Richard Fuller MP: Climate Timeline

• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Richard Fuller's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Richard Fuller

• 21 Nov 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The Cleat Hill incident also raises some questions about the regulation of the installation of heat pumps more generally. More than 30,000 ground source heat pumps have been installed in the United Kingdom, and this is the first known incident in which a gas reservoir has been tapped during the drilling for a ground source heat pump. However, the UK currently plans to roll out many more heat pumps—a large proportion of which will be ground source heat pumps—in its effort to achieve net zero.

  Full debate: Cleat Hill Heat Pump Incident

• 12 Nov 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for permitting me to raise this important constituency matter from the Back Benches. On 2 July this year, during the installation of a ground source heat pump in a constituent’s back garden, a gas field was struck and gas was released. On 19 October there was an explosion, which resulted in the deaths of two of my constituents and the continuing evacuation of 50 households. Matters related to the period between 2 July and 19 October are subject to investigation. I am advised that this is the first such instance of gas being encountered, but given that ground source heat pumps are expected to play a significant role in decarbonising home heating, will the Minister undertake to review the regulations covering the installation of ground source heat pumps, and will she arrange a meeting for me with the relevant Minister to discuss these matters further?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 28 Nov 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  Yesterday was Lancashire Day and today is Bedfordshire Day—happy Bedfordshire Day to all Members. It is the job of the Climate Change Committee to be enthusiastic about achieving our net zero goals. It is the responsibility of the Government to be fiscally prudent in achieving that objective. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Prime Minister that we need to be clear with the British public all the way along about the costs that will be incurred to achieve our net zero ambitions?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 5 Sep 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  The shadow Chancellor has said that she will not rule out mandating the use of pension fund money for the pet schemes that the Labour party thinks will achieve net zero, putting at risk the savings of many pensioners in this country. What does my hon. Friend think the impact of that will be on the British economy?

  Full debate: Climate Change: Economic Impact

• 13 Jun 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  “From a net-zero perspective, how could they possibly introduce a new transport link, with the intention of running diesel trains on it until 2040 at the earliest? Hardly what you’d describe as inspirational or forward thinking.”

  Full debate: East West Rail: Bedford to Cambridge

• 20 Apr 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  Nobody—certainly no Liberal Democrat —would pretend that wealth is created by the state. It is created by businesses, but what business leaders have said time and again is that the Government need to set a direction. Is it not true that this Government are currently giving no purposeful direction to business, particularly when it comes to the green economy and the transition to net zero?

  The hon. Lady is right that businesses like certainty—that is absolutely true. Setting a direction, inasmuch as it creates certainty, is useful; more than that, it is a strong part of the foundations. If we go on to talk about climate change in this debate, it may be that questions about national and international strategies and about what our response should be to issues among British businesses, businesses in other countries and multinationals will drive us apart again.

  Let me move on to the second area about which the hon. Gentleman spoke: the Inflation Reduction Act and the associated EU measures. As he well knows, that Act represents a $370 billion commitment of US federal funds, or their equivalent in tax credits. It followed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, which meant $1 trillion of investment, not only in infrastructure but in green energy. By purchasing power parity, the US economy is approximately six times the size of the UK’s. An equivalent response, which is what the hon. Gentleman says we need, would essentially require writing a cheque for £40 billion, £50 billion or £60 billion. If industrial strategy is not about expenditure, what are we supposed to be doing to compete, other than putting in that amount of money? There seems to be a part missing.

  Let me return to the question of money, and the current issues involving the so-called Inflation Reduction Act and the EU. A significant proportion of the funds spent by other countries are being spent on what I would term competitive discovery, which means looking at possible solutions when we do not yet have the solution to a problem. I would place that at the higher end of the risk investment spectrum, and would therefore approach it with caution. It is like dotcom for the green era—not in all sectors, and not all the money is being used for that purpose, but a considerable amount of what we need to do if we are to achieve net zero will require money to be spent on the discovery of solutions.

  In addition to my concern about taxpayers’ money, behind the big funding race between the EU and the US to put amounts of money at risk in a casino of green discovery is an open question about the trajectory of unit costs for the materials that will be required by those sectors that will assist us to achieve net zero. When others are rushing to do something, it is a natural human urge to rush to do it too. We can all remember the shortages of toilet paper at the start of covid, which was a shortage for no apparent reason. Because everyone else was buying loo paper, we all thought we should buy it. As we know, that created a surge in unit cost, which abated and—although I have not checked recently—the cost is now back down to a normal market price. As goes toilet paper—perhaps I should not use that phrase—so goes the unit cost for other items. A significant cost will be experienced by early adopters. My question is whether we would be better off participating in that surge in unit costs in an era of technological discovery, or keeping our money in our pocket until the unit costs come down once the successful discoveries have been made.

  Full debate: International Trade and Geopolitics

• 29 Mar 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  I want to mention something that is not in the Bill but which we need to think about. On achieving net zero, we have made tremendous strides by asking our corporations to start accounting for carbon in their annual account reporting. We need to harness the power of the private sector if we are going to achieve our net zero goals. I saw reports in The Times that there are going to be some announcements tomorrow that may affect this, but we perhaps did not see enough from the Government about what the plans are on carbon taxes in the UK. If we want to achieve a social objective, the introduction of a carbon tax would be one effective way of doing it. If that could be combined with reductions in general corporation tax, it would be a helpful move. It cannot be done all of a sudden, but it would be an interesting addition to the mix for the Government.

  Full debate: Finance (No. 2) Bill

• 21 Mar 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  The truth is that it is under this Conservative Government that the greatest strides have been accomplished in harnessing the British economy to achieve net zero, with the leadership of COP26, the establishment of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, and the introduction of corporate reporting on carbon emissions for our major corporations. Will my hon. Friend work with British business to continue that progress and ensure that we can all move forward successfully to achieve net zero?

  Full debate: Oral Answers to Questions

• 1 Feb 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  New clause 1 on the future of the UK Infrastructure Bank would have the effect of not permitting a sale of the bank until the duty set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the targets of the net zero commitment by 2050 had been met. That puts significant strictures on the maintenance of one bank and its objectives. I think the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) probably acknowledges that. He wants us to reflect on the sale of the green bank that was set up under the coalition Government. He talked about the profits that it made last year—about £180 million, perhaps a little less. However, I hope that he recognises a couple of things.

  The objectives that the Government have set out in the Bill are already clear. They have the benefit of clarity, as we know what they are. They also cover a wide range of sectors and intentions, but with the underlying core objective of helping us to meet our green net zero and climate change objectives.

  New clause 1 seeks to stop the bank being sold prior to net zero targets being met, which is sensible in principle, given the fate of the old green investment bank, as I described on Second Reading. New clause 2 seeks a report on the geographical spread of investments, which, again, is sensible given the Government’s recent track record on allocating money from the levelling-up fund. It still strikes me as rather absurd that the Prime Minister’s wealthy Richmond constituency should have been allocated £90 million, while the entire city of Glasgow received nothing in the second round of funding. I think we would all want to ensure that the UK Infrastructure Bank was far more equitable in its disbursements.

  Let me briefly reprise what I said about my own amendment on Second Reading, when I gave the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Bill a broad welcome. Taking it at face value, there was nothing to criticise in its objectives of helping to tackle climate change and supporting the efforts to meet the UK Government’s 2050 target. Nor was there anything to criticise in the objective to support regional or local economic growth.

  What I pointed out, though, is that—the Minister on Second Reading alluded to this in his speech—the delivery of support to facilitate local and regional growth in Scotland is provided by the Scottish Government, local government and other agencies, and that the green targets in Scotland, such as the earlier net zero target, are also set independently. It is therefore important that the UK Infrastructure Bank actually supports the devolved Governments’ objectives and does not, even inadvertently, end up working against them. That remains important because we have our own infrastructure investment plan, our own global capital investment plan and our own national strategy for economic transformation that provides the framework for the Scottish Government’s policy priorities.

  Full debate: UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

• 13 Dec 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  Amendment 75 seeks to close the loophole that developers use to get around delays in local plans to secure unwanted developments. Amendment 74 seeks to include specific goals regarding net zero, biodiversity, the circular economy and recycling in neighbourhood plans. New clause 87 seeks to provide specific assistance via regulation for listed buildings where there is a wish to insulate or make other changes to the properties consistent with net zero goals. Finally, amendment 76 seeks to implement the manifesto commitment of infrastructure first to improve access to local services.

  I tabled amendment 74 because I am very concerned that Parliament has set a legal requirement to achieve net zero without properly assessing the methodologies or potential costs to taxpayers and consumers for achieving it. I am concerned that the technologies that we need are still evolving and that lowering the overall cost may take action on a community level rather than an individual level through, for example, charging points for electric vehicles or decarbonising home heat. The amendment would require neighbourhood plans to include considerations of three issues important to our natural environment: achieving net zero, promoting and increasing local biodiversity and improving levels of recycling.

  Through a combination of ensuring that we have local control over how housing is developed, a further, deeper commitment at a community level to understanding the practical changes that need to be made to achieve our net zero goals—things like equitable insulation for homes—and to achieve local transportation methods that are green and clean, there are great opportunities in the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

  I support several Labour Front-Bench amendments, including amendments 78 and 84 and new clause 98. This Parliament declared a climate emergency in 2019, so it is somewhat bizarre that, years later, mitigation and adaptation are not hardwired into our planning system. New clause 98, which would do just that, is welcome. As it stands, the Bill will create a power grab by the centre and by the Secretary of State, undermining the local plans and neighbourhood plans that Members across the House have spoken for so strongly in this debate, so I strongly support amendment 78. If we are to build communities with the right houses in the right places that are genuinely affordable, with essential infrastructure and beautiful green spaces, they must be sufficiently funded. That is not the case now, has not been the case for 12 years and will not be the case under the Bill, which is why I am backing amendment 84.

  Full debate: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

• 22 Nov 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  It is important that we understand the investment structures that are in place. What I have in mind—and I am interested to hear the Minister’s observations—is the fact that the bank is trying to attract external capital to achieve some of our climate change and levelling-up goals. For climate change goals, the backstop provider of the gap in any funding if the private sector does not provide, if we wish to achieve our policy objective, is the UK taxpayer. Right now, in the main Chamber Members are discussing the autumn statement. Members on both sides of the Committee are aware that we are pledging increases in taxation, expenditure and borrowing, notwithstanding additional pressures that achieving net zero will place on taxpayers. It is therefore crucial, if the bank is to play an effective role, that we are vigilant in understanding the burden left at the end of its efforts on the taxpayer, and we should seek to minimise it. My amendment seeks to put pressure on the independent person to look at that objective. Those are the main priorities of my amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

  “The Chancellor must appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of…the effectiveness of the Bank in delivering its objectives, and…its impact in relation to climate change and regional and local economic growth (including the extent to which its investments in particular projects or types of projects have encouraged additional investment in those projects or types of project by the private sector).”

  I appreciate the comments by the Opposition spokesperson and, of course, my hon. Friend the Minister. My concern about subsection (1)(b) is that the focus on the extent to which investments have attracted additional private sector investment is subordinate to the effectiveness, in terms of the impact on climate change and regional and local growth. That essentially means that if there is a project that is very strong on achieving climate change goals, the bank will be perfectly happy to pursue that, even at an extended cost to the taxpayer. I hope I have not got the Minister wrong.

  Full debate: UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

• 1 Nov 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  That is an important factor in the UK Investment Bank’s goals and the role that it can play in helping the UK to achieve net zero. Let us be frank: when, I think, four or five years ago, the House committed to achieving net zero in a certain timeframe, there was no price tag attached. It was the biggest commitment ever made without a price tag attached for the British taxpayer. The UK Investment Bank can play a role in making sure that that price tag gets smaller and smaller. In fact, one objective the UK Infrastructure Bank says it wishes to focus on is the transition to subsidy-free models. That is absolutely essential to some key aspects of how we achieve net zero, in particular the decarbonising of home heat where we will need to attract private sector capital and long-term, patient capital. We will need the Government, through the UK Infrastructure Bank, to provide some catholic investment and, most importantly, the product structures that enable drawing in of that capital behind the most effective way, while also being able to show how we get out of the taxpayer funding it all. We cannot afford to make unfunded pledges again and again on not only this generation of taxpayers, but on future generations of taxpayers. That is why I am particularly keen on pressing the Minister and, should I be fortunate enough to sit on the Public Bill Committee, investigating further— [ Interruption. ] I guess that is a straight no, Mr Deputy Speaker—how we can ensure that the commitments to a positive financial return and to transitioning from subsidy-free models are given more weight in the structure of the UK Infrastructure Bank.

  Full debate: UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

• 19 Oct 2022: Vote

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

• 7 Sep 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  The Bill contains a new statutory objective on competitiveness and growth, which ranks those elements above the UK’s legally binding nature and climate targets. Given that a thriving economy depends on a thriving environment, will the Minister look at this again and consider introducing a climate-and-nature-specific statutory objective as well, so that there are two statutory objectives rather than a statutory objective and a regulatory principle, which are not the same thing?

  Full debate: Financial Services and Markets Bill

  The hon. Member for Richmond Park, who is in her place, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who I do not think is in her place, talked in an intervention about whether the regulator should have a green objective. Including the net zero target specifically in the regulatory principles ensures that the Government’s commitment to reach net zero will be embedded in regulator considerations. Therefore, it is more appropriately progressed by regulators as a regulated principle, which means they will consider the Government’s target when they advance their own objectives. We heard a lot about what the Government are doing on green finance which did not pay enough regard to the progress the Government have made already on that. Let me just list it. The UK is rated No. 1 globally in the Z/Yen Global Green Finance Index. The UK has had the largest green gilt instruments globally. The UK had the first green savings account issued with the national savings fund. The UK is the first major economy to implement fully the taskforce for nature-related financial disclosures across both financial services and the real economy. The UK is the largest donor to multilateral climate investment funds. That is a record this Government can be proud of. That is a record that this country can be proud of as well.

  Full debate: Financial Services and Markets Bill

• 5 Jul 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  When Parliament agreed in June 2019 to achieve net zero by 2050, it was probably the most expensive, uncosted piece of legislation that has ever been passed by this country. It was a “Star Trek” piece of legislation, asking the country to boldly go where no one had gone before. These estimates start to frame how much the costs will be—costs for taxpayers, costs for individuals, and costs for business. As we look at those things, we need to be pragmatic and not dogmatic about achieving net zero. Too often we talk about the great opportunities of achieving net zero without really being honest about whether they are opportunities or just a shifting of resources, which, when it comes down to economics, has no net benefit at all.

  As I was saying earlier, the contribution of net zero to this country’s growth is highly questionable. Essentially, we are taking a cost, which we ignored in the past, and saying that we now need to take it into account and eliminate it as a cost in our production. Growth does not arise from that. Growth arises when we can do the same thing for a lower cost—through productivity improvements. Growth can arise when we increase the revenues, particularly for our own country. That could be achieved through import substitution, or it could be achieved through the creation of new green technologies that we can export to other countries. However, it is not guaranteed just because we have passed a piece of legislation that says, “Let’s all achieve net zero by 2015.” It can be achieved by changing the ways that we do things into ways that are more productive. Finally, it can be achieved by reducing the costs of uncertainty, the most obvious of which when it comes to energy is hedging.

  None of those things is guaranteed. As has been said, children and schools are enthusiastic about this, but that is because they are taught about net zero and because, quite naturally, young people have an interest in all things natural, such as the environment, diversity and the planet. Ultimately, though, the costs are what will matter in terms of whether and how we can achieve that ideological and scientifically justifiable goal.

  The Government also need to set a number of targets for the production of hydrogen and for the capture of carbon dioxide as part of their 2030 plans and the net zero strategy Build Back Better. Talking to HyNet North West, it is clear that it believes that it can go further, and it wants to call on the Government to double its opportunities to capture carbon dioxide. It wants to increase the current allocation of hydrogen from 1 GW to 2 GW. It would also like to see a doubling of the megatonnes of carbon dioxide captured per annum.

  I wish to focus now on the particular issue of decarbonising home heating. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) in his opening speech that that is essentially a £20,000 cost for a household when it is combined with insulation. He quite rightly made the point that that is beyond almost every household. I think the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), the Chair of the Select Committee, also noted that it is beyond the expectation of the ability of households to pay for it.

  We also know that the economies of scale when it comes to technologies for decarbonising home heat are challenging, because the technology is already established and therefore the production economies of scale are likely to be less than in other areas, and because a large part of the costs are in the service delivery, which is people. People efficiencies are harder to capture than production efficiencies.

  Not only is the up-front cost high for everyone, but it means that, without Government action and direction, we would end up with certain households doing it that might not necessarily be those that make most sense for achieving our goal. I say this as a Conservative who believes in free choice, but if we want to achieve that goal, we have to own up to the fact that relying on individual choices by individual households to achieve the decarbonisation of home heating will mean that the overall cost to society of achieving that goal will be substantially greater than going through a process that has at least a very significant part of a community-based initiative.

  Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow was right to point to the issue of social housing. I am eager to see us move forward; we have a Bill coming and I think there is an opportunity to look at neighbourhood plans, which are about planning for our local communities. Maybe there is an opportunity there to put forward some of the suggestions for community decarbonisation of home heating. I hope that hon. Members who are interested in that will let me know, because I am thinking of tabling an amendment that would make that part of the way that we ask local communities, through the planning process, to start thinking about how they achieve the decarbonising of home heat on a community basis.

  I must also urge the Government to come forward and say how they will harness patient capital to solve the economic equation of decarbonising home heat. The equation is that there is a big up-front cost and then the benefits accrue slowly each year, ideally through lower heating bills and certainly through less exposure to the volatility of carbon-based fuels. What are the Government going to do to structure a programme that can attract patient capital to do that? That is the sort of financial profile that pension funds invest in all the time.

  Neighbourhood plans, a community-led approach and attracting patient capital into those community programmes seem to me to be one way in the estimates to try to get an approach to net zero, if I may coin a rather cheap phrase, at net profit to the British economy. Achieving net zero at net profit is a way to get a pragmatic answer to the idealistic but uncosted goals that this Parliament put in train in 2019.

  Full debate: Action on Climate Change and Decarbonisation

• 23 May 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  At some points in the debate, it has not been clear whether Members have been focusing on the Bill in the context of protest, climate change or criminal damage. The Bill is at its best when it focuses on those who would use protest as a cover to cause damage or create unreasonable disruption. It starts to lose its way when it strays away from that into an area where all democratic Governments need to be careful, which is how a Government of the day pass legislation that has an effect on protest.

  Full debate: Public Order Bill

• 17 May 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  The first relates to an issue that came up in our Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee: the problem of decarbonising home heat. If we wish to achieve our net zero goals in the timeframe that we as a Parliament have set out, one of the most significant challenges will be how our households are to afford changing the way they heat their homes to be consistent with net zero. The up-front cost appears to be about £12,000, and it is well beyond the ability of any household to afford that, essentially to replace something that is working perfectly satisfactorily with something that will hopefully work perfectly satisfactorily but have much less impact on the climate. It was clear in our hearing that no obvious solutions are around today that would solve the issue. That led to a significant debate in the Committee.

  I want to draw the attention of those on the Front Bench to solutions around the idea of net zero community green schemes. In a previous contribution I talked about the possibility of attracting the enterprise investment scheme towards a net zero scheme, but there are also ways to get patient capital and pension fund capital in. Bankers without Boundaries has been working with the UK Cities Climate Investment Commission on green neighbourhood funding models that combine the opportunity to retrofit housing—putting in the insulation that many very poorly insulated houses require—with the installation of heat pumps and other work on a community basis, while also considering ways to make the step change in recycling that the Government are trying to accomplish, so that we can make a big step forward on the circular economy.

  Interestingly, by doing it on a community basis, we have two significant public gains: a financial model is created that can attract pension fund money because it has a long-term return and is at scale; and we get over the inequities of saying that individual households ought to be providing the finance for achieving net zero, which means many poor families and households will never be able to make that leap. Attracting such private capital can substantially reduce the cost to the Treasury of achieving that long-term gain. It will not affect energy bills in the short term but, my goodness, it is the sort of idea we need if we are to find a pragmatic rather than ideological solution to achieving green energy change.

  Full debate: Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases

• 13 Dec 2021: Vote

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

• 28 Oct 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Every Budget must be presented within the context of what is going on, and none more so than this one. We are coming through the covid period and through the Brexit transition. Even today, a French Minister has said that the only thing the British understand is force. That is unwelcome language. We do not want to have opposition from France or from any other member of the EU, but there will be issues about the Brexit transition that will affect the economy. We have spoken a lot today about climate change, but not so much about the changing relationship with China and what that does to supply chains. The other contextual factor is the OBR forecast itself. It is ambitious in its forward growth projections in the near term. All of those issues provide the context for the Budget.

  Full debate: Income Tax (Charge)

• 28 Jun 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  The environmental impact assessment was cursory, falls far short of our net zero expectations and may result in brutal scarring of the Bedfordshire countryside forever. Critical local authority input to the consultation from Bedford Borough Council, upon which the Minister and his Department will rely, was submitted without approval from the council as a whole—a secret plan, containing flaky economic assumptions, airbrushing out references to existing homes that will have to be demolished, and potentially concealing acceptance of additional housing development as the price to be paid for the chosen route.

  As I was saying, the CPRE has raised a more fundamental point, with which I agree: the detailed assessment of environmental impact is being done right at the end of the process, rather than being front and centre at the start of the process. It rightly asks how a route that is longer and hillier, requiring significant additional construction and carving its way through open countryside, can have a carbon footprint consistent with our net zero targets? As a result, environmental impact is seen as the guise of mitigation rather than as a full part of a proper assessment. We cannot be a Government committed to biodiversity and protection of our natural habitat if we continue this practice. The Minister—indeed, the Prime Minister—has the opportunity with East West Rail to take a stand on this matter. Will the Minister therefore raise these environmental concerns directly with No. 10 and gain its assurance that this project, with all its changes, has the Prime Minister’s endorsement as being fully compliant with his green agenda?

  A number of changes have been made since the origination of this consultation. It originated in Lord Adonis’s Oxford-Cambridge arc vision, as part and parcel of acceding to the provision of 1 million homes in this region between Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire, including Bedfordshire, yet just a week or two ago the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government confirmed to me that that 1 million homes target is no longer a target. We know that the other project of Lord Adonis’s vision, the expressway, is no longer a long expressway; it has been junked in Buckinghamshire. We know that covid has changed crucial traffic assumptions, with greater working from home and with the opportunity for more office space in London to be converted to residential. We know that the vision for East West Rail has been cascading back in history, from his shining, 21st century, forward-looking vision where we connect two—potentially three—of our great universities to one involving a 19th century fuel of dubious merit. The Government have issued a 10-point plan for net zero, yet in some ways there are concerns that East West Rail now stands directly against those ambitions. As I said, we have more examples to show that people will change lifelong voting intentions to express their discontent with top-down projects that fundamentally change their surroundings.

  Full debate: East West Rail Route Consultation: North East Bedfordshire

• 7 Jun 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  I was not on the Committee, but there is a fundamental point here. I recall from the debate on Second Reading that the objective of ARPA is to think beyond what is normally thought about. The issue about the climate emergency is that we know it is a problem. We know that there are multiple solutions in multiple areas, which people are already working on. We also know that there is tremendous commercial interest, from the point of view of people investing in relation to the climate emergency and companies that are trying to sell products in that area. To what extent does the objective that the hon. Gentleman proposes fit that “beyond beyond” mission that I thought was the original purpose of ARPA?

  I think it absolutely fits that point. Of course, there could be new solutions that we are not aware of at this moment. On Second Reading, the hon. Member made a similar point, and I said that he should not be so narrow in his view of climate change because to meet net zero we need to operate in a vast landscape. The Government do not seem to be acknowledging that through ARIA. To repeat myself, I believe that that is a missed opportunity.

  The Government will point to their energy White Paper and point to the 10-point plan, and perhaps they will point to the North sea transition deal in terms of their aims in relation to combating climate change. That is fair and reasonable, but—notwithstanding the arguments we might have on those points, of which there are many—it does not mean that we stop there, particularly in the year of COP26. I urge Government Members to reflect on that as we move forward in the debate.

  I apologise to those Members of the House who were on the Committee, because I can see that there was quite an exchange on these matters in Committee, but I want to pick up on an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), who talked about the need for a mission and, in a sense, to restrict this organisation’s mission. He spoke particularly about climate change, which I know is a key issue. I was the Prime Minister who put the 2050 net zero emissions target into legislation, and the UK can be very proud of having been the first major country to do that.

  An enormous amount of work needs to be done to ensure that we can take the decisions individually, as businesses and as a Government that will lead to net zero. Part of that will be about research, but as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said, there are enormous numbers of people out there doing research and companies looking for products to sell that will help to get us to that position. It seems to me that we should not restrict the mission of ARIA. It is important to give this organisation the freedom to look widely. I say that not just in a blue skies thinking way, but also because I had some interaction with the American equivalent of ARIA, on which ARIA is based, when I was Home Secretary because it was doing some really interesting research and innovative work on issues of security.

  Full debate: Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

• 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

• 24 Mar 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  I also thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), first for permitting me to speak in this debate, but more importantly for her consistent campaigning against the further expansion of Luton airport. She is right to call out Luton airport for its excessive and rapid growth and consistent breaches of noise limitations, and because expansion is inconsistent with our environmental goals and our pathway to net zero. Minister, the current application for further expansion of Luton airport is an egregious example of a disregard of the principles of net zero, and that alone is sufficient reason for the Government to oppose it.

  Full debate: Luton Airport Expansion

• 23 Mar 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  The spokesperson for the Scottish nationalists, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), chided me a little about the importance of the environment and asked whether that should be a focus. I am not denying that the environment and climate change is an important issue, but the point here is that we do not prescribe that that is the only thing that this organisation can research—I am not saying that it should not look into it.

  Full debate: Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

• 2 Feb 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  One of the most important of those goals is achieving air quality standards and making sure that our aviation industry is sustainable as we seek to achieve our climate change goals. Although the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was right to say that this Bill is just a part of that and that there is a large whole that we need to consider, I hope he would recognise that the Government are right to bring forward this part of the puzzle; it is a crucial part of our achieving that overall ambition.

  Full debate: Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords]

• 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

• 05 Feb 2020: Vote

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

• 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