Kerry McCarthy
MP for Bristol East · Labour · United Kingdom
“We see that in four main ways: physical risks, including floods, wildfires, droughts and storms; transition risks as economies move away from high-carbon industries; nature-related risks affecting food production and natural resources; and systemic risks, where shocks spread rapidly across sectors and markets.”
“The glaciers of the third pole function as Asia’s water tower, feeding major river systems that support nearly 2 billion people. When rising temperatures accelerate glacial melt, the consequences extend far beyond the mountains.”
“Following the heatwaves and wildfires across Europe this summer and the destruction caused by the glacier collapse and catastrophic flooding in Nepal and Tibet, the message is becoming impossible to ignore: the consequences of climate change and environmental degradation are real, not some distant future threat.”
“Personally, I cannot see that Rosebank is compatible with meeting our climate objectives, but I recognise that the process should be followed. Green Alliance has reported that the gas being wasted in the North sea would be enough to heat 570,000 homes.”
“I too worked in the financial markets, although I think I have done a better job of hiding it in my 21 years in Parliament. I was more on the debt market side. In fact, I am so old that I was part of the salvage operation for Barings bank when it went under. That brings me to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about regulation.”
“My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I very much agree with the point that he just made. We have some excellent, innovative businesses in Bristol that came up through the Science Creates innovation hubs and attracted private capital.”
The complete record
Every one of 6,322 lines we hold for Kerry McCarthy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 127.
“I hope that we will be ready to start work on that in just over a year’s time, or whenever the election is called, but it would be good if the current Government addressed some of the underlying issues, particularly the skills gap, ensured continuity of supply, and listened to what Members have said today, so that we are ready to hit the ground running. Even if we do not win the next election, I am sure the Minister would hope to get things in a better place so that we can steam ahead with this programme.”
“The 3Ci website has a really good account of what we are doing. One of our ambitions, for example, is to get all social housing up to EPC C by 2030, which involves an innovative arrangement with private sector finance. Under our green prosperity plan, Labour is committed to spending £6 billion a year to retrofit 19 million homes to EPC C within a decade, saving families an average of £1,000 a year on their energy bills, creating over 206,000 new full-time equivalent jobs, and cutting national gas imports by up to 15%.”
“He would like a focus on ensuring that installers are compliant with publicly available specifications, PAS, in the long term, so that people trust retrofitting more, but at the moment the process is very bureaucratic. He cites a case where a 115-page form was needed to fit loft insulation that took only an hour to install. I do not know how long it takes to fill out a 115-page form, but I would imagine that it was considerably longer than one hour. He also said that with schemes such as the home upgrade grant, the focus on specific measures, rather than letting retrofitting co-ordinators decide what is best, sometimes means that they cannot offer support for some houses. It would be remiss of me not to mention how well Bristol is doing at retrofitting homes through its City Leap programme.”
“The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero acknowledged the increased costs when consulting on the ECO+ scheme back in December, but ECO4 has not been aligned. There is also the problem I mentioned of the gaps between schemes causing confusion and a drop in uptake. There was a four-month gap before ECO4, and I think at one point prior to that there was an 18-month gap between schemes, which I am told had a major impact on the skills front. We cannot allow the same to happen with ECO+. Continuity is needed. I have also spoken to a housing association boss who says that he thinks the schemes are working okay generally, but that timescales and bureaucracy are a big problem. Low levels of contribution to band D homes means that installers and energy companies are less likely to take them on.”
“The goalposts that must be cleared for properties to meet the SAP score are being moved, so vulnerable, fuel-poor households have been ruled ineligible and are missing out. The second issue is costs. Funding assumptions under ECO4 are significantly lower than actual installation costs, and rising inflation has led to costs in the supply chain escalating even further. With current inflation rates and the skill shortages, those costs are likely to be increasing incrementally, almost by the week. I am not convinced that the Government have taken that into account. Delivering loft insulation, for example, is currently 430% more expensive than the Government estimate, while cavity wall insulation is 372% more expensive. These are clearly not small discrepancies, and they have to be recognised in the ECO4 scheme.”
“I have spoken to people from various businesses in the retrofit industry, and they fear that the same mistakes are being made. Nigel Donohue, chief executive of the Installation Assurance Authority, said the transition to ECO4 was “really poorly managed…despite conversations with the Government about not allowing this to happen to the industry again”. There is no getting away from the fact that the scheme is really struggling. There are two major issues delaying delivery. The first is limitations on scoring. Aeon estimates that up to 90% of the properties eligible for ECO4 will not receive the support they desperately need because those homes do not meet the minimum improvement requirements.”
“That is what I go back to—the period when the market crashed, setting us back about a decade to where we are now. Last year, only 159,699 ECO measures were installed in low-income and fuel-poor homes, a reduction of 59% from the 393,706 in 2021. There is a substantial gap between Government insulation targets and delivery where ECO4 is concerned. Analysis from E.ON Energy suggests that, as of December 2022, the industry had completed around 11% of the obligation, compared with an expected 19%. We estimate that at the same point during the ECO3 scheme, the industry had completed 29%. That delay will have consequences. A report from the World Wide Fund for Nature and ScottishPower warns that the Government are on track to insulate just one sixth of the homes needed to meet their target of reducing energy consumption by 15% by 2030.”
“That is very much the case. I have been in this place for 18 years. Earlier in my career, I saw in my casework people who had been ripped off really struggling to deal with the bureaucracy of whether they would be able to get public funding and whether they had to pay the people who were literally on their doorstep asking for money. Turning to where we are now, the ECO scheme was well intentioned and welcome, but it is not working. At the moment, the UK has the least energy-efficient housing in Europe and home insulation rates have plummeted. Many statistics have been bandied around. My numbers are slightly different and relate to a different time period. In 2013, the coalition cut energy efficiency programmes; in the same year, insulation rates fell by 92%.”
“You wish! New Clause 44 Maximum economic recovery in the North Sea “(1) The Petroleum Act 1998 is amended as follows. (2) Omit sections 9A to 9I.” —(Dr Whitehead.) This new clause removes reference to Maximum Economic Recovery in the North Sea as placed into the Petroleum Act 1998 by section 41 of the Infrastructure Act 2015. Brought up, read the First time, and motion made (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.”
“Will the Minister explain why he does not think that consumers should bear the cost of community energy projects but does think that they should bear the cost of new hydrogen, through the hydrogen levy? That seems rather inconsistent.”
“The Prime Minister insists that he was only following convention when he waved through Boris Johnson’s honours list. It should be obvious to anyone that this former dishonourable Member—a man who will not even be allowed back on to the estate without an escort—should not be doling out honours. Would a stronger, more principled Prime Minister not have recognised that any convention that allows such a man to install his discredited cronies as peers might need changing, rather than blindly following?”
“(7) A company designated as Great British Nuclear under this section is exempt from the requirement in section 59 of the Companies Act 2006 (requirement as to use of ‘limited’ in company name). (8) In this section— ‘company’ means a company registered under the Companies Act 2006; ‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act).”— (Andrew Bowie.) This new clause allows the Secretary of State by notice to designate a company as Great British Nuclear, provided that the company is limited by shares and wholly-owned by the Crown. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“(5) A notice under subsection (4)(b)— (a) must specify the time from which the revocation has effect, and (b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the notice is given. (6) For the purposes of this section a company is wholly-owned by the Crown if each share in the company is held by— (a) a Minister of the Crown, (b) the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority established by section 1 of the Energy Act 2004, (c) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority established by section 1 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954, (d) a company which is wholly-owned by the Crown, or (e) a nominee of a person falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d).”
“I thought you were great. Question put and agreed to. New clause 72 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 73 Great British Nuclear “(1) The Secretary of State may by notice designate a company as Great British Nuclear. (2) A company may be designated under this section only if— (a) it is limited by shares, and (b) it is wholly-owned by the Crown. (3) A notice under subsection (1)— (a) must specify the time from which the designation has effect, and (b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the notice is given. (4) The designation of a company terminates— (a) if it ceases to be wholly-owned by the Crown, or (b) if the Secretary of State revokes its designation by notice.”
“I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 264, page 234, line 31, at end insert “, or on benefits in deferment or pensions in payment;” This amendment means that the Secretary of State may not put a cap on revaluation of benefits in deferment or pensions in payment.”
“It is designed to remove any uncertainty, and I hope he will accept it.”
“I have been approached by representatives of trade unions who are eager to meet the Minister to ensure that reforms are fully consistent with Lord Hutton’s review. I do not know whether the Minister can offer today to meet those representatives, so I can take that back to them. An amendment is necessary to remove any doubt about the status of nuclear workers’ pensions. I am sure we all agree that the effectiveness of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is essential to maintain the UK’s nuclear security, and that the work of everyone at the NDA is really important, as we have already heard this morning. Those people are integral to keeping the public safe, and that should be recognised when legislation is being determined. I hope the Minister accepts that the amendment has been tabled in a constructive spirit.”
“They felt that that was the best deal they could get, but they feel that the promises made to them have been broken and they are not happy. Given that, it is even more important that we ensure that the Bill reflects the compromise agreement that was reached. It is also wrong to say that these reforms would bring pension provision across the NDA group into line with wider public sector pensions, which I think is what the Minister in the Lords said. Those pension schemes underwent much more radical reform long before Lord Hutton’s review of public sector pensions, and they have been closed to new entrants for many years. Lord Hutton recommended that public sector pension accrual remain on a defined-benefit basis, but pension provision across the NDA group is mostly on a defined-contribution basis.”
“The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not put a cap on revaluation of benefits in deferment or pensions in payment, as well as the other schemes I have mentioned. The provision as it stands is contrary to the heads of terms agreement between BEIS and the NDA, which explicitly states that pension increases will be in line with inflation, as measured by the consumer prices index, with no reference to any cap. It is also important to note that, although members of recognised trade unions in the NDA group voted in favour of the reforms that these measures facilitate, I am told that there was by no means an overwhelming endorsement. Many voted in such a way because they feared the Government would impose even worse reforms, which had been threatened, if they did not agree to what is now on the table.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. These clauses relate to nuclear pension schemes, and the amendment would provide certainty that Nuclear Decommissioning Authority pensions would not be capped. There is some ambiguity in the drafting of the Bill, and the door has been left open for the introduction of regulations to cap pension increases when that is not part of what has been agreed in the past among Government, unions and nuclear workers. I say the door has been left open for such regulations because subsection (3) (c ) of the clause specifies that only increases for revaluation—that is, active deferred members—cannot be capped. It does not mention pensions in payment. The wording is “not involving imposing a cap on any revaluation or revaluation rate”.”
“Can the Minister confirm that when he discussed this with the trade union representatives, they were happy to accept his assurances that that is what the Bill says? Certainly, they have not communicated that to us. As far as I am concerned, they still believe that getting our amendment into the Bill is still important.”
“If there is some ambiguity, is there a reason why he feels that putting a clarification in the Bill to spell it out and give those reassurances would not be acceptable? The amendment does not seek to change his position as I understand it; it just seeks to make sure that that is clear.”
“I welcome the Minister’s assurances and his offer to meet the unions to discuss this point. I have spent a lot time looking at the wording. Although I agree that it could be interpreted in the way the Minister says, that is arguable. I still feel it would be best to have clarity in the Bill and, therefore, would like to press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“Does the Minister accept that the wording inserted in the Bill by the Lords reflects the exact same wording of a private Member’s Bill—I think it is the Local Electricity Bill—that more than 120 Conservative MPs previously pledged to support? I checked to see whether any members of the Committee supported that Bill, and apparently the hon. Members for Hyndburn and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine were among those 120 MPs. I think the rest of the Committee gets off the hook on that. Would the Minister like to explain why he has changed his mind?”
“Until very recently, the UK had not approved any new coalmines for three decades, yet Members of the House of Lords felt compelled to introduce clause 270 after the Government approved a new coalmine in Cumbria—a decision that the chair of the Climate Change Committee described as “absolutely indefensible”. Permission has been granted for this colliery until 2049, allowing the extraction of the most polluting fossil fuel until just a year before we are supposed to be at net zero. The Government, in their defence, have tried to focus on the reduced need to import coal. A research fellow at the Leeds School of Chemical and Process Engineering, Dr Andrew Pimm, has estimated that the transport emissions savings could be less than 2% of the emissions arising from the coal.”
“The UK had the COP26 presidency, and the Government boasted that: “The end of coal—the single biggest contributor to climate change—is in sight”. The COP26 presidency outcomes included the continued collapse in the coal pipeline, with 76% of planning projects cancelled since 2015. The UK is also a signatory to the UN’s “No New Coal Compact”, committing to not building any new coal power projects, and the UK helped to launch the Powering Past Coal Alliance. Three years ago, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government refused a planning application for a colliery on the basis that “there is limited objective evidence that the demand for coal for industrial purposes will remain at current levels beyond the very short term”.”
“It is good that we have all had a chance to refresh ourselves over lunch and have come back ready to do battle once again over the need to prohibit new coalmines. Clause 270, which was voted through in the other place, should not be controversial. We already have more than enough fossil fuels to overshoot our best hope of maintaining a liveable climate. The International Energy Agency has estimated that coal combustion is responsible for over 30% of the global temperature rise. Globally, more than 800,000 people die each year due to pollution from burning coal. This issue has been part of international discussions and agreements. At COP26, all parties agreed to accelerate the coal phase-down, and there were 65 country commitments to phase out coal.”
“It is net zero, but that requires us to make significant reductions in carbon emissions in the areas where we can, and we know that we can do that in replacing coal use. There will be some sectors that are hard to decarbonise, and we will hopefully see progress on that in the last decade of that commitment; there is technology that is yet to be invented that might help us to get there. I accept that it is a net commitment; I just do not think coal will be part of the positive side of the balance sheet.”
“As the Materials Processing Institute has highlighted: “The UK steel industry has been clear that the coal from the West Cumbria mine has limited potential due to its high sulphur levels.” A former CEO of British Steel described it as “a completely unnecessary step for the British steel industry”— but the hon. Member for Workington obviously feels otherwise.”
“I will come to that point in a moment, and I have some quotes from the steel industry. It is not just carbon dioxide that is a problem. The Green Alliance estimates that the mine would release 17,500 tonnes of methane every year, which is equivalent to 120,000 cattle. Will the Minister tell us how that is consistent with the global methane pledge, which requires a 30% reduction by the end of the decade? Current evidence suggests that we are only on track for a 14% reduction. The Government claim that the coal from the Cumbria mine is needed for steel production. The Government’s own carbon budget delivery plan relies on decarbonising steel production by 2035. Some 85% of the coal is planned for export, and the vast majority is likely to be used for power generation, despite our international pacts.”
“Again, it is about that sense of certainty going into the future. If we are to get the skills we need and get people behind the transition, we cannot have mixed messages: we need to know that we are all heading towards net zero, we need the workforce to do it, we need things such as changes to the planning rules so that we can get permission for projects far more quickly, and we need the grid infrastructure that we have talked about. On that note, I will hand over to my very capable hon. Friend, who will no doubt wax lyrical about the rest of the clauses in the group.”
“On Ofgem’s role in achieving net zero, I go back to what I was saying about the Inflation Reduction Act. It is clear to anybody I talk to in the course of doing my job and scrutinising this Bill that the industry needs certainty and a sense of direction. The Energy Networks Association says that adding the net zero duty to Ofgem’s responsibilities will allow a more forward-looking approach to regulatory regimes and allow for the strategic investment needed to achieve the UK’s net zero targets. The National Grid also welcomed it, and, importantly, said that it meant the focus is on not just current consumers but future consumers as well. Surely it is important that a regulator does that? It also said that that would complement the development and delivery of a strategy and policy statement.”
“398GC.] Basically, he said we should not be going back and trying to remove the statutory duty because there will not be any new coal anyway. Will the Minister update us on how he feels that statutory duty, which is still in force, fits with the Government’s intention to phase out coal? I think that is still sort of their intention, even if they are not prepared to actually ban it. I am going to hand over to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test for the other measures in the group, but let me first mention a few other things. On community energy, I hope the Minister has noted that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) now has England’s tallest wind turbine, which his community owns. That was opened at the weekend and is a great example of what local communities can do.”
“When Lord Callanan, who brought the Bill through the House of Lords, was asked about something similar, he said something in Committee that is pertinent: “We will, of course, keep under review the Coal Authority’s statutory duties with respect to licencing extraction. Extensive changes would be required to the Coal Authority’s duties to establish an enforcement regime for it to monitor the purpose and the end use of coal extracted from future coal mining.” This is the bit that is most pertinent: “The phasing out of future coal-powered generation, in our view, is a more proportional response than introducing a completely new regulatory regime at the coal mining end of the production chain.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2023; Vol. 826, c.”
“I want to ask the Minister about something more specific. I have seen an exchange of correspondence between one of his predecessors in post and the Welsh Government from January 2022 regarding the statutory duty on the Coal Authority to promote an “economically viable” coal industry, as set out in the Coal Industry Act 1994. The then Minister of State for Energy said in his reply on 7 January 2022 that he agreed that that statutory duty “is at odds with our climate leadership ambitions and policies on coal so we are looking at measures to review that duty.” As far as I know, there has not been any attempt to do that since then.”
“Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), noted that the UK had been persuading the international community to “consign coal to history” and that “A decision to open a new coalmine would send completely the wrong message and be an own goal.” The Government’s net zero tsar and my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), warned that opening the Cumbria coalmine could send “shockwaves across the world” and give “carte blanche” to other countries to open new coal power stations. The Government have said: “Ahead of COP28 we will need to revitalise efforts to keep 1.5°C in reach, including in pushing for emissions peaking before 2025, active follow-up on the phase down of coal, and phase out of all fossil fuels.” I ask the Minister: how on earth can that be compatible with opposing clause 270?”
“According to the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, the UK is falling further behind the EU in the green steel race. The EU has 38 plants and plans for 23 more; we have one. Nearly 44% of EU steel is from electric furnaces, and in the US it is 69%. While the US races ahead with green steel, helped by Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, 80% of our steel still comes from blast furnaces. By opposing a ban on new coalmines, the Government are further undermining the UK’s standing in the world and hindering its diplomatic efforts. The former COP President, the right hon.”
“Perhaps the hon. Member might like to make a speech after I have sat down. All I can do is reiterate the comments I have had from people who are very much at the heart of the UK steel industry. The Government seem to be intent on defending 19th-century technology, while the steel industry is looking to the future. Liberty Steel’s plant in Rotherham uses an electric arc furnace, which not only replaces coal-fired blast furnaces but allows them to recycle scrap metal. Tata Steel has two blast furnaces in Port Talbot but has made it abundantly clear to Ministers that its intention is to “transition to a greener steel plant”. Its plan for two electric arc furnaces does not need the Government to support new coalmines; it needs £1.5 billion of investment to match its own funding.”
“Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I sought the advice of another Committee Chair, James Gray, on whether it was appropriate. Obviously, it is appropriate for a shadow Minister to speak on a topic and then a Back Bencher, but I asked whether Mr Gray thought it was appropriate for me to come in on the same topic and he said he thought it was, so that is the basis on which we proceeded.”
“Clause 270 is about prohibition of new coalmines going forward. The reason the Lords felt that was needed, although there had been a de facto position of no new coalmines for three decades, was Cumbria, but we are not talking about the Whitehaven coalmine; we are talking about no new coalmines going forward. Does the hon. Member see it as his role, as a local MP, to support a just transition and ensure that his constituents have jobs in the green industries of the future?”
“I just do not understand how clause 270, which would ban new coalmines, would handcuff us, given that we are seeking to compete with the US and the EU on green investment.”
“19. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of waiting times on (a) personal independence payment and (b) employment support allowance claimant inquiry lines.”
“I am glad to hear that action is being taken, although it sounds like it will be quite a long time before it starts to have an effect. I have a constituent, Shani, who has been trying to get a copy of her PIP award letter so she can reapply for a disabled person’s bus pass. She says she has tried to call the PIP hotline on many occasions, but that, “The phone just continually rings out. I’ve tried for hours and it doesn’t matter what time of day I call, it just rings.” I know other MPs’ offices are experiencing the same. May I urge the Minister to act sooner and try to bring recruitment forward so constituents such as mine do not have to wait?”
“I think my hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that some places are appropriate for offshore wind and some are not because of the nature of the marine environment. Does he share my concerns about existing protections? A lot of marine protected areas are described as little more than “paper parks” because they are not achieving what they are meant to. We need to enhance the protections for those designated areas. Just as in some places it is appropriate to fish and in others not, we ought to respect the fact that in some areas, marine protection has to be the No. 1 priority.”
“As Labour left government, we had plans for an ecologically coherent network of, I think, 113 marine conservation zones. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that we are now 13 years on and still far from achieving that? It is important that we do not go backwards on the issues that we are discussing today. Obviously, we need to go forwards, but going backwards would be even worse than remaining in the same place.”
“I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It seems that piecemeal progress is being made, and the Musicians’ Union and others in the industry are trying to get clarity on such things as whether portable instruments and associated equipment can come in. There have been some developments on that front. Is it the Government’s intention to negotiate an EU-wide cultural exemption? If so, how are those negotiations going? If that is not their intention, can they explain why?”
“The Minister seems to be saying that if something is deemed a matter of conscience and subject to a free vote, it is never a matter for Government legislation and bringing it forward is reliant on private Members’ Bills or Back-Bench amendments, as we saw with the Northern Ireland situation. Surely that is a total abdication of responsibility. We used to see that with LGBT rights, when free votes were allowed across the House. Is it not up to the Government to show leadership on this issue—which is primarily a healthcare issue for women, whether it is physical or mental health—and bring forward legislation that we can discuss?”
“4. What his policy is on the proposals for a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining exploration regulations at the International Seabed Authority Council and Assembly in Kingston, Jamaica.”
“The Minister has just read out the written answer that was given fairly recently. As I understand it, that actually means that the Government have rejected calls for a precautionary pause, saying that it is better to be involved in negotiating environmental protections. I have to say that it is a brave politician—or perhaps a foolish one—who takes on Sir David Attenborough, who has said that it is “beyond reason to consider the destruction of deep sea places” before we understand them properly. Sir David also says that we should listen to scientists. More than 700 scientists from 44 countries have just supported a precautionary pause, so why won’t the Government?”
“T4. Has the Foreign Secretary seen the report in the i newspaper today that a Ukrainian businessman suspected by the FBI of being a Russian FSB asset is living in London and used the Homes for Ukraine scheme to bring his family over to join him? Will there be an official response to that investigation?”