Kerry McCarthy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  We have nuclear production in this country— [Interruption.] We have nuclear power as part of the mix. Obviously, the investment we have just announced does not come into effect for a while, but we have that as part of the mix. We have said that there will be 95% clean power with gas as a back-up if needed. We are not putting all our eggs in one basket by any means whatsoever.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a whole factor. There is solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, and increasingly storage. We have nuclear as part of the mix now, and we have said—

• 30 Jun 2025 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It’s Sir Desmond!

• 30 Jun 2025 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more, and that is what the clean industry bonus is: it is designed to help foster those jobs through the manufacturing and supply chain. I am going up to my hon. Friend’s part of the world on Wednesday to see all that is happening in the bay when it comes to developing the energy resources of the Mersey. I am very much looking forward to that. This instrument is another important step towards delivering clean power, shielding families from volatile gas prices and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower. It builds on the existing success of the CfD scheme, evolving it to better reflect global market realities and to drive progress towards the 2030 clean power target, while protecting consumer bills.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister went through his list of questions rather quickly. I will try to respond to some of his comments and answer a few of the questions, but apologies if I did not catch them all—I was trying to scribble away. We intend for the AR7 window to open on 7 August, and we will publish a final Government response very shortly, which will cover all the areas consulted on in March. On the administrative strike price, the shadow Minister cannot expect me to tell him now what the strike price will be. Ahead of every allocation round, we review our evidence base to ensure that it reflects the market environment. The administrative strike price for AR7 will be published ahead of the round opening—as I said, that round will open in August. The shadow Minister talked about one of his favourite subjects: curtailment payments due to there not being grid capacity for wind. He will know, because he has been told this before in answer to previous questions, that we absolutely understand that issue, and we are prioritising increasing grid capacity to prevent it. Chris Stark, the former chair of the Climate Change Committee, is heading up mission control, and he is working every day—and possibly most of the night—to ensure that we give priority to the right projects in the grid connection. It is like towels on deckchairs; we weed out some of the projects that we know will never come to fruition, and we ensure that we invest in grid infrastructure so that we can make the most of the renewable energy being produced. The shadow Minister asked why we are not investing in gas and nuclear. He has not been paying attention; he should know that there was a big announcement on nuclear. We are now also looking at small modular reactors. We have awarded Rolls-Royce preferred bidder status for that contract, which is attracting a lot of interest from around the world, to see if it can follow suit. I am not sure it is worth our rehearsing the conversations about the cost of getting to net zero. I was going to say, “We are very much of the opinion”, but it is not an opinion—we know that the best way to bring down consumer bills in the long term is to get to clean power by 2030. We know that renewables will be cheaper for consumers and less volatile. Home-grown clean energy means that we will not be reliant on imported oil, gas and renewables. They are not only greener but faster to deploy and cheaper to build.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Regulations 2025. The regulations were laid before the House on 2 June this year. At the Global Offshore Wind conference this month, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero reaffirmed our commitment to strengthening our energy security through the development of home-grown, low carbon power, while delivering a fair price for consumers. That is the best way to bolster our energy security, getting us off the rollercoaster of global fossil fuel markets. It is the best way to spark economic growth across the country, with hundreds of thousands of new jobs, particularly in our industrial heartlands, and it is the best way to tackle the climate crisis for today and future generations. That is why the Government are on a mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, with clean power by 2030. The regulations will clearly contribute to that mission. The contracts for difference scheme is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting new low carbon electricity generation projects in Great Britain. CfDs are awarded through annual competitive auctions, with the lowest price bids being successful. The sixth CfD allocation round—AR6, which ran last year—was the largest ever. It awarded contracts to 127 clean energy projects across Great Britain, capturing 7.2 GW of renewable capacity. However, we must ensure the continued success of the CfD. We must continually evolve the scheme to drive progress towards that 2030 clean power target, ensuring that it reflects the global challenges and opportunities faced by the renewables sector while delivering fair prices for consumers. Building on our commitments in the clean power action plan, we plan to update the scheme, using the regulations, to continue our march towards a low carbon power system. First, the Secretary of State will be allowed to see anonymised bid information submitted to the National Energy System Operator for the allocation round before finalising the budget. In allocation round 6, there was unspent budget for fixed-bottom offshore wind, meaning that an opportunity was lost to potentially secure additional projects at a good price. Without addressing that issue, we risk not being able to take advantage of good value capacity deployment for Clean Power 2030. Bringing forward renewable capacity at a reasonable cost will benefit consumers by moving the country away from volatile fossil fuel prices. A further amendment involves changing the budget publication process. As I mentioned, ensuring that we avoid budget underspend while continuing to protect consumers is crucial. Changing the budget publication process would allow the Secretary of State to set a budget based on anonymised bid information. That means that the Government can be certain that any capacity procured will advance our Clean Power 2030 ambition and be at a fair price for consumers. To implement that policy change, we need to amend existing regulations to allow budgets for a CfD round to be published later in the allocation round process. We are also amending regulations to ensure that the costs of the clean industry bonus, referred to as the “sustainable industry reward”, are included in the Ofgem price cap. The first round of the clean industry bonus was run this year, applying to fixed and floating offshore wind, and it was a huge success. We have more than doubled the budget from £200 million to £544 million, leveraging up to £9 billion in investment into UK supply chains depending on AR7 results. That is an unprecedented amount of investment for our offshore wind industry. Never before in an allocation round has so much investment been earmarked for UK factories and ports, all in the poorest parts of our country. The clean industry bonus sits within the CfD and is funded by the same levy on consumer costs. There needs to be specific provision in the relevant regulations that makes sure that the CIB is to be counted as a specific bill cost, as part of wider CfD costs. That is a technical change; all the rest of the CIB regulations are already in place. It will ensure that the price cap captures all the relevant factors that might affect it. The bill impact for CIBs is low: this year’s CIB round will cost consumers less than £1.50 a year for four years. What we get in return is a historic investment in our offshore wind industry. To conclude, the consultation on these policy interventions sought views and supporting evidence on specific changes proposed for allocation round 7. We received a range of responses from across the industry, including developers, electricity traders and suppliers, as well as businesses operating in the offshore wind sector and consumer and environmental groups with an interest in the electricity sector. Most respondents agreed with changing the budget publication process, improving the information available to the Secretary of State when setting budgets, and ensuring that CIB payments are included in the energy price cap. Respondents also provided input on how the Department should implement those policies. The Department continues to engage closely with industry on the development of the CfD.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am not aware of that announcement, not least because I am not the Energy Minister—he is in the Chamber, making a statement about the oil refinery. But we are doing all we can to bring down consumer bills, and I think we deserve some credit for our efforts. To conclude, meeting the Government’s commitment to the clean energy superpower mission, including clean power by 2030, will require a rapid and sustained scale-up of low carbon electricity. That will entail working with the private sector to radically increase the deployment of low carbon electricity, while at the same time protecting consumers. The instrument under discussion—in the loosest possible sense of the word, given how the debate has ranged over a number of other topics—is a step forward in achieving those ambitions; it supports the delivery of a clean power system, which shields families from volatile gas prices. By amending the contract budget publication process and allowing the Secretary of State access to anonymised bid information, we will ensure that the previous underspend risks seen for fixed-bottom offshore wind are minimised, and the Government having greater certainty of outcome in the auction to procure more fixed-bottom offshore wind will allow us to make an informed decision on balancing capacity with costs to consumers. The UK is a world leader in offshore wind, with 15.9 GW generating electricity. We have the highest deployment in Europe and are second in the world only to China. This policy intervention is another strong signal of the Government’s commitment to scale up deployment of fixed-bottom offshore wind to the benefit of businesses, bill payers and local communities. The instrument will build on the success of the CFD scheme—I will be polite and not mention how AR5 went under the previous Government compared with AR6 under us—adapting it in line with market and technological developments, and contributing to the UK’s crucial net zero targets and 2030 clean power mission. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 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.