Irene Campbell MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing this important debate. I also congratulate Ash Paul Smith, the petitioner, for all his hard work in creating the petition and gathering over 208,000 signatures. The recent sewage spillages in Saltcoats in my constituency have greatly affected the bathing water quality in the coastal towns of Saltcoats, Ardrossan and Stevenston and have affected many constituents. On 29 June this year, a rising main pipeline near Saltcoats pumping station burst and a high amount of sewage was piped into our waters. That led to temporary repairs, which continued until 10 August, as there was apparently no easy or robust solution. The advisory signage at the beach was not as clear as it could have been. That not only led to complaints, but confused many swimmers about the bathing quality of the water. Dog owners, too, were querying whether it was safe for dogs to go into the water, which of course it was not. Only two weeks after the public were told that they could swim again, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency confirmed on 25 August that the pollution was actually ongoing and further work on the pipe was required. That continued for a few days before the advice against bathing was withdrawn and safe swimming could be resumed. That is just not good enough. For nearly the whole summer, constituents and visitors have been unable to swim at Saltcoats, Stevenston and Ardrossan. That is the height of the holiday season, and coastal communities rely on visits from day trippers, many of whom want to go outdoor swimming and enjoy our beautiful sandy beaches. It is important to highlight that the pipe is owned by Scottish Water, a public Scottish Government organisation. In 2021, Scottish Water oversaw untreated sewage being discharged 12,000 times in a single year. Water bosses are getting paid huge salaries everywhere, it seems—for delivering what, exactly? I think it would be a good thing to take the water industry in England and Wales back into public ownership, but it is important to consider how we will successfully manage it. The sewage situation in Saltcoats serves as a reminder that public ownership does not necessarily mean good service. We need to get any future public ownership structures right, with robust accountability and governance to ensure a better service.

• 15 Jul 2026 · New Nuclear Energy Projects · Hansard source

  More

  New nuclear in areas such as my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran could bring much-needed skilled jobs and investment to the area, but yet again Scotland is losing out. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the Scottish Government should review and consider their stance on nuclear, given the findings of the report by Great British Energy Nuclear, which show the potential for new developments, including in Hunterston in my constituency?

• 15 Jul 2026 · New Nuclear Energy Projects · Hansard source

  More

  6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of new nuclear energy projects on economic growth in Scotland.

• 8 Jul 2026 · NHS Corridor Care · Hansard source

  More

  I would just like to highlight that the Scottish Government do not record or publish any statistics on the number of patients being treated in corridors. However, we know that it happens. The Crosshouse hospital, which serves my constituency, was recorded in January as having one of Scotland’s most under-pressure emergency departments. It exceeded capacity by 50% in December, revealing corridor care conditions in the hospital. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to record accurate data so that we can track improvement?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for opening this debate and for bringing attention to this important matter. I will keep this brief, as most points have already been raised. CROs have contacted me on this matter, and there was a real strength of feeling about how they have been treated. In my constituency we have members of the coastguard rescue service across Ardrossan, Cumbrae and Largs, and it is a very busy service. CROs told me that they take pride in their vital role for the community, and feel that they should be able to continue to claim an hourly remuneration. I will just add that coastguard rescue officers perform safety checks and maintain equipment, as well as supporting the emergency services, searching for missing people, rescuing people who may be trapped on cliffs or drowning, and often dealing with people in difficult and distressing situations. It is only right that all that should be reviewed.

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, and I look forward to hearing the Minister talk about how we can take this forward. The UK National Screening Committee is still concerned about false positives, overdiagnosis and over-treatment. In 2012, Sir Michael Marmot chaired an independent review of breast screening, which found that the current UK screening programme prevents about 1,300 deaths from breast cancer annually. However, he also found that overdiagnosis meant that, for every death prevented by screening, about three women are treated for a cancer that they do not have. As breast cancer is less common in younger women, there is a concern that overdiagnosis would be much higher in that age group. False positive results can induce long-lasting anxiety and an unwillingness to attend future screenings. It is important that screening programmes accurately weigh up the balance between potential harms and benefits. I am sure we will hear more about that in the debate. It is a common misconception that breast cancer is not a problem any more, but more women die from breast cancers than from other cancers. We need to do more to look after women in their 40s and women under 40. We need risk-adapted screening to better improve our chances of early detection in the most vulnerable. I look forward to hearing from other Members and the Minister.

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that issue. Some 1.94 million women between the ages of 50 and 70 were screened in 2024-25, and almost 20,000 cancers were detected. Cancers were detected in nine in every 1,000 women, which is a 16% increase on the previous year. Attendance to screening reached the highest level in a decade and has been championed by charities such as Breast Cancer Now, which shares public figures, stories and personal messages.

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  Screening is key, and we have to be bolder and more inventive about how we get people along to screening. There have been many public health campaigns over the years. After a campaign, there is always a rise in attendance, but when the campaign stops, attendance falls again, so I agree that that is something that the Minister must look at.

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a privilege to open and close such an important debate. We have heard from many Members and the Minister about how important early diagnosis and treatment are for breast cancer, and how key it is that we tackle this issue quickly and effectively. We have also heard about health inequalities and deprivation, and how they can impact the take-up of screening opportunities. We must do more to address that. The NHS 10-year plan has committed to diagnosing 75% of cancers early by 2028, and the national cancer plan has a 75% five-year survival target for all cancers. This is an area that is very important to so many people across the UK, and we must do all we can as a Government to improve recovery and survival from cancer, particularly the most common type of cancer in women. I would like to finish by thanking the petitioner, Gemma Reeves, again and congratulating her on gathering over 106,000 signatures, which is a great achievement. I would also like to thank Lily Parsey, Sophie Conway and Lily Ewin from CoppaFeel!, Nele Gewert and Hannah Maybour from Breast Cancer Now, Cristina Visintin and Ros Given-Wilson from the UK National Screening Committee, and Professor Sacha Howell and Sarah Hindmarch from Manchester University for meeting me and my team before this debate. Finally, as always, I thank the staff of the Petitions Committee, who work tirelessly every week to make sure that these debates go ahead in such a smooth and effective way. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 742179 relating to NHS breast screening.

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, that is not just the case for breast screening; bowel cancer screening is lower in areas of economic and health deprivation. We must look at how we target those populations. It is key that we continue to increase awareness of the importance of routine health appointments and modifiable risk factors. Although screening is increasing generally, the NHS breast screening programme found that one in three women still do not take up their offer of screening. As my hon. Friend said, it is key that we continue with strategies that promote the uptake of screening in areas of lower attendance such as by running awareness campaigns, sending reminder texts and deploying mobile screening units, among other strategies. In preparing for this debate, I met Breast Cancer Now, as well as CoppaFeel!, the UK’s only youth-focused breast cancer awareness charity. They call for more screening of women who have a higher risk of breast cancer, as well as providing women identified with wraparound support. Diagnostics are key to identifying those with breast cancer successfully, although mammography is not always the best diagnostic tool, particularly for younger women and those with dense breast tissue, so it is important to invest in other diagnostics, such as MRIs, and to consider their capacity to be scaled and expanded. Younger women tend also to have denser breasts, which mammograms are worse at analysing as the scans are harder to interpret. That can lead to women having repeated scans and extended investigations. It is important to note that most European countries screen for breast cancer between the ages of 50 and 69, although there is some variation in age ranges and frequency, with countries such as Albania, Iceland and Sweden starting screening at 40. Although breast cancer diagnoses for women under 40 are rarer, and about 4% of breast cancer cases in the UK are in women under 40, when young women get breast cancer, they are much more likely than older women to have a family history of breast cancer and genetic mutations that are associated with increased risk. There is an ongoing trial called AgeX, which is looking at the benefits of regularly screening women aged 47 to 49 and aged 71 to 73, given how little is known about screening women outside the ages of 50 to 70. The trial took place from 2009 until 2020, and 4 million women took part. The first report to come out of the trials is due in December 2026 and the final report is due in 2031, so it will be a few years before we know its findings. Other trials include the UK age trial, led by Professor Stephen Duffy, which looked into the effectiveness of annual mammographic screening for women in their 40s and found that the mortality benefit was greatest for the first decade after screening started.

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 742179 relating to NHS breast screening. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I would like to start by thanking the petitioner, Gemma Reeves, for all the hard work she has put into starting the petition and gathering over 106,000 signatures from across the UK. The petition is titled “Lower the age for invites to regular mammograms to 40 & perform annually”, and says: “Lower the age for when you are first called to 40 and provide funding to carry out Mammograms Annually instead of every Three Years. Early detection is key and the prevalence of Breast Cancer in young patients is rising. I am a Chemotherapy Nurse and working in this Clinical Setting for 8 Years and I have seen a rise in Breast Cancer in Patients under the Age of 40 increase. Early detection is key in identifying those Aggressive forms of Breast Cancer”. This is an issue that many people here and outside the Chamber care deeply about. Breast cancer still affects too many women, and far too many women die from it every year. I had the privilege of meeting with Gemma, who is here today. She told me about her experience of being a nurse for 15 years, eight of which have been in oncology, and about her concerns from having seen a rise in breast cancer cases in younger women, especially since covid. Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer for women in the UK—one in seven women may get it. As Gemma wrote in her petition, “Early detection is key”, and has led to improved recovery and survival rates. Over half of breast cancer cases occur in women outside the national screening age, and one in six occur in women under 50. Men, too, get breast cancer; however, they make up approximately 1% of all cases. Currently, the NHS invites women to come to their first breast screening between the ages of 50 and 53, and this goes on until they are 71. They are invited every three years, after which a woman can choose to continue going for mammograms, but will not be automatically invited. Although everyone is at risk of breast cancer, women are at a higher risk if they are over 50, have dense breast tissue, have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, or have particular breast conditions, for example benign breast disease. There is a breast screening pathway for those identified as NHS-targeted very high risk. It is also important to note that NICE guidelines recommend annual mammography scans for women aged between 40 and 49 at moderate risk, as well as annual mammography or MRI surveillance for some high-risk groups.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree. I think it is really important that younger people take this cause forward. Earlier today, when I went out to speak to representatives from Camp Beagle, I met a young woman—she is 10—who is really keen that we get it moved forward. I thought that was great. In the petition debate last year and in others since, I have referenced a 1927 debate on the Dogs Protection Bill, in which the surgeon Sir Lambert Ormsby was quoted as saying: “Experiments on dogs may now be discontinued. All that can be found out by physiological experiments for application to human beings has long since been discovered, and repetitions are unnecessary and cruel.” —[ Official Report , 29 April 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1237.] It is really sad that nearly 100 years later, dogs continue to be used in this cruel and outdated way.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have the potential to lead the way in this field; that is something we should definitely be striving towards. Through my role as chair of the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, I have met many scientists working in the animal-free research area, including at XCellR8, the UK’s leading animal-free testing laboratory. There is an untapped market in this area that is ready to grow, and we must invest in it. With the right Government support, the sector could more than double in size by 2030, creating high-skilled jobs and positioning the UK as a global leader in producing the next generation of scientists. Licences for animal tests are granted in advance and in bulk. Surely the whole licensing system should be reviewed. Many laboratories do only the minimum checks and balances laid out in law, despite how they might talk about meeting the highest standards. When experiments are poorly designed or mistakes are made during the process, it is a waste of life and unnecessary suffering. There are many examples of that, which I am sure will be discussed today.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 736578 relating to animal testing. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, for which Animal Free Research provides the secretariat. I am a long-time campaigner in this area, as well as on many other topics relating to animal welfare. It is important to me and many others that animals are replaced in research as soon as possible. The petition, created by Maria Iriart from Camp Beagle, is titled: “End testing on dogs and other animals for development of products for human use”. It reads: “Many tests on dogs and other animals cause unimaginable suffering. They can translate poorly into effective treatments and cures for human diseases or provide safety and efficacy data that is not relevant to humans. Over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA, USA approval. In 2023, 2,605,528 animals were used for the first time in scientific procedures incl. 2,477 dogs & 1,815 primates. Animals are bred & housed in bleak conditions and then used in tests that can cause immense physical and psychological suffering. We think government-led action is required to radically divert funding and evolve policy to implement the use of existing and the development of new Non-Animal Methodologies (NAMS). We believe the current testing paradigm is failing both animals and humans and is holding back medical advances.” The petition has attracted almost 121,000 signatures—that is a great achievement, and it is good to see Maria in the Gallery today—of which 121 are from my constituency. I know that people care deeply about this topic and I have received many emails from constituents, as well as from members of the public living in other constituencies. In the past week, many of them have referenced the exposés in The Mail on Sunday and Daily Mirror , which showed incredibly disturbing footage of what is going on in UK laboratories. In particular, there were shocking images of long-tailed macaques being force-fed new weight-loss drugs and suffering from extreme distress. It is horrible to think about the pain and torture that innocent animals have to be put through so that humans can be helped to lose weight. It is important to note that those images being circulated are from laboratory sites that are regulated and operating within the law. There are more experiments that I would like to talk about in greater detail, such as testing of anti-inflammation drugs on beagles and of skin treatments on pigs. However, the content is so distressing that I feel it is too disturbing to share during the debate.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I agree with every point that has been raised. On a positive note, it is most welcome that this Labour Government have published the “Replacing animals in science” strategy—something that we have never seen from previous Governments. The strategy brings a lot of good news, such as £75 million-worth of funding for the new UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. It also refers to using validated alternative methods to reduce the use of non-human primates and dogs in dedicated cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030, and to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetics studies for human medicines by at least 35% by 2030. However, I am unsure how that will be validated, as the number of non-human primates and dogs used for those studies is unknown in the first instance. That creates a statistical challenge, and I would challenge whether those statistics are correct. While it is good news to have a road map, we are not there yet. We need to ensure that the strategy is implemented with robust timelines and a clear road map, so that we can achieve our manifesto commitment of finally phasing out cruel animal testing. On 20 April this year, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that it had achieved key first-year goals in implementing its April 2025 road map to reducing animal testing in preclinical safety studies, which includes qualifying the first AI-based drug development tool and working to reduce or eliminate animal testing of drugs, having demonstrated safety through their use in humans in other countries. It is key that the UK continues to be a world leader in animal welfare and to build on our successes such as the new strategy. However, we cannot fall behind other countries such as the US; we should seize this exciting opportunity to utilise groundbreaking new science while saying goodbye to dated and cruel testing. I look forward to the Minister’s response today, and to hearing from other Members.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises an important point; that is not an area that I had considered before, but I absolutely agree. Any of us in this Chamber could go on an afternoon course and tomorrow be injecting people with botox, so his point is valid. Virtual Second Species has created an AI-powered virtual dog, trained on historical dog tests. From an economics perspective, it is worth thinking about how much we could save by transitioning from animals to AI. What is the price of our not moving to a more contemporary scientific method, which would be not only kinder, but smarter? Recent research and analysis, commissioned by Lush Cosmetics and undertaken by the Common Sense Policy Group and Northumbria University, shows how much growth potential the sector has. Between 2021 and 2024, the UK’s non-animal methods sector grew rapidly, with turnover rising to more than £1.2 billion and employment increasing year on year.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely support Herbie’s law and, as I mentioned, the APPG is supported by Animal Free Research, which hopes to implement it. I agree 100% with the hon. Member. Another extremely cruel test is the forced swim test, for which there are still three licences granted in the UK, lasting until 2028. The Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy states specifically: “The test has limited scientific validity, particularly its translational relevance to human mental health disorders. Animal behaviour in the FST also lacks information on treatment latency and varies across strains and protocols. Therefore, we would expect the Home Office Regulator’s default position to be that the FST does not pass the harm-benefit test required under” the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. To me and many others, it would make complete sense to cancel those licences immediately.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree with everything the hon. Member said. I will go on to say more about that. The petition refers specifically to dogs, as well as other animals that are used in testing. In 2024, 2.64 million procedures in British laboratories used animals—every minute of every day, five animals are used in research in the United Kingdom—over 16,000 experiments were carried out on specially protected species, including cats, dogs, horses and monkeys, and 1,651 dogs were used in experiments.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the Minister for his response, although I am sure he is not surprised that I disagree with quite a bit of it. I hope the responsible Minister will consider implementing at pace—I use that word again, as many others have—the replacement methods we have heard so much about in this debate. I urge the responsible Minister to rescind the forced swim test licences immediately and to prioritise a review of the whole licensing system, because there are problems with that whole system. We must also have more robust enforcement of what is going on in laboratories. I accept that statements have been made that there is enforcement and that animals are being looked after in the way they should be, but we have heard examples today where that often is not the case. There is so much self-reporting, which begs the question: what is not reported? The petition addresses an issue I care deeply about, and it is clear from the attendance and excellent speeches today that it is important to many. It is a privilege to present such debates in Parliament. The United Kingdom is often referred to as a nation of animal lovers, and petitions such as this show how deeply the public care about animal welfare and the treatment of animals in laboratories. I thank Jarrod Bailey and Maria Iriart for meeting me on behalf of Camp Beagle, which launched this petition, and the many individuals, charities and organisations that I work with on this issue. I will name a few: Animal Aid, Animal Free Research UK, Cruelty Free International, PETA, Lush Cosmetics, the Labour Animal Welfare Society and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. Everyone is working so hard to end animal testing. As ever, I thank Petitions Committee staff for all their help in organising this debate and meetings. I will end with the words of Camp Beagle: “Animal testing is outdated, unreliable and cruel.” Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 736578 relating to animal testing.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly with everything the hon. Member said. I will speak more about organ on a chip and the need to move more quickly towards phasing out animals in research, but there is an opportunity to phase out dogs almost immediately. It is important to note that figures released in the Home Office annual reports cover only animals protected by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and that individual animals can be used many times in different tests. However, the statistics count only the first time an animal is used in an experiment. The real number of experiments every year is likely much higher, as that data is not captured. UK law, in the form of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, already recognises what we all know: that animals have emotions and feelings. The suffering caused to animals subjected to testing is a clear ethical problem, and the effectiveness of the experiments also calls into question the need for the obvious suffering, torture and painful death that many of them endure. Over 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials after passing animal trials, and the failure rate increases to 99.6% for Alzheimer’s disease drugs. To quote Animal Free Research UK: “Animals like monkeys don’t naturally develop Alzheimer’s, or live long enough to study ageing in the same way that humans experience it, so these outdated methods are simply not giving us the answers we need.”

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with both my hon. Friend’s points. It is important that this issue is dealt with sooner rather than later, and I will say more about that later.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I absolutely support the implementation of Herbie’s law sooner rather than later. I welcome the strategy, and I will say more about it later. A year ago tomorrow, I led a debate on a very similar petition entitled “Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures”, which was also created by Maria Iriart. It is clear to me and many others that neither the public nor parliamentarians are letting this issue go.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with everything my hon. Friend said, and I will say more about that.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I agree with everything that he said. I will say a bit more about that later on.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with everything my hon. Friend said. I will speak about some of this later on, but I have on occasion met the relevant Minister and we are due to have a meeting soon. At one meeting, I asked specifically that we remove dogs immediately from medical testing. I was very disappointed by the answer, but we need to keep up the momentum on these serious issues. There are alternatives to animal research—known as new approach methodologies, or NAMs—that are constantly being researched and developed. For example, any Members here who attended last year’s Lush Cosmetics event would have seen their soaps depicting organ-on-a-chip technology; they are plastic chips that can mimic human organ and tissues for experimentation. AI is another great and exciting opportunity for replacing animal testing. A software called AnimalGAN, developed by the US Food and Drug Administration, aims to accurately determine how rats would react to chemicals without the need to do new rat tests.