• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Paul Holmes's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Paul Holmes

• 14 Jul 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  As our climate changes, extreme heat can no longer be regarded as an exceptional event. It is becoming a recurring feature of British summers, and Government policy must adapt accordingly. Reducing emissions remains important, but adaptation must sit alongside mitigation. We have a duty to ensure that our homes, infrastructure, public services and energy system are capable of coping with the conditions we increasingly face. That begins with protecting the most vulnerable.

  Full debate: Extreme Heat: Preparedness

  Preparing Britain for a changing climate means much more than setting emissions targets. It means protecting vulnerable people, ensuring that Government Departments are properly prepared, building homes that are fit for hotter summers, embracing practical technologies that improve resilience and maintaining an electricity system that is capable of supporting them. Adaptation is not an alternative to tackling climate change; it is an essential part of responding to it, because whatever path the climate takes over the coming decades—and we all know what path that will be—our responsibility today is to ensure that Britain is ready.

  Full debate: Extreme Heat: Preparedness

• 24 Jun 2026: Vote

  Draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2026 - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 24 Jun 2026: Vote

  Draft Climate Change Act 2008 (International Aviation and International Shipping) Regulations 2026 - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 24 Jun 2026: Vote

  Draft Carbon Budget Order 2026 - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 11 Feb 2026: Vote

  Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 20 May 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  By expanding the geographical scope within that derived system, the clause allows for a more holistic consideration of environmental impacts, including transboundary and global effects, as the Minister has outlined, which are particularly relevant in an era of climate change, biodiversity loss, and other interconnected environmental challenges. The broadened scope may be seen as a progressive move, enabling regulators to take a more comprehensive view of environmental harm such as greenhouse gas emissions or marine pollution, which can extend well beyond national borders. It aligns with growing international expectations that environmental assessments account for broader spatial impacts, enhancing the credibility and robustness of the UK’s post-Brexit environmental governance framework, although that is potentially subject to change by the Government.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)

• 14 May 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Amendment 82 would require that a spatial development strategy consider the grade of agricultural land and the cumulative impact of projects on agricultural land. Notwithstanding what I said about the protection of the green belt, previous actions, particularly by the Minister’s ministerial colleagues from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, show an eradication of, and an easier approach to developing on, agricultural land. The position we have long held on that, which I know the Minister may not agree with, is that in this world of uncertainty, agricultural land should be protected. Food security is of absolute importance when we have seen food prices go up in the country because of international uncertainty.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)

• 13 May 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  My hon. Friend did say that the target date was not based on evidence, but he was talking about the arbitrary nature of the 2050 target for net zero; he clearly did not say that there was no science behind the concept of climate change. The hon. Member for Basingstoke is a doughty champion and fiery Back Bencher, destined for high ministerial office. He would be a good Minister, but he needs to read out the whole of a quote and give the genuine context of any comments by Opposition politicians.

  To come back to the amendment, Mrs Hobhouse—I feel your beady eye upon me—the shadow Scottish Secretary has a clear record. In his earlier comments, he talked about bills going down, but bills are up by £300 a year. There was a manifesto commitment to reduce energy bills for people by £300 a year, and that is simply not happening because of the record of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. At the moment, it is closing down oilfields and relying far too much on renewable energy, without getting to the sustainable level at which energy bills could come down. The Minister keeps saying that he wants to bring them down, but when will they come down?

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)

  I welcome the clarity in the Minister’s opening remarks on the clause. While the theory of generating renewable energy, and deriving income by selling electricity generated from renewable sources, on public forestry land is positive, several concerns need to be addressed that do not lend support to the Government’s initiative. I issue a word of warning to the Minister from experience: measures that concern public forests can be very divisive. As the previous party in government, we still have the scars on our back when it comes to forests. However, we accept that there are clear precedents in Scotland for what the clause will do.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting)

• 13 May 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  We welcome the Minister’s comments on clause 43. As we enter the world of net zero and increasing green travel, we need to have the infrastructure in place, so we support the Government’s attempts to make that easier. Whether I think electric cars are the future is not within the scope of clause 43—I declare an interest, in that I do not. I think we need to invest in other areas and that, eventually, we will see that the infrastructure simply cannot be delivered in the way that it needs to be, but that is for another day. [Interruption.] The Minister for Energy, who is doing his work in secret at the back of the Chamber, is shaking his head at me. We will have a chat in the Tea Room afterwards about how we should be investing in hydrogen instead of electric cars—but, as I say, that is outside the precepts of this clause. I will get back to the clause.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

• 1 May 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  On the subject of own goals, I am sure Members on both sides of the House will be looking on with some confusion at the chaos in the Government’s ranks following the former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s suggestion that the Government’s plan to phase out fossil fuels in the short term are doomed to fail. That election-winning machine, at whose name many on the Labour Benches now groan at the simple mention of, has spoken sense. Of course, it can be frustrating when former leaders weigh in on debates with contrary views to the parties they once led. Believe me, I know how the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero feel—we have had more than our fair share—but the Government know that the former Prime Minister has a point.

  We know that the Government are dreading the local elections today, the first real test of their performance in the nine months since they took power. What will we see? An ideological kamikaze dive towards net zero carbon emissions that tonight will deliver gains of net zero seats. I pay tribute to candidates of all parties who have taken the step to put their heads above the parapet and who are willing to charge into the political fray. Without them, our democracy would wither. Of course, I would like to wish those standing as Conservative candidates all the best, and I hope the House will understand why I have done that.

  Full debate: Business of the House

• 29 Apr 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  This is a policy disagreement because, looking at the proposals in these clauses, we are very concerned. We obviously agree that the grid needs to be ready to connect to, because of the demands being placed on the system, and that is the policy of this Government and of the last. However, the focus of the current Secretary of State in really going down the route of the net zero agenda at what we would describe as a very fast speed, sometimes cutting off his nose to spite his face such as by cutting back on some of the energy systems we currently have, has put overwhelming demand on the energy grid.

  The Government’s proposed decarbonising of the grid by 2030 will add at least £25 billion per year to the cost of the electricity system. The brunt of this increase will be felt by the people out there, who will see their household energy bill shoot up by over £900. Professor Gordon Hughes, the leading energy system expert, has found that these plans will increase power generation costs, grid balancing and capacity levels, thereby passing on those costs to our constituents.

  The costs of balancing the grid alone are set to rise by £4 billion. Despite that, the Government have scrapped the full system cost review commissioned by the last Government. The current Administration are steaming ahead without a clear understanding of the impact on the energy bills of hard-working people—the energy bills they promised to freeze—on their families and on the industry’s competitiveness. Decarbonising the grid requires transparency on costs, not just soundbites about renewables, which I believe is what we have seen.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

  I have had a number of interactions with the Minister for Housing and Planning in Delegated Legislation Committees and on the Floor of the House about the Government’s moves towards planning fee reform. I know we are currently scrutinising the Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but we support planning fee reform and the Government’s move to ringfence fees within local authorities. Amendment 80 seeks to do something along those lines with regard to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Scottish Ministers.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

  The Minister has had his say. All I am saying, politely, is that in a different provision of the Bill, the Government have completely removed pre-application consultation for nationally significant projects, yet the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero believes in them. He does not want to accept our amendment to ensure transparent public consultation because pre-application consultation is strong enough already, and the public will be able to have their concerns looked at. The Minister says that they are different systems, but the principles are exactly the same. Ministers cannot rely on that argument for this amendment but not accept the same argument for amendments considered by the Committee earlier. However, as a realist, I know that this will not go very far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

  Clearly, we are going to disagree on our approach to these two new clauses, but the reason for new clause 53 is exactly the same. I am surprised by the Minister’s reticence in allowing his Scottish colleagues to be able to have the same rights of scrutiny as Scottish MSPs. It is not an arduous new clause. It would not be arduous on the Government or the Scotland Office to produce those outcomes or statistics. It would not be arduous on the Scotland Office or the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to provide evidence of community consultation, particularly when we have just discussed some of the amendments that the Opposition have tabled on community consultation.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

• 24 Apr 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Charlotte Mitchell: The set of connection reforms underpinned by the Bill are really welcome. They will move us from a “first come, first served” system to a “first ready, first needed, first connected” approach. Under the “first come, first served” system, we have seen a proliferation of projects in the queue. To bring that to life, there are about 450 GW of capacity in the queue at the moment, and that is about three times what we would need to achieve net zero. It is fair to say that not all of those projects will come forward, and they certainly will not come forward at the pace at which we originally envisaged when they found their spot in the queue. That ultimately means that it is taking a really long time to connect the grid to new projects coming forward, and promoters of those projects are quoted decade-long connection timeframes.

  Full debate: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

• 12 Mar 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  As a party, we have always made it clear that home ownership should be made a reality for many hard-working families, and we do generally support the 1.5 million new homes. However, I must stress an essential caveat: the new homes must be the right homes and be delivered in the right places, as I have said to the Minister. Development must be sensitive to local needs, sustainable in its approach, and guided by the voices of the communities that it serves—including water services. This is important in rural communities, where water supply concerns pose significant challenges. Water demand in rural areas fluctuates due to climate change, tourism, and agricultural needs. Despite that, the Government’s new housing targets fail to account for those systemic pressures, leading to a dramatic increase in required housing numbers—106% in New Forest, 199% in North Yorkshire and a staggering 487% in Westmorland and Furness.

  Full debate: Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

• 17 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Solar energy has an essential role to play in decarbonising our power sector by putting otherwise unused roof space to good use. Solar panels are an effective technology for reducing carbon emissions, and the Bill proposes a forward-looking measure that would require the installation of solar PV generation equipment on new homes. Its Second Reading offers us an opportunity to debate the merits of the proposal and its potential contribution to our shared goal of reaching net zero by 2050.

  The previous Government supported solar energy generation where it was appropriate. Our efforts included a £50 million fund aimed at supporting rooftop solar installations to enhance on-farm energy security. The responsibility for advancing solar and renewable energy now rests with this Government, and we wish them luck in doing so while remaining sceptical about the abilities of GB Energy to see that through. Under the last Government’s leadership, we delivered 2.5 million homes since 2010, including 1 million homes during our final term in office. That provided more people with the opportunity to own their homes and expanded options for renters.

  Full debate: New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

  If this Bill receives passes its Second Reading today, we will scrutinise it thoroughly to ensure that it balances the need to build more homes with the imperative of increasing energy efficiency and production. I welcome the proposed exemptions for buildings that cannot support solar due to roof positioning or other factors. Those exemptions need further scrutiny in Committee to ensure that they are comprehensive. Sensibly, the Bill allows for other renewable energy systems to be used where solar is not feasible; that is practical. However, the list of exemptions should not allow developers to adapt their designs in order to avoid installing solar panels, so that they can avoid what they claim are increased costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and a number of colleagues on the Labour Benches mentioned, there remains a risk that house builders or developers will identify loopholes in the legislation that they can use to say, “We can’t build solar on that, so we will do either a cheaper alternative or none at all.” However, if Members in all parts of the House work together in Committee, we can strengthen the legislation to ensure that developers put these technologies on buildings across the country.

  Full debate: New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

  I fully support initiatives to encourage renewable energy and solar panel usage, but it is crucial to address the practical challenges we face. As has been mentioned, the national grid’s infrastructure may not be equipped to handle a significant increase in capacity from solar generation alone. A recent article outlined that £60 billion of investment in the national grid is needed to make sure that solar energy can be put back into the grid in a sustainable way.

  I will conclude—many will be pleased to hear—by reaffirming the Conservative party’s strong commitment to the UK’s target of reaching net zero by 2050. I am proud to say that we have already achieved a 50% reduction in emissions between 1990 and 2022 while growing our economy by 79%. As we continue on this journey, our policies must strike a balance between ambition and realism. I look forward to hearing more about the provisions in this Bill, and hope that this debate will bring us closer to solutions that support both its practical implementation and our environmental goals. I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and look forward to seeing him—if he is lucky—in a Committee on this legislation. At the risk of being sanctioned, I promise him that I will be a ray of sunlight when we work together to ensure that this Bill is strengthened and becomes legislation.

  Full debate: New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

• 15 Jan 2025: Vote

  Deferred Divisions — Energy - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 08 Nov 2024: Tweet

  A pleasure to meet constituent Lisa at my surgery regarding the @MPWatchNetwork campaign. A good conversation on climate change and much needed policies https://x.com/pauljholmes/status/1855010417581453371/photo/1 [Source]

• 20 Feb 2024: Vote

  Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill — Clause 1 - Duty to invite applications for offshore licences - Pro-climate vote: No - Their vote: Aye

• 20 Feb 2024: Vote

  Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill — Clause 1 - Duty to invite applications for offshore licences - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 04 Dec 2023: Vote

  Delegated Legislation — Climate Change - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: Aye

• 21 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @JohnGlenUK: We have not lost sight of our environmental targets - Net Zero by 2050 will happen - and @RishiSunak has chosen the fairest… [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @RishiSunak: We will still meet our international commitments and hit Net Zero by 2050. Our new approach will embrace with even greater… [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  @tomm_robertss It’s *wrecked* btw. And this government has led the way in decarbonisation and net zero. Nothing in law or net zero targets have changed. https://twitter.com/pauljholmes/status/1704555468742430894/photo/1 [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  @tomm_robertss Well I’ve read the manifesto. I don’t see us scrapping anything. For example net zero commitment remains and 2030 car ban wasn’t in it. [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  RT @FraserNelson: The UK has led the world on decarbonisation, but the pace of UK environmental progress is seldom discussed. Facts and f… [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  This Governments commitment to Net Zero remains in law. But those arbitrary targets hurt those on low and medium incomes while not affecting those who earn the most. A tweaking of timings to help with the cost of living is right and the PM has my full support in doing so. [Source]

• 20 Sep 2023: Tweet

  @waterman1270 Commitment trains to net zero, but arbitrary car targets and boiler targets don’t help those less well off who can’t afford it. Wise to do it properly and proportionately [Source]

• 28 Oct 2022: Tweet

  @RichardMR64 @SBrook68 @JimPaine8 No climate change falls under BEIS [Source]

• 28 Oct 2022: Tweet

  @SBrook68 @JimPaine8 @RichardMR64 A Secretary of State responsible in a Cabinet, a COP 26 president, even if the Climate Minister was in cabinet they’re still accountable to a Secretary of State. It was window dressing [Source]

• 27 Oct 2022: Tweet

  @RichardMR64 We are showing up. The President of COP26 who is responsible is going [Source]

• 05 Apr 2022: Tweet

  @KarinKMacDee @abrigroup Decarbonising of housing stock featured highly. The government has also done lots on climate change. [Source]

• 13 Dec 2021: Vote

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

• 16 Jul 2021: Tweet

  @RichardMR64 @XR_Southampton Policies in place to mitigate for climate change. But building more houses here, which you know I’m against, also affecting things here [Source]

• 6 Jul 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement last week that he is bringing forward the date to remove unabated coal from the UK’s energy mix by a whole year to 2024. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows how the UK is leading the world in consigning coal power to the history books, and showing that we are serious about decarbonising our power system so that we can meet our ambitious, world-leading climate targets?

  Full debate: Topical Questions

• 06 Jul 2021: Tweet

  Today I asked the Energy Minister about the UK's success in decarbonising our energy supply so we can have a cleaner, greener future. https://x.com/pauljholmes/status/1412436671946231811/video/1 [Source]

• 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

• 9 Mar 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  The Solent region has pockets of deprivation left over by the old industries of the railways in Eastleigh town centre and the post-industrial past of Southampton’s docks. The announcement of the Solent freeport, which was opposed by the Lib Dem leader and pooh-poohed by the Labour party, will prepare our workforce for the future. We are talking about 52,000 jobs, the creation of decarbonisation industries, such as green maritime, green transport jobs and a world-leading sector in green energy. This will mean that £2 billion-worth of investment will be attracted to the Solent region and it will add £3.7 billion of gross value added uplift to the UK. This Budget is a shot in the arm for my region, which is often seen as economically developed, to ensure that the Solent region, my constituency and Southampton as a whole will have the world-leading recovery that we need.

  Full debate: Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

• 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

• 04 Sep 2020: Tweet

  Lovely to meet up with Sian, Jacob, Wendy and others at St Luke’s Church to discuss climate change and environmental issues. Lots of interesting ideas. https://x.com/pauljholmes/status/1301867047383707651/photo/1 [Source]

• 05 Feb 2020: Vote

  Transport - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No