Kerry McCarthy MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2025 · Geo-engineering and the Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I will not be tempted too far down that path, other than to say that it is very much on our radar. We know that renewables are the cheaper option, but that needs to be reflected in the prices that people are charged. Today, we announced measures in our industrial strategy to bring down energy prices for industry as part of industrial decarbonisation, but on the consumer side it is a work in progress, and the hon. Gentleman can expect to hear more soon. The starting point is reducing emissions. We know that emissions are hard to abate in some sectors, and that we will not be able to do it fully. Greenhouse gas removal technologies will therefore be important to balance those residual emissions. That is recognised internationally by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by our independent Climate Change Committee, whose latest advice to Government for setting the seventh carbon budget modelled around 36 megatonnes a year of engineered removals by 2050 to help us reach net zero. Greenhouse gas removal approaches fall broadly into two categories: nature-based approaches, such as afforestation; and engineering-based approaches, such as direct air carbon capture and storage, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, biochar, and enhanced rock weathering. I know that both the hon. Members for South Cotswolds and for South Cambridgeshire are passionate about nature-based approaches, which can play an important role in removing and storing carbon dioxide at scale, while delivering a range of additional environmental improvements, such as improvements in biodiversity, air quality and soil health. Those co-benefits are important, too. We are acting on nature-based approaches. In March, we announced the creation of the Western forest, the first new national forest in over 30 years. It will see 20 million trees planted across the west of England in the coming years, which I very much welcome as a Bristol MP. We also plan to expand nature-rich habitats, such as wetlands and peat bogs, including restoring hundreds of thousands of hectares of peatland—we also seek to promote such work internationally. We are in the middle of London Climate Action Week, and many visitors from Brazil are talking about what they seek to do for their tropical forests’ “forever facility” at COP30. I was excited to hear what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said about whales and giant kelp, as I have been talking to my officials about the role they play—it is good to have scientific back-up for my views. During London Climate Action Week, we are focusing on the important role of the voluntary carbon and nature markets in securing investment for blue carbon and our forests. However, we know that nature-based approaches need to be complemented by engineered solutions to remove carbon dioxide at the speed and scale necessary for us to meet our targets. Many countries agree with us on the important role that GGRs will play, and large-scale removal projects are currently operating or being planned around the world. We are also committed to supporting the deployment of engineered GGRs. Access to carbon capture, usage and storage infrastructure is vital for many GGR technologies, and the Government are supporting the development of the CCUS network by allocating £9.4 billion in capital budgets over the spending review period. The network needs regulation, and we have an established environmental regulatory regime, with several regulators evaluating the environmental impact of GGR and CCUS projects. Any GGR project deployed in the UK must comply with the relevant regulations and planning processes to ensure it is managed responsibly and that any environmental impacts are addressed, including impacts on biodiversity, pollution and local communities. We will continue to work with the necessary Departments, regulators and other public bodies to ensure that the UK’s regulatory environment is well placed to support the deployment of GGRs without causing environmental harm. We take the integrity of removals very seriously. A robust GGR standard, including monitoring, reporting and verification, will be crucial in instilling public and investor confidence that removals through engineered GGR projects are genuine and verifiable. In other words, when someone says they have removed 1 tonne of CO 2 , at least 1 net tonne of CO 2 must have been removed from the atmosphere once emissions relating to the entire process are taken into account, and we have commissioned the British Standards Institution to develop those assessment methodologies. Although the petition refers to geo-engineering in a broader sense, solar radiation modification is possibly why it has attracted so many signatures. As I have said, SRM is a set of technologies that could cool the Earth, largely by reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space. However, the consequences of SRM are currently poorly understood, with significant uncertainty about the possible risks and impacts of deployment. I make it clear for the record that the Government are not deploying solar radiation modification and have no plans to do so. There will be no spraying of chemicals in the skies over the UK for SRM, geo-engineering or climate remediation. Our priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change. However, we do need to understand the potential risks and impacts of SRM. We have a very clear commitment not to deploy it, but we need to understand what would happen if other people chose to. That includes engaging with the Met Office Hadley Centre climate programme, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, the coverage of whose climate cooling research programme has triggered some of the concerns we are talking about today. ARIA is an independent research body that was set up by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Although it is sponsored by that Government Department, it has complete autonomy on its project choices, which goes to the point about whether that is the best use of public money, as ARIA is responsible for its own choices. It is conducting cautious, controlled research aimed at improving the understanding of SRM risks and impacts, but it is not deploying SRM technologies. I say again that its research will not release any toxic materials, nor will it alleviate the urgent need for increased decarbonisation efforts. There is no substitute for decarbonisation, which is why we are pressing on with our missions for clean power and net zero. The science is clear that, without rapid action, we risk irreversible damage to the planet’s biosphere. To halt global warming, the world needs to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, which includes the UK’s emissions. I hope I have reassured the hon. Members present, and the constituents they represent, that the Government are not deploying SRM technologies and have no plans to do so, and that the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas removal technologies—the other wing of geo-engineering—will continue to be monitored as those technologies scale up in the UK.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Geo-engineering and the Environment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on leading the debate and on showing respect for the notion behind the petition, because that is not always the case when people come and present views. I hope the petitioners feel that she has done justice to their stance. I will set out what we are doing to tackle the issues highlighted in the petition. A lot of the concerns that have been raised today and over the last few weeks have been driven by recent research proposals to explore climate cooling technologies, as well as the media coverage that that has caused, and I will come on to those concerns in a moment. Geo-engineering is a term commonly used to refer to two groups of technologies, as has been mentioned: greenhouse gas removals and solar radiation modification. Those are two very separate, very different approaches to addressing climate change, and the UK has two very separate, very different positions on their use. Greenhouse gas removals actively remove greenhouse gases—predominantly carbon dioxide—from the atmosphere for highly durable storage, resulting in negative emissions. They are vital to achieving net zero, and we support their deployment. Solar radiation modification, on the other hand, describes a set of interventions that aim to cool the earth, largely by reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Geo-engineering and the Environment · Hansard source

  More

  I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. I have received quite a lot of correspondence on that, which MPs have passed on from their constituents. I have answered written questions—which are in the public domain—and replied to queries on both those points. I will try to express as clearly and vehemently as I can that we have no plans for SRM. On the supposed chemtrails issue, that is a term used by some people who claim that the white trails seen behind high-altitude aircraft on clear days contain undisclosed chemical agents intended for a covert atmospheric spraying programme. They are, in fact, as my hon. Friend said, contrails, which form when warm, moist aircraft exhaust fumes mix with cold air at altitude. Under certain atmospheric conditions, contrails can persist and spread out to form cirrus-like clouds before disappearing. There is no deliberate spraying of chemicals in the skies over the UK for climate modification. We are not in favour of SRM and have no plans to change that position; I will say more on that in a moment, but first I want to add a little more on greenhouse gas removals. Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this Government, delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating progress towards net zero across the economy by 2050. I note the comments from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) about the UK being off track to do that. We will be publishing our carbon budget delivery plan by October; as she said, the previous Government were taken to court for failing to produce adequate policies to match the ambition. Obviously, there is no point in setting targets unless they can be delivered. We will set out our plan in due course, and then talk about the seventh carbon budget and meeting our nationally determined contributions. We must do everything we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—that is our starting point. We need that effort to be shared across all Government Departments, and we need everyone to play a role.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This is the subject of ongoing discussions between our Department and, in particular, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: we want to ensure that we are not giving with one hand and taking away with the other. That is part of the remodelling that will enable us to supply international climate finance to the people who need it most.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s licence exemption schemes already allow small-scale suppliers, including many community energy groups, to come to market to supply local customers. The Secretary of State has also commissioned Ofgem to work with the Department to explore some of the policy and regulatory barriers to local supply.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Rural Economies · Hansard source

  More

  If rural communities are to benefit from the clean energy transition, it is important that they play a role in hoping to host the infrastructure. When the Great British Energy Bill went through Parliament, there was much discussion about ensuring that communities that host the new infrastructure do not lose out. I can send the hon. Gentleman details of exactly how his community can engage with that process.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Rural Economies · Hansard source

  More

  Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone can access the benefits of our net zero transition, including rural communities, which will play a vital role in creating jobs and hosting infrastructure. That is why we have set up the £5 million Great British Energy community fund to support clean energy project development, including in constituencies like my hon. Friend’s.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Rural Economies · Hansard source

  More

  That sounds like a great project. We are absolutely committed to recognising the role that community energy groups, like the Chipping Community Land Trust, can play in ensuring that communities directly benefit from the energy transition. The trust was awarded £100,000 through the former rural community energy fund, and GB Energy is continuing that work through its community fund, helping to unleash the wave of community energy projects that the Secretary of State spoke about earlier. The Government and Ofgem will be working to tackle policy and regulatory barriers to these projects happening.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Climate Change: International Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  International leadership on climate change is critical for this Government, which is why we announced a world-leading nationally determined contribution at COP29 and were at the heart of negotiations during the summit. I have been working extensively with international counterparts to ensure maximum ambition from countries around the world at COP30, and look forward to further engagement.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Climate Change: International Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the Government’s climate leadership. We are doing all we can to mobilise climate financing in support of the new collective goal agreed at COP29. I would be more than happy to meet him and campaigners to discuss his Bill when he is ready to do so.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Climate Change: International Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, assures me that the deal was not signed. He will keep the House informed as and when it is appropriate to do so.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Climate Change: International Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot pre-empt what is in the report. We will wait for it to come out, and then respond in due course. On local leadership, the hon. Lady and I share a local authority, and I would be very happy to discuss with it what more we can do to set an example—as Bristol has done so many times in the past—on how things can be done at a local level.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Climate Change: International Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  As I understand it, the solar road map has not yet been published, so watch this space. I have been having conversations in the past couple of weeks with international counterparts who are interested in floating solar, and I would be happy to get the hon. Gentleman a more detailed response on our plans on that front.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Climate Change: International Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad to hear that the children at SS Peter and Paul primary school are taking such an interest in this issue. I can assure them that we are doing all we can to make Britain a clean energy superpower, such as lifting the onshore wind ban and setting up Great British Energy, and we are protecting nature too. We are also committed to engaging more with young people, and I will make sure my hon. Friend is kept informed of our plans.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a real champion for his constituency, and for the benefits that the development of fusion will bring. We continue to invest and to have discussions with international counterparts. There is a very bright future for fusion, and for his constituents as a result.

• 29 Apr 2025 · UN Climate Change Conference 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. Other countries are looking to us. The conference last week was a good example of us being back in the business of global leadership. Whether it is through the Global Clean Power Alliance or our national mission to be a clean energy superpower, we are spearheading the transition because it is cheaper, cleaner and more secure. His constituents will benefit from that too.

• 29 Apr 2025 · UN Climate Change Conference 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I would dispute that it is threatening the environment, but we will be looking at the wider issue the right hon. Gentleman raises through the solar industry taskforce.

• 29 Apr 2025 · UN Climate Change Conference 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  First of all, I am sure the whole House will want to send support to Spain and Portugal following the incidents yesterday. There were no effects in the UK, but we will continue to closely monitor the situation and any lessons learned from this event. I am not going to speculate as to its causes, but we do need to ensure that our own systems are as resilient as possible.

• 29 Apr 2025 · UN Climate Change Conference 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  We are working closely with the Brazilian presidency to support a high-ambition outcome at COP30 in Belém which reflects the scale of the challenge and our shared 1.5° goal. That includes ambitious new nationally determined contributions and the effective implementation of the global stocktake commitments, as well as action on issues such as tackling deforestation and methane emissions.

• 29 Apr 2025 · UN Climate Change Conference 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely the case. It was heartening to see so many countries and so many representatives from business come together at the conference last week. We are showing global leadership on this issue. We know it is the way forward in terms of our energy security, and not putting us at the mercy of dictators and petrostates. I thank my hon. Friend for his support.

• 18 Mar 2025 · COP29 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right: we earn the credibility that enables us to show international leadership by delivering at home. In due course we will publish a cross-economy plan for meeting our climate targets, which will outline the policies that are needed to meet our 2035 nationally determined contribution, and we are engaging with a range of stakeholders on delivery through, for instance, the Net Zero Council, which has a very busy work programme, and the local net zero delivery group.

• 18 Mar 2025 · COP29 · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to answer questions from the hon. Member. We remain committed to international climate finance, and to the new climate finance goal agreed at COP29. The level of the UK’s contribution will be considered in the spending review, when we will also consider how we can maximise investment from the private sector.

• 18 Mar 2025 · COP29 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her continued interest in this issue. Despite significant challenges, COP29 agreed a new climate finance goal and finalised guidance on international carbon markets. We would have liked more progress in certain areas, such as on mitigation outcomes. We look forward to playing an important role in the run-up to COP30 in Belém, to ensure that more progress is made.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  As I said to the hon. Member, that issue that has been debated numerous times here, and it is not really the subject of today’s debate—but nice try on getting it in there. He might want to secure his own Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate on it. As I said, it is very much on our radar to look at the fairness in the system and to make sure that energy is affordable for everybody and that there are community benefits as we roll out that clean power ambition. All those issues are talked about in the Department on a daily basis. Before I move on from the hon. Member for West Suffolk, I will say that the urgent question on carbon budget 7 was not granted because there is a process for the Government to respond to the analysis given to us from carbon budgets, and we will follow that process. First, though, we have to deal with the carbon budget delivery plan. Before looking to CB7, we must look at how we meet the obligations contained in current carbon budgets. The previous Government were taken to court because their plan was not deemed adequate. They presented another plan, and the courts again found that it was not adequate, so we now have a deadline from the courts to produce our carbon budget delivery plan this year to show that we are back on track. That is very much our first priority. I am sure that once that is published, we will debate that and then carbon budget 7 as well, but we have to show that we are back on track before we start looking into the future.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, as always. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for securing this important debate. I think it is a marker of an MP who is going to achieve things for their constituents that they show persistence and an imaginative approach to lobbying on issues that are important to their constituents. The fact that he has already had the farming Minister down to visit the site and that, having dealt with one Government Department, he has now also secured this 90-minute debate in Parliament, his first Westminster Hall debate, is a sign of somebody who I know will be persistent in all the right ways. I pay tribute to him for that. I will deal with some of the contributions from hon. Members before I address the more general questions. Some of the issues raised today are the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as shown by the farming Minister’s visit, but it is important to look at that circularity and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk spoke very eloquently about the co-benefits of the site: it is not just about energy production. I can tell him and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) that we are acting at pace to try to deal with issues such as pollution of our waterways, and agricultural run-off, protection of our chalk streams and so on are very much part of that. While that is not a matter for me directly, when we look at energy projects we always look at the co-benefits. We have had a number of debates on this issue. When I was shadow Minister I replied to a debate—I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was there, because he always is—led by a Lib Dem colleague of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), on consumer energy prices in the highlands and islands. Point were made then about the difference in pricing and how expensive it can be to heat homes there. I am pretty sure that the Minister for Energy has replied to debates on similar subjects since we got into Government, but the hon. Member raises a valid point. I can give the hon. Member for Strangford, who has raised the question of the CfD regime before, the assurance that the Lords Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero met his Northern Ireland counterpart before Christmas to discuss it; I am told that that dialogue continues. The hon. Gentleman will also, I am sure, be pleased to know that the Minister for Energy will be in Belfast tomorrow—we have an inter-ministerial group from the devolved Administrations that moves around. I discussed the agenda with the Minister for Energy last week and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will be very much involved in those discussions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not ignoring Northern Ireland; it is very much on our radar.