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 22 of 127.
“It is a pleasure to be responding to this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for bringing the Bill forward— [ Interruption. ] I think the trick is to say it quite fast. I also thank all my hon. Friends who are here to support it. I was glad to see the Bill top the ballot and the hon. Member take up the work, building on that of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who, as he outlined, has been pressing for this for a long time and who talked about his own experience with Isaac and Jessica. He spoke powerfully, as a number of Members have today, based on his own experience. Parents should not have to be at work or worrying about work when their child is in this situation. We heard from the hon.”
“Friend introduced his other Bill, so it is excellent that something has moved since then, and I am glad the Government have now managed to find a working arrangement with the hon. Member for Watford. He detailed some of the concerns that will have to be addressed in Committee, as did other hon. Members. There are some things still to be thrashed out, but I hope that Labour members of that Committee will be able to be part of a constructive working relationship and that we will get this Bill into law as soon as possible, so that the people on the receiving end of the tips can start to see the benefit.”
“Every time we were in the Tea Room, he seemed to want to talk to me about troncs. This debate has brought back memories. He did very well in coming near the top of the private Member’s Bills ballot a few years ago and wanted to introduce a Bill on tips, but he also wanted to introduce a Bill that would become law, because that does not happen often: I have been here 17 years and I have never managed to get a place in the ballot. When he spoke to the Department, it would not support his Bill, so he introduced something else that was very worthy but would not get much attention, because he wanted to do something the Government would support. I think it was 2020 when my hon.”
“It is disappointing, as with the previous Bill we considered today, that this issue has not been addressed as part of the employment Bill we were expecting from the Government, but that was shelved ahead of the Queen’s Speech. The hon. Member for Watford shelved his previous attempt to get a Bill on this issue through because he was expecting it to be covered in the employment Bill. There is so much that we could legislate for. The Government promised action in 2016, and again in 2018, and it was in the 2019 manifesto. I remember that after my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who cannot be here today, was first elected in 2017, he had a Westminster Hall debate on this subject. It was he who first introduced me to the word “tronc”.”
“I gather that the debates went all through the night, people had to sleep in their offices and it was difficult, but I am glad that we have converted those on the Government Benches and they now accept it. I genuinely mean that. The fact that Conservatives are now boasting about support for the living wage shows that we won the argument, and I welcome their support for Labour policies. I hope that after the next election, they will be on this side of the House supporting everything that we do. As I have said, so many people work in the hospitality and tourism sectors, and many of them are vulnerable to being exploited. The Resolution Foundation reported that in 2019, 52% of workers in the hospitality sector were low paid compared with 15% of all workers. The sectors are hard-hit by the pandemic, and tips can make a huge difference.”
“It was reported that some workers cried in relief when the change was made, because having those tips makes the difference between them being able to get by and not. I think it was the hon. Member for Kensington who talked about the national minimum wage, which was introduced by the Labour Government, and in 2009 we had to make it illegal for tips to contribute to the national minimum wage. That was the right thing to do, and I am proud that we did that when we were in government, just as I am proud that we introduced the national minimum wage to begin with. As we are all being consensual and working cross-party today, I will not dwell on how difficult it was to get the national minimum wage through. You were probably here at the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it was before I was elected.”
“It is a difficult sector to organise in, because it is not like one big factory with a workforce who tend to be there long term, who all identify with each other and who are in the same place. It can be difficult to fight for people’s rights in this sector, but Unite has done a good job. There was a case recently where Pizza Express was found to be deducting 50% of card tips from its staff who were on minimum wage. That was reducing their incomes by about £2,000 a year. Thanks to Unite taking action, the policy was scrapped and the company has now returned to a more equitable system where front of house staff keep 70% of the tips they make. Anyone going to Pizza Express would not have been expecting that sort of practice to be going on, and it is good that that changed.”
“We know that they are under pressure, but no matter what, that is not an excuse for holding on to tips that deserve to go to the people who are being tipped. The issue affects so many people. About 2.5 million people work in the hospitality sector, representing more than 7% of the workforce. As we have heard, often they are younger people, and it tends to be an ethnically diverse workforce. Because of the turnover in the sector—in some ways it is a casual job, often on zero-hours contracts, and there is often illegal working as well, and there is a job to be done in trying to stamp that out—the workforce are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and not being able to assert their rights. I pay tribute to Unite the union in particular.”
“This is very much a question of fairness and wanting to treat people right. In the previous debate, we talked about how all employers would probably want to do the right thing by a member of staff whose child was born prematurely or was sick, but that they might not be in a position financially to do so. I think this is a slightly different situation, because there is not really an excuse for not passing tips on to staff, even if a hospitality business is struggling. We know there are pressures on them from business rates, the impact of covid closures and staff shortages. Speaking to people in the restaurant trade, another pressure is the cost of some of the basic ingredients and such things as fuel bills.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on bringing the Bill forward and on securing a place in the ballot so that it stands a chance of becoming law. I also thank the hon. Members for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), for Charnwood (Edward Argar) and for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) for their contributions. They all have very simple, one-word constituency names, which is quite a relief after the previous debate. There was a common theme in all those speeches: customers want to do the right thing by the serving staff and other people who deserve tips—hairdressers, people in nail bars or whatever—but it is sometimes difficult to be sure that the money we give because we want to reward the person who served us will go to that person.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward such an amazing Bill; I would love to be in her position. When reading up in advance of this debate I discovered that I had not realised the extent to which European countries are involved in facilitating this trade. The market is in Asia, but Portugal, Netherlands, France, Italy and, in particular, Spain are significant players in supplying that market. Does she agree that we should absolutely not countenance that?”
“I am a little concerned about what has just been said about allowing importation for use—for example, in the restaurant trade—provided that it can be shown that the shark was killed for other reasons. To what extent would people be able to check that that was the case, or would they see it as a loophole, and pretend that the shark had died by other means and that they were using the whole carcase? It is odd to me that someone would kill a huge shark just for its fins, but we know that that is mostly what happens. What safeguards will there be to ensure that people do not exploit that rule?”
“When I raised the issue a long time ago—I think in my early years in Parliament—I received some pushback from the restaurant trade, but I also learnt that a lot of the shark fin soup sold in restaurants is not real shark fin, but because it is seen as prestigious and luxurious, restaurants did not want to admit that it was not the real thing. It was bizarre that people were consuming something that was far more ethical than they thought it was. I am therefore not quite sure whether labelling would work, because a lot of the product being sold turns out not to be shark fin. That is probably another issue to be thrashed out in Committee.”
“I am sorry that I could not be here for the beginning of the debate. Is there not a concern that although many marine protected areas have been designated, they are really just paper parks because things like bottom trawling are being allowed to continue? Does my right hon. Friend also share my concern that there is now a move towards deep-sea mining, which could be hugely environmentally damaging?”
“I thank my hon. Friend. What he is saying about data is a huge issue for the small island developing states, because there is so much biodiversity, particularly in the territorial waters, and populations of perhaps a few hundred are somehow expected to manage a vast space. I agree with what he said about the importance of supporting them, and our overseas territories, so that they can do that work.”
“On the amount of money we need to give to help countries in the global south to cope, those countries are often faced with crippling debt—we had the whole jubilee debt campaign. Belize, for example, is a small island state that is right in the forefront of the impacts of climate change. It has incredible biodiversity that needs protecting, but is crippled by debt repayments. If we do not deal with that side of the equation, there is not an awful lot of point giving such countries money to help them invest in the sort of projects my hon. Friend is talking about.”
“I was under instruction, had I been able to make a speech, to mention that I am parliamentary species champion for the swift and to make a plea for us to protect and to increase their habitats by ensuring that there are swift bricks in every new building. I have got that on the record.”
“I welcome the Minister to her post. We all agree that supporting investment in new low-carbon technologies is an important part of reaching net zero—well, most of us do. In the past week, one of the candidates for Prime Minister has said that “we need to suspend the all-consuming desire to achieve net zero by 2050.” Another claims that it was “wrong of us to set a target” for net zero. The frontrunner spent two years at the Treasury blocking additional climate spend. It is all well and good for the Minister to talk about the need for investment, but how can we, and more importantly the investors out there, have any confidence that it will continue?”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) on speaking with such horrific eloquence about what is going on with the—I think it is pronounced “grinned” rather than “grind”, but I am not sure. I was just googling, but perhaps it is—”
“Over the years—this dates back to discussing the derogation at EU level—I have seen so many excuses made by people who are really just washing their hands of the blood of these thousands and thousands of whales and dolphins. I gather that the Faroe Islands Prime Minister promised a review at some point, but we have seen very little in terms of outcomes.”
“Okay. Well, the hon. Member is closer to the Faroe Islands than I am, but I think it is pronounced “grinned”. Regardless of that, I was researching for this debate and saw the footage of what is happening there. I once went to an event—I think it was probably something like Vegfest in Bristol—where someone on a stall showed me a tourist brochure for the Faroe Islands. There was a double-page spread showing red water with the bodies of animals in it. This was, “Come and witness our cultural traditions.” It was actually seen as a wonderful, spectacular event, in the same way that people might have been invited to watch bullfighting in Spain. It really was quite horrific, and I think the hon. Member from the Petitions Committee more than did justice to how horrific it is.”
“I thank the Minister for that response. That wipes out one of the questions I was going to ask him. He can keep intervening on me; then he will not need to do a winding-up speech.”
“There is a separate debate to be had about transparency around the issues in our food supply chains, be that deforestation in Brazil, the worst animal welfare practices in other countries or human rights abuses. Clearly, if people knew that they were propping up the Grind, they would not continue buying these products. Where we are now is a post-Brexit development. We were told that we would be masters of our own destiny after Brexit, so I do not understand why our Government, who have placed on the record their strong opposition to the hunting of whales and dolphins, have failed to make banning it a prerequisite for any trade agreements. As we have heard, the Faroe Islands have very little leverage—we are way bigger than them in terms of what we bring—so this would have been an ideal opportunity to put pressure on them.”
“I think we all agree that allowing the slaughter of even one dolphin or whale is unacceptable. I pay tribute to conservation groups such as Born Free and Sea Shepherd, as well as to Dominic Dyer, for their campaigning on this matter. However, the burden of pressing for change should not fall on them; change requires international pressure and trade negotiations at Government level, where we have leverage. It is clear that the British public think that the Grind is horrific, but consumers who would be absolutely sickened by the bloody images from the Faroes are simultaneously—if completely unwittingly—buying products from the Faroe Islands in British supermarkets.”
“The Government said in February that the UK “continues to call on all whaling nations, including the Faroe Islands, at every appropriate opportunity to cease their whaling activities”. I do not understand why the trade negotiations that took place in early 2019 were not an “appropriate opportunity”. What counts as an appropriate opportunity? Perhaps the Minister can tell us what discussions were had back then.”
“I agree with the hon. Lady. I have seen this so often. I remember sitting in a meeting with a Trade Minister—this goes back some time, because I have been around for quite a bit. When I spoke about human rights in China—I was shadowing the human rights Minister in the Foreign Office team—I was told that trade is a separate matter. I was told, “Human rights is dealt with by the Foreign Office. We are here to talk about trade and to get deals done.” That is entirely wrong. I could mention all sorts of examples that we should not accept of a lowering standards or of human rights abuses in other countries. We should use trade negotiations to set a clear marker on our standards and the standards we are prepared to accept from other countries.”
“As has been mentioned, a record 1,428 dolphins were slaughtered in the 12 September hunt last year—the single largest killing event in the islands’ history. It is clear that that was for no other reason than for pleasure and the spectacle—it was nothing to do with food. It is important to recognise cultural traditions, and the role they play in binding communities together and sustaining age-old customs. However, we have a responsibility to evolve, as we have seen in this country with the discussions about fox hunting and in Spain with the discussions about bullfighting. There are many practices that would once have been deemed acceptable but that no longer are.”
“Yes, they are. We should protect and preserve the ocean, not plunder it; what is in the ocean is certainly not there for the sake of such horrific pastimes. There is a conservation issue, and that is one reason why successive Governments have taken such a firm stance against whaling. Some people would try to defend whaling as a traditional activity, but a snap poll of Faroe Islanders, conducted following the infamous 12 September Grind, found that over 50% of respondents were in favour of halting dolphin hunting. Save the Reef reported that fewer than 20% of Faroe Islanders consumed any pilot whale meat or blubber at all. Yet that meat was the reason for the derogation; it was said that it was needed for the local food supply. We know that that is nonsense if we look at the numbers of whales and dolphins that have been killed.”
“I hope that the Minister, who I need to welcome to his place—it is so confusing at the moment, because we have no idea who may turn up—will get off to a flying start by telling us all exactly what we want to hear.”
“It is not always apparent that a spinal lance has been used to administer a quick death, and there are frequent reports of knives being used to hack away at the meat. We have heard some of that before. This practice falls well below anything that the UK would accept, but the fact is that we are tacitly accepting it, although I know the Minister will try to assure me that we are not. We are endorsing these methods by virtue of the fact that we are signing a trade deal with the country that carries them out. It will be the people and the Government of the Faroe Islands who ultimately determine if and when the slaughter ends. However, we have an opportunity to play our part and to end our complicity by suspending the free trade agreement.”
“I am not sure I would advocate throwing rocks at whales and dolphins—although I suppose there is a good chance they would miss, so it has to be better than the way things are done now. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point: this has evolved into something way beyond the traditional practice. Whale and Dolphin Conservation, which I have worked alongside in the past, described pilot whales as very sociable and incredibly loyal, with an inquisitive nature. They are highly intelligent social mammals. Humans have taken advantage of that social nature by subjecting pods to incredibly stressful hour-long hunts that culminate in whales watching their kin being killed in front of them and bleeding to death. There is no regulation or oversight; killings can be indiscriminate and methods are unchecked.”
“I thank the Minister for that response, but at the time when the then Chancellor came up with that support package in May, Ofgem’s cap prediction was that a typical bill would rise to £2,800 in October. It now looks as though it could be something like £450 more than that, with yet another rise in January. What additional support will whoever the Chancellor is, or will be in a couple of weeks’ time, come up with to ensure people with disabilities can manage to pay their fuel bills?”
“Two things concern me. First, we know that the Secretary of State has repeatedly expressed doubt about the precautionary principle, suggesting that it is implemented in too strong a fashion and that he wants to row back from that. Secondly, in 2017 we were promised these environmental principles imminently. Now, in 2022, we have a draft statement. That suggests that the Government are not keen to get these principles into law and to implement them; rather, they are doing everything they can to drag their feet. Does the Minister not realise why I have concerns about that?”
“I should not actually be here at the moment—I should be in the Committee on the Genetic Technologies (Precision Breeding) Bill, but unfortunately we lost the Minister yesterday. We have a new Minister who is even now swotting up ferociously for this afternoon’s sitting, but it is an incredibly technical Bill and it is not very well drafted; it is very flawed. Does the Leader of the House really think that that Minister, with no disrespect to her, is going to be a position to take us through the remaining stages of the Committee by this afternoon?”
“Peter Stevenson also said that “it is vital that there is something in this Bill to protect animal welfare, because the current legislation…has really very little on breeding, which is why we have all these problems.”—[ Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 108, Q173.] I have already mentioned the secondary legislation. Amendment 13 is very important, because if applications are being made for the marketing of gene edited animal products, we need oversight of the related regulations. Otherwise there is a risk of a lax regulatory regime that lets applicants mark their own homework.”
“Friend the Member for Cambridge said, some of the things that I have mentioned in the course of debate I will mention again in a moment. The National Farmers Union said that the Bill is not the place to consider animal welfare and positive or negative outcomes in that respect, because we have legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act and the farm animal welfare codes. I have already made clear my doubts about the effectiveness of that. Some of the witnesses that we heard from argued very convincingly that the existing animal welfare regime does not offer enough protections.”
“It is now all in-ovo testing, so editing the gene might be a quicker and cheaper way of doing it. However, let us not pin all our hopes on this Bill. That is something we could be doing without gene editing. I am surprised that we are not following France and Germany’s lead. Another advantage we heard about is avoiding the need for dehorning, by preventing the growth of horns. That is all very good stuff, but we also heard about concerns, including the increased yields in particular. That is something that I would be very concerned about. Peter Stevenson from Compassion in World Farming said: “The science about the detrimental impact of selective breeding on just about every main farm species is utterly clear.” –– [ Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 101, Q163.] As my hon.”
“I want to say once again for the record that I see that there are positives that could result from gene editing of animals. I am not totally against that. We have talked about improving resistance to disease, resistance to heat and the ability to breed selectively by gender. For example, 29 million male chicks are killed each year in the UK—in the UK it is by gassing, but in other countries it is maceration, which is a pretty horrible process by which they go along a conveyor belt and end up in a grinder that shreds them to bits—so we could avoid that. Interestingly, although people are keen to talk about how we are ahead of the field in animal welfare, parts of Germany have banned culling of male chicks, France has put a bit of money into it, and Germany introduced a ban at the start of the year.”
“The Minister has gone into a lot of detail already as to why she does not support Labour’s amendments. I am not sure that I will be able to change her mind or whether she has another speech put to one side in case I make such a compelling argument—I suspect not—but I will get it on the record anyway. My starting point is that I was rather concerned about how often she mentioned regulation, further consideration, talking to stakeholders and all those things that are yet to be configured. Actually, we have time to get the Bill right, to get things on the face of it and not to rush into it, rather than having such reliance on secondary legislation. We have made that point already and will, no doubt, continue to do so as we go through the Bill. However, it is a major concern.”
“My concern is that that is not spelled out in the Bill, and it goes back to our argument about the public benefit. I would be far more comfortable if the Bill spelled out what the hon. Lady has described and made it clear that that is what it is designed to achieve. The ongoing welfare of the animal should be one of the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether to approve applications. The Bill is not clear about that. Market forces being what they are, some people will want to use the Bill as an opportunity to increase yields.”
“The Bill should have been put on hold while we made more inquiries and gathered more information. That would have meant that we were discussing a fully rounded Bill, and that we knew what we were likely to get from it.”
“I am conscious of time, so to conclude, amendment 7 calls for welfare reports to be submitted to the Secretary of State to consider whether yields would be increased and whether that would lead to suffering. That goes to the nub of the issue. I will not repeat what I said earlier, but if the development of gene editing led to the phase out of some of the diseases that affect animal welfare, I would like more reassurances about what that would mean for increased density and animals kept in cramped conditions, and so on. If we have a stronger animal, that might mean that it is thought they can withstand such treatment. I think the welfare provisions are too weak, and far too much is being left to regulations and consideration at some point in the future.”
“One might think so, but consider the lifespan of cows and that fact that they become infertile pretty quickly. One would think that logic would suggest that a farmer would want a cow that they did not literally milk for everything, and that lived a longer, healthier and fertile life. That is not what happens on some farms. Some farmers view the economic advantage to them as getting as much out of a cow as possible in its shorter lifespan. We want to encourage best practice, and I am not casting aspersions on farmers who want to do the right thing, but we know that big market forces are at work, particularly in chicken production. In fact, wherever products are sold in bulk and consumed in vast quantities, some players in that market will not have animal welfare in mind.”
“I share my hon. Friend’s concern about that point. We heard from several witnesses that we should be talking about animal welfare not in this Bill, but in connection with other legislation, such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or the farm animal welfare codes. That is almost, “Put that to one side; this is just about the science.” Does he share my concern that we are not looking at the Bill in the round and considering those ethical issues?”
“Sue Pritchard, chief executive of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission—with whom I am sure the Minister is familiar—agreed with Professor Rose, saying that his comments were “consistent” with the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission consultation response; she also agreed that DEFRA must anticipate good and bad consequences. That is our concern: while we have heard lots about the potential, it is just not clear that the safeguards are there against potential misuse of the legislation.”
“The fact that those questions and concerns exist mean that gene editing could be used for good or for bad, so it would be helpful to have a public interest test in the Bill. The Agriculture Act 2020 contains very clear tests on public money for public good, and establishes quite a clear idea of what is regarded as a public good in food and farming—certainly in how people farm their land, although not so much on the animal side of things. There is concern, however, that the Government are rowing back a little on that agenda as they start to consider how to distribute subsidies to farmers. As we look at the more technical side of things, it would be good to reiterate that the Government do see that there is a need to promote the public good with regard to this legislation.”
“In speaking to amendment 32, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge quoted oral evidence. I had a bit of a Twitter conversation with David Rose, professor of sustainable agricultural systems at Cranfield University. He was due to give evidence but could not because of ill health. Professor Rose said that the Government have not considered how the Bill will lead to more sustainable agriculture, and that, although gene editing does have potential, it could, if used badly, make agriculture less sustainable. Professor Rose posed a number of questions. What is gene editing for? That goes to the very heart of what the Committee is trying to nail. Who benefits? Will it reduce chemical use? Will it facilitate further monoculture? Will it intensify animal protection?”
“However, if market forces are against them, there will always be the temptation to take advantage of being able to put animals in close contact; there will always be some people who choose to do that. I do not see the harm in trying to have safeguards in the Bill to prevent that. That is not to say that everyone will try if the safeguards are not there.”
“We had that argument over the Agriculture Act and the Trade Act 2021—about protecting standards and trying to support British farmers who do not want to do that. That is a very good thing. However, given the possibility that British farmers will have to compete with imports that are produced to lower standards, there may be some who do want to go down that route. We see that with some food producers because they want to be able to produce more cheaply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, scientists want to do the right thing and use gene editing for the right purposes. By and large, farmers in this country also want to do the right thing and farm to good, sustainable standards.”
“There were also some very good arguments that gene editing could reduce the need for antibiotics. It would allow us to deal with disease at source, so we would not have to worry so much about disease spreading. Obviously, reducing antibiotics use would be very good, given the impact it can have on human health if it leaks into our food supply chain. At the same time, though, if we are less worried about disease spreading among animals because we have managed to breed out that concern, that could open the door in some sense to putting an awful lot more animals in close contact and, perhaps, not being as worried about husbandry. I think it is very good that, for the most part, British farmers do not want to go down that American route.”