Kerry McCarthy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everyone who came along to support the debate, and I thank the Front Benchers for their replies. I was particularly glad to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), show such enthusiasm for the global energy transition and for countries meeting their climate ambitions, accelerating climate action and recognising the importance of carbon sequestration. I did not think those were Conservative party policies any more, but perhaps it is a different matter when it is about Indonesia rather than the UK. I resisted the urge to intervene on him on that point, as we will be having that debate in this place tomorrow morning. I am not sure whether I should have referred hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests at the start of my speech, in relation to our trip to Borneo; I was just asking my colleague, and we are not quite sure whether all Members who went on the trip should have done so, but that is now on the record. As hon. Members will have appreciated, that trip was absolutely wonderful. It brought home to us not only the potential of the rainforest, the peatlands and Indonesia’s natural environment, but the threats that they face. I thank ICCF and Borneo Orangutan Survival, representatives of which are here to watch the debate. I hope that I have done justice to their efforts, and long may our relationship continue. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered UK-Indonesia collaboration on environmental sustainability.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly think that peatlands are incredibly important. It has been one of my frustrations that we put so much emphasis on forests, and on the UK on planting trees—like a race to how many millions of trees each party can pledge to plant—whereas, as the hon. Member says, the carbon sequestration impact of peatlands is greater. We need to do much more to protect them, including, I would say, banning horticultural peat, which I know she has campaigned long and hard for. I will come on to the question of climate finance later, but I will say that we are in a world in which public money is under severe constraints. The USA, for example, has pulled out of its commitments under COP. I want to see a lot more done to use public money, and philanthropic money, as a catalyst to leverage in far more private sector funding, including through things such as the voluntary carbon and nature markets, so that we can get that finance into protecting our forests, our peatlands and, indeed, our marine environment, which I will touch on a bit later as well.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Environmental Sustainability: UK-Indonesia Collaboration · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree. We both spent the Easter recess wading through peatlands. I was going to say that we were wading up to our knees; I was wading up to my knees, but for everyone else there the peat came up to about mid-calf on them. I had very short wellies on, too—I was given children’s ones. There was an awful lot of squelching going on. Nevertheless, it was amazing to see the richness of the peatlands. We also took boats along the river. The water there is brown—apparently it is entirely drinkable—because of the peat in the water supply. I very much agree that stopping peatland fires and underground burning are as important as stopping the wildfires that destroy our forests.

• 22 Jun 2026 · G7 Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, want to echo the tribute that my right hon. Friend has paid to the Prime Minister. There is much of which he can be proud, particularly on the international stage. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s strong words about what is happening in Gaza and the west bank, but my constituents frequently write to me in despair that Israel seems to be able to act with impunity when it comes to illegal settlements, the blocking of aid and many other examples. What reassurance can he give them that there is some hope that Israel will be held to account, and that the people of Gaza and the west bank will be helped in the face of such oppression?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Tibetan Plateau: Environmental Change · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I echo what you said about Jo Cox. I think her message is more important today than it ever was. I thank the Minister for her response. China’s actions, from environmentally destructive mining to building dams to divert water sources, will have consequences far beyond the Tibetan plateau, as she says, as will the failure to address the impact of climate change on the third pole. What steps can the UK take to raise these issues at a global level? Does the Minister agree that the voices of Tibetans should be heard in any such talks?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Tibetan Plateau: Environmental Change · Hansard source

  More

  1. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her Department’s policies of the level of risk to countries arising from environmental change in the Tibetan plateau.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  In 2009 and 2010, I used to be the Whip in charge of Friday sittings, but even now I would struggle to explain just how things work with some of the Back-Bench Bills, given some of the shenanigans that go on. Does my hon. Friend agree that it destroys our constituents’ faith in parliamentary democracy when they feel that we are all playing games—filibustering and resorting to tactics to talk a Bill out, rather than debating things on their merits and moving to a vote to determine the will of the House?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. Cleaning up perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or forever chemicals, costs water companies and bill payers huge amounts every year. Does the Minister agree that polluters should foot the bill for remediation, and can the “polluter pays” principle be included in the clean water Bill?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  The first time I met the Prime Minister was when, as Director of Public Prosecutions, he came to Parliament to meet a group of MPs to outline his 10-point plan for tackling female genital mutilation. Since then there have been hundreds of reports of FGM cases but very few prosecutions. What is the Solicitor General doing, whether through prosecutions or a multi-agency approach, to try to rescue young girls from this horrific mutilation?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Global Biodiversity Loss and Ecosystem Collapse: National Security Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Department is already gearing up for the biodiversity COP in Armenia later this year, but what discussions will the Department be having with the Foreign Office about the equally important desertification COP that is taking place in Mongolia, where important issues such as water shortages, the degradation of land and much more will be on the agenda?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  We have excellent alternative learning providers in Bristol, from the Enemy of Boredom Academy, which is about developing video games, to the Wheels Project, which is about stripping down cars and rebuilding them. They are a lifeline for young people who are struggling with mainstream education. As part of the Milburn review, will the Government look at supporting ALPs so that young people can be set back on the right path towards a job in the future?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. I thank the Minister for the £13.5 million for the Temple Quarter heat network in my constituency. Where Bristol leads with City Leap, others can follow, so what are the Government doing to support other places in following our example, in order to get investment in decarbonising our cities?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Voluntary Carbon and Nature Markets · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response, and I welcome the UK’s leadership. Investors are concerned that the role of nature-based solutions in carbon market frameworks is not being fully recognised. With London Climate Action Week fast approaching, can she reassure investors that the Government see nature-based solutions as crucial to our collective efforts to tackle climate change, and that we will pursue this endeavour during upcoming article 6 negotiations?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Voluntary Carbon and Nature Markets · Hansard source

  More

  15. When he plans to publish the Government’s response to the consultation entitled “Voluntary carbon and nature markets: raising integrity”.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the measures set out in the King’s Speech, and the wider Government programme to back British businesses. In the face of ever more disabling global headwinds, it is crucial to have a Government who accept an interventionist role, whether through renationalising British Steel, setting up Great British Energy, tougher regulation of the water companies, competition reform or tackling late payments. There is acknowledgement that an engaged state is needed, and that leaving things to the market simply does not work. It is disappointing and frustrating that even now we are having to relitigate the debate about whether reaching our climate goals and protecting our planet is compatible with economic growth and prosperity. On the one hand, we have the Tories and Reform peddling fallacious arguments about the cost of net zero, and completely failing to grasp the importance of ending our dependence on volatile fossil-fuel markets—with an apparent abject ignorance of things like electric arc furnaces and carbon capture and storage. On the other hand, we have the Greens and their anti-growth agenda, not understanding that for redistribution, we first need to have a growing, strong economy to redistribute from; that to solve a housing crisis, we need to support our construction industry; and that we can pursue economic growth in a way that helps us protect the planet, rather than plunder it. Indeed, many companies in my constituency of Bristol East, some of which are attracting international attention, are showing how that can be done. Matter was recently runner-up for the Earthshot prize, having developed washing machine filters that will filter out 97% of microplastics. LettUs Grow’s aeroponic growing systems were being talked about at the desertification COP that I attended in Riyadh in 2024, and Vertical Aviation is pioneering electric flight with a very cool plane. At national level, clean energy is the fastest-growing sector of the economy, bringing jobs and economic growth back to de-industrialised communities—and it has huge export potential. When I was climate Minister with the international energy brief, I saw that the British model for offshore wind was seen as the gold standard, in everything from the way we financed it through contracts for difference to the innovation of floating offshore wind and offshore hybrid assets, such as the Nautilus and LionLink interconnector pilots. Whether I was at North Seas Energy Co-operation events, or talking to the President of Azerbaijan ahead of COP29, there was great interest in what we were doing and recognition of our expertise. The same was true of our progress on small modular reactors, fusion, and carbon capture and storage. It has to be said that that was not always recognised by other parts of the Government. Sometimes, there was a battle to stress to them just how crucial the drive towards net zero could be to our economic opportunities. Too often, progress was stalled by, “Treasury says no,” “No. 10 says no,” or “The Department for Business and Trade says no.” The knee-jerk reaction was that regulation or intervention would be a burden on business. To take forest risk commodities as an example, in the Environment Act 2021, the previous Government committed to introducing regulations to stamp out deforestation in our supply chains. The EU was on the same mission, using the EU deforestation regulation. When I was a Minister in this Government, there were lengthy discussions about whether we should stick with the UK approach, centred on illegal deforestation, or adopt the EU’s approach, which was based on sustainability. Those discussions were valid, but what was not valid was some quarters suggesting that we should not regulate at all. First, there was the reputational crisis. How could the UK, which co-chaired the global Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership with Guyana, and the forest, agriculture and commodity trade dialogue with Malaysia, call on other countries to protect and restore our precious forests and peatlands if we were not prepared to act ourselves? We would have no moral standing. Secondly, businesses want this. I met companies such as Ferrero, and major supermarkets, who want the Government to act, set the direction and show leadership, so that they can plan accordingly. They do not see that as a burden. It is lack of certainty that businesses hate. They are perfectly willing to get with the programme, if they know what the programme is. We saw misplaced caution in other areas, too, such as on our manifesto commitment to 1.5°-aligned transition plans. One other area where I suspect other parts of the Government machine have been acting as a drag on progress is the development of voluntary carbon and nature markets. We know that public money and philanthropy alone will be nowhere near enough to enable us to meet our climate and nature goals. We also know that private finance is interested in investment, whether that is driven by the need to offset its own emissions, decarbonise portfolios, or ensure biodiversity net gain—or whether it is driven by insurers’ worries about climate risks and so on. In London, we have the world’s leading financial centre, and we are the best place to lead—many international visitors to last year’s buzzing London Climate Action Week told us that—but the consultation that concluded on 10 July last year seems to have gone into the ether. If the Minister can reply on only one issue that I have asked about, can she tell us what has happened to progress on the voluntary carbon and nature markets?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. She is a real asset to the Petitions Committee. She has led a number of debates on animal welfare issues with great expertise. She is a real champion of animal welfare and is doing great work on the all-party parliamentary group. An important thing about the APPG is the extent to which it is evidence based. We can all stand here and get emotional about the horrors of animal testing and some of the things we have seen—such as the undercover footage of the dogs and macaques that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) mentioned—but when we make the case it is important to be able to present the alternative as well. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran has been doing that with great expertise. I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon for his support for Camp Beagle and the campaign against MBR Acres. He is quite right that some of us voted against the effort to quell protests against the site; it seemed a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It also seems unfortunate that although, to a small extent, we had a debate in Committee, we did not have a debate on the measure on the Floor of the House. I know the Minister is not the Home Office Minister who was responsible for that delegated legislation, but there are still so many questions about what sort of protest will now be possible and to what extent the laws will be used. I hope the Minister has been briefed so that he can answer some of those questions. Having said that, it is good to see a DSIT Minister here. I have been around almost as long as the lord my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned; it seems like I have been here talking about animal welfare issues for 100 years, but it is only 21. In the past, the split between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has the pure animal welfare brief, and the Home Office, which often responds to debates because it is responsible for licensing, has been difficult. I remember, just before the general election, a debate in which George Eustice took part. He had been an EFRA Secretary of State and, before that, a Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, and he was one of those who joined me in calling for one Department to hold the issue of animal testing, so that we knew we would always get answers. Particularly in respect of the Home Office, animal testing is quite peripheral to the relevant Minister’s wider brief—I think she covers policing and all sorts of other issues—so it is difficult to get focus. I therefore welcome the fact that the Science Minister, even if he is in the other place and not here today, has responsibility and has brought forward the road map. I hope he is working closely on this with colleagues in DEFRA and the Home Office. We could spend a lot of time talking about the horrors of animal testing and why we want to see it replaced, but I will also look forward and talk about the positive signals about replacing it that are now being sent. I want, though, to dwell for a moment on the forced swim test, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran talked about. As she said, it is particularly cruel and its use cannot be justified. She quoted the Government’s strategy on replacing animals in science, in which they admitted: “The test has limited scientific validity, particularly its translational relevance to human mental health disorders.” That was more or less what I was told when I met scientific researchers at the University of Bristol a few years ago. God knows how many times and on how many animals they had carried out that test—it must have been easily in the thousands, if not many more. They said to me, “We have not spotted anything interesting yet, but we’ll probably carry on doing it in case something interesting happens”. That seemed to me a complete exercise in futility, and a casual and callous approach to the purpose of tests. If tests are being carried out, we want to know that they at least have a point and are essential. I accept that we are not in a position to replace all animal testing tomorrow, but we absolutely ought to be keeping it to a minimum. Scientists doing tests on mice just in case they spot something fascinating seems completely wrong. As far as I know, researchers have now paused such tests, but they have not committed to dropping them altogether and, as we heard, there are still three granted licenses that run until 2028. Although I would like to be able to trust scientists to down tools if they feel that the tests no longer have a purpose, will the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered revoking those licences? What is the purpose of allowing the licences to continue? Are they ever revoked, or do we always rely on scientists to make the call?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  It is important to make the case that this is not just about people being horrified by the cruelty involved. It is also about the fact that the tests have been proven in so many cases not to be effective, not to yield useful results and not to be the best way to make progress in medical discoveries. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned a couple of those points. On the point about conflicts with commercial consideration, the reason why MBR Acres put pressure on the Government and wanted to quell protests is that it is under some pressure: my understanding is that it is struggling to find customers and homes for its beagles because of the protests and the fact that people have quite rightly been horrified that tests are continuing. Where does that commercial pressure sit against the Government’s stated desire to adopt the three Rs, and the measures to reduce the use of animals in experiments set out in the animal welfare strategy and road map? How do we make sure that the Government’s stated intentions prevail over the commercial considerations? On a more positive note, it is encouraging to see the progress that is being made on NAMs, and the Government throwing their weight behind that with £75 million for the new UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. I was particularly interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said about the potential for using AI to help to replace animal testing. She mentioned the AnimalGAN software being developed by the FDA in the US, which could be used to determine how rats would react to chemicals without having to do new tests, and the Virtual Second Species challenge to create an AI-powered virtual dog, trained on historic dog tests, which sounds fantastic. In the strategy on replacing animals in science, the Government committed to setting up a new animal research institute that will “bring together data, AI, cell engineering, genomic technology and cutting-edge disease modelling capabilities to generate collaborative research at scale”. As I said, the University of Bristol was involved historically in the forced swim test. It is also at the forefront of AI innovation and research and was, as a result, chosen to host the Isambard-AI supercomputer, one of the fastest computers in the world. A very excited Secretary of State launched it in July last year; if the Minister has not yet had a chance to visit and learn about Isambard, there is an open invitation for him to do so. We have been told that the supercomputer will spearhead scientific breakthroughs in, among other things, the discovery of new drugs. It could be used to analyse cell data, for advanced medical image modelling, for large-scale biostatistics on human data sets, for medical genetic modelling and for organ-on-a-chip simulations, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned. In saying all that, my complete ignorance of these issues probably shines through, but it all sounds like it has huge potential, and there is already a huge amount of interest from researchers who want to use Isambard. I will follow up with the University of Bristol to ask whether anyone has approached it who wants to use it to research NAMs, and if so what priority the university will give to such usage. There is great potential to use the super-brain in the computer. One reason why there are so many tests is that there is huge duplication and replication of tests, involving a huge number of animals. If we could use AI to number-crunch some of that, we could reduce the numbers in leaps and bounds, so I hope the university will get involved in the new institute. I hope the Minister can say a little more about whether he thinks AI is the way forward to help to bring down the number of animal tests significantly.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Ernest Bevin · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Ernest Bevin · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing the debate. We do not talk about Ernest Bevin enough, even in Bristol. There is a bust of him in the Unite building, which was the Transport and General Workers’ Union building, and there is a plaque on St Werburghs, but we could do a lot more to celebrate his achievements in Bristol. In his biography, it is said that by the age 13 he was driving a van around the streets of Bristol, which is a slightly alarming prospect, but his back story is absolutely amazing and, given his background, it goes to show what an amazing man he was to rise to be Foreign Secretary.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister may be about to answer exactly what constitutes first aid, but I have been looking up the definition of TDDI on the CQC site, which seems to cover mental health. Thinking particularly about festivals, where health incidents arising from drug misuse may lead to associated psychotic episodes and suicidal ideation, would the legislation cover volunteer organisations helping people on that side of things?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals · Hansard source

  More

  I was contacted in the early hours of this morning by two constituents who became proud British citizens in December. They did not have time to apply for British passports—they are from other EU countries with passports from there—because they were off on an extended honeymoon in south-east Asia. They now feel that they cannot get back into the UK from their honeymoon. They are absolutely stranded. I can pass on the details of the case to the Minister’s officials, but what would he advise? My constituents need to get back into this country as soon as possible. They should not have to pay a fortune for the privilege.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Today a letter is on its way to the Secretary of State. It is signed by over 40 MPs and peers, and highlights the Coalition for Fisheries Transparency’s “Criminal catches” report. Will the Minister agree to meet us to discuss how we can stop the UK becoming a dumping ground for illegal seafood linked to criminality, environmental destruction and human exploitation?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. I welcome the news that Bristol East will be getting another three breakfast clubs. As I have seen, these clubs are not just about making sure that no child starts the school day hungry, but about giving staff extra time with children to spot whether there might be trouble at home. On that note, may I urge the Prime Minister to work with schools on our manifesto commitment to identify children with parents in prison, to make sure that those children get all the support that they need?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I have encouraged many of my constituents to participate in the consultation that finishes on 12 February, but I am concerned to hear that some of the changes might be introduced in April this year. I know from past experience with Government consultations that it tends to take an awful long time for the Government to consider the responses and then come up with their own response to them. How does that work in terms of the timing?