Sian Berry MP: Climate-Related Speeches In Parliament

• Timeline
• Votes
• Speeches
• Tweets
• Contact

Sian Berry's Speeches In Parliament Related to Climate

We've found 4 Parliamentary debates in which Sian Berry has spoken about climate-related matters.

Here are the relevant sections of their speeches.

• 28 Jan 2025: Airport Expansion

  13:17

  We have been clear that any airport expansion proposals would need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, are compatible with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments, and meet strict environmental standards on airport quality and noise pollution. There is currently no live development consent order application for a third runway at Heathrow airport, and it is for a scheme promoter to decide how it takes forward any development consent order application for that runway. The Government would carefully consider any development consent order application for the third runway at Heathrow, in line with relevant planning processes. The Secretary of State is currently considering advice on Luton airport and Gatwick airport expansions. As these are live applications, I cannot comment on them further today.

  I understand the concerns of many Members of the House about how airport expansion may be compatible with our climate change targets. I would like to assure them that the Government have committed to delivering greener transport through sustainable aviation fuel and airspace modernisation. This will help meet the UK’s net zero targets, and it supports the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Airport expansion will need to be considered carefully alongside these commitments.

  Does the Minister understand that expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be vastly irresponsible in the midst of approaching climate breakdown, and would literally be flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice? How can Ministers even be considering that, when 2024 was the year that we went over 1.5° warming—the limit that we committed to not breaking in the Paris climate agreement? How can Ministers see catastrophic wildfires in California, deadly floods in Spain last year, and devastating floods this year in the UK, and still pursue a wrong policy?

  Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero told the Environmental Audit Committee that

  Can the Minister explain why we are hearing trailed announcements of multiple airport expansions, exactly in the month before new advice from the Climate Change Committee is delivered? The committee could not have been clearer in previous reports that without a framework to manage aviation demand, we should not expand airports. Has he seen research from the New Economics Foundation estimating that approving airport expansion plans for Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports alone will serve to cancel out the carbon savings of the Government’s clean power action plan?

  I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her question. The airports national planning framework under the last Government has not been updated for some time, and we will shortly bring forward proposals to do that as part of our package. While there is currently no development consent application for Heathrow, we have been clear that expansion proposals would need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, are compatible with our climate change targets, and meet strict environmental standards for air quality and noise pollution—the four tests.

  Well, the brass neck! The last Government crashed the economy, sending mortgages through the roof, and called an early election to avoid having to make difficult decisions. Transport policy should be enabling growth as a priority in this country, so that we can bring about the change that the British people voted for. For 14 years we had a Government who had become so sclerotic in aviation, and indeed maritime—that is also part of my brief—that no decisions were brought forward on decarbonising the maritime or aviation sectors, or making the difficult decisions that this country needs to make. As the hon. Member rightly says, there is currently no development consent order before us, and that is for Heathrow or a related party to bring forward.

  The Minister gave an admirably Delphic yet still disappointing answer. While we must grow the economy, we must not do so at the expense of the environment. Expanding Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports will drive, or even fly, a coach and horses through our climate commitments, adding 92 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to our carbon footprint by 2050. Do not just take my word for it: the Mayor of London; his previous deputy Mayor for transport, now the Transport Secretary; the Environment Secretary; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; and the Prime Minister have all previously been opposed, as is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Can I ask the Minister three questions? First, why has his boss, the former London deputy Mayor for transport, changed her mind? Secondly, how can the Government reconcile this massive growth in carbon emissions with our climate commitments? Thirdly, why, if the Government are looking to grow our economy, are they not re-engaging meaningfully with Europe by negotiating a customs union?

  For too long and on too many issues, this nation just has not made the tough decisions. When it comes to airport expansion, our world-class aviation sector, admired across the world, and decarbonising our sector, we are making huge progress—more in the past six months than in 14 years under the Tories. We will continue on our mission of renewing the national airport strategy, and will look at development consent orders as they become live. That is a quasi-judicial matter, and I cannot comment on Luton and Gatwick, as Members know. We will wait to see whether Heathrow or a related party brings forward a development consent order.

  Manston airport in Kent in my constituency has been fallow and the subject of legal action for far too long, but that is happily now behind us. We hope and expect that within the next few weeks, there will be announcements on funding that will lead to the development of a state-of-the-art net zero airport in Kent. Manston does not appear to feature in the Government’s plans. Can the Minister assure me that his eye is on that ball, and that Manston will become part of the growth programme?

  I have spoken to the right hon. Member about Manston in opposition and in government. We wait to see what will be brought forward there, but it could be an exciting opportunity, particularly for cargo; we could have zero emission vessels shipping content into the port of London. We will wait and see whether the airport comes with a development consent order, and we will judge that on its merits.

  I support the Chancellor’s pursuit of growth. For too long, we have been stagnant, and we know that this area can provide growth. I have seen that in my constituency, as I have pointed out. Where was the hon. Member when we talked about sustainable aviation fuels? Where was she when we committed £63 million to the advanced fuels fund to help the SAF industry grow in this country? We have announced £1 billion for the Aerospace Technology Institute to look at zero emission flights. Would it not be great if, one day, a Minister could stand here and say that all internal flights will be zero-emission? I want to leave my successor, whoever they are, the opportunity to say that within the next decade.

  I voted against the framework for Heathrow airport in 2018 because I was not satisfied that the legislation before us would deal with air quality, noise, climate change and surface access issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow, we must satisfy ourselves in this House that those issues have been addressed, and that they cannot be set aside by developers once they have permission to go ahead?

  Newcastle International airport tells me that Heathrow expansion would mean increased access to global markets for north-east businesses, new destinations for north-east tourists and easier access to our brilliant north-east universities for students from around the world. More broadly, given that air travel’s 5% of emissions are dwarfed by road travel emissions, does the Minister agree that the important work that his Department is doing to promote electric vehicles and the work that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing on the decarbonisation of the electricity network is fundamental to demonstrating to my constituents that addressing climate change is not about saying no to travel and transport, but about saying yes to an economy that works for people and the planet?

  We have made tough decisions about the phasing out of internal combustion engines up to 2030. When I visited Newcastle airport, I saw a wonderful operation—it is also producing solar energy to power its operation. We need better connectivity between Newcastle and London, and I have raised that with carriers. If we are to develop our offshore wind, carbon capture and green energy technology, it must be linked up with the cruise industry, Newcastle airport and the great north-east coast that provides so many jobs, services and industries for people across our nation.

  I have been enjoying the Minister’s lively presentation, but then I do not live under a potential new flightpath. Are the Government consulting their Back Benchers about the possibility of aviation and airport expansion versus net zero? If so, will they be advising them to clean up what they have said on this subject on the internet before it is hoovered up by the Opposition in preparation for the next general election?

  I thank my hon. Friend for his support for growth at our ports, which includes our maritime ports. There is £63 million for the advanced fuels fund and £1 billion for the Aerospace Technology Institute to look at net zero emissions. We have already introduced—it was almost the Government’s first act out of the gate; it came into force on 1 January—the SAF mandate, so this year 2% of all fuel will have to be from a sustainable source, and we will shortly legislate on the revenue certainty mechanism to kick-start the SAF industry in the UK. The Government could not have done more in the six months we have had in office.

  My local airport, Stansted, is a huge employer for residents in my constituency, and it is has led the way in developing sustainable aviation fuel. Does the Minister agree that sustainable aviation fuel is vital to achieving our decarbonisation targets?

  Sustainable aviation fuel is vital to meeting our climate targets. I commend Manchester Airports Group, which includes Stansted and East Midlands, and Manchester in my own constituency, on its work to decarbonise. It is ahead of the game. It flies one in six people in and out of the UK. When it gets it right, that represents a huge emissions reduction.

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for repeating what we heard from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero at the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday: that no plans will be approved unless they are in line with the Government’s environmental commitments.

  I thank my hon. Friend for his chairmanship of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I was a proud member for many years, looking at the circular economy, which this Government are taking forward. The Government have committed to delivering greener transport, including through SAF, airspace modernisation and the other measures that I laid out. I am proud of that range of measures. The Front-Bench across this Department are decarbonising the transport sector further and faster in the first six months of this Government than in 14 years of the last.

  Airports near the hon. Member’s constituency will have a key part to play for workers across our nation with respect to the decarbonisation agenda and sustainable fuels, because Immingham sits within his constituency. That will be key to the UK’s plans to decarbonise our economy, along with good rail connectivity. Airports are a market within the private sector—planes want to go to particular places—but if we can expand and grow our economy across all our regions, as we hope to, I hope that this will be a golden age for all our airports.

  I agree. As I have said, airports that make the right decisions in the next few years on improving the airspace and improving their connectivity through surface access all have the potential to grow like my airport has grown exponentially. I urge Members to get behind their airports and support their growth and decarbonisation agendas.

  I think it was Woody Allen who said that 80% of success in life is turning up, and I must gently ask once again where the hon. Gentleman was when we were introducing the sustainable aviation mandate in this House. I hope he will be here when we introduce the revenue support mechanism in the months ahead and decarbonise our aviation sector.

  Well, the Conservatives built a road, but it just floods all the time—maybe we can start by dealing with that. The hon. Lady is right that Manchester airport is in my constituency. Mine is actually the most visited constituency in the north of England; in fact, 30 million people visited it last year alone, although they may not have stayed as long as I would have liked. The airport has been on an incredible journey, especially with its decarbonisation. I hope to meet the airport operators shortly to continue that journey with them.

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a very good campaigner for his local airport and for the public service obligation flights out of that airport. Not making these tough decisions does not mean there is no carbon—it simply means that customers vote with their feet and go to Schiphol, Frankfurt or Charles de Gaulle to hub out to their destinations. We have to look at things in the round when we are talking about decarbonising the UK aviation sector.

  I also understand that you can have a good old party on the ferry from the port of Tyne to Amsterdam—I do not know whether my hon. Friend has taken it. He is exactly right. If we do not invest in a hub airport in the UK, people will go point to point outside the UK to transfer to the places they want to go to. That is worse for carbon emissions than us taking responsibility for the decisions we need to make to decarbonise our aviation sector.

  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?

  I thank the right hon. Member, who I know is a campaigner on this. I keep a close eye on all matters of connectivity to Northern Ireland. Investor confidence in aviation is huge: investors are queuing up and looking for opportunities. We must ensure those opportunities come with jobs and growth, but also that they are clean and decarbonise our sector. I say stick with the plan. We will decarbonise the grid and our UK economy, but we can grow it at the same time—the two things are not contradictory.

  At the moment, the technology does not exist to fully decarbonise aviation. We are looking at hydrogen, we have the advanced fuels fund and we are investing £1 billion in the ATI, but, as the Prime Minister announced recently when he went to Merseyside, we are investing billions in carbon capture and other technology to offset those emissions. That is what we will have to do in the near future, but I envisage a day when we will have aircraft in our skies, particularly internally in the UK, with zero emissions coming out of their tailpipes.

  That is the problem when a new Member is called last, but he is agile—mentally on his feet—to get that in. We are investing in hydrogen zero-emission technology, with £1 billion for the ATI. I hope the hon. Gentleman is sat on the Opposition Benches in the months ahead when we implement the revenue certainty mechanisms, so we can kickstart a new age of SAF production in the UK that will bring jobs and growth right across our great country.

  [Source]

• 29 Oct 2024: Great British Energy Bill

  15:45

  I am pleased to speak in this debate, and the Green group of MPs is pleased to back this Bill. I will be speaking in support of new clauses 2 and 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), which are designed to make the Bill even stronger. The new clauses would create a new nature recovery duty for Great British Energy and prevent investments that increase climate emissions.

  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.

  The nature recovery duty under new clause 2 would help GB Energy invest only in projects that deliver significant biodiversity benefits and meet targets under the Environment Act 2021, by building nature-friendly design features into renewable energy projects and creating and restoring habitats on development sites in and around clean energy infrastructure.

  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.

  There is no reason to think that Great British Energy, without a duty to consider nature recovery, will be any different. A statutory duty to deliver for nature’s recovery would be complementary to GB Energy’s other objectives around clean energy, energy efficiency and energy security. It would also reflect the Government’s manifesto commitment to tackle the interconnected nature and climate crises together. I hope the Government will carefully consider those arguments.

  New clause 3, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley, is vital to guarantee that our energy investments are not only financially responsible but aligned with the legal requirement to reach net zero by 2050. As legislators, we have a duty to hold GB Energy accountable, preventing investments that will lock us into high-carbon energy pathways and undermine our net zero commitments. The new clause mandates environmental impact assessments before any investments are made, ensuring that each decision is grounded in evidence. It forces us to ask, “Will this investment push us at speed towards, or risk pulling us away from, our climate goals?” Publishing those assessments opens the process to public scrutiny—an essential principle in democracy. The public deserve to know exactly how their tax money is being used, particularly when it comes to funding projects that may exacerbate the climate crisis.

  When we talk about greenhouse gas emissions, it is crucial to acknowledge that carbon dioxide is not the only danger. Methane is a greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming potential of CO 2 over a 20-year period. Methane emissions, often associated with fossil fuel extraction and agriculture, must be tightly controlled to ensure that the UK meets its climate commitments. The new clause would ensure that all climate emissions, including methane, are thoroughly assessed before any public investment is made. If we do not account for methane and other greenhouse gases, we risk underestimating the climate impact of certain energy projects, and particularly those related to natural gas production and transport.

  Great British Energy should also be a true trailblazer in the global transition to clean energy. The amendment strengthens that mission by making clear that only projects contributing to emissions reductions should receive investment. With countries around the world watching, we have a unique opportunity to lead by example. A failure to act boldly now will leave us behind in the global race for climate leadership.

  I will focus my remarks on how to ensure that GB Energy delivers effectively for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. To do that, it must generate investment that delivers tangible results and brings jobs and economic growth, along with the energy security that we all want. In Committee, witnesses said that one of the challenges for GB Energy will be finding a balance between accelerating renewable energy delivery and ensuring a return on investment, while supporting less mature technologies. I agree that it will be a difficult balance to strike, but we are more likely to succeed in our investments if they are encouraged in areas where there is likely to be a warm welcome and strong understanding of electricity generation, and where the foundational skills and engineering heritage already exist. They include former coalfields across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, including in west Fife in my constituency.

  [Source]

• 29 Jul 2024: Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

  18:58

  Also out of scope, as the Bill’s title indicates, are rail freight services. The public might have expected those private operators to be among the first for action, especially as getting freight off the roads and on to rail has so many benefits in addressing road danger, congestion and climate emissions.

  [Source]

• 17 Jul 2024: Debate on the Address

  19:48

  Listening to people in my constituency during the election, it was hard not to be affected by the strength of public feeling and distress about the climate emergency and the degradation of our natural environment, and by the huge desire to defend social justice and public services. This Parliament must seek to deliver for them.

  [Source]

See all Parliamentary Speeches Mentioning Climate