• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Ellie Chowns's Speeches In Parliament Related to Climate

We've found 56 Parliamentary debates in which Ellie Chowns has spoken about climate-related matters.

Here are the relevant sections of their speeches.

• 15 Sep 2026: Fracking Ban

  16:50

  It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who made a passionate and utterly convincing case for the need for a green energy revolution and the benefits it would provide not only environmentally, but socially for the communities we are here to represent. We have heard fantastic arguments from across the House for a full ban on fracking. It is not just about the earthquake risks and the environmental damage to local communities, or because it is completely publicly unpopular, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) pointed out. British citizens do not want fracking, and banning fracking fully is a very popular policy. Fundamentally, however, there is one key reason why we must have a full ban on fracking, which is that we must keep fossil fuels in the ground. We know that we live in a hugely warming world.

  [Source]

  16:50

  Fossil fuels are traded globally. If we open up new production of fossil fuels, the reality is that that will do nothing for bills, do almost nothing for energy security and be a complete distraction from the investments we must make in the transition to the clean, green, renewable energy future that is our only hope of a sustainable economy not just in the long term, but in the short and medium terms. These are the industries of the future, and people who argue that we should continue to invest in typewriters during the era of the personal computer or continue to invest in horses and carriages during the era of the car are simply stuck in the past. We cannot continue to have our heads in the sand.

  [Source]

  Yes, seriously. I can give the hon. Member the reference, unlike for the extraordinary statistics he cited in his speech, which apparently have no basis in actual evidence. Fundamentally, we have to stop pouring fossil fuel on the fire of the climate crisis, and that means we need a full ban on fracking.

  [Source]

  Fundamentally, renewables are the cheap, clean, green energy of the future, and we need to shift in that direction as quickly as possible. We are here talking about fracking, but there is no commercially viable shale gas reserve in the entirety of the UK.

  [Source]

  Fundamentally, we are living in a burning world. The 11 hottest years on record were the past 11 years. The three hottest years on record were the past three years. The trajectory is going up and up, and this is not just a question of graphs on paper and reports from the World Meteorological Organisation; we are feeling it in our communities. The Prime Minister, when he considers decisions on things like fracking, should listen to communities in places such as Stourbridge, West Sussex and Stoke-on-Trent, where people have had their homes burned by wildfires that have been supercharged by the climate change that is already built in. It would be utterly irresponsible to pour yet more fuel on the fire of climate crisis.

  We need to recognise the reality that is hitting us in the face: a barrelling and accelerating climate crisis. We need to do everything we can to change direction, and the very least of those things has to be a full ban on fracking. Can the Minister confirm that when the energy independence Bill comes to this House after the recess, it will include a fulfilment of the Government?s previous promise to implement a full and statutory ban on fracking that cannot simply be overturned by ministerial diktat? Will he apply the ban to existing licences? We have to leave fossil fuels in the ground and supercharge our transition to the green, clean energy revolution, which is the only fundamental basis for a sustainable and prosperous future for all of the UK.

  [Source]

• 3 Sep 2026: Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security

  15:39

  We have seen just recently what ecosystem collapse looks like: collapsing glaciers in the Himalayas and horrific loss of life on Nepal-Tibet border. We see what it looks like in the UK: the hottest ever summer and the worst ever arable harvest. Things are only going to get worse. This is clearly an issue of national security, and the security services themselves are raising the alarm, not just the environmentalists. We have to change course. Farmers in my constituency of North Herefordshire see this on a daily basis. We have to change the conversation about national security and recognise that it is not just about investment in weaponry and conflict, but about acknowledging the true, existential risk posed by climate change and ecosystem collapse, both in UK and across the world, as highlighted in this report.

  It is disappointing that this short report had to be dragged out of the Government, kicking and screaming, and published only after a huge amount of pressure. Where is the evidence base underlying it? What are the Government afraid to share with us? Will the Government publish the full report and the evidence base that underlies it? If they will not, why not? Will they recognise that ecosystems are critical national infrastructure and have to be addressed as such? To echo a point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), will the Government recognise that we cannot wait another few years for the national adaptation plan, given today’s announcement from the World Meteorological Organisation that climate change is supercharging natural phenomena such as El Niño, which will lead to even worse effects in the UK and globally than we saw this summer? Nature security is national security.

  [Source]

• 3 Sep 2026: Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields

  10:59

  We cannot discuss this issue without recognising that the climate breakdown is already costing us hugely: the hottest summer ever, the worst arable harvest ever, and the Met Office says that it was 130 times more likely that we faced this crisis this year. Just today, the World Meteorological Organisation has said that climate breakdown is super-charging natural phenomena such as El Niño. The shadow Secretary of State says that North sea communities need a new direction: yes, a just transition to clean energy for the future, not the dirty energy of the old. Will the Minister recognise that the climate damage created by Rosebank and Jackdaw will hugely outweigh any potential economic benefits and therefore rule them out? Fossil fuels must stay in the ground if we are to have a liveable future.

  [Source]

• 2 Sep 2026: EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

  We are also facing the climate crisis barrelling down towards us. All of these issues require stronger co-operation with our closest neighbours. In that context, more than 10 years on from this disastrous wrong turn in British politics—this monumental act of self-harm—it is time to change course. I welcome the noises that the Government have made about resetting. That is certainly a start, but we need to be honest about what we have lost. We need to recognise the importance of co-operation and working together politically as well as economically. We need to recognise that the majority of the British people think that we would be better off back in the European Union, and that is why I believe we need to set out a path to rejoin. The best future for the UK lies within Europe. With the summit coming up, I hope that the Minister will be genuinely ambitious and deep in setting out the path forward.

  [Source]

• 1 Sep 2026: Direction of Government

  The climate crisis is hitting hard already, and I was glad to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge that in his statement. We have just had the hottest summer since records began, farmers are facing the worst arable harvest since records began and the Met Office tells us today that extreme summers such as this year’s have been made 130 times more likely by burning fossil fuels. In that context, will the Prime Minister remember his words of last year, when he warned against the “siren voices” taking us down the path of “dependence on fossil fuels”? Will he stick to the manifesto promise not to drill any more oil and gas, and will he rule out Rosebank and Jackdaw, because the climate damage they would create hugely outweighs any possible benefit and will lead to more disasters such as we saw on the Nepal-Tibet border just last week?

  [Source]

• 14 Jul 2026: Extreme Heat: Preparedness

  15:21

  I represent North Herefordshire, an absolutely beautiful constituency with farming at its heart. Farmers are at the forefront of the impacts of climate change—not just extreme heat but other weather extremes such as flooding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley pointed out, we are facing a situation in which climate change, or climate breakdown, is driving the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. As he pointed out, we have known about this for decades, but sadly Governments have effectively been asleep at the wheel on reducing climate-warming emissions to the level we need them at, and particularly on adaptation and building our resilience.

  [Source]

  15:23

  We need to change our ways as a country. Experts have been telling us this for a long time. The Committee on Climate Change has pointed out that we are not doing anywhere near enough to meet the adaptation challenge facing us. I call on the Government to grasp the nettle. This is investment in building a better future—it is a win-win investment. Building houses that are suitable for the weather conditions that we will be facing is much cheaper than having to retrofit them afterwards. If we use materials and building methods that enable us to cool buildings naturally, we can create urban areas that are not such huge heat islands as they currently are. By building in such a way, including with lots of tree planting in urban areas, we can cool temperatures locally using natural methods. We have a real opportunity here, and we should grasp it with both hands. Tackling the adaptation and the resilience challenge is not about just sticking our finger in the dyke or using a sticking plaster approach, such as patchwork retrofitting air-con in every building that is struggling with the heat; it is an opportunity to imagine and to build a better country for the future.

  I raised this in Health questions this morning, but the issues we face are not solved just by retrofitting our hospitals. We have to enable everybody in the country to stay healthy in the extremes of heat that we are increasingly seeing so that they do not have to go into hospital in the first place. This is a cross-Government requirement and priority, so will the Government put in place adaptation plans that the Climate Change Committee will itself declare are fit for purpose?

  Finally, we must put the brakes on the problem at the same time. It is not an either/or between mitigation and adaptation; we still have more to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions that are causing climate breakdown, so that we save ourselves from the worst possible effects of runaway climate change. I call on the Government to go further and faster on real climate action, not least by holding the line on Jackdaw and Rosebank. We cannot on the one hand struggle with facing the consequences of climate change, such as extreme heat, and on the other hand continue to take more fossil fuels out of the ground and burn them. We need consistent Government policy across the piece. I hope the Government will provide that.

  [Source]

• 14 Jul 2026: NHS Buildings: Extreme Heat

  Heatwaves, which are becoming more frequent and more severe due to the climate crisis, create a health crisis. We see that in excessive temperatures in our hospitals and other health buildings, and we see it in the huge, unprecedented demand on ambulance services. First, will the Minister support my colleague Hannah Spencer’s private Member’s Bill to set a maximum workplace temperature to help keep people healthy during heatwaves? Secondly, what conversations is the Department having with the Cabinet Office to ensure that we have a Government-wide adaptation and resilience plan to deal with the effects of climate breakdown?

  [Source]

• 13 Jul 2026: Embodied Carbon: Buildings

  22:32

  The climate crisis is upon us. We in the UK are now in the midst of our third heatwave in less than three months. Communities have endured sweltering conditions that have put huge pressure on our NHS, our infrastructure and our natural environment. Our ambulance service has never been so busy. Tragically, lives have been lost as people have sought relief from the heat in rivers and lakes. Today, we have heard that it is estimated that there were 2,700 excess deaths due to just the May and June heatwaves. In my constituency, dozens of schools have had to close due to overheating. People are sweltering in hospitals, care homes and many other workplaces, and farmers and communities alike are facing critical water shortages.

  Extreme heat is no longer an occasional inconvenience, and neither are extreme storms and floods; they are now part of everyday life, and we know that things are getting worse. If we are serious about protecting future generations from climate breakdown, every sector must play its part in reducing emissions. Today I will focus on one sector that is rarely discussed, despite having an environmental footprint unlike any other.

  [Source]

  22:38

  It is clear that the construction industry has a huge impact on both climate change and biodiversity loss. We rightly spend time discussing how efficiently buildings operate once they are occupied, but we spend remarkably little time discussing the emissions that occur before anybody even walks through the front door of a new building. Those emissions are known as embodied carbon—that is, the greenhouse gases emitted when we extract raw materials, process them into building materials and use them for construction.

  According to the UK Green Building Council, embodied carbon accounts for around 20% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions and is expected to account for fully half of the built environment’s emissions by 2035. Bizarrely, though, it has so far been ignored by central Government policy. Building regulations only set limits on a subset of operational emissions. The Government’s new future homes standard ignores embodied carbon and only tackles energy use in new homes, which is a small fraction of the total emissions from the built environment. The standard is silent on material use, construction processes and embodied carbon. These are not marginal omissions—they are large gaps in UK climate policy. The Environmental Audit Committee pointed this out several years ago, as have experts for years and years.

  I commend those councils for their ambition—they recognise the urgency of climate action and are taking real, tangible action. However, the consequence is fragmentation. Different authorities are adopting different reporting templates, different thresholds, different assessment requirements and different policy wording. As such, national house builders and developers are being forced to navigate an increasingly complex patchwork of local rules. They have to learn a new set of rules every time they build in a different local authority. Planning officials are duplicating work, and local authorities are developing parallel systems. Everyone is investing time and money in solving the same problem dozens of times over. The Government would not leave local authorities to tackle other aspects that are fundamental to building design, such as fire safety or equality. Those areas have national minimum standards that authorities can build on, so why are carbon emissions not treated the same? Do we not take climate breakdown as seriously as safety or equality?

  [Source]

  22:40

  As the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted in its 2022 report, “Building to net zero: costing carbon in construction”, regulating embodied carbon would be

  The encouraging news is that the construction sector is not waiting for Government. For more than four years, more than 250 organisations from across the built environment sector have supported a campaign called “Part Z”, named after the various other parts of the building regulations. They have been calling for national embodied carbon regulation. Those companies are not asking the Government to invent something entirely new. Indeed, the same experts who developed “Part Z” have now produced the UK net zero carbon buildings standard, a ready-made framework that provides a practical route to compliance. It builds on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ whole-life carbon assessment methodology, one of the most developed embodied carbon methodologies in the world. These documents could form the basis of future regulatory reporting requirements and, in time, a new approved document. The Government do not need to start from scratch; the construction industry has already done much of the hard work.

  [Source]

  22:39

  Today, I ask the Minister for one thing above all else: national leadership. I ask for a clear pathway towards national regulation to measure and reduce embodied carbon, aligned with the direction already being taken by many of our international partners and by many in the construction industry. I ask that embodied carbon is finally recognised within national planning policy, replacing today’s fragmented patchwork with one coherent national approach. I ask the Government to consider using the UK net zero carbon buildings standard as the route to fast-tracking the compliance requirements, finally giving industry the certainty it has been requesting for years. When will the Government finally release their long-delayed circular economy growth plan, which could deal with embodied carbon at its core?

  Climate change is not hanging around, as we can see around us all the time, and embodied carbon is only making things worse. We can and must change that. We have the expertise, the methodology and the support from industry. Local authorities are crying out for consistency, and the standards have already been written—the only thing missing is national leadership. I call on the Minister to provide it.

  [Source]

• 29 Jun 2026: Cabinet Office

  17:47

  Another key threat to our country’s security and resilience, which does not receive nearly enough attention, is climate breakdown. It is not just the environmentalists but the ambulance workers who say that, and the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee’s national security assessment itself says that ecosystem breakdown poses a clear threat to national security. The Committee on Climate Change has pointed out that we are woefully ill-prepared as a country for the effects of climate breakdown.

  We urgently need to take more action to avoid causing climate change. Equally, we urgently need to take far more action to recognise the threat to our national security and resilience posed by the effects of climate breakdown. That was brought home to us in hugely clear terms last week, as we faced the second major heatwave of the last month or so. That heatwave led to record call-outs for the ambulance service—even more than under covid.

  [Source]

  17:59

  The Committee on Climate Change—the Government’s independent adviser—has set out repeatedly that these solutions are available and has set out the things that we need to put forward. The Committee has also set out repeatedly, as have any number of people over any number of years, the fact that the costs of inaction far exceed those of action. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made that point previously in relation to other security challenges, and it applies with knobs on to tackling the challenge of climate breakdown. Twenty years ago, Professor Nick Stern set out clearly that the costs of inaction far outweigh—many times over—the costs of action to address these risks. After 20 years of our heads collectively being in the sand as a country, we are reaping the whirlwind of that inaction.

  We need to develop a comprehensive extreme heat strategy, a national drought plan and a farmer-led transition to climate-resilient food production. Our farmers are crying out for that support, and they too are on the frontline of the security and resilience challenges that the reality of climate breakdown places on us. We need to strengthen our transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure and water infrastructure. Last week, we heard about nuclear power stations going offline in France. Train companies were saying that nobody should travel unless it was a matter of life and death. Water shortages are becoming more and more frequent. The collective, long-term and strategic approach to tackling climate resilience must be a core plank of national security.

  Tackling climate breakdown is not just an environmental issue but a central plank of security and national resilience. The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of taking action now. Will the Minister commit to putting in place a national strategy? Will there be an individual identified in the Cabinet Office who leads on it? Does she recognise that we must invest now or pay far worse costs later?

  [Source]

  The Minister has not mentioned climate change. Climate change is not a natural hazard; it is a human-made major risk.

  [Source]

  One of the key points that I tried to get across in my speech is that this has to be a whole-of-Government effort. DEFRA cannot put in place a strategy to adapt the health service to the reality of climate change. It cannot put in place a strategy to adapt our schools, our transport infrastructure or our energy infrastructure to the reality of climate change. Does the Minister not recognise that this has to be a whole-of-Government effort, and that it is not something that DEFRA can hold? That is precisely why we need a Cabinet Office Minister to lead on climate resilience.

  [Source]

• 22 Jun 2026: G7 Summit

  16:40

  The G7 summit took place in a country in the grip of an extreme heatwave—a heatwave that is now hitting the UK this week—yet climate change was not on the agenda, despite the fact that the climate crisis has huge impacts on human health and economic security. Why are the G7 asleep at the wheel with their heads buried in the sand? Could it possibly be that they were appeasing one Donald J. Trump, and have we not already learned that appeasing Trump never works? Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that, whoever the next Prime Minister is, the UK will show the leadership needed here in the UK and on the global stage to tackle the climate crisis?

  [Source]

• 18 Jun 2026: Human Rights: Supply Chains

  14:01

  It is clear that UK business has global environmental and human rights impacts. UK business has impacts on climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, waste management, deforestation, and of course on human rights and labour rights, as we have already discussed. The Government have acknowledged those concerns.

  [Source]

• 9 Jun 2026: Sir David Attenborough: Permanent National Monument

  16:07

  The point she is making is key: he has been an advocate not just for the natural world, but for our responsibilities to tackle the huge challenge of climate change. Sir David clearly deservers some sort of memorial—perhaps a living memorial. I thank the hon. Member for securing this tribute to him, and hope that we all agree that he deserves all the recognition and respect that we can give him.

  [Source]

• 24 Mar 2026: Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

  10:06

  I completely agree with the hon. Member. It is interesting that young people are often better able to engage with climate change than many of us who are older and are preoccupied with the short-term issues right in front of us.

  [Source]

• 24 Mar 2026: Middle East: Economic Update

  The fuel price shock caused by Trump’s reckless war highlights just how risky it is for the UK to be locked into the global fossil fuel markets. The Climate Change Committee recently pointed out that the cost of achieving net zero by 2050 is less than the cost of a single fossil fuel price spike, reinforcing the point that we need to invest in clean, green technologies and get ourselves off being hooked on fossil fuels.

  [Source]

• 29 Jan 2026: River Habitats: Protection and Restoration

  15:15

  I will speak first about flooding. That affects my constituency of North Herefordshire horrendously frequently and it is only going to get worse. I have already spoken numerous times in the House about the fact that climate change is increasing the severity and frequency of flooding incidents. If we make space for water, if we give room to our rivers, we will of course enable ourselves as communities to be more resilient. We saw the devastating effects of the floods last November in Monmouth and Skenfrith, just over the border from my constituency. We know that if we invest in Making Space for Water and looking after our rivers, that will have numerous protective benefits for us all as an economy.

  [Source]

• 16 Dec 2025: Planning Reform

  The Minister’s statement pins the blame for the housing crisis on the planning system, but we all know that there are many challenges facing the building sector: cost inflation, staff shortages made worse by Brexit, issues with housing association funding, and the problem of land banking, with all these planning permissions not being built out. Instead of the Minister pitting nature protection against house building—if he really wants to increase housing availability, affordability and quality, as he said in the statement that he does—will he set a social housing target, invest far more in directly supporting social housing and ensure that all building meets nature protection and climate crisis challenge goals?

  [Source]

• 10 Dec 2025: International Human Rights Day 2025

  It is vital that the renewable energy transition does not come at the expense of communities whose rights and environments are often very negatively affected by the mining of critical minerals. Co-ordinated global action is necessary to avoid replicating the terrible errors of the fossil fuel age in critical mineral mining.

  [Source]

• 1 Dec 2025: Budget Resolutions

  Analysis from the New Economics Foundation shows that, because of the Government’s decisions regarding the energy company obligation and the warm homes plan, the poorest households living in the coldest homes have now lost two thirds of the support they were due to receive for energy efficiency upgrades. When the UK has some of the worst-insulated homes in western Europe, we should be scaling home insulation up, not down, and using progressive taxation to pay for it. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is back in his place to hear me make these arguments.

  [Source]

• 25 Nov 2025: COP30

  15:08

  We are at a pivotal moment in the climate crisis. COP30 showed us the fossil fuel industry and its political cheerleaders doing their very best to de-rail action. I thank the Secretary of State for his work. I have two questions on points he raised in his statement. First, he said that ambition must be matched with finance, yet the UK has not contributed to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility or the just transition mechanism. Is it not time for the UK to put its money where its mouth is on this? Secondly, on the point of transitioning away from fossil fuels, the UK faces a defining test: Rosebank. Will he reject the Rosebank oilfield and fully back the just transition that our country needs?

  [Source]

• 20 Nov 2025: Business of the House

  12:51

  The UK is coming under intense scrutiny at COP30 for saying one thing in public but doing the opposite in private, by apparently blocking progress on the Belém action mechanism to secure fossil-free jobs, workers’ rights, communities and our planet, despite the Prime Minister saying in his statement to COP

  [Source]

• 18 Nov 2025: Topical Questions

  With just a few days of COP30 left, it is incredibly disappointing that UK climate leadership is at risk because of the Government’s decision not to contribute to the tropical forest forever facility to end forest destruction. Can the Minister please confirm whether reports that that decision is under review are accurate? Can he assure the House that the UK will play its part in contributing directly to taking its fair share of ending forest destruction?

  [Source]

• 18 Nov 2025: ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

  Today’s announcement by ExxonMobil—a company that made £25 billion of profit last year—will be devastating for the workers, their families and the communities in and around Mossmorran. Does it not just show that ExxonMobil does not give a fig for its workers; it just prioritises profiteering? Does the Minister agree that the fossil fuel giants cannot be trusted to protect jobs or the planet? Will he commit to investing new resources to ensure a genuinely just transition in which the voices of workers are central to the debate, so that they are not left to the whims of these profiteering fossil fuel giants?

  [Source]

• 12 Nov 2025: Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

  16:41

  It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing it. To be honest, I am a bit disappointed that the Secretary of State did not come to the House to make a statement about the carbon budget delivery plan, especially given that the previous one was in breach of the Climate Change Act 2008, and given the urgency of the UK’s meeting not just its statutory domestic climate targets but its international obligations under the Paris climate agreement.

  It is obvious that UK climate action has important domestic and international ramifications. We are holding this debate while COP30 takes place. The UN has warned that the goal of a 1.5°C limit is fragile. According to the UN Secretary-General, the current plans put forward by nation states to cut emissions will put the world on a pathway to 2.3°C of global warming if they are fully implemented, and yet the UK’s new carbon budget delivery plan will fall short of our own commitments under the COP process, via our nationally determined contributions. The delivery plan is looking to achieve 96% of the cuts for the 2030 NDC and 99% for the 2035 NDC. That does not even reflect the fact that the UK’s NDC commitments themselves fail to take account of the scale of ambition needed to tackle the burning reality of the climate crisis, in line with what the climate science demands, and to reflect the UK’s historic responsibilities—and therefore moral obligation—to take a fairer share of the global need to cut emissions.

  There are of course things to welcome in the carbon budget delivery plan, including tougher energy standards for the private rented and social rented sectors, welcome signals on heat pumps and so on, but to make our homes really fit for the future we need to think even bigger. We need to minimise embodied carbon in the housing sector, and maximise on-site energy generation, biodiversity in the construction of new homes and resilience in things such as flooding and overheating, which is crucial in tackling the impacts of the climate crisis, which is hitting harder and harder. Every new home—especially every new social home—must be built to the highest standards.

  [Source]

  My final point is to put on record my thanks to Friends of the Earth for challenging the last plan in court and for its ongoing commitment to holding Governments to account. All this is possible only because of the Climate Change Act 2008. We all have a responsibility to uphold that incredibly important piece of legislation, which is key to ensuring that together we build a sustainable future for our country.

  The British public remain very supportive of ambitious climate action. They want to know that measures are being taken to transition the economy, build a sustainable future and tackle the huge risks of climate breakdown. We all have a responsibility to ensure that that future is liveable for ourselves and future generations. I look forward to continuing to work across parties to build that positive future.

  [Source]

• 23 Oct 2025: Strengthening National Resilience

  09:30

  The Government’s own advisers tell us that the climate and nature crisis poses a huge resilience threat to our country. Yet, in an answer to a question on wildfires, the Minister does not even reference that climate change makes them more frequent and severe. What are the Government doing to tackle this huge threat from climate change?

  [Source]

• 23 Oct 2025: Topical Questions

  T5. Last week, it was reported that No. 10 may have blocked the publication of a new Joint Intelligence Committee report on the severe threat to national security posed by the climate and nature crisis. With the Government’s own advisers making it clear that we are in no way prepared for the effects of climate change that we are already seeing—such as wildfires, floods and storms, which we have heard about today—let alone the changes that are expected in the coming decades, can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster please tell the House whether it is true that the Government are trying to block the Joint Intelligence Committee chief’s efforts to keep us all safe? When can we expect the report to see the light of day?

  [Source]

• 5 Jun 2025: Governing the Marine Environment

  13:14

  While the UK Government have committed to not allowing any new oil and gas licences—I would like to see them go further—the marine spatial plan still says that we should maximise production of oil and gas. Is that not outrageously out of date, and is it not urgent that the Government update the strategy so that we have joined-up policy to tackle the climate crisis?

  [Source]

• 2 Jun 2025: Strategic Defence Review

  This Government seem to have confused security with spending more on weapons, but warheads do not buy a safer world—they make it more dangerous. Instead of wasting £15 billion on nuclear warheads—weapons that must never be used and that should be as unacceptable as biological and chemical weapons—at a taxpayer subsidy of more than £1 million per job created, why not instead spend that money on real security that must involve defence and diplomacy and development? Real security means decent housing and public services, tackling the challenges of the climate crisis and pandemic-preparedness because—

  [Source]

• 22 May 2025: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

  When we considered the topic of sustainable drainage systems, I spoke about the importance of ensuring that we bear flood resilience in mind. It bears repeating that flooding—already a huge problem in our country—will become even more of a challenge as we continue to wrestle with the effects of climate change. I refer colleagues to the work of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, which is currently conducting an inquiry into flood resilience. We heard evidence from a number of witnesses earlier this week about the importance of property flood resilience measures, which new clause 86 concerns.

  [Source]

• 22 May 2025: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once more, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak in strong support of a group of new clauses that address a clear and growing risk to public health, quality of life and economic productivity: domestic overheating. It may surprise some—hopefully no one in this room—to know that the risk of overheating in homes is now one of the most severe climate-related threats in the UK. The Climate Change Committee’s independent climate risk assessment identifies overheating in homes as one of the most severe climate risks, requiring urgent action. Over half of UK homes are already at risk of overheating, and that is projected to increase to 90% homes under a 2°C global warming scenario, which unfortunately is a possibility.

  As highlighted by the Climate Change Committee,

  New clause 78 would introduce statutory guidance on the cooling hierarchy, an approach that is already familiar in London planning policy. The hierarchy prioritises passive design strategies, such as shading and ventilation, before resorting to energy-intensive cooling. This aligns with our net zero goals and ensures resilience, without placing undue burden on developers and the grid. Why would we not ensure that our buildings can effectively cool themselves before going to measures such as installing air conditioning?

  [Source]

  Embodied carbon has not substantially reduced over the last 30 years, unlike operational carbon, despite initiatives to decarbonise material manufacturing. Unlike operational carbon, which can be regulated through building performance standards, embodied carbon remains unaddressed by policy. As a result, decisions with very significant long-term climate implications are being made every day without a consistent framework for assessing their carbon impact. It is a huge unregulated problem.

  The new clause seeks to close that gap in a measured and industry-ready way. It would not impose a burden on small-scale development—only major schemes, where carbon savings from early design choices are both most impactful and most achievable. It would buils on existing tools and industry momentum, and industry actually really wants this. There are already widely used standards and guidance available, including the whole life carbon assessment guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the UK net zero carbon buildings standard and the embodied carbon primer from the London Energy Transformation Initiative.

  Many local authorities, such as the Greater London Authority, Bristol and Manchester, have begun requiring whole life carbon assessment as part of planning. Embedding this requirement in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would provide clarity and consistency, saving time and minimising potential legal challenge by ensuring that planning authorities are demonstrably committing to the fulfilment of statutory climate duties. It would empower local planning authorities to make more informed, balanced decisions that take account of our legally binding net zero commitments and provide a consistent policy environment in which developers can operate.

  [Source]

• 20 May 2025: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)

  16:22

  I warmly welcome the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I refer colleagues to the fact that I have proposed a private Member’s Bill on exactly this topic—the Carbon Emissions from Buildings (Net Zero) Bill—and my very first Westminster Hall debate was on environmental building standards, so I am fully behind the new clause.

  [Source]

  16:25

  In fairness, I did not draft the new clause. I recognise that it says six months, but as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington spoke about so eloquently, we had proposals for net zero carbon building standards on the table 10 years ago. This has been in development for 20 years. The sector itself is way ahead of Government on this. A huge amount of work has been done by the Low Energy Transformation Initiative, the Royal Institute of British Architects and all sorts of organisations to develop zero carbon building standards.

  [Source]

  16:38

  I rise to speak in support of new clause 7. I have spoken about flooding in the main Chamber at least five times. Constituents have come to see me in my surgeries to tell me that they have been flooded out of their new homes only six months after they were built, because of a lack of appropriate drainage. As climate change brings us greater extremes and severity of weather, we know that frequent flooding will become even more of a problem, so it is imperative that any new building is flood resilient.

  [Source]

• 15 May 2025: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

  14:26

  The Minister asserts that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not set out anywhere in the text. The words “mitigation hierarchy” appear nowhere in the Bill. The word “mitigation” appears four times, always in relation to climate change. The word “avoid” appears only once, in relation to unavoidable delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects, and the word “harm” appears only once, in relation to commercial interests. If the Bill does not say anything about the mitigation hierarchy, mitigation or avoiding harm in relation to nature, how can the Minister claim that it upholds the mitigation hierarchy?

  [Source]

• 14 May 2025: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)

  10:41

  That is particularly relevant, as obviously our vital targets for decarbonisation require a modal shift away from short car journeys and towards active travel and public transport. Those forms of transport are especially supported by increasing housing density, so I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

  [Source]

• 14 May 2025: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

  (cb) any reports and strategies produced under the Climate Change Act 2008,”

  This amendment would require Natural England to consider the Government’s Carbon Budget Delivery Plan and any reports or strategies published under the Climate Change Act when preparing an EDP.

  [Source]

  17:20

  It is widely recognised that the climate and nature crises are deeply interconnected. However, although the Planning and Infrastructure Bill rightly requires Natural England to consult the Environment Agency and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, it fails to require it to consult the Climate Change Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection. Furthermore, when developing an environmental delivery plan, although there is an obligation to have regard to the current environmental improvement plan and any strategies under the Environment Act 2021, there is no obligation to consider the Climate Change Act 2008 or the Government’s carbon budget delivery plan.

  [Source]

  “(fa) the Climate Change Committee,

  This amendment would add the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection to the list of parties who must be consulted on a draft EDP by Natural England.

  [Source]

  17:27

  I will not repeat the points I made in my previous speech, which were effectively about the same substance. However, it seems an oversight that the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection are not named in the long list of organisations to be consulted on an EDP. I gently ask the Minister to take that point away and to treat it as a constructive suggestion, to ensure that we have clarity and that the voices of those crucial bodies are included, alongside those of all the other organisations that are to be consulted on a draft EDP.

  [Source]

  17:35

  The fact that there is a long list of 10 people that it should consult indicates that the Government think it is important that certain parties be consulted. I suggest that the Climate Change Committee and the OEP ought to be in that list. If the Minister is not willing to put this in the Bill, I ask him to consider putting it in the regulations or guidance that he is indicating in paragraph (i). I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

  [Source]

• 1 May 2025: Business of the House

  This week, an important report was published on the topic of climate change—not the one by the formerly high-profile politician whose consultancy has done work for major fossil fuel producers such as Saudi Arabia, but the one published by the Committee on Climate Change yesterday on adaptation. That report pointed out that this country’s approach to adaptation is not working and needs urgent strengthening, and that we are woefully unprepared for the reality of the impacts of climate change, which are already with us and will get worse, especially if the flat-earthers who seek to deny it and to change policy direction get their way. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement recognising the urgency of adaptation and committing in the spending review to the funding needed to make the country resilient to the heat stress and flooding that will inevitably follow if we do not tackle the reality of the climate crisis?

  [Source]

• 1 May 2025: Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries

  Given the huge economic and environmental effects of burning fossil fuels, it is clear that the future of energy has to be clean, green, cheap renewables, plus energy efficiency. All of us who care about fact-based, truth-based politics should call out the outrageous misinformation from those who suggest that net zero is the reason for high energy prices, when it clearly is not. Gas prices have gone through the roof in recent years, and we all know why: because of Putin’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine. That is why companies and businesses are struggling.

  There are two specific things that the Government can and should do to help precisely those businesses: first, decouple the price of electricity from gas so that the true costs of generating electricity are reflected in the price that consumers pay; and secondly, implement a carbon tax in order to be able to use those revenues to assist industries to make the just transition from fossil fuels to the clean, green, cheap energies of the future.

  [Source]

• 24 Apr 2025: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

  It is also crucial to understand that the system has long-term goals, future generations being one of them, and addressing the climate crisis being another. Within three to five years, the repeated impacts from climate change will be the dominant political issue we confront, and we need a system that works for that, as well as for housing growth.

  [Source]

• 24 Apr 2025: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

  12:00

  We recently went almost 10 years without an update on the energy strategy. In rewriting that strategy, the challenge is that you start with a large strategic ambition that can be contained in half a page and, if you are not careful, you finish with 25 pages that follow on and set out all the ways in which that ambition must be satisfied while dealing with environmental, community or any other concerns. The challenge will remain that we are trying to do two or three things at once here: we are trying to deliver major economic growth and infrastructure that will enable us to be resilient, to deal with climate change, to reduce the impacts of carbon and so on, while also recognising that local people will always have concerns about the impact of that infrastructure on their lives, and the—in a sense—compensation that they may face from that.

  [Source]

  The bit that we want to keep an open mind on, however, is the fact that we need to have a system that is robust enough and has those safeguards, but that also allows flexibility in how we operate it for years to come. Nature is changing in the way it responds to climate change. Society is recognising that it needs different things from nature, with nature-based solutions to climate change and more nature for health and wellbeing, as well as just the protection of rare species. There is something about getting that balance right to have a system that is workable in a place, and that is adaptable to what a community needs and to a particular development, but that maintains that overall aim to make nature better.

  [Source]

• 28 Mar 2025: Water Bill

  Does my hon. Friend agree that we have the example of the citizens’ assembly on climate change, which was established jointly by six Select Committees of this House a couple of years ago?

  [Source]

  11:47

  Secondly, climate change is a systemic challenge. I am glad that some hon. Members have mentioned this and that it is included in the text of the Bill because, as the hon. Member for Norwich South said, it is a huge problem when there is too little water. Too much water is also a huge problem, and that problem is increasing.

  I have already spoken several times in this House about flooding in my constituency. Climate change is making these challenges more frequent and more severe, so any Water Bill needs to address not only the water industry, water supply and sewage, but also climate change and its interactions with water. I am pleased that is mentioned in the Bill.

  [Source]

• 24 Mar 2025: Planning and Infrastructure Bill

  20:20

  We need joined-up policy: a new climate and nature duty on all planning authorities to ensure that all policies tackle our Climate Change Act 2008 and Environment Act 2021 obligations. Planning is crucial for tackling the climate crisis and reducing the environmental impact of new development. We need solar panels on roofs and high levels of insulation. There is nothing here on zero-carbon heating or embodied carbon. There is also nothing on climate adaptation. I find it quite extraordinary that in 160 pages there is not a single mention of the words flood or flooding, yet they are crucial to planning and infrastructure. We need to ensure that the Bill plans for active and public transport. Let us see a “no net new traffic growth” test applied to all developments, so we incentivise the shift to active and public transport.

  [Source]

• 13 Mar 2025: Farming

  14:49

  I could not agree more. This has diminished trust. It is vital to rebuild that trust because we need that sustainable, fair and in-partnership future for farming. It needs to be sustainable in environmental terms— we need to recognise the reality of the climate crisis and the nature crisis. We need to support our farmers to make the vital transition to nature-friendly farming. Farmers in North Herefordshire are at the forefront of that, but they need the Government to back them, not knock them off their feet with policy changes with zero notice.

  [Source]

• 10 Feb 2025: Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

  17:33

  I feel that the way the policy has been introduced is deeply regrettable, not only because it has caused such huge distress to the farming community—we are all aware of the mental health challenges that those in the community face anyway, and this has made it worse—but because it hugely undermines the much more positive and constructive conversations that Government and farmers desperately need to have in order to face the challenges of food production, job generation, tackling climate change and protecting biodiversity. Those are areas where farmers and Government need to work hand in hand for the long term, but all of that has been blown up in the air by the way the policy has been introduced—it is super frustrating.

  [Source]

• 17 Jan 2025: New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

  I have been listening carefully to what the Minister has said. Does he agree that a vote on Second Reading is a vote on the principle of the Bill, and the objections that he has been raising are micro, technical ones? Does he not agree that the urgency of the climate crisis and the immense benefits associated with solar PV mean that he should stop raining on the parade of this Bill and give us the opportunity to vote on photons?

  [Source]

• 6 Jan 2025: Flooding

  17:26

  In her statement, the Minister mentioned the fact that climate change means that these incidents will become more frequent and severe, but there was no explicit mention of climate adaptation in the measures she set out. In our response to this issue, we surely have to take the challenge of climate adaptation seriously as a whole-of-Government challenge. The chair of the Climate Change Committee has said that the UK is “not ready”, so what is the Minister doing with colleagues across Government to ensure we take the challenge of climate adaptation as seriously as possible? Otherwise, we will be back here month after month.

  [Source]

• 10 Dec 2024: Storm Darragh

  Storm Darragh brought 96 mph winds, flooding and power outages, and it came hot on the heels of Storm Bert, which brought severe rainfall and terrible flooding. Given the strong evidence that links increasing frequency and severity of storms with climate change, may I ask for the Minister’s response to the comments of Emma Pinchbeck, the new chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, who said at the weekend that the UK was “not ready” for these increasingly severe impacts of climate change? What are the Government doing, and what will they do, to make adaptation an urgent national priority?

  [Source]

• 21 Nov 2024: G20 and COP29 Summits

  11:14

  Time is running out at COP29 and the clock is ticking on the climate crisis. I welcome the leadership shown by the Prime Minister in attending COP29 and setting ambitious targets for the UK. The need to agree a global finance goal is vital, and making progress in Baku is clearly challenging. Will he assure me that he is pulling out all the stops this week to ensure that an agreement is reached and that it will be adequate to meet the needs of the poorest countries? Will he assure the House that the UK’s pledges will be primarily in the form of grants?

  [Source]

• 30 Oct 2024: COP29 and International Climate Finance

  That this House has considered COP29 and international climate finance.

  [Source]

  Thank you, Sir Roger—I am still learning the ropes. I thank the Minister for coming to respond to the debate. It is my pleasure to introduce this debate on international climate finance, and I particularly appreciate the presence of so many colleagues, given that it is an extraordinarily busy day when, with the Budget, we are discussing domestic finance. I may have one or two words to say on that in a moment.

  This debate is particularly important, because we are in the run-up to COP29—the conference of the parties—in Baku. It is supposed to be the finance COP, because it is crucial that we mobilise the necessary finance to tackle the global climate crisis. My purpose in securing this debate is to encourage the Government to put a bit more flesh on the warm words that we have heard so far. I recognise those warm words: for example, the Foreign Secretary saying that he wanted to put climate change “at the centre” of foreign policy—that is welcome—and the commitments from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on domestic investment. However, there is still much more to do.

  I will give the Minister advance notice of the topics on which I would love her response. At COP29, we are looking for the international community to agree a new collective quantified goal for climate finance in the trillions of dollars, not the billions. That is the scale of the challenge that we face. Do the Government recognise that, and are they prepared to play their part in leading from the front to ensure that there is collective commitment to the goal?

  International climate finance needs to tackle mitigation, as well as the urgent need to invest to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It needs to tackle adaptation, because an enormous amount of global warming is already built into the climate system through historical emissions. It also needs to tackle loss and damage: the costs that are already being borne particularly by the most vulnerable in the poorest countries, and are due to the historical debt that early industrialising countries built up through our burning of fossil fuels.

  [Source]

  My third point is that it is essential that international climate finance comes largely in the form of grants, not loans. The UK Government generally have a good record: roughly 85% of the climate finance we have committed has been through the form of grants, and I believe that commitment is in place until 2026. Will the Minister commit to that figure remaining a floor? Will she seek to increase it, so that the vast majority of climate finance is provided in such a way that it does not build up debt repayment problems for the future?

  [Source]

  Absolutely. The hon. Member makes a very important point, which relates to the one I made at the beginning: we cannot avoid the fact that we in the UK have an historical responsibility to take action on climate finance. We need to ensure that we are not storing up further problems for the future by providing climate finance in the form of loans, which make things harder for the poorest people in the poorest countries. Frankly, it is a scandal that, as he says, so many people in the poorest countries find that their Governments are spending more on debt repayments than they are on investment in crucial health and education, which build what we sometimes call the human capital that is so essential to sustainable development in such countries. I very much hope that the Government will lead on this issue and ensure that climate finance is in the form of grants—all of it, if possible, but at least the very largest proportion of it.

  [Source]

  I thank the hon. Member for making that point. This debate is on international climate finance, but I am happy to address his question about the interaction between domestic policy and the climate crisis that we face. I was disappointed not to hear in the Budget statement any commitment on climate or nature. Indeed, reading the detail on page 37 of the Budget, we will have a real-terms 2% decrease in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budget over the next two years. Investment, however, is vital. Nature-friendly farming in the UK is one of the crucial ways to reduce our own emissions and get a little closer to doing our fair share of mitigating climate change. Another issue close to my heart is the role of DEFRA in tackling water pollution, and again we are not seeing that. I agree that investment domestically in nature-friendly farming and environmental policies is crucial. We have to put our money where our mouth is, and we have to ensure that we ourselves are on track to meet our climate goals.

  At COP28 last year, the stocktake found that the world is off track to meet the 1.5° target. In itself, that commits us to serious effects already. In real life, we see increasing drought and wildfires, and the increasing frequency and severity of flooding in our own country. We know that climate change is happening. We have to do everything possible domestically to tackle it.

  My fourth point is that international climate finance must be additional to aid. In recent years, we have seen not only a shameful, in my view, reduction in the overseas development assistance budget—I strongly urge the Government to bring that back up to 0.7% as soon as possible—but the wrapping of all sorts of other costs into the ODA budget. A real risk, if we put international climate finance into the ODA budget, is less money to spend on health, education and all those policies that are so essential to tackling international poverty and inequality. International climate finance must be treated separately from ODA.

  My fifth point is about where the money should come from. Again, that is an important topic on Budget day, and indeed I will digress slightly to comment on the Budget. One policy we have seen today is a retention of the fuel duty freeze, which is effectively a subsidy for fossil fuels. That is clearly incompatible with the Government’s rhetoric on climate change. We should lead the way as a country in pushing for “polluter pays” taxes to generate the finance necessary to meet what I hope will be strong and ambitious international climate finance goals, because—to recap—this is urgent. 2024 is on track to be the hottest year ever on record. This change is going only one way. I do not know how many economists and scientists we need to tell us that the investment must come early—as soon as possible—because the transition will get more and more expensive. The longer we leave it, the costlier it will be, not just financially, but in terms of the effect on human lives. COP29 is a crucial moment in the international climate negotiations.

  I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister how she will ensure that the UK plays a leading role, putting our money where our mouth is and doing everything possible to influence international partners to ensure that climate finance is sufficient to address the challenge that we face.

  [Source]

  16:25

  I refer back to the figure that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) mentioned—the UN’s finding that we need £600 billion of international climate finance per year to address the challenge that we face. That is actually the same amount that is invested in oil and gas every year. Does the Minister agree that we must put a complete end to all public subsidy or support for fossil fuel industries right now? Can she comment on the role that the UK could and should play in ending all such subsidies?

  [Source]

• 22 Oct 2024: Topical Questions

  T3. I welcome this Government’s ambition in seeking a new climate finance goal at COP29 in Baku shortly. Will the Minister assure me that she understands the scale of need? The UN Environment Programme says that 10 to 18 times more funding is needed for adaptation than is currently on the table. Will she make sure that it includes loss and damage and is additional to aid?

  [Source]

• 17 Oct 2024: Business of the House

  This week is Flood Action Week, an important opportunity to raise awareness of this crucial issue. This week, sadly, North Herefordshire has been subject to flooding: roads are closed, schools are closed and soil is washing off the fields into the roads and rivers. Unfortunately, climate change is making these events more frequent and more extreme. Does the Leader of the House agree that farmers are crucial partners in tackling flooding through natural flood management? Will she make time for a debate in Government time on the crucial issue of flood prevention and action?

  [Source]

• 8 Oct 2024: Warm Homes Plan

  11:30

  I very much hope the Secretary of State and his Ministers agree that if we are serious about energy security and net zero, we must be serious about energy efficiency. What steps are they taking, in addition to working on insulating existing homes, to ensure that the promised 1.5 million new homes are built to net zero standards, have solar panels on the roof, and are fully insulated so that every new home is a warm home?

  [Source]

• 12 Sep 2024: New Housing: Environmental Standards

  15:00

  The Climate Change Committee did a report on the UK’s housing stock in 2019. It estimated that in 2050 80% of houses in this country will be houses that are already built, so we clearly have a massive job to do when we think about environmental standards and retrofitting the buildings that we already have. However, I am concerned to discuss the 20% of houses that will be new, because the worst possible outcome could be that we build lots and lots of new houses but to poor standards, thus requiring the retrofitting of those houses, too, so let us focus on new build homes.

  This is not a new topic. One of the helpful briefings I read in preparation for this debate, from the House of Commons Library, which I recommend to everyone—it produces fantastic materials—reminded me that in 2006, the then Labour Government said that they would amend the building regulations to require all new homes to have net zero carbon emissions by 2016. Of course, that policy was scrapped by the Conservatives in 2015, but we are now eight years on from the point at which Labour previously thought that all new homes should be net zero carbon. This is the moment for the new Labour Government to fulfil that promise and put in place regulations to ensure that ambition will actually come to pass—better late than never.

  I will speak today about five key aspects of environmental standards for new housing: maximising energy efficiency; minimising embodied carbon; maximising on-site energy generation, particularly rooftop solar; maximising biodiversity in the construction of new homes; and maximising resilience against things like flooding and overheating, which will become more and more important as time goes by and climate change becomes a reality that hits us ever harder.

  The first aspect is maximising energy efficiency. To meet the Government’s own carbon targets, almost all buildings will need to fully decarbonise. It is not just me who says that—it was in the Government’s heat and buildings strategy back in 2021. That is what the future homes standard was supposed to ensure. However, the version of the future homes standard that is being consulted on is looking at a 75% improvement on 2013 levels by 2030, which is neither good enough nor strong enough. We need to get to all homes being net zero carbon as soon as possible.

  I also ask the Minister to lift the restriction placed by the previous Government on local authorities setting higher standards for house building in their areas. I do not think that local authorities setting piecemeal higher standards is the way we will get to a decarbonised housing sector, but we should not hold them back from going further and faster while we wait for Government to show the necessary leadership on a national level. We have too much piecemeal policy on this, both between local authorities and between the four nations of the UK. We need to ensure that we are united in a race to the top for standards, not a race to the bottom.

  [Source]

  15:17

  My fifth point is on maximising resilience. We must face up to the fact that the climate crisis means that some extremes of weather will be baked in. We must recognise that adaptation has to be part of what we do, as well as mitigation of the climate impact.

  I have a present for the Minister to take away. A few years ago, in Herefordshire, we developed a thing called “Herefordshire Future Homes”, in which we assessed a whole range of building standards, because of the bewildering array of initiatives in place. The industry is now coalescing around the net zero housing standard, which is good news, but we also looked at things such as water efficiency, biodiversity and so on. I will give this document to the Minister after the debate to feed into his work.

  Let me remind the Minister what the Government could and should do. They could ensure that all new homes had ultra-high levels of energy efficiency and were built to an EPC A standard right now, with a glide path through to net zero housing standards as soon as possible. Let us resist the pressure from developers to water down the standards, and let us give local authorities the freedom they need to put in place higher standards initially. Let us incorporate embodied carbon in the future homes standard, and set regulations for whole-life carbon limits aligned with the industry’s building standard of net zero carbon.

  I have not mentioned this much, but waste and recycling in construction is a core and enormous part of our waste economy. There are significant opportunities for a more circular economy approach. Let us also specify that all new homes should have solar panels on top and swift bricks everywhere. Let us ensure that all new homes are climate change-resilient.

  [Source]

• 12 Sep 2024: Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme

  10:15

  Since 4 July, more than 40 people have been jailed in the UK for peaceful acts of conscience: some for protesting climate breakdown, some for taking measures to stop violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. The UN special rapporteur, Michel Forst, has made public statements to the effect that these sentences violate international law and are not acceptable in a democracy. With our prisons in crisis and radical measures necessary, as we have seen with the release of prisoners this week, will the Attorney General issue guidance to judges to ensure that sentencing for peaceful protest is realigned with common sense, democratic principles and international law?

  [Source]

• 10 Sep 2024: COP29: UK Priorities

  10:20

  In the spirit of focusing on what brings us together highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I will not spend too long responding to the comments of the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) regarding the nuclear industry. Although I agree with him about other areas where he has policy expertise, in this particular policy area we need to focus on the quick, clean, green renewable energy investment that, luckily, his Government are driving forward. That should be our focus.

  Secondly, will the Minister comment on whether the Prime Minister will attend COP29 to demonstrate the leadership that is so urgently needed? Will he show leadership, not followership, regardless of the outcome of the American election and regardless of what is happening in terms of policy elsewhere in the world, including in China and the EU? We need UK leadership on the global stage at COP29; will the Prime Minister provide that?

  Finally, the new collective quantified goal that colleagues have referred to is urgently needed. Will the Government commit to increasing overseas development assistance back up to 0.7% of GNI as soon as possible? Will they commit to international climate finance that is new and additional to official development assistance? Will they also commit to putting in place the “polluter pays” fiscal mechanisms that are required to finance our nationally required contribution to recognising our historical responsibility for the global problem of climate change, and to putting in place the measures necessary to enable every country globally to reduce emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change that are coming down the road whether we like it or not?

  [Source]

• 4 Sep 2024: Budget Responsibility Bill

  16:06

  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for her excellent maiden speech. Indeed, we have heard more than half a dozen excellent maiden speeches today, several of which touched on the climate crisis and the future of children in our country, themes that relate to my amendment. I was touched to hear the passion with which all the new Members spoke about their experiences and commitments.

  My amendment 5 requires the OBR to report on the impact of fiscally significant measures announced by the Government on the UK’s statutory net zero target. The justification for my amendment is that we simply cannot separate the economy and the climate—they are interlinked. To deliver the green economic transformation that we so urgently need, as referenced by hon. Members speaking earlier, every single policy must be aligned with the UK’s net zero target and every Government spending decision should be as well.

  It makes sense to increase the OBR’s remit on net zero to specifically consider the impact of climate risks on economic stability, and how far policies introduced at fiscal events will reduce or increase these risks. Fiscal events, namely Budgets and spending reviews, lock in what is happening in our economy for years to come, even generations, so it beggars belief that they are not properly taking account of climate impacts. Whether those policies are spending on new roads, subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas, investment in renewables infrastructure or giveaways like a freeze on fuel duty, they all have direct impacts on the UK’s prospect of meeting our net zero targets. Those impacts should be made clear and considered explicitly in the policy-making paper. We need to be thinking about the impacts of today’s economic policies on the prospects for future generations.

  The costs of failing to take an approach that considers climate impacts are eye watering. A 2022 report by the Grantham Institute found that climate change damages to the UK are projected to triple by 2050 and more than double again 50 years later, so climate prudence and fiscal prudence are one and the same thing. Given that the OBR’s main duty is to assess the health of the UK economy and the sustainability of its public finances, it needs to be charged with assessing whether fiscal events are reducing or increasing climate risks to the economy.

  Bringing net zero into the OBR’s mandate is consistent with the Government’s five missions. Indeed, in announcing its clean energy superpower document, Labour said that it will add net zero mandates to all relevant regulators that need it. I would argue that the OBR is a relevant regulator that needs a net zero mandate. That is why I am proposing this probing amendment today. As other Members have mentioned, it would also represent increased transparency around how fiscal policy choices are impacting the UK’s progress towards our net zero targets and help ensure that future Governments also consider that.

  It is also an important stepping stone towards a net zero test, which would assess the aggregate climate and nature impact of every fiscal event. Again, this is something that Labour committed to in opposition. In his winding-up remarks, will the Minister comment on whether he is able to ensure that this test is integrated into the legislation that he is proposing?

  I hope that Labour will use this opportunity to commit publicly to introducing a net zero test in government, and will take a step towards doing that by backing my amendment.

  [Source]

  16:45

  Does the Minister agree that having committed to give a net zero mandate to all relevant regulators, the OBR is indeed a highly relevant regulator?

  [Source]

• 2 Sep 2024: New Build Homes: Construction Standards

  15:00

  Given the Government’s ambitious house building plans, the energy crisis and the climate crisis, will the Minister bring forward legislation in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill to ensure all new houses have solar panels on their roofs as standard, so they can generate their own power, and net zero building standards are brought forward as soon as possible, so that homes are well insulated, warm and cheap to heat?

  [Source]

• 26 Jul 2024: Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower

  10:40

  Does the Minister agree that the energy crisis is a matter not just of supply but of demand, and that the cheapest bill is the one that does not have to be paid because the energy is not being used? Does he intend to announce today ways of tackling the demand side? We could, for example, ensure that all new buildings are built to net zero standards, and announce a timeline for getting to that point as soon as possible. We could also announce a nationwide, street-by-street insulation programme to tackle the need for energy efficiency; that is the cheapest and quickest way to address the energy crisis. If he is not going to make those announcements today, when will they be made?

  [Source]

• 18 Jul 2024: Foreign Affairs and Defence

  15:51

  For too long, the previous Government neglected the opportunities offered by the green economic transformation, and I very much hope that this new Government will not make the same mistake. The King’s Speech indicated some welcome steps in the right direction, but we need to do more to renew and rebuild our economy on a sustainable basis, one that is compatible with the challenge of climate change that so many Members have said they recognise.

  [Source]

See all Parliamentary Speeches Mentioning Climate