finance Bill (Ways and Means) (Payment of Corporation Tax) — Chapter 5 — Supplementary provisions - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 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: Aye

• 14 Jul 2015: Vote

  21. Climate Change Levy: Removal of Exemption for Electricity from Renewable Sources - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: Aye

• 04 Dec 2013: Vote

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

• 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: No

• 04 Jun 2013: Vote

  Energy Bill — Clause 1 — Decarbonisation - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 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: No

• 19 Dec 2012: Vote

  Charities Act 2011 (Amendment) — Energy Bill - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 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: No

• 11 Jun 2012: Vote

  Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 14 Sep 2011: Vote

  Prime Minister — Clause 42 — Domestic energy efficient regulations - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 14 Sep 2011: Vote

  Prime Minister — Clause 42 — Domestic energy efficient regulations - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 14 Sep 2011: Vote

  Prime Minister — New Clause 1 — Energy efficiency aim - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No