Sir David Attenborough: Permanent National Monument

Johanna Baxter Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I shall call Johanna Baxter to move the motion. I shall then call the Minister to respond. I remind all other Members that if they wish to speak in a 30-minute debate—only one has requested to do so—they must have the consent of the Member in the charge and the Minister. For the record, I should have been notified as well, and I was not told of anybody wishing to take part in the debate. Members can, of course, intervene, but remember that this is a 15-minute each way debate, basically. There is no opportunity for the mover of the debate to wind up at the end.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a permanent national monument for Sir David Attenborough.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Last month marked the 100th birthday of a television icon, a broadcasting legend and a true national treasure: Sir David Attenborough. Across his 70 years in television, Sir David has inspired generations to care more deeply about our natural world. A staple of Sunday evening viewing for decades, he has enthralled and inspired us in a way that no other broadcaster ever has or arguably could.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I can remember the time I spent with my boys watching David Attenborough on TV, and now I spend it with my grandchildren, so the tradition carries on. The information and passion are shared between generations through the timeless quality of David Attenborough’s environmental work. Does the hon. Lady agree that now is the time to recognise this national treasure and that he deserves a permanent recognition as the best of British?

[Johanna Baxter]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member’s sentiments.

It is little wonder that, in poll after poll, the British public have voted for Sir David as one of the most trusted voices in our country and one of the 100 greatest Brits. It started with a fossil. In the 1930s, Sir David found an ammonite that sparked a curiosity for the wonders of our natural world that still exists in him today. After winning a scholarship to the University of Cambridge in 1945, Sir David obtained a degree in natural sciences, before embarking on his long and remarkable career at the BBC.

When he first completed his training programme in 1952, television was a luxury for the few. Indeed, Sir David had never owned a television set when he was hired, yet by 1954, he had co-created and launched the “Zoo Quest” series, with the aim of showing animals live in their natural habitats, starting with the quest for a picathartes—a little bald African bird. That quest shifted the public’s imagination of what television could achieve and the wonders among which we live. Sir David has gone to the ends of the earth, to the depths of the ocean and into the upper atmosphere to capture those incredible images that have stunned and enthralled us all.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that David Attenborough’s brother Richard sadly passed away in 2014. I just wanted to share the last tweet that Lord Richard Attenborough put out on Twitter. He said he was very proud of his little brother, after David Attenborough received his BAFTA. I am sure that Richard Attenborough would have been very proud that my hon. Friend is having a debate about his little brother today.

[Johanna Baxter]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.

Sir David is not just an incredible broadcaster with a passion for nature; he is an architect who shaped the landscape of British broadcasting. As the controller of BBC Two, he oversaw the introduction of colour television to the UK, beating continental Europe to the airwaves.

His eye for innovation even changed global sport. It was Sir David who noticed that traditional white tennis balls were nearly impossible for viewers to track on early colour television screens during broadcasts from Wimbledon. He personally intervened and championed the introduction of the optic yellow tennis balls that are used worldwide today. His embrace of technological advances led to him being the only person ever to win BAFTA awards for programmes across black and white, colour, high-definition, 3D and 4K television. From “The Blue Planet” and “Life on Earth” to “Galapagos” and “Frozen Planet”—I am sure everybody here today could name their favourite—each landmark production pushed human ingenuity forward.

Within the scientific community, one of the greatest compliments a person can receive is to have a species named after them. It is extraordinary, then, to think that Sir David has had over 50 species named in his honour, reflecting a staggering range of biodiversity. They range from the Euptychia attenboroughi, a black-eyed satyr butterfly found in the tropical Amazon, to the Platysaurus attenboroughi, a flat lizard native to southern Africa. Sir David is also one of very few people to have been knighted twice.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The hon. Lady was talking about how Sir David has had a number of species named after him. Does she agree that, going forward, we should do more to name our green spaces, such as Rotary Wood in Harrogate, which was planted by children, after legends like Sir David Attenborough?

[Johanna Baxter]

That is a lovely idea.

In more recent years, Sir David’s voice shifted from one of wonder to fierce advocacy. He transitioned from our guide through the natural world to its ultimate champion on the world stage. For his historic address to COP24, the UN climate change conference in Poland in 2018, Sir David took up the People’s Seat, standing before representatives from nearly 200 nations to act as the voice of global citizens. His message was blistering in its clarity. He told world leaders:

“Right now we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change. If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

He did not mince his words, nor did he hide behind diplomatic niceties. He used the trust that he had built over half a century to force the world to look into the abyss of its own inaction.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that seeing British leadership on the world stage like that fills us with such pride? We look forward to working together on that point. Perhaps a British monument by a British artist might be something to consider as we look to celebrate Sir David’s incredible achievements?

[Johanna Baxter]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If there is to be a monument, it should be by a British sculptor. We are filled with pride in Sir David every day.

He took his message even further in 2021, when he addressed the UN Security Council. Sir David reframed the climate crisis entirely, moving it from a scientific debate to an existential security threat. He warned the council that

“climate change is the biggest threat”

to global security

“that modern humans have ever faced.”

He told the council that if the natural systems that support us collapse, everything we take for granted—food and water security, social stability and international peace—will collapse with them. He challenged the most powerful leaders on earth to recognise that the map of the world is being rewritten by our own carbon emissions. Speaking at COP26 in Glasgow, he gave a stark warning on climate change and asked the haunting question:

“Is this how our story is due to end? A tale of the smartest species doomed by that all too human characteristic of failing to see the bigger picture in pursuit of short term goals.”

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The hon. Member is making a brilliant speech in honour of a fantastic advocate for the natural world. I have had emails from constituents about him, and I would like to share one that I received this morning, which says:

“Sir David is a titan of broadcasting and has educated, amazed and enthralled generations for decades.”

The point she is making is key: he has been an advocate not just for the natural world, but for our responsibilities to tackle the huge challenge of climate change. Sir David clearly deservers some sort of memorial—perhaps a living memorial. I thank the hon. Member for securing this tribute to him, and hope that we all agree that he deserves all the recognition and respect that we can give him.

[Johanna Baxter]

I thank the hon. Member for those words. A living monument is a fantastic idea and Sir David certainly deserves our recognition and thanks. He has taught us that humanity’s greatness is found when we act as caretakers to our environment rather than consumers of it. He showed us that true leadership lies in what we choose to protect, understand and preserve. Yet when facing a cost of living crisis, the easy temptation for some is to fall back on the status quo and focus narrowly on drilling our natural resources. There is a danger in ignoring the warnings he delivered on the global stage and here on our doorstep.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that with such division and discord across many of our communities, this initiative crosses the political spectrum? Does she agree that Sir David Attenborough’s life’s work should be celebrated by all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Johanna Baxter]

I absolutely agree.

Despite the sheer scale of his global contribution, there is currently no permanent national monument dedicated to Sir David in the United Kingdom’s civic landscape. That is why I have secured this important debate. I am calling on the Government to work with me to address that absence through the creation of a carefully designed sculpture that will be installed in a prominent public location.

Over recent months, I have been working on this campaign with an incredibly talented sculptor, David Mitchell, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing us and for working alongside me. To be clear, the proposal would be entirely privately funded, with fundraising undertaken by cultural institutions, by charitable organisations and through voluntary public contributions.

I have built support among the public and colleagues across the House. I would particularly like to thank the team at 38 Degrees, who have worked with me on the campaign. The petition I launched with them has now received more than 89,000 signatures and the support of many colleagues. I have received many welcome suggestions on how best to pay tribute to Sir David. All of them have been incredibly thoughtful, illustrating the deep affection in which he is held. I have had suggestions to rename national forests and parks, and I am entirely open to working with all Members to explore those opportunities.

It is important that we permanently recognise Sir David’s legacy in a way that truly reflects the broad national admiration for his life and work. Some may ask why we require a physical monument in an increasingly digital world. The answer lies in what our public spaces say about our collective conscience. Civic statues are the ultimate expression of a nation’s values. Who we choose to set in stone and elevate on plinths tells our children and future generations who we want them to emulate. For generations, our public squares have rightly honoured great political leaders, monarchs and military figures who have guided our nation through the tumultuous chapters of our history. Those monuments tell a vital story, but as our society evolves, so too should the stories we choose to tell in our public space.

Today, our national pride is defined not just by how we navigated history, but how we are leading the world into a more sustainable and enlightened future. To have a monument to Sir David would be to enrich our civic architecture with symbols of modern British values: our deep respect for scientific truth, our love for the natural world and our shared responsibility to our planet. It would be an honour to a giant of education and conservation.

When a child looks up at that monument, they will see our values: the defence of our natural world and the pursuit of scientific knowledge as pillars of our national character. It would stand not only as a fitting tribute to an extraordinary individual, but as a lasting, visible symbol of Britain’s enduring commitment to science, education and environmental stewardship.

For more than 70 years, Sir David has used the power of his voice to show us the breathtaking beauty and terrifying fragility of our planet. He has spent a lifetime looking out for our world; it is time this nation looked up to him.

Animal Testing

Johanna Baxter Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on opening this important and timely debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG on cats—I was interested in the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover)’s comments about conversations with them, which many will relate to.

Fundamentally, we are a nation of animal lovers. More than 60% of UK households own a pet—or, in the case of cats, are owned by them. For millions of families across the country, our pets or other companion animals are not simply animals, but beloved members of our family. We care deeply about their welfare, and rightly so. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to act on the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority on veterinary services, which will help to reduce the costs of pet care at a time when many households are still feeling the strain of rising costs. Cost should never be a barrier to getting our beloved animals treated when they are sick.

While we rightly focus on easing pressures on pet owners—something that is as much a welfare as a cost of living issue—we must also confront the wider question of how animals are treated in our society, particularly those hidden from public view in laboratories and testing facilities. At its heart, animal testing is a moral issue and an animal welfare issue, but it is also increasingly clear that it is a scientific and economic issue. I welcome the Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy, which delivers on our manifesto commitment. That strategy is backed by £75 million of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods, including £30 million for the UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. The strategy includes a target that aims

“to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetic studies for human medicines by at least 35% by 2030”

and

“to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of non human primates and dogs in dedicated cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030.”

The continued use of animals in experiments is not only inhumane, but often ineffective, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran eloquently outlined earlier. For example, dogs continue to be used in scientific testing despite clear biological differences between them and humans: they absorb drugs differently, their gastric pH levels differ from ours, their metabolic enzymes function differently and they have different cardiovascular systems, with higher heart rates and distinct electrical activity regulating their heartbeat. Those are not minor differences; they are fundamental biological distinctions that can make dogs poor predictors for how treatments will behave in humans.

The consequences are plain to see. Developing a new medicine takes, on average, 14 years and costs more than £1 billion, yet more than 95% of drugs fail before reaching patients. That is not simply an inefficient system—it is evidence that elements of our drug development model are no longer fit for purpose. The continued reliance on animal testing is part of that problem. Behind the statistics is the ethical reality. Animals used in experiments are subject to invasive procedures, prolonged confinement and real distress, and are often left with lasting physical and physiological harm. The British public are fully aware of the scale of that harm, which is why they are demanding change. Indeed, more than seven in 10 Brits support a ban on animal testing, according to a YouGov poll from last year.

“Change” is the slogan this Government were elected on, and change on this issue is eminently possible. Around the world, momentum is building towards modern alternatives—human-relevant technologies, advanced cell modelling and AI-driven methods—that are often more accurate, efficient and humane than animal experimentation. I urge the Government to move forward with Herbie’s law and to set a clear national pathway to phase out animal experiments over the next decade, working closely with scientists, researchers and industry to accelerate the transition to modern alternatives.

This is not a choice between compassion and progress—we can achieve both. We can lead the world in pioneering better science; we can reduce unnecessary suffering; and we can build a future in which medical innovation is not dependent on outdated, inhumane practices. That would be a victory for science, for patients and, above all, for animals and their welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

We do not disagree with the principle of Herbie’s law; indeed, that is what the strategy is trying to achieve. The challenge for the Government, of course, is to balance that against what is achievable and what can be validated, not just in the UK but across the international community. We want this country to be a world leader in eliminating animal research, and it is pretty clear, on the front page of the strategy, that we wish to take those 26 actions on.

Let me continue as that will help to answer the hon. Member’s question. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) challenged us to say what the strategy has delivered so far. We have moved from commitments towards trying to deliver. With the actions under way across discovery, research, validation, regulatory decision making and governance, and indeed the money to support some of that, delivery is being supported through co-ordinated action across the Office for Life Sciences, NC3Rs, UKRI bodies and regulators. The MRC has launched the £20 million fund to which I referred, and Innovate UK and NC3Rs continue to work in partnership to advance development. In March 2026, the MHRA published new guidance setting out how applications for medicines that use non-animal methods will be assessed and fast-tracked. A lot of the strategy has therefore already been put in place, but the strategy cannot be just words; it needs action as well.

Let me run through some of the challenges and questions raised by hon. Members in what has been a tremendously good debate for examining the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran chairs the relevant all-party parliamentary group, the aims of which are:

“To build cross-party support for replacing animal experiments in medical research with human-specific methods, working closely with the scientific community to identify opportunities, barriers and put forward constructive recommendations to government.”

Those are almost the same aims as what the Government are trying to achieve through the strategy. We and the APPG are aligned in the outcome we want. We look forward to continuing to work with her and the other APPG members to get it delivered.

I want to say something for clarity, because my hon. Friend raised this in some of what she said—we heard it from many hon. Members—and there has been a little confusion not just in this debate, but in previous debates. The testing of cosmetics was banned in 1998 and the testing of household products was banned in 2015. Progress has been slower than we would have wanted, but we hope that the new strategy will speed things up and give certainty to industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned botox, as did the hon. Member for Huntingdon and, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). Botox is not a cosmetic, so it is not covered by existing regulations on cosmetics, as we heard, but the strategy sets an aim to apply only validated alternative methods for testing the potency of botox by the end of 2027. The MHRA now accepts an alternative for most common strengths of botox, so we hope to see the practice phased out within the next 18 months or so.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon gave us a whole list of questions, some of which are the responsibility of the Home Office, so if I do not cover them all, I will ensure that he gets a detailed analysis from that Department. We will provide an update later this year about the international perspectives, because at the moment we are working out and scoping what those perspectives look like. He asked about funding. Out of the £75 million, £20 million is for the translational hub and £30 million is for the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. It does not cover NC3R’s funding.

Tomorrow, we are discussing KPIs at an official level—the hon. Gentleman challenged us about what tomorrow’s meeting will do. The matter will then go to a ministerial meeting, which happens every quarter, with the next one due on 8 July. He also talked about criminalisation. I will get the Home Office to detail a response to him in writing, but while the law criminalises interfering or planning to interfere with key national infrastructure, it does not cover the email situation he talked about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked if any consideration was given to the reviewing, reworking and revoking of licences. Again, that is a Home Office responsibility, so I will get a full response about how it monitors licences. She also challenged us on the use of AI, and we need to look at that. Many advances in medical research are happening with AI enhancement at the moment, including on motor neurone disease and how the brain operates, as I know from my constituency. AI and advances in technology will be a key part of how we phase out the use of animal testing.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) asked if the regulatory body should be paid for by the industry, but that is not the case. The regulatory body charges for its licensing; it is not paid for directly. That does not amount to the industry funding the regulator. It is standard practice for people to buy the regulatory services that are required.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) challenged us to say more than warm words. That is what I think the strategy is about and why we are advancing it rather quickly. The dates by which we need to achieve many of the issues are in the strategy.

I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for his comments. I appreciate the fact that he welcomes the strategy, although I know he wants us to go quicker, faster and with more pace, as many Members have said. He raised the issue of Herbie’s law by 2035, but we have to ensure that replacements put in place for that to happen in an orderly fashion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked us for a fourth R—“replace”. That is what investment in the strategy is all about, and it is why the money is available.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) talks to his cats—interesting—although I do not know whether he ever gets a response. I hope he is not opening up a debate in Westminster Hall about whether someone is a dog person or a cat person, because that could take us to—I am extending the pun even further—a rabbit hole that we might not want to go down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) certainly is a cat lover. I believe she has a cat called Clement Catlee, and another called Chairman Meow—is that right?

[Johanna Baxter]

Mo Meowlam!

[Ian Murray]

Who has the cat called Chairman Meow, then? It must be somebody else. My hon. Friend was right to mention the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into vet costs. We want to achieve our manifesto commitment on that issue; it was a very clear part of our manifesto and we all want to see the same outcomes from that. The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned AI and asked us about the action so far, which I have run through.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), we agree with the principle of Herbie’s law. We cannot set arbitrary timelines for things that we may not be able to achieve, but we have set some strong ones already, including the 35% reduction by 2030. If we can go faster and further, of course we will; it will depend on whether we can get validated scientific research in place. We will write to her on the finer details about whether we have those 22 inspectors in place.

Let me go into why we would not put Herbie’s law on a statutory footing. In line with international practice, we are using the three baskets approach to group animal tests and prioritise their replacements—this is mainly about dogs. Basket one covers areas where there is a mature replacement tech: for example, the strategy aims by the end of 2026—this year—to use only alternative methods for skin irritation testing. Basket two covers areas where there are medium-term replacements: we aim to replace the use of fish acute toxicity tests for chemicals regulated by REACH, the regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, by the end of 2028. The strategy does therefore have defined end points, where they can be defined. Basket three covers complex end points and long-term aims. By the end of 2035, we aim to include alternative methods and regulations for endocrine disruption tests—I do not know what that means, but maybe one of the vets in the Chamber can tell us. Those aims are not on a statutory footing, but they are Government commitments. They are gateways that we want to go through with the three baskets approach.

Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage

Johanna Baxter Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and the tone in which he made them. It is the responsibility of all of us always to stand up to antisemitism. It is sadly a battle that is never won. The lesson of history is that it falls to every generation to fight antisemitism and fight it again, and certainly I can promise that this Government will always do that.

Let me turn to the specific question about the BBC and charter renewal—with apologies to the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for not answering his question on this earlier. I have not discussed charter renewal in the context of Kneecap and the other acts broadcast from Glastonbury this weekend. We have, of course, discussed charter renewal, and it is absolutely right to say that editorial standards must be part of that discussion. When we release the terms of reference, which we are due to do shortly, everyone in this House will see a clear commitment to that as part of the ongoing conversation we will have about charter renewal.

Finally, I welcome the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) saying that chants of death must not be made to anyone. Chants of death—to anyone—are not welcome in our society. There was something particularly pernicious about chanting, “Death, death to the IDF”. Many colleagues will know that in Israel, there is a conscription model. Every young person is required to serve in the IDF, which means that chanting “death to the IDF” is equivalent to calling for the death of every single Israeli Jew. That is one of the many reasons why we take this so seriously and why it cannot be argued that this did not cross a very dangerous line.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I share her concern that although freedom of expression must be protected, this incident raises serious concerns about the editorial standards and judgments exercised. As a long-standing supporter of the BBC, I am deeply disappointed in it. What conversations the Secretary of State having with the editorial team to ensure that a serious incident like this can never happen again?

[Lisa Nandy]

As well as speaking to the director general of the BBC on Saturday, a number of officials have been in touch with the BBC’s senior leadership team. We have put to them a series of specific questions that we expect immediate answers on, and we will continue to press hard to ensure that they are forthcoming. I will of course update the House at the earliest opportunity, and I expect to speak to the chairman of the BBC in the coming days.