Pension Schemes Bill — Clause 124 — Climate Change Risk — 16 Nov 2020 at 21:03

The majority of MPs voted not to seek to ensure any regulations on the subject of climate change risk which apply to those running certain occupational pension schemes align with the aims of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner and limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

MPs were considering the Pension Schemes Bill[1].

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

Amendment 16, page 118, line 45, leave out subsection (8) and insert—

  • ‘(8) In this section and in sections 41AA, 41B and 41C—
  • (a) “the Paris Agreement goal” means the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 4.1 of the agreement done at Paris on 12 December 2015; and
  • (b) “other climate change goal” means any climate change goal approved by the Secretary of State, but does not apply to a climate change goal which fails to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement goal.
  • 41AA Alignment with the Paris Agreement goal
  • ‘(1) Trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes of a prescribed description must develop, set and implement, and from time to time review and if necessary revise, a strategy for ensuring that their investment policy, objectives and practices (including stewardship activities) are aligned with the Paris Agreement goal or other climate change goal.
  • (2) Such a strategy is to be known as a “Paris-alignment strategy”.
  • (3) The objective of a Paris-alignment strategy must be to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, consistent with the Paris Agreement goal or other climate change goal.
  • (4) Provision may be made by regulations—
  • (a) requiring the trustees or managers of a scheme, in determining or revising a Paris-alignment strategy, to take into account prescribed matters and follow prescribed principles—
  • (i) as to the level of detail required in a Paris-alignment strategy; and
  • (ii) as to the period within which a Paris-alignment strategy must be developed, set and effected;
  • (b) requiring annual reporting on the implementation of the Paris-alignment strategy and progress against the objective set out in subsection (3); and
  • (c) requiring a Paris-alignment strategy to be reviewed, and if necessary revised, at such intervals and on such occasions as may be prescribed.’

The rejected amendment was accompanied by the following explanatory statement from its proposer:

  • This amendment enables regulations that would mandate occupational pension schemes to develop a strategy for ensuring that their investments and stewardship activities are aligning with the Paris agreement goals, and include an objective of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner.

Subsection 8 of Clause 124 stated[1]

  • In this section “the Paris Agreement goal” means the goal of holding the

increase in the average global temperature to well below 2˚C above pre-industrial levels referred to in Article 2(1)(a) of the agreement done at Paris on 12 December 2015.

The objective in Article 2(1)(a) of the Paris agreement[3] was broader and stated:

  • Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C

above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change

Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement[3] stated:

  • In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.

The motion rejected in this vote was:

  • That the amendment be made.

--

Debate in Parliament |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con348 (+2 tell) 0096.2%
DUP5 0062.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 40100.0%
Lab0 187 (+2 tell)094.5%
LDem0 110100.0%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 20100.0%
SNP0 470100.0%
Total:354 256095.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by constituency

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive