Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for her response to my answer. I am clear that there has been no mishandling from the Home Office on this important issue. As I said in my speech, this has been on the Government website since 2024. We have also spent significant sums of money on getting the message out there, including through the relevant media and through communications to those who have naturalised over the last decade. Communications, as we all know in this place, can be difficult and some people can be missed. I have worked as hard as I can to get the message out there, including on Australian television.

The hon. Lady is right in saying that there is no eligibility for an ETA. That is due to the Home Secretary’s power to grant an ETA deriving from the immigration rules, which do not apply to British citizens. A passport costs £100. The turnaround times that we are seeing after the increase in demand are well within the expected limits, taking four weeks for those applying from outside the country, with the average at around nine days. That is fast. They can also apply for an emergency travel document in extreme circumstances and the turnaround times for that can be as quick as two days. There are also transitional methods in place, such as using expired passports that were issued after 1989. There has been significant communication and advice to carriers, including my meeting many of them to ensure that they fully understand the new measures in place. The carrier support line is also active, through which anyone encountering issues can make contact.

It is important that we introduce these measures. They are modernising, they are making our border more secure and they are very much in line with what other nations are doing. I have sympathy for those who may be encountering issues. On Monday next week, I will hold drop-in sessions that all Members of Parliament with specific cases—I do not want to go into too much detail on the Floor of the House—can visit.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

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.

[Mike Tapp]

My suggestion at this point is that my hon. Friend’s constituents visit the Government website and call the support line to see what advice can be offered. I cannot go into specific details right now about that case, but if she comes to my drop-in session on Monday, where there will also be officials, we can deal with that. I am also happy to speak after this urgent question.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening the debate so thoughtfully. I also thank the petitioners for enabling us to debate this issue.

Some 96% of my constituents in Cannock Chase were born in the UK, yet immigration is one of the issues most frequently raised with me. It is a topic of debate that matters to and affects people right across the country. In recent years, rhetoric around immigration has led to a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations of many people who choose to make Britain their home. At the same time, legitimate concerns about the impact of migration on communities, particularly when that migration is rapid, have been dismissed as bigotry. That leads only to resentment, entrenchment and toxicity, so I am glad that we are having an open and respectful debate.

As always, I am keen to hear a range of views, particularly from those who will be affected by the things that we discuss in this place. Two weeks ago, I met faith leaders and members of the congregation of the Victory church in Rugeley, most of whom work in health and social care. What they shared with me was not opposition to reform but a need for clarity and reassurance. They could see why change is needed, and they support the concept of contribution—they believe that they are making a contribution in many different ways—but the proposal that people in so-called “lower-skilled roles” could face qualifying periods of up to 15 years is causing concern, particularly for those in social care.

The people I met pointed out that social care requires extensive training, safeguarding responsibilities, emotional resilience and compassion, but often is not well paid, meaning that they will not reach the income thresholds under the Government’s contribution proposals. They are not asking for special treatment. They made a constructive suggestion: could those who demonstrate a long-term commitment to care work and continued professional development have access to quicker settlement? I hope that the Minister will say something about how the contribution of social care workers, in particular, can be recognised.

The issue I heard about loudest, though, was the need for transitional arrangements. People have understandably planned their lives around the expectation of ILR after five years, so I hope that the Minister can give us some clarity on when we will know what the arrangements will be. Uncertainty is affecting families’ ability to plan. My constituent Solomon works in social care. His daughter is currently doing her GCSEs and recently won an award for academic excellence. He fears that, on the brink of getting ILR, his family could face a decade or more of uncertainty.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Josh Newbury]

In the interests of time, I will not. Communities such as mine ask for a system that is fair, rewards contribution and provides a clear pathway for those who have put down roots and serve our country. I left Victory church in no doubt that the people who I met are making an immense contribution to our community; I am sure that my constituents would be proud that they want to make Rugeley their home. Although I support the Government’s objectives in reforming the settlement system, I ask the Minister to ensure that clarity, dignity and stability are baked in and spelled out as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the petitioners in the Public Gallery, to my constituency neighbour, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for presenting the debate, and to every single Member who has contributed. It will be difficult to name everyone, because there have been so many speeches, but I am grateful for them.

Both petitions relate to the earned settlement proposal set out in “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”, the Command Paper that the Home Secretary introduced to Parliament on 20 November. The proposed reforms represent the most fundamental change to the settlement system in decades and are currently subject to an ongoing public consultation that ends in 10 days, on 12 February. We recognise how important this issue is to Members—we have seen that here today—as well as to their constituents and of course to migrants across the whole country. We will listen, and are listening, to what is being said.

[Kerry McCarthy]

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?

[Mike Tapp]

Some of the rule changes that we will introduce are firm, and that will be laid out today in my speech. Much of the proposal—for example, transitional arrangements—is very much being consulted on. Of course, that will be listened to. If there are any further questions when I finish, I ask Members to please intervene nearer the end.

Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec.

I will start by talking briefly about the underlying issue of animal testing, before making more general comments about restrictions on the right to protest. I think I am right in saying that the only commitment made in the 1997 general election manifesto that was not implemented by the Blair Government was the pledge to establish a royal commission on vivisection, which was scuppered by opposition from the life sciences sector. As I recall, they justified their stance by saying that if there were more transparency around what scientists were doing, they would be at personal risk. As I understand it, one of the reasons we are here today is to consider restrictions on the right to protest about animal testing. I want to make it clear from the outset that I totally condemn any abuse or harassment of individuals working in the sector, but laws are already in place to deal with that. Indeed, some activists, whose behaviour in the past went far beyond the pale, are currently serving very long prison sentences as a result.

I welcome the Government’s publication of the road map for phasing out animal testing, but I am sad that so much time has been wasted since 1997—time with which we could have made progress—and that so many millions of animals have suffered as a result. I am not opposed to all animal testing, but I believe that the vast majority of experiments are unnecessary, ineffective and inhumane, for reasons that I think my hon. Friends will set out. I hope to see the day when we have developed humane alternatives to all animal testing, so that it ends.

To give one example, I have in recent years met scientists at the University of Bristol in a bid to stop them using the forced-swim test. They were looking at the stress that mice experienced when drowning, and whether giving them antidepressants made them feel a bit more zen about the whole thing. The scientists told me that they had done that test over and over again, but had yet to observe anything interesting. That sounds to me like Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I am very glad that there is a moratorium on that test now.

In 2015, I attended a meeting in the Commons at which the main speakers were Stanley Johnson, father of Boris, and the eminent zoologist Professor Michael Balls, father of Ed. It was a rather unlikely pairing, but they were joining forces to call for an end to beagle breeding for the purposes of animal experiments. A decade later, the sector involved in testing on beagles is still calling for more time to find replacements. I just do not think that that is acceptable. We need to shine a light on what is happening and question whether such tests are needed. I grew up seeing images of beagles with cigarettes strapped to their mouths to test the effects of smoking. That has rightly been stopped, but I do not think that the public realises that testing on beagles—indeed, testing on dogs—continues.

To what extent will these measures, if implemented, prevent peaceful protest against animal testing? If Will Young—whom I have also heard speaking in Parliament about MBR Acres—was thinking of peacefully handcuffing himself to the fence at MBR Acres once again, would the Minister think he’d “better leave right now”? [Laughter.] Thank you. Somebody was going to make that gag— I thought it might as well be me.

Let me turn to the more general issue. I fiercely defend the right to protest. I am a Bristol MP; we have quite a reputation for it. I went out to Russia under my own steam to observe the end of the Pussy Riot trial, and the powerful speeches from Nadya, Maria and Katya from their cage in the courtroom. However, I accept that there should be limitations to the right to protest. I accept that we cannot have the country grinding to a halt; we must appreciate the impact on people’s lives, and sometimes protesters do not.

A few years ago, a protest by Extinction Rebellion in Bristol blocked the M32, causing a five-mile queue. I remember vividly that there was a woman in a car in that queue who was in labour, trying to get to hospital, and her husband ran to the front of the queue. One of the activists was quoted in the press as saying, “It’s all right, we allowed her through.” I thought it was quite shocking that they should feel entitled to give somebody in labour permission to get to hospital.

I have also defended the Government’s plans to curb the cumulative impact of protests. We have a number of hotels housing asylum seekers in Bristol, and of course people should have the right to express their views—however much I might disagree with some of them—but it is not right that people are targeted week after week, and that the communities around them have to live in fear of possibly violent protests. I accept that; and I have defended that, but I also believe that people have the right to choose to break the law. However, they should also be prepared to accept the consequences of doing so.

I do not accept, however, that what we are talking about today constitutes “key national infrastructure”. I do not think that the country will grind to a halt if MBR Acres, is occasionally obstructed from supplying beagles to laboratories for testing. The fact that we do not know what tests are being carried out makes it rather more difficult to make such judgments, so I return to my earlier point: transparency about what testing is going on is important—the public have a right to know.

Transparency is also important when it comes to business in this place. We should not seek to place limitations on fundamental democratic rights—in this case, the right to protest—through a small Committee such as this. I therefore ask the Minister to facilitate at the very least a deferred Division on the motion, so that all MPs may vote, but ideally we would have a proper debate on the Floor of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech, which I respect; I understand where it is coming from. During the covid pandemic there was separate legislation that stopped people gathering, which is why people could not protest at the time. We have had conversations—I know that Lord Vallance in his work has had multiple conversations—with industry in which it has explained that it cannot, in some cases, function and do the things we currently need it to do because of the levels of protest. Some protests are more high-profile than others, but all 135 sites potentially are subject to protests of different degrees.

My fundamental point on animal welfare is that we only use the testing where we absolutely have to. The research that this Government are funding to deliver alternatives, and the strategy that Lord Vallance has brought in, will take us towards a virtual dog that we can use. There is new technology that will get us to where we need to get to, but we are not there yet, and in the interim we need to protect those who are working, so that we can continue to do what we need to do in terms of the production of medicines.

The second element is protest and rights.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I mentioned, 10 years ago in this place there was a high-profile piece of campaigning particularly about testing on beagles, and I seem to remember that it got quite a lot of press coverage. Assurances were given then that we were on a journey to phasing that out, but we have no idea what has happened in that interim decade. That is the problem. The Minister can reassure us now that we are on that pathway again, but how can we have any confidence that it will not take another decade—or several? As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, it has been 40 years since he started pushing for this.

[Sarah Jones]

I hope that my hon. Friend sees that we have had a change of Government; this Labour Government have published a document about replacing animals in science, which is a serious piece of work. As she will know, our manifesto stated that

“we will partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing.”

That is what we want to do; we want to do this together with scientists and civil society, and this is our opportunity to do so. I know that Lord Vallance is absolutely committed to getting this right and to going as fast as we can, obviously within the parameters of ensuring that we can still produce the medicines we need.

Asylum Policy

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We keep all statistics under review, as the hon. Member knows and as was the case when he was an adviser to a former Home Secretary. The principle that underpins all these reforms is fairness and contribution. We believe that most people want to be able to contribute to this country, because refugees recognise that it is the best way for them to have stability and security in their lives, and it is what is needed for the wider community, too. We think that all refugees, if they are on the protection work and study route, will have that opportunity. I am not interested in models that start separating out different nations from one another. Once somebody has got status in our country, they are on a path to becoming one of us if they are working and contributing.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I agree about the need for a fairer asylum system in which the public can have confidence, but everything that the Home Secretary has proposed today is predicated on decent legal advice being available to people, and we know—I know from 20 years as a Member of Parliament—that that is simply not the case. Despite the best efforts of the advice sector in Bristol, which is proud to be a city of sanctuary, there is a dearth of decent immigration lawyers, and I see too many constituents fall into the hands of dodgy lawyers who will help them to falsify and fabricate claims. What will the Home Secretary do to ensure that that decent legal advice is there?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with my hon. Friend, in that many people have turned up at my advice surgeries believing that there are things I can do as a constituency MP to assist them with their migration claims which I cannot do. They have been completely misled and robbed by unscrupulous individuals. Under the new appeals system that we will set up, legal advice will be available from the start. We believe in access to justice, and people need to have the right legal advice, but providing it early, right at the start of claims, means that we can run a system whereby there can be one claim and one appeal rather than the merry-go-round and whack-a-mole of claims that we see today.