• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Sammy Wilson's Climate-related Tweets, Speeches & Votes

We've found the following climate-related tweets, speeches & votes by Sammy Wilson

• 8 Jul 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  The Secretary of State will be well aware of the importance of the logistics industry in Northern Ireland, and also of the burdens that are falling on it at present because of the Brexit arrangements, which have pushed up costs, led to delays, and resulted in many containers coming back empty from Great Britain. On top of that, we now have the added costs of a carbon tax on ferries coming to and from Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State recognise that this industry is important to Northern Ireland, and is being strangled by the arrangements with the European Union and the net zero policies? What steps does he intend to take to address those issues?

  Full debate: Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Trade Costs

• 29 Jun 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  Other actions have been taken by the Government that have made the routes more difficult, including the imposition of the carbon tax on shipping. That will be implemented from 1 July, and it is estimated to increase the cost of bringing goods across the Irish sea from GB to Northern Ireland, or vice versa, by around 7%. That, again, makes the route and the bringing of goods in from GB less competitive, on top of all the other reasons why companies do not want to sell to Northern Ireland now anyway—namely, the additional paperwork.

  Full debate: Northern Ireland Office

• 29 Jun 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the hon. Member accept that there is a certain irony when the same people who are concerned about climate change and temperatures rising have campaigned for air conditioning to be taken out of buildings because of its energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions? We cannot have it both ways, can we?

  Full debate: Cabinet Office

• 2 Jun 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  In an earlier answer, the Minister for Energy mentioned the money being spent on carbon capture, but has he considered the impact of his net zero policies on carbon release? Last week, I visited a site in the Sperrins where 250,000 metric tonnes of peat are to be stripped from the hillside in order to put in the infrastructure for a wind farm. That is similar to what is happening on peatlands all over England. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of that and will he—

  Full debate: Topical Questions

• 21 Apr 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  I believe this problem will only increase because the Government, in their pursuit of net zero, have now proposed another 27 onshore wind farms across the United Kingdom, and they are giving incentives. Despite our being told that the price of wind power is going down, it actually went up in the last auction. Of course, wind farms are most suited to a certain type of upland, and it is very attractive to put them there. There is good wind, and the land itself is probably not all that valuable to farmers because it has quite a low agricultural value. Therefore, there is an economic incentive for farmers to allow, encourage and accept the locating of multiple wind turbines on such land. This problem has been caused, first, by Government policy, and secondly, by the kind of areas we are talking about and their suitability for these kinds of developments.

  We have already heard about the value of peatlands, especially in upland areas. We have heard about the impact on drainage, wildlife, river systems and—this will be more important to others than to me—the release and storage of carbon dioxide. I take a different view from many others on the causes of climate change. It happens, but for multiple reasons, so we cannot identify only one cause.

  The irony is that those who believe that the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is important are the very people who now encourage activities that release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. As has been pointed out, we cannot have wind farms on peatland areas without causing significant disruption through the digging of holes to put in huge amounts of concrete—the making of which also generates a lot of CO 2 —the putting in of roads and the disruption to drainage. There is even the fact that the power must be taken through electricity cables that run across landscapes. All those things unavoidably lead to the release of CO 2 , which is the very thing we are told that net zero policy is essential to prevent.

  Full debate: Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

  To the Minister, and to those who support the whole policy of net zero and what must be done to achieve it, I say let us at least be honest with ourselves. Do these projects achieve what we want to achieve? If they do not, whether in our constituencies or somebody else’s, there should not be any hesitation in saying that they prevent us from achieving the goal that we want to achieve.

  Full debate: Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

• 25 Mar 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  As a result of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy, the spring statement forecast that economic growth and wage growth would go down and that we would have increased inflation, all of which will hit Northern Ireland more severely than other parts of the United Kingdom. Yet the Government refuse to do anything about the massive costs of the Windsor framework and have imposed, from 1 July, carbon taxes on sea transport from GB to Northern Ireland, which will hit our economy even harder. Why are the Government ignoring the real issues that face the Northern Ireland economy, through both their actions and their inactivity?

  Full debate: Spring Forecast

• 16 Mar 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  I suppose it was inevitable that the Minister would take the opportunity to bang the drum for his disastrous net zero policy, which has been responsible for giving people in the United Kingdom the highest electricity prices in the whole of Europe. Of course, he talks about the need for energy supply and security. We have our own gas and oil and, as far as I know, it does not have to go through the strait of Hormuz or through a Putin-controlled pipeline, yet we have turned our back on it. I welcome the support for Northern Ireland, even though it amounts to about £34 per household, but I noticed that the Minister said he is working closely with the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland. Given that she is still to bring forward a plan to spend the £81 million granted in the Budget last year, will he ensure that he keeps her feet to the fire so that people in Northern Ireland can receive the support that they need now, not next winter?

  Full debate: Heating Oil Support

• 3 Mar 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  The Chancellor raised a laugh at the start of her statement when she said she was following the right policies for this country—policies that have resulted in lower economic growth, higher unemployment, people staggering under an increased tax burden and businesses being damaged by employment taxes, and yet she has shown no change. Why has she not addressed the issues of lowering the cost of employing people, reducing the tax burden on hard-working people to help with the cost of living crisis, and reducing energy prices, which have been driven up by the net zero policies followed by this Government? Does she realise that people will be angered and amazed at her complacency today?

  Full debate: Spring Forecast

• 10 Feb 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  Last week the Government pushed through the imposition of the emissions trading scheme on domestic shipping. That will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland, because so many goods are brought into Northern Ireland from GB, or sent there, on ferries. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact this will have on consumer prices and manufacturing costs in Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that Northern Ireland will face heavy costs because of this net zero policy?

  Full debate: Topical Questions

• 3 Feb 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  The order’s impact on emissions will not be all that great anyway. It is not as if the measure will be an incentive for operators to change their behaviour, as they cannot: there are no alternatives other than sea transport. Therefore, whatever additional costs are imposed will have to be borne by consumers. I know the Minister talked about the reduction in emissions and working towards net zero and everything else. Given the nature of sea transport and its importance for transport between Northern Ireland and GB, as well as the lack of alternatives, this policy cannot lead to transport providers changing how they behave. They cannot go for alternative fuels; near-net zero fuels would simply price them out of the market because they are four to five times dearer than the fuels they use. They cannot opt for the electrification of ships; first of all, it is quite expensive, and secondly, the port infrastructure facilities are not even available.

  Full debate: Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

• 21 Jan 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  Despite the fact that the plan will not apply to Northern Ireland, I welcome the aspect that applies to rented accommodation. Could the Secretary of State confirm whether there will be a Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland? Does he recognise that, even with this plan, there will still be an up-front cost, so low-income families will have to borrow, which will be an impediment? Does he also recognise that despite what he has done on electricity prices, running costs will still be higher, because that is offset by the cost of his net zero policies, which cause electricity to be dearer than gas?

  Full debate: Warm Homes Plan

• 12 Jan 2026: Parliamentary Speech

  The Minister is putting on a brave face because a manifesto commitment has been broken. People are going to pay more in income tax despite the promises that were made. Does he recognise that, for many people, this is not money to renew public services, but money squandered on giving compensation to foreign Governments for land that we owned—the Chagos islands—and are now paying for; money that will be spent on an ID system that is totally unnecessary and will not serve the purpose it is meant to; and money spent on net zero commitments that have destroyed our economy and added little in benefits to the public?

  Full debate: Finance (No. 2) Bill

  The Government estimate that their ID cards system will cost £1.8 billion, while the London School of Economics says that the cost could be £10.7 billion. The Government say that it is to stop illegal immigration, when we know full well that it would not matter if we had six ID cards—those who come into this country illegally will seek to work illegally, and there are other means of checking up on them anyway. There are also the new bureaucracies that the Government have set up. One of their first actions was to set up a huge bureaucracy, Great British Energy, at a cost of £9 billion. Again, what benefit will we get from that? The Government have said that it will deliver their net zero policies, but is it necessary to have a bureaucracy of that nature? I know that many Members do not agree with me on this issue, but we are spending billions of pounds on restructuring our economy to meet net zero targets when many other countries are saying, “We are not prepared to damage our economy in that way.”

  Full debate: Finance (No. 2) Bill

• 26 Nov 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Of course, many people will argue that that is fine, but we have levels of expenditure that we have to finance, so how do we pay for it? Let us look at some of the decisions that the Government have made over the last year. Welfare payments are going to go up quite substantially to £58 billion over the period of this Parliament. On net zero, environmental taxes are going up by 60%, affecting the profitability of companies, and the renewables obligation next year is going to cost us £3 billion. So net zero, the impact of which we are all experiencing on jobs, is going to lead to further costs. I think many people would question whether those are the kinds of things we should be spending money on at a time when we have an abundance of fossil energy in this country.

  Full debate: Budget Resolutions

• 24 Nov 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Anyone listening to this statement should be fearful for the future of energy production in this country. On the one hand, we have a Government who are totally committed to net zero, the elements of which will require huge inputs of critical minerals. On the other hand, the Minister tells us that by 2035 we cannot expect to supply more than 10% by ourselves and will still be reliant on some other countries for 60%. We have no control, or no political control, over the global distribution of those metals. Does he not accept that this strategy, rather than being one of assurance for the future, could leave us increasingly vulnerable to people who have control over materials that we need for energy production, and that we should not be turning our back on the gas and oil we have?

  Full debate: Critical Minerals Strategy

• 18 Nov 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The Minister says that he and the Government have no bias against the people of Scotland, but they certainly have not done very well out of this Government—1,000 jobs being lost a month in the North sea, and now today’s announcement. He attributes it all to a commercial decision. That commercial decision was made in a hostile economic environment. He has told us some of the factors there: carbon taxes imposed by this Government, lack of supply as a result of the reduction in North sea production, and the energy prices as a result of the increasing reliance on wind energy. The common thread through it all is the Government’s net zero policies. Why can they not be honest with us and just tell us that these net zero policies are robbing the United Kingdom of all its energy-intensive industries and that this will not be the last job loss announcement that we will hear in this House?

  Full debate: ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

• 11 Nov 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The fact of the matter is this is not just about manipulating the speech of a President the BBC clearly detests. There were other allegations made about promoting Hamas propaganda, producing fake stories about race bias, censoring people who were gender critical, and promoting stories with a one-sided view of climate change, as well as a whole range of other issues. What has been the response of the BBC? It rolls out the lefty luvvies to try to justify its position and then to indicate that it was the victim of some right-wing coup. Does the response not show that this body—which has fabricated the news, misused its monopoly and hidden behind the protection of politicians in this House who were far too cowardly to take it on over the years—is not capable of change? Like many millions across the United Kingdom, I object to paying for it. I hope that in the review the Minister will decide that there should be no more enforced taxation—

  Full debate: BBC Leadership

• 22 Oct 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  While most of the comments today have been critical, regions across the United Kingdom need a strong hub airport, and Heathrow provides that. I seek assurances from the Secretary of State that slots at any expanded airport will be ensured for flights from regional airports. But I also warn her: given the way climate change targets have been used to stop major infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland, such as major roads, is she confident that, by sticking by the Climate Change Act 2008, we are not giving a weapon to those who are opposed to this project and will use the courts to ensure that it is stopped?

  Full debate: Heathrow: National Airports Review

• 22 Oct 2025: Tweet

  Heathrow expansion is vital for regional economic balance. My questions to the Transport Secretary: 1) Will regional slots be protected at Heathrow? 2) Is she confident that mad net zero targets will not give opponents of this project a weapon to use in court? https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1981015693756879012/video/1 [Source]

• 15 Oct 2025: Tweet

  The government's net zero policy is destroying tourist areas, making us more dependent on foreign imports for food and is going to put up electricity prices. https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1978449781505548582/video/1 [Source]

• 14 Oct 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  This week a conservation charity has indicated that the creep of wind farms in Scotland—17 million trees have been cut down to provide for them—is destroying the highlands, while in England 5% of prime agricultural land is to be used for renewable energy projects at a time when we produce only 60% of our food. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that his policy is destroying tourist areas, will make us more dependent on foreign imports for food, and will put up electricity prices?

  Full debate: Topical Questions

• 2 Sep 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The Minister is right to state that the business environment has not been good for the UK steel industry. The main cause for that adverse environment, of course, has been high energy prices—twice as high as those of European competitors and three times higher than those of US competitors. Given that the energy sector reminds us daily that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero intends to continue his manic obsession with net zero, which has caused the high energy prices and this environment, how does the Minister hope to attract the private investment that she says is necessary to make the industry bounce back stronger and to grow tomorrow?

  Full debate: Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency

• 02 Sep 2025: Tweet

  RT @duponline: The Energy Secretary's manic obsession with Net Zero is driving up energy costs for business. @eastantrimmp https://t.co/Zb… [Source]

• 14 Jul 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The real driver of this statement is the fact that the Secretary of State is losing the argument with his colleagues, who are now challenging the impact of his policies on economic growth. He is trying to cover up the cost, which the OBR revealed last week will be £30 billion per year and £800 billion over the period. Businesses are struggling with power bills that are bankrupting them, and consumers are resisting the net zero demands to fly less, eat less meat and buy cars that they do not want. Does he not see a connection between what he says about young people’s anxiety and his disgraceful scare tactics today, all of which are to enable him to say that Britain is taking the lead? All I say to him is this: since the Paris agreement, emissions have gone up by 30%, so he might be leading, but he does not have too many followers.

  Full debate: State of Climate and Nature

• 30 Jun 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Whatever the specific reasons for the company’s failure, the fact of the matter is that the refining industry has been squeezed for decades as a result of Government policy. When the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero stands up and demonises fossil fuels, it is hardly surprising that there is not investment in the refining sector. If we add the energy costs, the carbon taxes and all the other impediments, of course we will see businesses disappear. Given the fact that we have seen aluminium, steel, oil and now oil refinery disappear from the scene in the UK, does the Minister not understand that as long as we pursue this demented net zero policy, we will have regular announcements of job losses, greater insecurity in our fuel supplies, and the loss of heavy industry?

  Full debate: Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

• 24 Jun 2025: Tweet

  On a regular basis across the UK, the argument is being used that major infrastructure projects are not compatible with climate change targets. Whether it be airport expansion, gas storage facilities or roads, climate targets are being used to prevent investment and development. [Source]

• 24 Jun 2025: Tweet

  I have often warned that the mad climate change legislation, which sets targets for C02 reductions, would make every major infrastructure project easy prey to the green lobby that gleefully stand in the way of economic progress. [Source]

• 24 Jun 2025: Tweet

  The SDLP asking for climate targets to be walked back, despite pushing said targets and holding the Department for Infrastructure when the Climate Change Act was passed. They were warned the targets were excessive and damaging. Now they blame others. Chancers! https://twitter.com/sdlplive/status/1937189806976757925 [Source]

• 23 Jun 2025: Tweet

  Extraordinary. Climate Change targets sink the A5. Sinn Fein, Alliance and the SDLP voted for them despite our warnings. They need to own it. https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1937128054171582523/photo/1 [Source]

• 09 Jun 2025: Tweet

  Global Greening From Higher CO2 Hits “Striking” New Heights – but the Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You About It https://dailysceptic.org/2025/06/06/global-greening-from-higher-co2-hits-striking-new-heights-but-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-it/ [Source]

• 06 May 2025: Tweet

  Net Zero Blamed for Blackouts https://dailysceptic.org/2025/04/29/net-zero-blamed-for-blackouts/ [Source]

• 03 May 2025: Tweet

  (2/2) @reformparty_uk clearly represent the views of ordinary people on immigration, destructive nefarious net zero policies, EU cultural wars and government interference in our lives. I wish them the best as they continue to challenge the political consensus in UK politics. [Source]

• 30 Apr 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The blackouts in Spain have caused chaos. There is a realisation among many Back Benchers in the Prime Minister’s own party that thousands of jobs are being lost in Scotland in the oil industry. Businesses face energy costs that are making them uncompetitive, and consumers are being plunged into fuel poverty. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that his net-zero policy is not only bad, but mad? Indeed, a former leader of his party now accepts this. Will the Prime Minister accept advice from someone in his own party, if he will not accept advice from those on the Opposition Benches?

  Full debate: Engagements

• 30 Apr 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The Minister has rightly said that the cause of the outage in Spain is yet to be identified, but the fact is that it is linked to 53% of electricity on that day being generated from renewable sources. That should be a sobering warning to all in this House who have been championing the decarbonisation of electricity and the net zero policy.

  Full debate: Energy Grid Resilience

• 30 Apr 2025: Tweet

  The net zero agenda is not only bad, it’s mad! Even Tony Blair agrees. https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1917550358844301793/video/1 [Source]

• 22 Apr 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The Government have done the right thing, because steel is strategically important and the jobs are locally important. The Minister has asked what is next. I suspect that the House will come back to this issue, maybe very shortly, because over the last decade, we have seen energy-intensive industries flee the United Kingdom. Aluminium is gone, we have hardly any oil refineries, and we have one steel plant left. The reason for that is the mad net zero policy, which the Minister has tried to defend today. Decarbonisation has increased our energy costs, so that they are three times higher than in the US and eight times higher than in China. We do not have any local supplies of raw materials; we bring them halfway round the world. Carbon taxes add to the cost for businesses. Does the Minister accept that the economic reality is that we pour public money in at one end, and see it going down the net zero drain at the other?

  Full debate: British Steel

• 7 Apr 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  The statement today is further evidence of the economically damaging and market-distorting impact of the unrealistic net zero policies. The only reason that the Minister is having to impose fines on producers is that demand does not meet the targets that she has set for the production of electric vehicles. Does she not accept that the response from producers will be either to cut back production, reducing jobs, or to reduce the price of EVs, reducing profits and investment in the UK? Are car workers going to be the next group of workers to be sacrificed on the altar of net zero?

  Full debate: Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

• 2 Apr 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  In pursuit of their unrealistic and costly net zero policies, this Government have committed billions of pounds to carbon capture; guaranteed long-term prices to renewable energy sources, which has added to consumer Bills; and set up GB Energy, a costly quango. One project that is likely to apply to GB Energy is the proposal for a massive wind farm off the coast of Northern Ireland and adjacent to the Giant’s Causeway, a world heritage site and major tourist attraction. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that GB Energy does not support a project that would have a detrimental effect on our tourism industry?

  Full debate: Great British Energy

• 02 Apr 2025: Tweet

  GB Energy is a costly quango that will do little to tackle rising energy bills and continue to promote the expensive net zero agenda. They must not be allowed to approve an off-shore wind farm near the Giant’s Causeway. https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1907395830383808985/video/1 [Source]

• 1 Apr 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Let us not obscure what the debate is all about. It is not about gaps and the need to safeguard people. It is all about the Bill’s agenda, which is to give Ministers additional powers. The public see a Government with a majority of over 200 who have been able to drive through legislation that has frustrated and angered them, whether it is taking money off pensioners for winter fuel or the legislation that was driven through last week to meet the net zero agenda, which failed to prevent us from buying solar products from China that are made by slave labour. I could go through all the other things that have made people angry, but a Government with a majority of over 200 now want to take on additional powers to allow a Minister to avoid having to come to this House to ensure product safety.

  Full debate: Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

• 12 Mar 2025: Tweet

  The Net Zero zealots are hypocrites = shocker! https://twitter.com/bbcworld/status/1899727334866874574 [Source]

• 26 Feb 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Many projects that are designed to improve public services are being held up in the courts in Northern Ireland because of procurement, planning and the decision process. The latest ruse being used to hold up projects is the claim that they do not comply with the Government’s net zero policies and will lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. One of the projects that is being held up is the important A5 road in the west of Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that while we have statutory limits on CO 2 emissions, we will always be vulnerable to major infrastructure projects being held up in the courts?

  Full debate: Public Services

• 26 Feb 2025: Tweet

  The government’s Net Zero targets are being used to stall important infrastructure projects - like the A5 - in the courts. https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1894728058386477413/video/1 [Source]

• 24 Feb 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  In answer to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), the Minister stated that the strategy is resulting in people wanting to invest in the United Kingdom. The sad fact is that as a result of the mad net zero policies that this Government are following, we are losing investment every week; this is yet another example. Does the Minister not follow the logic? If we punish people for not wanting the cars that we produce, the companies will cut back production and jobs, consumers will not get what they want, and economic growth will be affected. When will this Government come to the conclusion that this policy of net zero and punishing people is wrong?

  Full debate: Plant Oxford Site

• 24 Feb 2025: Tweet

  RT @duponline: When is this government going to come to the conclusion that this policy of net zero and punishing people is wrong? @eastant… [Source]

• 13 Feb 2025: Tweet

  The renewable industry is increasingly dependent on Chinese technology and rare earth metals. Why is this net zero obsessed Secretary of State proposing to hand our future energy supply to a dictatorship in China? https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1890056581615882541/video/1 [Source]

• 12 Feb 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Almost on a weekly basis, we are lectured by the net zero-obsessed Secretary of State that the race for renewables is necessary in order to give this country a secure future supply of energy. Yet the renewables industry is increasingly dependent on Chinese technology, and on rare earth metals, of which the Chinese control 70%, so we are placing our future energy supply in the hands of a dictatorship that has proved itself willing to use such infrastructure to blackmail the countries in which it is based. Should we not consider the supply of fossil fuels in this country—decades of oil and gas—which we could use without interference from others?

  Full debate: Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies

• 10 Feb 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  This statement should be a warning to all those across the House who are cheerleaders for renewable energy. Let us not forget that, in 2010, Drax power station was the poster boy for green energy policy. Of course, it turned out that instead of green energy, it has produced more CO 2 . We have chopped down natural habitat 3,000 miles away to bring it and burn it in a power station in England, and consumers pay the grand total of £1,000 million a year for the pleasure of doing so.

  Full debate: Biomass Generation

• 4 Feb 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Is it not a fact that, regardless of how much money is put into a warm homes scheme, social tariffs or whatever, consumers can never be insulated against the massive cost of the mad net zero policy that will require thousands of new turbines, acres of solar farms and miles of new transmission lines, all at a cost to the consumer? How on earth does the Minister believe that we will deal with the issue of fuel poverty in this country with that cost?

  Full debate: Warm Homes Plan

• 04 Feb 2025: Tweet

  Labour talk about ending fuel poverty but they are intent on driving up your energy bills with their mad net zero policies. https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1886755198363652311/video/1 [Source]

• 28 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  I welcome the support the Minister has given to the Chancellor today. He has made it quite clear, if the speculation turns into reality, where he will stand on the issue. That is important, given the need for hub airports to export our goods, build business links and give people the personal freedom to travel across the world. But is he concerned, given the Energy Secretary’s obsession with net zero, the large number of Members who seem to be more concerned about long-term climate predictions, uncertain as they may be, than the immediate needs of growth and jobs in this economy, and the potential for lengthy court battles because of our statutory commitments to carbon dioxide reduction, that no investor will look at these projects but will instead continue to look at hub airports in the rest of Europe?

  Full debate: Airport Expansion

• 21 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Devastating changes to inheritance tax, increased environmental costs because of net zero policies, and diversion of farming support to foreign countries—with those kinds of policies, how does the Chancellor ever expect to generate economic growth in rural areas?

  Full debate: Economic Growth

• 13 Jan 2025: Parliamentary Speech

  Did the Minister assume that after the Government had robbed pensioners of the winter fuel allowance, gas consumption would go down, or are this Government so obsessed with their net zero policy that they do not really care whether we have enough gas to meet our energy needs? Does the Minister not realise that being reliant on foreign suppliers will push up fuel prices in the UK? How does he justify the fact that under his net zero policy, the Government are ignoring the fact that we have 150 years-worth of gas naturally stored in the United Kingdom, and will not use it?

  Full debate: Gas Storage Levels

• 13 Jan 2025: Tweet

  Did the Labour Party think that by robbing pensioners of their Winter Fuel Allowance they’d reduce the demand for gas? Or are they so obsessed with Net Zero that they don’t care if we have enough gas to meet our energy needs? https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1878854006036205676/video/1 [Source]

• 17 Dec 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  How long will we have this Government giving the excuse that they cannot do things because the last lot did not do them? Will the Secretary of State remember that she is now in government? When she was in opposition, she and other members of her party campaigned for WASPI women. The facts have not changed: administratively, mistakes were made and, financially, there is still an impact; and now the ombudsman has found in favour. She cannot hide behind saying that “We have no money”. We just had the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero in questions boasting that he is bunging billions of pounds to power companies, yet we cannot honour the commitments made to people who were wrongly treated in the pensions system.

  Full debate: Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

• 10 Dec 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  Only a fool would say that climate change is not happening. Climate change has occurred in all the time that the earth has been in existence. Of course it happens, and of course it is happening. The hon. Lady asks me a question to which I think anybody could give an easy answer. Yes, climate change is happening, but does that mean that we have identified all the sources of the change in our climate? Does it also mean that we should distort our economy, in such a way as she would suggest, to try to make changes to the world’s climate, especially given that other countries are not making any changes to their economy and are not following our lead? They are simply ignoring us and doing what they believe is best for their own economies.

  There does not appear to be any economic logic to this proposal, other than that the oil companies are seen as bad so the Government have to tax them, even though they are taxed heavily already, and that the Government want to ensure that we have this transition to net zero, even though we know that we will still need the product that the oil companies produce for many decades into the future and we will be turning our back on that production in the United Kingdom.

  Full debate: Finance Bill

• 3 Dec 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  We are told that small businesses will find ways of decreasing their expenditure, but funnily enough, the Government are actually looking for ways of spending more money. They are spending £9 billion on a quango, Great British Energy. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero came back from COP29 and told us that the Government were now committed to giving £300 billion away to foreign Governments for climate change, but he would not even tell us how much the Government were going to pay out to those Governments. For the nationalisation of the railways, again, there is an open cheque book. We are told that there are no alternatives. Businesses have to find alternatives, but the Government happily spend the revenue that they are taking.

  Full debate: National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

• 09 Nov 2024: Tweet

  (2/2) …there is no questioning of the cost of decarbonising electricity in terms of investment needed, jobs lost, energy security or energy bills. My latest article for Comment Central: https://commentcentral.co.uk/why-the-budgets-decarbonisation-is-damaging-and-needs-scrutiny [Source]

• 09 Nov 2024: Tweet

  (1/2) In a House of Commons which is dominated by people obsessed with climate change, and who have either lost their critical facilities or are scared to use them in the face of the well organised green lobby… [Source]

• 30 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  One thing I am fairly sure of, looking at the broader picture that the Government have tried to paint, is that the Budget, and the behaviour of the Government in the lead-up to it, will increase the existing cynicism towards politics and politicians. During the election, the Labour party said, “We have a fully funded programme. We know what the figures are. We’re not going to increase your taxes.” Then suddenly there is a black hole. After painting the black hole, what do the Government do? They immediately start spending stacks of money. They give wage increases, set up quangos to deliver net zero, and spend money on carbon capture and storage. Billions of pounds are suddenly announced against a background of: “We have no money, and we’re going to have to put up taxes.”

  Full debate: Budget Resolutions

• 30 Oct 2024: Tweet

  The natural landscape of the Sperrin Mountains has been destroyed by industrial wind farms. It is hardly an example of renewable energy being nature friendly. https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1851575595978637698/video/1 [Source]

• 29 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  If nature recovery is to be important in the Government’s present drive, does the hon. Member accept that renewable energy has been destructive of nature? Some 17 million trees have been cut down in Scotland to facilitate windmills. Now, there are studies indicating that offshore wind is leading to dead porpoises, dead dolphins and dead whales being washed up on beaches because of the effects of drilling.

  Full debate: Great British Energy Bill

  The hon. Lady mentioned Northern Ireland and particularly the Sperrin mountains, which is an area of great natural beauty. It has many features, including wildlife and wild uplands, but it has been industrialised. I took a motorbike journey around the area three weeks ago, and there are hundreds of huge wind turbines. The peat has been dug up, the landscape has been destroyed and thousands of birds are killed every year. What has happened in the Sperrin mountains is hardly a good example of renewable energy being nature-friendly.

  Full debate: Great British Energy Bill

  I rise to support amendments 6 and 8. The Bill was promised in order to do a number of things. First, it was to reduce the cost of energy to consumers—during the election, the Government gave a specific promise that the reduction this year would be £300 per household. As others have said, and as the Government have accepted, that will not be delivered. That is not a great start. Secondly, it was going to deliver a certain number of jobs. Thirdly, it was going to deliver sustainable and clean energy, and energy security. The Government could argue that these things are in the Bill’s strategic objectives and priorities, but they are not. I do not believe that any of those things can be achieved, given the net zero strategy that we are pursuing.

  Full debate: Great British Energy Bill

  I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) in respect of the impacts on nature. I come from one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom—the Antrim coast is famous for tourism—and I am already seeing the impact of net zero policies on the landscape and the flora and fauna of the Antrim plateau. When I look out of my window in the morning, there is the wind farm that has been erected on top of the plateau, which involved stripping off 3 metres of peat and destroying a bird habitat; every year these windmills chew up birds and bats. I have already mentioned the admission that 17 million trees had been cut down in Scottish forests, and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion was unfortunate to mention the Sperrins, another beautiful part of Northern Ireland of which I have some knowledge and which has been totally despoiled by hundreds of windmills.

  Full debate: Great British Energy Bill

• 28 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The Foreign Secretary is enthusiastic about giving trillions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money in reparations for slavery that occurred hundreds of years ago. However, when it comes to modern-day slavery in China, despite what he states was said privately, all we get publicly is a mealy-mouthed press release—a read-out from the Foreign Office that does not even mention the issue specifically. Why is that? Is it because the Government realise that we are now dependent on China for many things, including the delivery of the net zero policy? China controls 70% of the rare earth metals that we will need to deliver renewable energy. We have left ourselves open to that kind of blackmail, and now we cannot speak up against human rights abuses.

  Full debate: China: Human Rights and Sanctions

• 7 Oct 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The Secretary of State has boasted about spending £27 billion of public money on carbon capture and storage, and on promoting what he calls renewable energy. Does he feel any sense of irony in taking £27 billion from a financial black hole and putting it into a carbon-absorbing black hole? Does he not recognise that his own green policies are generating the very CO 2 he condemns? The Drax B power station needs American forests to be chopped down and brought halfway around the world to be burned, emitting CO 2 , at a cost of £1 billion a year in subsidy.

  Full debate: Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

• 5 Sep 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  As part of the Government’s net zero strategy, car manufacturers are expected to produce 22% of their cars as electric vehicles and face a £15,000 penalty for every car by which they fall short of that. The target is expected to be missed by 100,000 cars this year because of consumer resistance. The effect on the car industry is that producers are restricting supplies of petrol cars to retailers, and some are threatening to pull out of the UK market altogether. In the light of consumer resistance, will the Secretary of State look again at the target set, since consumers are clearly not going to be forced to purchase cars they do not want, and producers will be forced to try to get rid of cars they cannot sell?

  Full debate: Topical Questions

• 5 Sep 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  I have some sympathy with the Minister’s comments about the last Government’s record. Of course, under previous Conservative Governments, tens of thousands of jobs were lost in aluminium, oil refining and steel as a result of the obsession with decarbonisation and net zero. Unfortunately, I do not think we will see a different approach from this Government.

  The Minister promises an industrial strategy, but can she assure us that there will be provision for steel to have a supply of coking coal produced in this country and that damaging and expensive decarbonisation requirements will not further detriment the steel industry?

  Full debate: UK Steel Manufacturing

• 5 Sep 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  We already know, as it has been pointed out, that, according to Ofgem, two thirds of people’s electricity costs in the first quarter of this year were as a result of non-fuel costs. They included the cost of the infrastructure, the environmental policies, and the administration and the operating costs of the grid. Extending the grid, which we will have to do, will incur further costs and put up the price of electricity. That is why the Minister could not guarantee that the £300 saving will be delivered. He knows that the massive costs of changing our system will be borne by the electricity consumer. Whether we regard net zero as good or bad, let us not hide from the fact that it will cost people right across society. It will lead to industry facing higher costs, and consumers facing higher costs and greater fuel poverty.

  Full debate: Great British Energy Bill

• 29 Aug 2024: Tweet

  6/6 With its huge majority in Parliament, this Government believes it can get away with anything. The public must make clear that there will be payback if the Government continue to hurt the finances of ordinary people to pursue net zero. [Source]

• 29 Aug 2024: Tweet

  4/6 This is a Government obsessed with achieving net zero and one way of doing so is to make the cost of energy, for whatever use, more expensive. [Source]

• 17 Jul 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  The second issue I will mention is the Government’s commitment to economic growth. In any country, economic growth depends upon cheap energy, and I am fearful that some of the policies that have already been implemented, and the promises made in the King’s Speech, will make it difficult to achieve economic growth. In the previous Parliament we lamented, almost on a monthly basis, the loss of energy-intensive industries. It did not matter whether it was Port Talbot, Corby or Grangemouth. Representatives from all over the United Kingdom saw the impact on their local communities, with thousands of jobs being lost because of energy policies and the costs of implementing net zero. If we are aiming for economic growth, we cannot allow the obsession with net zero to stand in the way of jobs in this country.

  I notice that in the commitment to net zero in the King’s Speech, we are told that we will get lower energy bills over time. Initially, of course, we will have higher energy bills. We want to remove the infrastructure that we have in place and put totally new infrastructure in place—windmills, new lines and all the other infrastructure that is required to bring energy from places where we do not currently produce it to where we need it. We need to strengthen the grid, because we are going to use more electricity. All of that costs, and it will put up consumers’ bills. At the same time, of course, we will make ourselves more dependent on the country that supplies all the vital metals required for that. We do not even gain any environmental benefits.

  The right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) talked about the impact on his community. In my constituency, I see the Antrim hills being stripped of peat, 3 metres deep, to build wind farms. That is supposed to be environmental improvement. I look forward, over the period of this Government, to examining just what they do on this issue. We need to make sure that we do not have contradictory policies, whereby we aim for net zero but dip our hands into people’s pockets to pay for it.

  Full debate: Debate on the Address

• 13 Mar 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  I hope that this decision is indicative of a realisation that seems to be slowly dawning on the Government about the impact of the madness of their net zero policy, which has damaged the UK economy. We have higher electricity prices than most of the other G7 countries, we have lost vast numbers of jobs in energy-intensive industries, and now it has been recognised that because of the intermittency of wind and solar there is a risk of blackouts.

  Full debate: Gas-fired Power Stations

• 6 Mar 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  Having heard some of the speeches from Conservative Members, I suspect that, although they have given some welcome to this Budget, there is a great deal of disquiet about it. I am sure they were all hoping that the Chancellor would come out with a Conservative Budget that gave them a banner under which they could march towards a general election. Instead, we have what can only be described as an “Old Mother Hubbard” Budget. Although the Chancellor would have loved to have thrown bones to the electorate—nice juicy bones that they could bite on—so they would be happy to vote Conservative at the next election, in effect, the cupboard is bare. The cupboard is bare not because of the mismanagement of previous Governments, but because of the mismanagement of this Government, who have been in power for 14 years, from costly lockdowns that were badly thought out and whose economic consequences were never considered, to the ongoing billions being spent on net zero in the belief that, somehow or other, we can alter the world’s climate, to the failure to take up the opportunities of Brexit and the staggering tax burden under which the economy is now stumbling and failing to grow. All that is the result of decisions that were made by the Government, and this Budget is a manifestation of the consequences of that.

  Full debate: Budget Resolutions

• 27 Feb 2024: Tweet

  Rural homes must be given a choice about how they decarbonise their home heating. Renewable liquid fuels, such as HVO, offer those living off-grid a chance to decarbonise affordably - I’m calling on the Chancellor to #AxeTheTax on renewable liquid fuels in the upcoming Budget. https://twitter.com/eastantrimmp/status/1762538084279992357/photo/1 [Source]

• 20 Feb 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  I find some of the arguments made today very strange. Passionate speeches have been made against this Bill on the basis that—let me paraphrase the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—it does not do anything that is not already being done. He went further and said that even though that is the case, civil servants must have “held their noses” when writing the Bill. If it does not do anything that is not already being done, why on earth is there such passionate opposition to it? [ Interruption. ] A Member asks from a sedentary position about the climate emergency. Apparently, one of the arguments against the Bill is that it will provide only another three days’ worth of oil and gas. We are hardly going to push up world temperatures if another three days’ worth of oil and gas is drilled out of the North sea, but we will ensure years of jobs for people currently working in the gas industry, guarantee years of finance for much-needed public services in this country, and guarantee that we do not have to import from other countries.

  My second concern, which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is that because we have established legally binding targets for net zero in legislation, the benefits that might come from this Bill will not be realised because they will get stuck in the courts. I have said this to the Minster before, and I say it again: legally binding targets leave the Government open to legal challenges on every piece of sensible legislation that they try to bring through this House, whether it be to alleviate the burden placed on people by their heating bills by changing the policy on heat pumps, or to reduce the impact on travel costs by not having mandatory targets for electric vehicles; I could go through a whole list of policies. This is something that we will have to revisit.

  Full debate: Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

• 22 Jan 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the hon. Member accept that one of the reasons why we have not had investment in the refining industry in the United Kingdom for decades is precisely because the net zero policies that are being followed, with the costs and charges for carbon, the emissions trading scheme and other carbon taxes, discourage any investment in the very production facilities we use to process the oil that we bring out?

  Full debate: Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

  I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced this Bill, even though it may well be a belated acceptance that some policies they had been following in pursuit of net zero had to be revised. We know that because of the energy security issues and the dramatic rise in the cost of energy in response to the fall in supply resulting from the war in Ukraine and the sanctions imposed in Russia, as well as the impact on the supply chain after covid, the supply of energy, especially oil and gas, to an economy that still depends heavily on those kinds of sources is very important. Let us not pretend that we are on the verge of not having to use oil and gas any longer, because 75% of our energy comes from oil and gas, and 5% comes from renewables. Even those who want us to rush headlong towards net zero, such as those in the Climate Change Committee, accept that we are still going to have to use fossil fuels well into the next decade and for decades after. Therefore, it is important that we examine how we generate those resources.

  The Bill is also an acceptance by the Government—or there should now be an acceptance—that as we have pursued the net zero agenda we have been putting people’s jobs at risk. We have seen that just in the past week, with 3,000 jobs going in south Wales. Most of the energy-intensive industries in this country have been decimated. We proudly beat our chests and say, “We have reduced our carbon emissions,” but if we are honest with ourselves, we will see that all we have done is steal jobs from this country and move production for vital materials overseas, to a place where environmental and work standards, and standards on pollution, are far lower than ours in this country. So I welcome the fact that the Government are belatedly looking again at some of the policies they were pursuing.

  The second reason is that we have 200,000 jobs in the sector across the United Kingdom, including, strangely enough, 90,000 jobs in Scotland, which the SNP appears to be quite happy to sacrifice. We have sacrificed jobs in many energy-intensive industries already. Are we now going to sacrifice these often well-paid jobs and say that there will be a just transition? Many times in this House I have heard the argument that, “Oh, all these people who are employed in the oil and gas industry will go into renewables.” Well, let us look that.

  The idea that we would suddenly have all these people employed in the manufacture, installation and maintenance of solar panels and windmills, EV battery factories all over the place, and graduates employed in finance and everything else for the offshore industry has not happened. The just transition is not going to occur. Why would we transition when there is still a resource to be exploited by the people who have the skills to do that, and for the benefit of the country?

  The third argument I wish to make in favour of the Bill is its necessity. Some 84% of our domestic heating is currently provided by gas, with 5% from oil; some 97% of our travel is driven by fossil fuels; and some 40% of our electricity is generated from fossil fuels. That will continue into the future. Quite frankly, I doubt whether the arguments we have heard about us having to be a global leader in getting to net zero ring true with ordinary people who want to heat their houses efficiently, cheaply and securely; drive their cars; get on buses, trains and aeroplanes, or however they decide to travel; or ensure that electricity can be supplied.

  Cheap energy is the grounds of economic growth. I can understand why people do not follow our lead and do their own thing. The idea that because we pass the Bill the whole world will say, “Oh, this is terrible. Britain is no longer committed to net zero and we are now going to do our own thing.” They are doing their own thing anyway. The question many people in the United Kingdom have is what their Government are doing to maintain their standard of living—the idea of global leadership is not at the forefront of their thinking.

  Secondly, as hon. Members have argued, if we are going to exploit the oil we have and benefit from it, then it is better to keep it in our own country and ensure that it is used in our own country. Some 88% of the gas we extract is used in the UK because we have the network for it to feed into, so it can be used and sold in the UK. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) raised the issue of Grangemouth, which is not the only example of the fact that we do not invest in facilities for refining oil in the United Kingdom. Why not? Because oil refining is an oil-intensive industry, so given all the carbon taxes and the barriers put in the way of carbon-intensive industries, no investment is taking place, or has taken place for decades. So what do we do? We extract it and send it elsewhere. We bring it back, most often, but would it not be of benefit to ensure that it stays in the United Kingdom because we have the facilities for processing it here?

  Unfortunately, that is the battle that we face. There are those in this House who are wedded to an ideology and will drive it through regardless of the impact that it has on our constituents. How many crocodile tears have been cried by Members in this House when they see people lose their jobs in energy-intensive industries and then, in the next breath, say that the Government are not going hard enough to reach net zero? There is a divide between those who are driven by this ideology and the ordinary people in the country who live with the consequences of it. If this Bill is at least a start in trying to redress that imbalance then I welcome it.

  Full debate: Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

• 16 Jan 2024: Parliamentary Speech

  I welcome the fact that, belatedly, the Government have accepted that, despite their net-zero policies, the oil and gas industry is important for the future in the United Kingdom. Does the Minister recognise that to benefit from the oil and gas in the North sea that will be released by the new licensing regime, we need to have refinery capacity? There has been little, if any, investment in refinery capacity, because of the uncertainty of the future and the carbon taxes placed on it. When will the Minister address that issue to ensure that we get the full benefit of the oil and gas that we extract from our shores?

  Full debate: Oil and Gas Sector

• 28 Nov 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  This year, receipts from the emissions trading scheme will reach a new peak of £6.2 billion. The effects of attacks on energy-intensive industries are felt by workers in the aluminium and steel industries, and this week by workers at Grangemouth, where one of our few remaining oil refineries is going to close. Despite what the Minister said earlier, is it not a fact that, rather than helping energy-intensive industries, net zero policies are destroying them and sending them overseas?

  Full debate: Topical Questions

• 22 Nov 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  I would point out, however, that despite all these tax cuts, there are tax increases coming down the way for businesses. On green taxes, the Government have made much of wanting to try to reduce the cost of their net zero policies. The OBR forecasts suggest that environmental taxes are going to soar to £20 billion, that emissions trading taxes will go up by 50% in the next year and that environmental levies will be up 100% by 2026. That is a burden on businesses, and of course the planning policies that are being introduced are simply to allow for the expensive roll-out of the grid due to net zero policies.

  Full debate: Autumn Statement Resolutions

• 7 Nov 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  May I first, on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, congratulate the King on his first King’s Speech and the way in which he delivered it? Our gratitude also goes to his mother, who for so long served our nation. I also congratulate the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address. However, when the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill) was being praised by some Members on the Opposition Front Bench, I must say that I wondered how they married up their commitment to net zero with the right hon. Gentleman’s pride in having three coal-guzzling steam engines and what that does to the carbon footprint in Yorkshire. Nevertheless, I am glad that some of the mad ideas—that we should change our lifestyles because of the threat from carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere—have not put him off.

  I am pleased that the Government have made a commitment to grant licences; the only thing I will say, given that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) is in her place, is this. The one threat that I see to the ability to deliver on that pledge is that those who oppose it have been handed a sledgehammer, which they will be able to use in judicial reviews and court cases, and so on, because we still have a commitment in legislation to reach net zero by 2050. We have seen it already. Every time an infrastructure project is proposed that requires the use of oil and gas, it is challenged in the courts on the basis that to allow it will detract from the ability to meet our target of net zero by 2050.

  Full debate: Debate on the Address

• 17 Oct 2023: Tweet

  RT @Togetherdec: Net Zero is a policy that is wrecking our country Together members voted overwhelmingly to campaign against it Join the… [Source]

• 17 Oct 2023: Tweet

  By maintaining the legal target to achieve Net Zero by 2050, the SoS is handing a weapon, in the form of judicial review, to activists who want to delay or stop important decisions on airport expansion, new roads and oil/gas licenses. https://twitter.com/eastantrimmp/status/1714228213784744090/video/1 [Source]

• 16 Oct 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  I welcome the Government’s belated recognition that net zero policies are costing individuals in their pockets, costing jobs and of course producing huge profits for the eco industry. But is the Secretary of State not concerned that, by maintaining the legal target for 2050, she hands a weapon to those who want to use the judicial review mechanism either to delay or to stop important decisions on airport expansion, new roads and oil and gas licences—delaying even some of the policies that she says today she wants to delay to save people money?

  Full debate: Net Zero by 2050

• 16 Oct 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  The more the Government pursue their net zero obsession, the less Conservative they look. The Minister, without any embarrassment, has today announced—in fact, he has boasted of—a new law, the zero emission vehicle mandate, which will instruct manufacturers on what they are allowed to produce year on year. Then he tells us that consumers will be allowed to purchase whatever cars they want until 2035. That sounds more like a Stalinist economic plan than a free-market Conservative policy. Can he tell us what will happen if rational consumers decide that they do not want to buy more expensive cars—cars that take half an hour to refuel, are likely to burst into flames, or are more expensive to insure? What will he do then? Will he have to introduce legislation to instruct dealers on what cars they sell and how to sell them?

  Full debate: Zero-emission Vehicles, Drivers and HS2

• 22 Sep 2023: Tweet

  (2/4) Unfortunately, Government policies on climate change, ill thought-out environmental policies and surrender to the Green Lobby is making it more difficult for us to produce good quality food in the United Kingdom. [Source]

• 18 Sep 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  No matter what gloss is put on this today, 3,000 jobs have been sacrificed on the Government’s altar of net zero and decarbonisation. There can be no hiding from the fact that there are huge costs associated with this policy, and that they are becoming apparent week after week. Despite what the Opposition spokesperson said, the fact is that job losses are associated with this policy. We have seen it with steel, aluminium, oil and gas—we could go on and on. Will the Minister not accept that, as a result of this policy, we now have strategic industries under threat, we are losing jobs, we are putting greater pressure on taxpayers, we are pushing production overseas and we are making ourselves dependent on foreign producers?

  Full debate: Tata Steel: Port Talbot

• 12 Sep 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  I do not agree with the policy that the Minister pursues. His net zero policy is disastrous and has been costly in terms of electricity prices and future planning. However, I feel some sympathy for him today. He is being criticised by those who have highlighted high energy prices for not offering inflated prices to the wind industry, which claims that producing wind energy is getting cheaper but of course wants higher prices. As it was not offered that, it would not bid in the auction. Is the real reason for this not that for the first time he has refused to allow those who bid to walk away from their CfD agreements, to price electricity at whatever price they want and therefore to have inflated profits? Does that not indicate to him that the wind industry knows it cannot produce electricity cheaply and wants the system balanced in its favour?

  Full debate: Offshore Wind Contracts

• 3 Jul 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  There is no doubt that fuel costs are driving up inflation, especially in rural areas. I think the fuel price checker has had a dampening effect in Northern Ireland because the supermarkets are always aware that that they are being looked on. However, does the Minister accept that his Government also have a responsibility? Net zero policies, with all their associated taxes—whether it is the emissions trading scheme, green levies or fuel duties—drive up prices, too. The Government have a role to play in reducing inflation as well as in transparency on supermarket prices.

  Full debate: Road Fuel Prices

• 20 Jun 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  Quite rightly, this Question Time has been dominated by questions about inflation and the cost of living. One policy that has not been mentioned is the Government’s net zero policy and the inflationary costs included in it, from green levies of £12 billion to the cost of strengthening the infrastructure and the favourable treatment given to renewable energy firms. While the Minister may condemn the Labour party for its £29 billion green policy spending plan, what is the cost of the Government’s net zero policies to consumers? Are they not picking their pockets dry?

  Full debate: Topical Questions

• 5 Jun 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  In Northern Ireland, the local government elections have recently finished. For the past four or five weeks, I have been knocking on people’s doors and speaking to them about local government issues. Only one person mentioned net zero to me, and she objected to the stance I took against some of the lunatic decisions made by my local council in putting wind farms on some of the most beautiful upland areas of East Antrim, where they are visible from all around. One of the most iconic landmarks in the area, Slemish mountain—it is where St Patrick is supposed to have sat, surveying that part of North Antrim and then going out to evangelise—is now blighted by what can only be described as mechanical triffids, which have blotted the landscape. They are not good for the environment: at one wind farm, 3 metres of peat was taken off the mountain to put into roads and the foundations, disturbing the wildlife and habitat, providing mincing machines for birds in the future, and destroying the environment, probably releasing tonnes of carbon in the process.

  That was the only person who mentioned net zero: most people were concerned about zero rate increases, zero tolerance of antisocial behaviour and zero tolerance of people being allowed to dump rubbish across the area.

  Full debate: Reaching Net Zero: Local Government Role

  In answer to the hon. Lady’s point, of course there are other ways and actions. One does not have to believe that net zero should be a target by 2050, or whatever the year happens to be, to see that it makes sense not to waste energy in people’s houses. It makes sense to build houses that are energy-efficient. No one is disputing that. The issue I am raising is that local authorities are pressed for money. I listen to all the issues raised about local authorities in debates in the House, and time and again I hear about social care provision and its inadequacy, education provision, policing, and special needs education. Given the range of concerns in the House, the question is whether local government’s priority should be seeking more grants to achieve net zero—to provide more facilities and projects that aim towards that—or the more pressing and immediate needs that people experience day to day.

  Full debate: Reaching Net Zero: Local Government Role

  No, I do not, and nor does the evidence, which shows that the number of people who have died in extreme climate events has declined; it has fallen quite significantly during the past century. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not claim that the suggestion made by the hon. Lady is correct.

  Although many Members say they want this—indeed, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) used to talk about how he wanted Britain to be the leading country in the world in reducing carbon emissions and for it to become the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy—the rest of the world, sadly, is not following. That is significant, and this perhaps puts it into context: in the first quarter of this year, China’s increase in carbon emissions—not its total, but its increase in the first quarter of this year—is equal to the total yearly carbon emissions produced by the United Kingdom. When we put the fight against climate change and reaching net zero in that context, we have to ask ourselves, and I think many of our constituents will ask: why impose additional costs on us? Why interfere in the decisions that we make about how we travel, where we travel and the cost of that travel, as well as about the cost of our energy and everything else, when quite clearly those in the rest of the world, and for very good reasons, do not?

  Full debate: Reaching Net Zero: Local Government Role

• 23 May 2023: Tweet

  Net Zero ???????? - means: ???? A 10% increase in fuel bills via a new levy ???? No new petrol or diesel cars from 2030 ✈️ A 25% increase in air fares ⬇️ 14% reduction in air travel ???? 25% reduction in our consumption of meat The poorest will feel the brunt of these mad green policies. [Source]

• 28 Feb 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  Since it was set up in 2020, the result of the UK emissions trading scheme has been that the cost of carbon allowances has consistently been much higher than in the EU and other competitive countries, partly due to the fact that the net zero policy has led to a reduction in those allowances. That has led to heavy industries such as steel, aluminium and oil refining going abroad, with a loss of jobs and strategic industries. Given the impact that this is having, will the Minister commit first to rejecting the 50% reduction in allowances planned for 2024, and secondly to reforming the cost containment mechanism to make it easier to intervene in future?

  Full debate: Emissions Trading Schemes: Carbon Leakage Protection

• 01 Feb 2023: Tweet

  In advance of @Economy_NI’s consultation on decarbonising the heating sector in NI, I am supporting a Bill in Parliament to permit the use hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) as a heating source for domestic boilers. Biofuels have a key role to play in decarbonisation. [Source]

• 18 Jan 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  than a robust economic case. Is the Minister concerned that the company mentioned ballooning energy costs? BMW is moving its production of the Mini to China because it can get cheap energy there. How many more jobs will be sacrificed on the altar of a high energy cost net zero policy?

  Full debate: Electric Vehicle Battery Production

• 13 Jan 2023: Tweet

  Net Zero Will Lead to the End of Modern Civilisation, Says Top Scientist https://t.co/z5BIk6tZbI [Source]

• 9 Jan 2023: Parliamentary Speech

  I welcome this package, and I especially welcome the inclusion of charitable organisations, but the fact remains that even if energy prices stabilise, given Government policies on net zero and the decarbonisation of electricity, there will be continued upward pressure on businesses’ energy bills for the foreseeable future, and I do not believe that the package will help many of the small businesses that are hanging on by their fingertips at present because of the massive energy price increases.

  Full debate: Non-domestic Energy Support

• 08 Dec 2022: Tweet

  (1/2) Half of the 4000 zero-emission buses being purchased by the ???????? government are being made in China. Many local bus builders are losing out because of current procurement rules which give no preference to UK companies. https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1600793484356911104/photo/1 [Source]

• 6 Dec 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  I apologise for being about 30 seconds late to the debate. There are a number of reasons why I am interested in the topic. First, the cost of the renewable energy initiative in Northern Ireland was £25 million, yet it led to the collapse of the Executive, no Government for three years and a public inquiry that, in the end, did not come up with any negative recommendations. Yet here we are discussing the initiative as it applies in England—burning wood pellets at a subsidy of £1 billion per year. I ask myself why, if it led to the collapse of Government in Northern Ireland, a public inquiry and a long period of no Government, are we not jumping up and down at the cost of a £1 billion per year subsidy for an RHI scheme?

  Secondly, I am keen on protecting the environment yet, as we have heard from speaker after speaker today, we have here a form of renewable energy that destroys the environment. It destroys woodland and the habitat of the animals, birds and flora that rely on that woodland. When we look back at a number of the renewable schemes that we have today, we will ask ourselves why we did not see their environmental impact. I know it is not the subject of our debate today, but if we look at the environmental damage done, for example, to provide windmills in Scotland, some 13 million trees have been torn down already to provide the sites and peatlands have been dug up and huge concrete bases and roads have been put in those upland areas, destroying many of the drainage systems there. In my own constituency, I noticed 3 metres of peat being taken off a hillside at a time when curlew and other birds will be nesting in those hillsides. Many people genuinely believe that we have to go down the road of having renewable energy, but, very often, the focus on it simply being renewable means that we ignore the environmental consequences of such energy provision.

  Full debate: Sustainable Energy Generation: Burning Trees

  That is another of the ironies in this debate that is being ignored. We ignore the fact that we are taking a forest from one country and bringing it over to burn it in our country, and we are paying the cost of that. I will conclude at this point, but I hope that today generates a wider debate on the whole use of renewable energy.

  Full debate: Sustainable Energy Generation: Burning Trees

• 21 Nov 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  First, may I say at the outset that I do not fall into the group who blame the Government for all of the problems that we face? We must recognise the impact of the covid period on supply chains not just in our country but across the world. Whether the lockdown was advisable, I was one of the few in the House who believed that it was not, that it was prolonged for far too long and that it would have an economic and health impact, and it did. Of course, there is also the war in Ukraine and the cynical use of energy that we have become dependent on. Again, the policy of pursuing net zero, weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, not producing our own and so on, has come back to bite us. We were also slow in identifying the inflationary tendencies in the economy, so we did not take the appropriate monetary policies at the right time. Once the Americans decided that they were going to tackle inflation through higher interest rates, it was inevitable that we would find ourselves in the same situation.

  Full debate: Autumn Statement Resolutions

• 9 Nov 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  In the relentless and obsessive pursuit of net zero, the Government are now adopting policies that are contradictory and, in some cases, dangerous. We are going to import billions of pounds-worth of natural gas from countries who frack that gas, yet we are turning our back on the natural resources we have in our own country, sacrificing revenue, jobs and energy security. We are going to rely more on wind and solar power, the earth metals for which are in the hands of autocratic regimes, especially China. We are importing wood from America to burn in a power station in the United Kingdom at a cost of billions to electricity consumers. Those policies might be welcomed by the chattering classes, but does the Prime Minister understand the bewilderment, frustration and anger of those who struggle to pay their electricity bills and worry about energy security?

  Full debate: COP27

• 25 Oct 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  The Government’s plan for net zero by 2050 is unplanned and uncosted. On top of that, we now have the difficulty of finding the metals that are needed for batteries, magnets and the required systems, because China controls 60% of earth metals. Only this week, a Finnish Government report indicated that there is not enough lithium in the world for the batteries that are required for motor cars and battery storage. How will the Government deliver on that unrealistic target?

  Full debate: Rare Minerals and Metals

• 20 Jul 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  I also congratulate the emergency services on their excellent work, but is it not a fact that while we have been pursuing a policy of decarbonisation and spending huge amounts of money on it—£50 billion to the energy industry in the last 20 years, with another £50 billion estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility in the next three years—it is having little effect on our own climate or the world’s? We can wave our puny fists at the forces of nature, but the fact of the matter is that it is not working. Instead of spending money on expensive attempts to decarbonise, would it not be far better to spend that money on adapting to the inevitable changes in our climate, to make people safe when we have extreme flooding or extreme heat?

  Full debate: Heatwave Response

• 29 Jun 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  I appreciate that it is sometimes necessary in the national interest to impose trade restrictions, but free trade is the way to increase competition, bring down prices and raise living standards. The fact is that energy-intensive industries in the United Kingdom have been shedding jobs for many years now, partly because of the energy price costs that have resulted from the Government’s net zero policy. Does the necessity for today’s decision not give the Government another reason to examine the wisdom of the current net zero policy, given that the priority for our competitors is cheap energy produced from fossil fuel?

  Full debate: Steel Safeguards

• 08 Mar 2022: Tweet

  The pursuit of net zero is pushing up the cost of electricity and heating. It is time we utilised our own vast resources and ended our energy dependence on others ???? https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1501181793579540484/photo/1 [Source]

• 13 Jan 2022: Tweet

  RT @NetZeroWatch: '@DavidGHFrost has told the Telegraph that, "We’re bringing in [#NetZero] measures that are sort of unnecessary, too soon… [Source]

• 11 Jan 2022: Parliamentary Speech

  While the right hon. Gentleman is eulogising about the target of net zero, does he not recognise that the large size of the bills that he says consumers have difficulty paying is a result of the green levies, which are stealthily placed on the consumer and which have reached 26% of what people pay every time they have an energy bill?

  Full debate: Household Energy Bills: VAT

• 24 Nov 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  The Government’s headlong rush to net zero is already showing through in people’s fuel bills and levels of fuel poverty in the United Kingdom. Despite what the Secretary of State has said about licences to help through the transition period, we will still be reliant for 50% of our gas on outside sources, which does not give us energy security. At the same time, we have enough gas under the ground in the UK to keep us totally supplied for the whole country for 150 years, which could help the levelling-up agenda in the north-west of England, and help my constituents who currently find themselves at the end of a very expensive pipeline and are very vulnerable. Why are the Government not prepared to exploit the resources that we have to deal with fuel poverty and fuel security and to help the levelling-up agenda in poorer parts of England?

  Full debate: Bulb Energy: Administration

• 24 Nov 2021: Tweet

  Thousands more are being plunged into fuel poverty because of the Government’s mad rush to net zero. Meanwhile, we are still reliant on other countries for 50% of our gas. It’s time we exploited our own gas reserves in the UK to bring down fuel bills. https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1463504442876207111/video/1 [Source]

• 16 Nov 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the Secretary of State at least accept that immediate environmental damage is being caused by the pursuit of renewable energy, with 13 million trees cut down in Scotland for wind farms, forests devastated across the world to produce ethanol for petrol, and Drax power station importing millions of tonnes of wood from America each year? Does he not accept that in an attempt to control the world’s climate, we are actually damaging the environment right now?

  Full debate: Renewable Energy

• 07 Nov 2021: Tweet

  RT @TiceRichard: Superb letter showing that Boris’ net zero strategy is in fact net stupid…. By one of his own MPs…. https://t.co/PufxNtYIqP [Source]

• 3 Nov 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  In pursuit of dramatic reductions in the miniscule carbon dioxide emissions produced by this country, ordinary people are facing higher petrol prices, higher energy prices, restrictions on what they can drive, the replacement of gas boilers and higher green taxes with declining incomes. Can the Prime Minister understand their frustration and disdain that those who tell them that they must bear those burdens fly into Glasgow in private jets and ferry around town in gas-guzzling cavalcades? More fundamentally, does he really believe, given the huge natural forces that continually change the world’s climate, that by reducing carbon dioxide we can somehow or other turn the world’s thermostat up and down at will?

  Full debate: G20 and COP26 World Leaders Summit

• 2 Nov 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Given the commitments that the Prime Minister is making at the climate circus in Glasgow this week, how can the Chancellor possibly say that the public finances will be managed effectively when the huge costs of net zero are not even published by the Treasury, let alone known by the public? We are already seeing taxes increasing to pay for the huge infrastructure changes that reaching net zero is going to entail.

  Full debate: Public Finances

• 29 Jul 2021: Tweet

  As the cost of the Government's obsession with Climate Change is laid bare, I welcome their apparent U-turn on banning the sale of gas boilers by 2035. Retrofitting homes with expensive heat pumps is a vanity project which will cost homeowners thousands. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9828441/Boris-Johnson-puts-ban-new-gas-boilers-five-years-2040.html?mc_cid=8540961a2e&mc_eid=356d6791b0 https://twitter.com/News_Letter/status/1420061166643122176 [Source]

• 26 May 2021: Vote

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

• 21 May 2021: Tweet

  Consumers’ pockets and palates will suffer if Claire Bailey’s Climate Change Bill is passed. It will lead to higher energy bills & 'risk reliant diets'. Diets which would include insect larvae, seaweed, algae & maggots. And parents thought getting kids to eat ???? was hard! [Source]

• 18 May 2021: Tweet

  RT @GuidoFawkes: You might think with the constant round-the-clock propaganda from Sky News and the BBC ahead of the #COP26 conference, tha… [Source]

• 17 May 2021: Tweet

  Proposals to reduce carbon emissions in Northern Ireland to net zero by 2045 are pure madness. Even if meat and dairy production were reduced by 50%, the target of 2045 would be unachievable. These proposals will cost jobs and negatively impact on consumer choice. @UFUHQ [Source]

• 11 May 2021: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it was his party that authorised the changing of Drax B power station to wood pellets, which are now harvested from virgin forests in America and brought across to the United Kingdom, and now require a subsidy of £1 billion a year? Is that the kind of green energy that he talks about?

  Full debate: Debate on the Address

  The second thing that I want to discuss is the commitment that the Government have made to setting “binding environmental targets”. I know that, ahead of COP26 in Glasgow, the Government are engaging in international virtue signalling, but there is no point in setting such targets unless they spell out what the impact will be on the people. I noted that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said in her speech today, “We can reduce CO 2 emissions and still have economic growth; we have done that.” The truth of the matter is, of course, that we have reduced CO 2 emissions by divesting ourselves of many of our heavy and energy-intensive industries, such as steel, aluminium and many others. It is not that the CO 2 emissions have ceased; we have simply moved them to another country.

  If we are going to set targets to reduce CO 2 emissions, the Government must spell out how they are going to do that. Does more renewable energy mean that we add to the £12 billion a year that electricity consumers pay in their electricity bills for renewable energy subsidies? Does it mean greater restrictions on people’s ability to fly because we make flying—one of the big producers of CO 2 —more expensive? What impact will that have on people’s ability to go on their annual holiday? Does it mean we insist that people have more expensive ways of heating their houses? It is estimated to cost £20,000 to invest in heat pumps and so on to make a house energy-efficient. Are consumers going to pay that? The Committee on Climate Change says we will have to eat less dairy products and meat. Are we even going to tell people what their diet should be? If we are going to set these targets, then the Government have got to be honest. They cannot simply set a target and not spell out how it will impact on people’s choices and freedom, and what we would regard, in a free society, as the ways in which people can make those choices.

  The Prime Minister said that he wants to put rocket fuel into the economy after the pandemic. I hope that it is rocket fuel and not a damp squib. My fear relates to issues about the Union. If the Government do not deal properly with the levelling-up programme and the divisive impact of the Northern Ireland protocol, as well as the impact that that has on Scottish nationalism, then he will not achieve that objective. If we continue to pursue these high-level climate change CO 2 -reducing targets, are we going to find more and more that people’s personal choices are affected, that fuel poverty increases as energy bills go up, and that we chase away energy-intensive industries and lose jobs? If we are going to move in that direction, I believe we do not have a Government who are free market, free choice and pro-Union, but a Government who act against all those fundamental principles of the Conservative party. That is why I want to see, and why I believe it is important that we see, the detail of the Queen’s Speech.

  Full debate: Debate on the Address

• 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

• 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

• 11 Mar 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  Having said that, this Government will still be dipping into the pockets of the people of the United Kingdom to the tune of £18 billion next year in various green taxes. The carbon tax that the Chancellor proposes to impose on gas will impact severely on energy bills. We still produce a lot of our energy, and people still have to heat their homes using gas. That carbon tax will substantially increase those people’s bills, especially when one remembers that 20% of electricity bills at present are taken up with various green levies and green costs. On top of that, some of the bill is made up of infrastructure costs, which are incurred only because of the move towards more wind energy and so on. The tax on gas will have an impact on many people, especially in places such as Northern Ireland, where we rely heavily on gas for electricity generation.

  The announcements on infrastructure spending are important. I welcome the expenditure on roads and infrastructure projects across the United Kingdom. The one thing that I have some concern about, though, is that the Government are proposing to spend £110 billion on infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament, but—as we have seen with the Heathrow expansion decision—these projects are under threat from the challenges we face due to commitments made in the Paris agreement and the Climate Change Act 2008. I believe that those who are determined to prevent the infrastructure developments that are necessary to make this country work will use the courts to try to stop many infrastructure projects that the Government are proposing. That is because all of those projects—roads, housebuilding, airport expansion, railways—will have some impact on CO 2 emissions, through concrete production, steelmaking, the building process and so on.

  Full debate: Budget Resolutions

  The right hon. Gentleman has missed my point. All decarbonisation—whether we decarbonise energy, transport or what we eat—has an implication for people’s jobs, living costs and so on, and we have to ask what the country’s priority should be. Do we really want to impose the sort of burdens that those kinds of priorities put on the people of the United Kingdom? We cannot say that we want to protect jobs, to keep standards of living up and costs of living down, and to give people the freedom to go on their holidays and to eat what they want, and at the same time say, “But let’s absorb ourselves in this carbon obsession”, which affects all those things. Members cannot have it both ways. At some stage, we will need to have a discussion about where our priorities ought to lie.

  Full debate: Budget Resolutions

• 11 Mar 2020: Tweet

  - No action to abolish APD✈️ - A Carbon Tax which will increase energy bills???? - No guarantee for NI's small businesses on rates relief????️ - Minuscule spending lift for the NI Executive????️ Government commitment to level-up the regions not borne out by the reality of this Budget! https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1237768638750511104/photo/1 [Source]

• 2 Mar 2020: Parliamentary Speech

  Many people will be bewildered and disappointed by the Government’s attitude towards the judges’ decision on this nationally important project, which is also important to places like Northern Ireland in terms of a hub for international connectivity. Given its importance, why are the Government not challenging this judicial interference in investment policy? Does the Minister not realise that by not doing so she is giving a green light to the environmental Luddites who will use the insidious Climate Change Act 2008 as a means to smash every major investment project in this country?

  Full debate: Airport Expansion

• 28 Feb 2020: Tweet

  (5/5) Our politicians in Stormont who are promising a Climate Act for NI, which will set CO2 targets, ought to seriously consider the implications these could have for the major economic and infrastructure developments the Executive hopes to pursue. https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1233342303273656320/photo/1 [Source]

• 20 Nov 2019: Tweet

  Many thanks to Keith & Ruth for hosting me for a lively discussion on Brexit, climate change, the Assembly, welfare reform and school funding. Past voters and genuine undecideds putting me on the hot seat! #SammyOnYourSofa https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/1197260992599732229/photo/1 [Source]

• 24 Jul 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  It is important strategically and for regional employment to maintain a steel industry in the United Kingdom, and I do welcome the efforts that the Secretary of State has made to date. However, does he not realise that high-cost renewable energy plans and costly decarbonisation policies—pursued by this Government and previous Administrations, who, quite frankly, have pandered to a Luddite green lobby in this country—have resulted in energy-intensive industries moving out of Britain, with the aluminium industry being an example? These issues will have to be addressed if we are to maintain a viable steel industry in the United Kingdom in the future.

  Full debate: British Steel

• 25 Jun 2019: Vote

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

• 23 Apr 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  Despite the views of many in this House that Government action can control and fine-tune the complex world climate, the fact of the matter is that climate change is a natural phenomenon. We have experienced it throughout the history of the world and we will experience it in the future. A small part of that is greenhouse gas emissions, 97% of which are natural, caused by water vapour, volcanic activity and decaying vegetation, and 3% of which is caused by man. One per cent. of that is caused by the United Kingdom—a very small percentage—yet we have changed our economy dramatically. While the Minister has outlined the Government’s achievements, she has not pointed out that we pay dearly for energy bills and have fuel poverty, and that we have lost tens of thousands of jobs in energy-intensive industries. At the same time, while we are setting these targets, nature and our competitors are offsetting our draconian actions.

  Full debate: Climate Change Policy

• 6 Mar 2019: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the Minister agree that it is rather ironic that a scheme that is meant to decarbonise—for some people that is important; for others it is just an expensive burden on the economy—finishes up with wood being put into pellet form in North America, brought in ships across the Atlantic ocean, and then burned in boilers here in the United Kingdom? Does he really think that is a way of cutting down on carbon emissions?

  Full debate: Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill

• 25 Jun 2018: Parliamentary Speech

  On the one hand, we have been told that this is going to wreck our climate change targets. For those who find that an important issue, the only answer is of course to reduce the number of passengers. However, nobody has suggested that; they have all suggested that we should have passengers flying from regional airports. Well, those passengers will still produce carbon dioxide, and they will still contribute overall. If they fly from Schiphol, they will still burn carbon to get to Schiphol and from there to wherever they are going. Either it affects climate change or it does not. In fact, the only honest person was the Member from the Green party, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who wants people to stop flying, but I do not believe that that is an alternative.

  Full debate: National Policy Statement: Airports

• 10 Oct 2017: Tweet

  Climate Change policies are more harmful to the economy & environment than Climate Change itself - @TonyAbbottMHR at @thegwpfcom lecture. https://x.com/eastantrimmp/status/917730746604969984/photo/1 [Source]

• 24 Jan 2017: Parliamentary Speech

  The first point of contention I want to make is that we seem uncritically to have accepted the mantra that we must decarbonise energy production. I know people say we have the Paris agreement, climate change obligations and so on, but we also need to look behind the mantra to see what the term means and has meant, and how it currently affects households, industry and business in the United Kingdom. The old Department of Energy and Climate Change estimated that to decarbonise the electricity and energy industries effectively by 2040, we needed 40,000 offshore and 20,000 onshore wind turbines and a new fleet of nuclear power stations, and that all coal and gas use would have to be subject to carbon capture and storage. That would happen at enormous cost, and we have already seen the impact on fuel poverty.

  According to the Scottish household survey, there was a 25% increase in the number of households in fuel poverty in Scotland between 2011 and 2013. In Northern Ireland, there was an increase of nearly 100%. Why? Fuel bills go up because we have decided we want to produce energy more expensively. That is the first thing we need to realise in the debate. Decarbonisation means significant costs to the economy. Of course, this is at a time when we are talking about becoming more globally competitive, and when China and India, which signed the Paris agreement, tell us that every year they will increase their CO 2 by the amount of our total CO 2 emissions.

  Full debate: UK Decarbonisation and Carbon Capture and Storage

  The Government are right not to go ahead with the second exercise until they are sure of the answers to those questions. Even more fundamentally, they must ask whether the impact of decarbonising the economy on consumers, workers, industry and investment is worth it.

  Full debate: UK Decarbonisation and Carbon Capture and Storage

• 13 Dec 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  This week, a senior Ofgem executive warned that, as a result of our higher reliance on renewable energy, consumers may face the possibility of having to pay a premium to ensure that they have a reliable source of electricity to their homes and without having their lights turned off. What discussions has the Minister had with Ofgem on that, and are the Government considering the policy of relying on costly renewable energy rather than on cheaper fossil fuels?

  Full debate: Energy Bills

• 14 Sep 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even BBC presenters are now saying that the BBC has gone totally in favour of global warming views and that impartiality was abandoned long ago? The BBC spent tens of thousands of pounds fighting a freedom of information request that sought to identify that seminars were held to ensure that its top executives were directed towards the pro-climate change view.

  Full debate: The BBC and Political Impartiality

• 28 Jun 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  While there may have been a drop from 11.7% of total receipts to 8.3%, will the hon. Gentleman accept that other new forms of taxation, such as climate change levies and other climate taxes, have been imposed on businesses and have increased total tax revenues? The cake is bigger, so the slice of corporation tax is smaller, but the total amount is larger.

  Full debate: Finance Bill

• 18 May 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  The second big issue that is not dealt with is energy policy. The better markets Bill will enable people, through competition, to lower their energy bills. However, the whole issue of energy costs is caused not just by the lack of competition but by the Government’s bigger policy of decarbonising energy and greater use of renewables, and the cost that that imposes on industry. I sympathise with many of the points that Labour Members have made about the decline of the steel industry and many of the other high-energy industries that have been lost in Labour heartlands, but this is partly due to an energy policy that is designed to chase those very industries out of the United Kingdom and towards places where the same policies are not in place. That is another area where I would like to see more imagination and the Government doing more.

  Full debate: Debate on the Address

• 11 May 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned energy costs. Does he agree that the cost of energy is one of the biggest threats to manufacturing in Northern Ireland, as it has been in England, Scotland and Wales, and that that is in part due to the insane policy of trying to move towards renewable energy when we have cheap forms of energy in coal, gas and oil?

  Full debate: Northern Ireland Economy

• 09 May 2016: Vote

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

• 18 Jan 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the shadow Minister agree that to a certain extent she is speaking with forked tongue? On the one hand she is saying that we have to decarbonise the economy, but on the other she is saying we have to increase the output of a carbon fuel—oil. Which is it? Does she want to decarbonise the economy or does she want people to buy oil?

  Full debate: Energy Bill [Lords]

• 13 Jan 2016: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the hon. Gentleman see any inconsistency, in the answer he has just given to his colleague, between looking for ways to increase the output of North sea oil and the Scottish National party’s aim of totally decarbonising energy production in Scotland?

  Full debate: Trade, Exports, Innovation and Productivity

  The last issue is boosting manufacturing industry. A number of contributions today have highlighted the issue of energy costs. The steel industry is only one example, and in Northern Ireland recently we have lost a lot of jobs from huge employers who cited energy costs as one of the main reasons. There appears to be a schizophrenic attitude, even from the Government. Although they are removing subsidies from the most expensive form of electricity generation, even today at Question Time the Prime Minister, while on the one hand saying it was more expensive to produce green energy, boasted about the amount of green energy in the pipeline that would be introduced in future. If that is the aim, let us be honest: we will find that we make it difficult for some kinds of manufacturers. It is significant that onshoring in the US has occurred as energy prices have come down. That is a lesson for us.

  Full debate: Trade, Exports, Innovation and Productivity

• 26 Oct 2015: Vote

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

• 20 Oct 2015: Parliamentary Speech

  The crisis in the steel industry has been caused not only by the fall in world demand but by the increase in the costs imposed on producers in the UK because of green energy policies that have put electricity prices up by twice those of our competitors. Can the Minister really justify fiscal policies such as the carbon floor price, which are designed to cut carbon dioxide emissions, while we are exporting jobs to countries that are more interested in the health of their economy than in King Canute’s attempts to change the world’s climate?

  Full debate: Steel Industry

• 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

• 21 Jul 2015: Parliamentary Speech

  The other thing I wish to raise is the whole issue of taxes on energy. The reasoned amendment talks about the removal of the exemption from the climate change levy on the onshore wind. I accept the argument that the Government have given. Given that many of the companies involved are owned abroad, the tax concession given to them was not benefitting people here in the United Kingdom. We also need to bear in mind not only that there is huge opposition to many of the renewable sources, on the grounds of aesthetics and environmental impact, but that people are becoming increasingly aware of the cost of switching from cheap fossil fuels to expensive renewable energy, in terms of fuel poverty and the impact on industry.

  Full debate: Finance Bill

  The renewables obligation is an obligation because the energy is more expensive. Indeed, the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s own estimation is that, by 2020, the cost of paying for expensive renewable energy, more and more of which is coming on to the grid, will be about £190 per household. At the same time, we in this House complain about fuel poverty, when one of the contributors to fuel poverty is the fact that we are orientating ourselves towards more expensive electricity generation. Only last week there were complaints about Tata Steel closing down its plant.

  Full debate: Finance Bill

  Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong when he talks about there being no price on carbon. We are talking about the climate change levy. That is one of the costs of carbon. There is also the cost of the European trading scheme, in which carbon is traded and carbon allowances are given, so of course there is already a cost.

  Full debate: Finance Bill

  Perhaps the hon. Lady takes a different view of what is small and what is large from what I do, but the £13.6 billion of subsidies that go to renewables do not simply come from the Government. They come from households, who pay for it in their electricity bills. That is why I support the Government’s attempts to remove some of the subsidies that consumers have to pay; £13.6 billion, or £190 per household, is hardly to be regarded as a small sum. My only worry is that environmental levies such as the climate change levy and the EU carbon trading scheme will rise from £5.6 billion this year to £16.1 billion by the end of this Parliament, which will add to energy costs and have an impact on industry and on household bills.

  Full debate: Finance Bill

  The right hon. Gentleman compares nuclear energy with renewable energy, but of course we have the option of gas, oil and coal. Before the hon. Member from the Green party becomes apoplectic about the impact of those energy sources, let me point out that some of the drivers in Europe who want to push us towards renewables, especially the Germans, are building coal-fired power stations because they are concerned about their industry and their economy. I welcome those aspects of the Finance Bill, and that is one reason why I will not support the reasoned amendment. I think that the Government are right and we have to redress the balance. We have to ask what is important for the UK economy and for UK consumers.

  Full debate: Finance Bill

• 16 Jul 2015: Parliamentary Speech

  So long as the BBC is guaranteed a source of income, whether through the licence fee or the proposed household levy, there will be no incentive for it to address its well-documented, massively wasteful expenditure or the issue of bias—whether it is left-wing bias, pro-EU bias or man-made climate change bias—which so annoys millions of people across the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the only way of giving the BBC an incentive to address those issues is to give people the choice of whether they wish to pay for it or not?

  Full debate: BBC Charter Review

• 14 Jul 2015: Vote

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

• 10 Dec 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that not only have the Government pushed up the price of electricity because of this infatuation with wind turbines, but that that in itself has led to distribution costs going up because the grid has to be reinforced, and that the carbon tax that is now imposed on the fuel used by the cheapest types of power stations is adding to people’s bills as well? The whole policy is directed towards high energy prices, which have reduced people’s standard of living and have furthermore chased industry out of the United Kingdom.

  Full debate: Energy Policy and Living Standards

• 18 Jun 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  One issue that has not been touched on much in the debate, although the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) mentioned it, is the aspect of energy policy and prices over which the House has some control—the increasing reliance on renewable energy. I notice that the Secretary of State boasted that we are the best place in the world for onshore and offshore wind power, but his boast is paid for by our consumers. According to his Department, in 2013 electricity prices were 17% higher as a result of feed-in tariffs, carbon taxes, smart meters, additional infrastructure costs and so on. By 2020, those factors will add 33% to electricity prices. Some Members, such as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), suggested that we should have more renewables, but more of that sort of policy will add to the cost of household bills.

  Full debate: Energy Prices

• 4 Feb 2014: Parliamentary Speech

  Northern Ireland has one of the highest levels of energy bills, and we have certainly had the highest increases in recent years. That is the result of a range of issues, including the green energy policies of central Government that add £100 a year to energy bills. On top of that, perverse incentives lead to direct debit increases for consumers.

  Full debate: Energy Company Charges

• 4 Dec 2013: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the Minister not accept that the whole thrust of the Bill, with its emphasis on decarbonisation and greater reliance on renewables—and the thrust of Lords amendment 105, had the Opposition had their way—is to make the whole issue of fuel poverty more difficult to address? We are moving away from cheaper fossil fuels towards more expensive renewables.

  Full debate: Energy Bill

• 04 Dec 2013: Vote

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

• 18 Nov 2013: Parliamentary Speech

  Just this week, there have been discussions in Poland about climate change policy, but the Polish Government have made it clear that they intend to keep on burning coal. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, the targets in the Bill, for which an extension is now sought, seem to be at odds not only with what has been said by other European nations, including Poland and Germany, but with what is happening in other parts of the world. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity afforded by the extension to consider the direction of energy policy—the commitments the Government are now making to look at the cost of energy, and the Opposition’s attempts to pillory the Government over that issue—so that we do not go down such a route. There is a certain irony that the Opposition, who have been complaining the most about energy prices, support such an energy policy in debates in the House.

  Full debate: Energy Bill (Carry-Over Extension)

• 23 Oct 2013: Parliamentary Speech

  There is, of course, general concern about electricity prices, the cost of air travel and a whole range of issues affecting the UK economy. The previous Government were, of course, the same on green issues as the present Government, but the zeal of UK Governments to deal with such issues is not found in other parts of the world or of Europe, and that places us at a disadvantage. We have to stop this King Canute attitude to climate change whereby the UK Government think that they can somehow use fiscal powers to affect what is happening to the climate across the world, although they are damaging our own economy at the same time.

  Full debate: Air Passenger Duty

  Only a fool would deny that there is climate change. The world’s climate has been changing ever since the world was in existence. The question is what is the cause of that climate change, and what impact might the fiscal measures introduced by the House have on it.

  Full debate: Air Passenger Duty

• 10 Sep 2013: Parliamentary Speech

  All reason and self-critical analysis go out of the window when people address this subject. When I was the Environment Minister in Northern Ireland, I refused to use some of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s scary propaganda and adverts, and I was censured by the Assembly. When I pointed out to the mover of the censure motion that he had driven to the Assembly that morning in a 4x4 that did about 12 miles per gallon; that his mileage claim for the previous year would have taken him twice around the globe; and that his carbon footprint was enormous, he did not seem to see any irony in the fact that I did not believe what he believed about climate change and the man-made contribution to it, or in the fact that he was moving a motion against my position.

  That is one of the problems. Even in today’s debate, we have exchanged the science, the figures and the graphs, but people still do not want to believe what they see before their eyes. I do not want to go into all the figures that have been given today, other than to say that, if the Minister talks about trends, is 150 years not a long enough trend? Yet the increase over 150 years is 0.8° C, even though masses of carbon has been put into the air. If we look at short-term trends—when the Climate Change Bill was passing through Parliament, we were told to look at the short term as well—over 10 years we have seen a 0.08° C increase, despite the fact that carbon emissions have gone up.

  I do not want to get into the premise behind the issue; I want to get into the cost behind the policy. I started looking at the Treasury’s Budget 2013. The costs were never hidden; at least we were always told that there would be costs—£18 billion a year. Let us first look at the cost to industry. If we look through the Budget book, there are a number of costs. First, there is the carbon reduction commitment, which affects service and manufacturing industries. It costs more than £1 billion a year and rising. There is the carbon price floor, which wipes out—in fact, by more than double—the impact of the reduction in corporation tax this year. Over the life of this Parliament, it will take £4.4 billion away from industry. The climate change levy will cost £1.5 million this year. Put together, miscellaneous environmental levies will cost £6.7 billion this year, and that is only the cost to industry.

  Full debate: Climate Change Act

  Let us look at the cost to consumers. Last week in the Chamber we debated the cost of electricity to consumers. Taking DECC’s own figures on the impact of climate change policies on business electricity bills, bills will be up by 22% this year, 46% by 2020 and 66% by 2030.

  Full debate: Climate Change Act

  Every time we go on our holidays, we pay for climate change. Every time we pay our council tax bills, we pay for climate change. In 2007, £102 million was set aside for climate change advisers, climate change managers, carbon reduction advisers and so on, and the situation is probably far worse now. Whether we are paying our council tax or electricity bills, or looking at jobs, the impact is quite dramatic.

  Full debate: Climate Change Act

• 4 Sep 2013: Parliamentary Speech

  Like the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), I want to make some comments about the element of our energy costs that is not dealt with in the motion. That part is the cost of decarbonising—as it is now called—our energy supply. Despite what people have said, it has added costs to the consumer and is going to continue to do so. We cannot be schizophrenic about this by on the one hand condemning the increase in energy prices and on the other hand supporting policies that are contributing to that.

  Let us look at the costs. Because renewable energy is so expensive, there is a compulsion to purchase electricity under the renewables obligation at much higher prices than fossil fuels. The figures have been quoted today. Offshore wind is now the favoured option. It is three and a half times more expensive than gas, and that will probably change further, especially as gas prices will come down with fracking.

  There are also the increased costs of distribution to link up all the diverse sources. The National Grid recently published a consultation document, “Demand Side Balancing Reserve and Supplemental Balancing Reserve”, in which it talks about linking into generators across the country which could lead to electricity being bought at 30 times the cost of that generated by gas. There is the question of all the back-up and infrastructure that will be required for when wind drops off, too. All those things need to be addressed, which means that many Members will have to tackle their prejudices on some of the issues around climate change and carbon in the atmosphere.

  Full debate: Energy Prices and Profits

• 04 Jun 2013: Vote

  Energy Bill — Clause 133 — Financial provisions - Pro-climate vote: Aye - Their vote: No

• 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

• 8 May 2013: Parliamentary Speech

  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the pursuit of misconceived green energy policies has contributed to the problem that he is identifying—namely, that we are now one of the most expensive places to generate energy in Europe and as a result our industries are suffering as regards competitiveness?

  Full debate: Debate on the Address

• 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

• 14 May 2012: Parliamentary Speech

  That is a euphemism for expensive electricity. I think we all know that the pursuit of renewable electricity has added considerably to energy bills in the United Kingdom and put us at a competitive disadvantage. Whatever we call it, clean energy, green energy or wind power costs three and a half times more than coal or gas-fired power. If the Government are going to keep going down that route, they will suck growth back out of the economy in the pursuit of helping the renewables industry.

  Full debate: Business and the Economy

• 18 Apr 2012: Parliamentary Speech

  I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the general level of APD, but does he not recognise that this measure is the result of the climate change legislation passed in a previous Parliament which his party supported? The chickens are coming home to roost, with extra green taxes being imposed on poor consumers across the United Kingdom.

  Full debate: Finance (No. 4) Bill

• 6 Dec 2011: Parliamentary Speech

  First, I welcome a number of things set out in the autumn statement, such as the increased money for infrastructure that will come to Northern Ireland. It will not make up for the 40% cut in capital spending announced in the Budget, but it will fill some of the gaps. Secondly, I wish the Chancellor well in his battle with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and perhaps the Prime Minister, as he takes on the green lobby and seeks to strike a balance in the economy and redress the damage that many green policies are doing to industry.

  Full debate: The Economy

• 26 Oct 2011: Parliamentary Speech

  I know that the Labour party has an obsession with carbon emissions, and indeed the Climate Change Act 2008 was evidence of that, but the motion is about job creation. Carbon reduction has led to an increase in consumer and business electricity prices, and to energy-intensive industries relocating outside the United Kingdom, with the British Air Transport Association saying only last week, “If we continue down this road it will affect the aviation industry’s competitiveness,” so will the hon. Lady explain how that fits with job creation?

  Full debate: Environmental Protection and Green Growth

• 19 Oct 2011: Parliamentary Speech

  I note what the right hon. Lady has said about her support for the Climate Change Act 2008, but will she spell out for us what the cost of the renewables obligation has been for electricity consumers in the United Kingdom this year?

  Full debate: Energy Prices

  A second cause is lack of investment. Because of that lack of investment and because of the demand that exists, prices are bound to be fairly buoyant anyway, and there is a captive market. A third—I suspect that many people will secretly agree with this, but will not be prepared to say so openly—is the impact of the Government’s climate change policies. When we say that because we want a low-carbon economy we will charge those who use carbon-based fuels in ways that cause carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere, and when we say that we will introduce policies to stop that happening, we cannot run away from the fact that such action will have implications for people’s fuel bills throughout the United Kingdom. The facts are clear. This year, simply to deal with the renewables obligations, being forced to purchase electricity from renewable sources has added £1.8 billion to the cost of producing electricity, and by 2020 the cost will be £6 billion a year. According to the Department’s own estimates, domestic consumers will face a 33% increase in the cost of electricity and non-domestic consumers such as industry will face an increase of 43%.

  I support the motion, but it makes a rather glib reference to climate change. Many people will feel that they can agree with such sentiments, but behind them is the reality of what will happen to fuel bills: people will pay more for their energy. Denmark, not our country, has the highest costs per unit and the highest fuel bills, and Denmark produces 20% of its electricity from wind power. That is the highest proportion in Europe. The lowest costs are in France, which produces 75% of its energy from nuclear power.

  Full debate: Energy Prices

  We say that we want 30% of our electricity to be generated by offshore wind by 2030, but that has implications for consumers across the United Kingdom. Regardless of our views on climate change, there ought to be some honesty in this debate. I do not know what the impact on global temperatures might be if we were to decarbonise our economy and reduce our CO 2 emissions, which account for 2% of the world’s CO 2 emissions, by 10% or 20% by 2020, but there will be a price to be paid by each of our constituents, and we ought to make that clear.

  Full debate: Energy Prices

  In the longer term, we have to be realistic about green policies. I welcome the Chancellor’s remarks that we should not be pursuing policies on decarbonising the economy if they place our economy at a disadvantage compared with others across the world. While the European Union is preaching about reducing carbon emissions, the German Government have a much more realistic view. They are actually investing in 20 coal-fired power stations and in nuclear, because they want to find ways of producing cheap energy. In the long term we have to look at our investment priorities and whether we are following the correct policy. If, in the long term, we wish to invest in that way, we need to consider how we are going to deal with the consequences.

  Full debate: Energy Prices

• 12 Oct 2011: Parliamentary Speech

  Some fiscal measures have been suggested here today. It has been suggested that we need not increase spending and reduce taxes to create extra demand. Instead, we could direct extra spending towards the activities that create the biggest multiplier effect—for instance, spending on housing and reductions in VAT, whether for extensions to houses or for the tourist industry. There are measures that do not cost a penny, such as reducing regulation. I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement that he will not stick to the carbon reduction targets. As one who voted against the Climate Change Act 2008, I am pleased to observe that some reality is now entering that debate. Why should we impose a 40% increase in energy costs on our industry when that is not being done elsewhere, with the aim of reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere and thereby somehow or other affecting the climate?

  Full debate: Jobs and Growth

• 14 Sep 2011: Vote

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