Commons Chamber

Thursday 22nd January 2026

(began 2 weeks, 3 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:34
09:34
09:35
09:35
09:35
09:36
09:37
09:37
09:38
09:38
09:39
09:39
09:40
09:40
09:41
09:41
09:41
09:42
09:42
09:42
09:43
09:43
09:44
09:44
09:45
09:45
09:46
09:46
09:47
09:47
09:47
09:48
09:48
09:49
09:49
09:49
09:50
09:50
09:51
09:51
09:52
09:53
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
Alex Burghart certainly support him in telling the rest of the Labour Party that they are wrong Labour Party that they are wrong and but but, you know, given the Labour backbenchers success in forcing U-turns on the Prime Minister recently, I wonder how Minister recently, I wonder how long this position will hold. Earlier this month, the Prime Earlier this month, the Prime Minister said on the BBC that he wants closer alignment with the single market. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious development for policy for which we've currently had no statement in the Commons, and I hope that that will be addressed very soon.

Closer alignment will, of course, mean dynamic alignment, which will mean Britain following rules over which we have had no say. And on this side of the House, we will respectfully oppose such a move. In November, Downing Street sources told journalists that it was accepted that the UK would have to pay billions of pounds for closer alignment and market access. Will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Paymaster General confirm that that is his understanding to this House? Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Just to say quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, there are no access fees either in regard to the emissions either in regard to the emissions trading system linkage, nor in regard to the food and drink agreement that are being negotiated. That is absolutely clear in terms That is absolutely clear in terms of moving forward. We take pragmatic decisions in the national interest on other sectors. That is
09:54
09:54
09:55
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
Well, on the basis of my exchange with the Shadow Chancellor exchange with the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy, I thoroughly look forward to bringing the Bill forward to the Commons and debating it very, very fully. And I can assure the hon. Lady that what we will be debating here is why the will be debating here is why the government's approach is good for jobs, why it is the government's approach will be bearing down on bills for consumers. And don't just believe what I say.

See what the supermarket said about the deal that was struck last year. I will also welcome debating how we are going to reduce trade barriers and going to reduce costs for businesses. It's the party opposite that wants to put that red tape and those costs back on businesses.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good luck to them with that argument. Susan Murray. Oh, sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, sorry. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Trade Secretary was the latest senior government figure to break ranks by saying it would to break ranks by saying it would be crazy not to look at a customs union with the EU. This is a position already supported by the position already supported by the Prime Minister's economic adviser, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Health Secretary since leaving the Health Secretary since leaving the EU. Many businesses, including in my own Hazel Grove constituency, have found it harder to trade with our neighbours having an obvious impact on the economy.

The government has changed their minds on many things since the time of the last election, having said they definitely weren't going to. So does the Minister accept that it would save us all a lot of time? It would be the single biggest lever the government could pull to generate growth and give those on his own benches something they are crying out for. If he just agrees to crack on and start negotiations to crack on and start negotiations for a bespoke customs union with the EU.
09:57
09:57
09:57
09:57
09:58
09:59
09:59
10:00
10:00
10:01
10:02
10:02
10:02
10:03
10:03
10:04
10:04
10:05
10:05
10:05
10:06
10:07
10:07
10:07
10:08
10:08
10:08
10:09
10:09
10:10
10:10
10:10
10:11
10:12
10:12
10:13
10:13
10:14
10:14
10:14
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:16
10:16
10:17
10:17
10:17
10:18
10:19
10:19
10:19
10:20
10:20
10:21
10:21
10:22
10:22
10:23
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:28
10:28
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:32
10:32
10:32
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:36
10:36
10:36
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Prioritisation Bill. Wednesday, the 28th of January Opposition Day, in the name of the Official Opposition, the subject to be announced the subject to be announced Thursday, the 29th of January. A general debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee. Friday the 30th of January, the Friday the 30th of January, the House will not be sitting and the provisional business for the week commencing the 2nd of February includes Monday the 2nd of February, if necessary.

Consideration of Lords messages to the Diego Garcia military base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, Tuesday, the 3rd of February. Second Reading of the Universal Credit. Removal of two child limit bill Wednesday, the 4th of February, Opposition Day in the name of the official Opposition, the subject to be announced Thursday, the 5th of February. A general debate on road safety, followed by a general debate on obligations to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the occupied Palestinian territories.

The subject for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee and Friday, 6th

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of February. The House will not be sitting Jesse Norman. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the leader for that update. The House will know that I am The House will know that I am obsessive about improving education, skills and life opportunities for young people, and I know the leader young people, and I know the leader with his own background shares that passion, so I can't let this week pass without noting that on Tuesday,
10:38
Jesse Norman Portrait Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP (Hereford and South Herefordshire, Conservative)
-
-
pass without noting that on Tuesday, our new specialist technology and engineering university in Hereford and might formally launched its new autonomous robotics degree sponsored, designed and delivered in collaboration with the British Army. I thank the defence ministerial team and in particular the Minister for Armed Forces, for coming up to Hereford and supporting with that. I believe this is the UK's first undergraduate drones technologies degree starts in September 2026. That's light speed compared to the normal progression of these things in higher education, and it will be of inestimable value not only to young people up and down the country, but to the defence of the realm and in a host of other sectors, including food and agriculture, infrastructure and energy.

But otherwise, Mr. Speaker, what a week this has been. Rising international tensions, heated public disagreement, desperate attempts at diplomatic solutions. And that's just Brooklyn Beckham's And that's just Brooklyn Beckham's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Instagram account. Talking of. Elites, talking. Of elites, Mr. speaker, we've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of elites, Mr. speaker, we've had the amusing spectacle this week of that self-proclaimed friend of the people, the Member for Clacton, the people, the Member for Clacton, hoovering up the free food and glugging down the champagne with the global in Davos. the global in Davos.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the global in Davos. Oh no no no no. No, I've not even spoken. I'm going to speak first. I want temperate language and I'm sure you'd love to withdraw that little message you have for us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dudley. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to exercise my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

allowing me to exercise my quadriceps several occasions. Yes, of course I withdraw. Oh, that's. Appalling term. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Appalling term. And I unhesitatingly withdraw it from the record. All this, all this I should record. All this, all this I should say, Mr. Speaker, comes from the hon. Member for Clacton. After a hon. Member for Clacton. After a lifetime spent denouncing Davos as a hub of evil globalist elites, where, in his words, there's no space for the little man. Well, at least we know that's not true anymore. Oh, the irony. Oh, the irony of it all, Mr. speaker, a wildly anti-establishment figure, long time member of the Reform Club, no relation.

Now joining the globalist elites. Can it be long before he aspires to join the Garrick Club, or indeed join the Prime Minister in professing publicly that he prefers Davos to Westminster? But amid all this nonsense, very serious. Other changes are underway. Last week, the government published the results of the latest auction for renewable energy. This set a floor price for renewables of £91 per kilowatt hour. No one disputes no one in this House disputes the importance of green energy or the importance of renewables in the energy mix.

No few sane people dispute the value of green energy, but energy prices are already unfeasibly high for British businesses and despite the government's promises, they are set to go higher still, especially once the cost of new nuclear is added in. The effect of this policy will be to punish taxpayers and, of course, bill payers, but it also is a form of corporate welfare because the only benefits will come to the better off from this policy. Meanwhile, the government has decided to ignore North Sea oil and gas, gravely damage the north east of Scotland, undermine the employment of thousands of skilled workers in disagreement with their own unions, and import gas from overseas at greater cost, with more carbon and more carbon miles.

Mr. speaker, this is a repetition, in its own way, of the PFI scandal of 30 years ago, in which the country paid tens of billions of pounds more than it should have done for public infrastructure. And a lot of wealthy people in the City of London, now resident in overseas countries, made out like bandits. John Maynard Keynes in 1919 wrote a little book called The Economic Consequences of the peace about the disastrous effects of the Treaty of Versailles and the demands it made for payment from the other side in the First World War.

I'm not suggesting for a second there's any comparison between these times and then in Weimar Germany and the rest of it. But I will say that we are facing severe economic constraints coming out of energy prices. And therefore, I ask the leader whether we can have a debate on the economic consequences of the Energy Secretary.
10:43
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Leader of the House. >> Thank you very much indeed. Mr. Speaker. First of all, say the shadow leader is clearly had his shadow leader is clearly had his Weetabix this morning. Secondly, can I wish through you, Mr. Speaker. Everyone well, well, celebrating Burns night this Sunday coming. And also, Mr. Speaker, this weekend is the annual RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch. When the RSPB asked people to observe their gardens for an hour and count the number of birds that they see.

I understand, however, Mr. Speaker, that there was on the official opposition Benches have been warned not to take part by the Leader of the Opposition, who says that she should be spending less time watching the bird table and more time looking at the shadow Cabinet table. There's clearly concern, Mr. Speaker, about more migration from her party to join the lesser spotted to join the lesser spotted member for Clacton. But but, but.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But. But but but surely, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But but but surely, Mr. Speaker. But but but surely, Mr. Speaker, there is a limit to the number of cuckoos that will fit into the cuckoos that will fit into the remain reform nest. In terms of other things that have happened this week. Mr. speaker, before I get to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, we have announced a Gentleman, we have announced a consultation on further measures to keep children safe online. This will consider the options of banning social media for children below a certain age, and raising the digital age of consent.

We are committed to keeping children and young people safe online, and colleagues on both sides of the House will have heard from their constituents on this matter, and the government is listening to those concerns. The government also published the Water White Paper, setting out a new vision for water and transforming the water system for good. The paper sets out clear powers for a new regulator, delivering tougher oversight and stronger accountability for water companies, an issue raised with me consistently at Business Questions.

And we also published the Warm Homes Plan, and we're doubling down on support for home upgrades and have set out our plans to help households and support thousands through more clean energy jobs. In response to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, I certainly congratulate his constituency on the developments in higher education. But I have to say, maybe not quite as much this morning. But he is a man who hides his light under a bushel because he has played a huge role.

I know he has played a huge role in these developments in higher education in his constituency, and we should recognise that. In terms of his remarks on renewable energy, when he says no one disputes the importance of green energy, I think that's stretching a point a bit. It's not simply members of reform, but there are still members on his own, in his own party, who dispute the importance of green benefits, jobs. In terms of the benefit to the better off. I would remind him that every household will benefit from £150 cut to energy bills, and the other side of that is not just households who will benefit, but there will be thousands of green jobs, not least in my own constituency and in my own region.

But finally, Mr. Speaker, I welcome his conversion, perhaps belatedly, to Keynesianism. It's perhaps another sign of not fitting in with the mainstream of his own party.
10:46
10:47
10:48
Bobby Dean Portrait Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
itself, sited in the heart of my constituency and is crumbling. It was placed within the new Hospitals Programme, a program set up by the conservative government, but one which they totally failed to deliver on. And of course, this government put it on a new timetable, stretching out the delivery over the coming decades. Now, last week, the National Audit Office have done an assessment of how the government's performing on that so far. There is some good news for the government. They said that they have put it on a more firm financial footing for the long term, but they do also warn of potential further delays and in particular delays to those hospitals with RAC, with them looking set to miss their deadline in 2030.

Now, I've also heard, Mr. Speaker, that some of the phase one schemes have not kept pace with the programme, not drawn down all the capital that's been allocated to them, and this could present an opportunity to other trusts, perhaps to do smaller projects in the interim, such as the extension of the emergency department that my local NHS trust is asking for, or possibly even to move out of phase two into phase one if they can prove that they are ready to go. Mr.

speaker, it's been about a year since we've had a substantive update from the government on the new hospitals programme. And this National Audit Office report last week presents lots of questions. So I wonder whether the leader House can ask the relevant health Minister to come to the despatch box to answer questions that the Nao report raises?
10:49
10:50
10:51
10:51
Bob Blackman Portrait Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)
-
-
Chair of the Backbench Committee. Bob Blackman. Yes. Bob Blackman. Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And as you will know, Mr. Speaker, reform in this House occasionally moves in this House occasionally moves very slowly. So I do thank the Leader of the House for confirming that the experiment on the dealing that the experiment on the dealing with estimates day debates, which started in 2018, will now be confirmed going forward in the future. And I'll be grateful if the leader can give us early warning of when the estimates day debates will be this year, so that we can do the process of allocating the debates in addition to the business that the leader has announced in Westminster Hall next Tuesday, there will be a debate on UK bus manufacturing.

On Thursday, there'll be a debate on non-recognition of Russian occupied territories of Ukraine, followed by a debate on protecting and restoring river habitats on Tuesday the 3rd of February in Westminster Hall, there'll be a debate on town and city centre safety on Thursday the 5th of February, there will be debate on secondary breast cancer and a further debate which will announce next week. Mr. speaker, we have a queue now of debates for the chamber, which will take us to the summer recess.

We have a queue of debates for Westminster Hall, debates on a Tuesday that will take us to the Whitsun recess, and we're processing those debates as fast as we can. So any time that the leader can allocate to us, we will fill as appropriate. Mr. speaker, it's been drawn to my attention this week that a company called Al Mizra have been operating in this country for ten years. They are owned by the Houthis, a proscribed organisation in the United States. And there is a risk that these people are using the opportunity to avoid our visa system, to launder money and also encourage terrorist activities in this country.

This is a serious concern, obviously, for national security. So I would ask the leader to encourage the security Minister to come and give us a statement on what action is going to be taken to make sure that this company is in compliance with our rules and regulations. And indeed, if it isn't, then it should be removed from this country and our country made safe.
10:53
10:54
10:55
10:55
10:56
10:57
10:57
10:58
10:58
10:59
10:59
11:00
11:01
11:01
11:02
11:02
11:03
11:03
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:05
11:05
11:06
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> Mr. Speaker. First of all, can I express my sympathies to to concerned parents and students? concerned parents and students? Indeed, from time to time in my own constituency, we seem similar issues arise. I do appreciate the issues arise. I do appreciate the concern and uncertainty that this creates. She knows that this government is committed to opportunity for all, and the vital importance of education is absolutely central to that. So I will ensure that she gets a meeting with the Minister so that she can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

follow this up as a matter of urgency. Brian Leishman good morning, Mr. Speaker. Councillors across Speaker. Councillors across Scotland are preparing budgets and considering options put forward from officers. That will mean cuts from officers. That will mean cuts to vital public services in Grangemouth. Local residents are rightly worried about the proposals rightly worried about the proposals to withdraw maintenance of the beautiful Zetland Park and the closure of Grangemouth Sports Complex, removing swimming and leisure facilities. These proposed cuts would be awful for Grangemouth residents of all ages.

Will the Leader of the House join me in Leader of the House join me in praising my constituents as they stand up for our communities and agree that the only thing that should be cut in Grangemouth is the should be cut in Grangemouth is the grass at Zetland Park.
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:54
Steve Reed Portrait Rt Hon Steve Reed MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Streatham and Croydon North, Labour )
-
-
Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Mr. Speaker. This government was elected on a promise to repair the broken foundations of. >> Local government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Local government. In 2024. Councils were on the brink financially, while a third of brink financially, while a third of the country was left paying for the wasteful duplication of two tiers of councils for their area. This cannot be acceptable. After years of underfunding has led to a crisis in social care, the decline of our town centres and rubbish piling up on our streets, visible failure that contributes to a decline in trust. Failure caused by Tory austerity and 14 years of economic mismanagement.

This government will not stand by and let that decline continue. We can't just snap our fingers and reverse the last 14 years overnight, but we can act now to secure a better future to get there. We've already announced fairer funding that realigns resources with need, but we also need to eliminate the financial waste of two tier councils so we can plough the savings back into the front line services. Local people care about the most. Today's announcement is part of that we must move at pace to remove the confusion and waste of doubled up bureaucracy, where local residents don't know which of their two councils is responsible for which services.

No one would ever design a system where one council collects your rubbish, but another gets rid of it. In many parts of the country, residents hard earned council tax is paying for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief executives and two sets of financial directors. And it's wasting tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers money. The previous government sat back and ignored this problem. This government will not. And that is why we are committed to the most ambitious local government reorganisation in a generation.

My priority is cutting out this waste so we can invest more in the front line services that residents care about, and that means moving as quickly as possible to the new, streamlined, single tier councils that can make that happen. I've asked councils to tell me where holding elections this year for positions that will rapidly be abolished would slow down, making these vital reforms that will benefit local people. And I have listened to what councils told me. In December, the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness wrote to 63 councils due to hold elections in May 2026 to hear their views.

I have carefully assessed over 350 representations from those councils, with elections scheduled in May and from others who are interested in the outcome. I have carefully considered arguments made about capacity, reorganisation and democracy, and I'm grateful to everyone who took the time to express their views. I can now confirm my decisions to the House. I have decided to bring forward legislation to postpone 29 elections. I have deposited a list of these in the House of Commons Library. I have received one further representation this morning that I will consider, then report back to the House on my decision.

In all other areas, council elections will go ahead as planned, many having offered no evidence that it would delay reorganisation in their areas. This means of the 136 local elections across England that were scheduled for May, the vast majority will go ahead as planned. In areas where elections are postponed, existing councillors will have their terms extended for a short period. Once the new unitary councils are agreed. We will hold elections to them in 2027. I have now written to councils confirming these decisions, and I will shortly lay the necessary legislation before both houses.

Mr. speaker, I am not the first Secretary of State to seek to delay elections to speed up essential reorganisation. The shadow Secretary of State suggested on Tuesday that the previous government had not done the same thing. But perhaps he has forgotten the postponements in Weymouth and Portland in 2018, or Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Buckinghamshire and Wycombe in 2019, or Cumbria, North

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yorkshire and Somerset in 2021. I have lots of respect for the gentleman, but I do not expect him gentleman, but I do not expect him to walk in and start mouthing off the moment he sits down, please. And I'm sure he would like to catch

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm sure he would like to catch my eye and it's not the best way, so stop. Well, indeed, it was the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, indeed, it was the self-styled new sheriff in town. The right hon. Member. Now, of course, a member of reform UK limited who made many of these decisions himself. Now, to those who say we've cancelled all the elections, we haven't. To those who say it's all Labour councils, it isn't. I've asked, I've listened and I've acted. No messing about, no playing politics, just getting on with the job of making local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government work better for local people. James Cleverly shadow Secretary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of State. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This government has moved seamlessly from arrogance to seamlessly from arrogance to incompetence and now cowardice. Some 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote. It was the government who rushed through a huge programme of local government reorganisation, imposing new
12:00
James Cleverly Portrait Rt Hon Sir James Cleverly MP (Braintree, Conservative)
-
-
structures and timetables. And it is the government who is failing to deliver them. Rather than take responsibility for its own failure, the Secretary of State has chosen to dump the consequences of his incompetence onto the laps of local councils. That is what I said on councils. That is what I said on Monday when I dragged his Minister to the despatch box. And I say it to the despatch box. And I say it again today directly to the Secretary of State, Secretary of State.

In his statement, he plays heavily on what he claims is a wasteful system. He said publicly that he thinks these elections are, and I quote, pointless. So it is clear what he thinks. It is clear what he wants. He wants to cancel all these elections. So why does he not simply say so? Why does he not have the courage of his own convictions? Why did he write to councils, asking them to ask him to cancel the elections? And why, when they didn't give him the answer that he wanted, did he write to them again, asking basically the same question? Why was his department putting pressure on councils to ask for cancellations as late as last night? I know why he knows why.

We all know why. It's because he wants to shift the blame. He wants to say I didn't make them do it. He wants a political gotcha. He is putting councils in an impossible position, squeezing them financially, imposing the cost and disruption of large scale reorganisation on them, making promises about structures, about timescales, about funding and then reneging on those promises. And then, to add insult to injury, trying to dump the consequences of his arrogance and incompetence onto the laps of the local councils.

It has always been the conservative position that these councils should go ahead, and he's trying to claim precedent in his speech, as his Minister did on Monday. But the scale and scope of these cancellations is totally unprecedented. So I ask him directly, what was it about the Labour Party's collapse in the opinion polls that first attracted him to the cancellation of local elections? Is he as unsurprised as I am that the vast bulk of councils asking for their elections to be scrapped? Are Labour run councils? I give him notice these benches will vote against these proposals.

Elections are the foundation stone of democracy, and when his department puts intolerable pressure on councils, shifting the goalposts or pulling the rug from under them, whichever metaphor one chooses to use, he should have the courage to come to this house and say that is his decision to council elections, rather than to pass the buck onto local government leaders.
12:04
12:05
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
Florence Eshalomi. for coming to the House this afternoon with his statement. And although he has outlined that there is a clear precedent for postponing is a clear precedent for postponing local elections in 2019 and 2021, the Secretary of State did reassure my select committee back in November that these elections would go ahead. So I think it will be disappointing for residents in those areas who will see their elections being postponed. I just wanted to challenge the Secretary of State on his outline on this and his talk about eliminating waste.

I agree with the Secretary of State that we do need to respond to local leaders, especially where they have valid concerns about the process of reorganisation. We all knew that this was going to be a resource intensive process, and we are very aware that all our councils are dealing with many demands adult social care, children's social care, temporary accommodation. But Madam Deputy Speaker, our councils should not have to face having to choose between frontline services or elections. Democracy is not an inefficiency that should be cut out, and every council should have the resources to run local elections.

So can the Secretary of State assure the House that those councils who applied for their elections to go ahead will still have the resources to manage frontline services? I also just wanted to get clarity from the Secretary of State on any potential legal challenge. I understand that the court has given a date on which to consider this legal challenge, and is there any possibility that the elections could not go ahead if the government loses on this? That would leave very little time for councils, councillors, political parties, the Electoral Commission to go ahead.

So can the Secretary of State outline any contingency planning? Should that be the case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That your state. Yeah. I thank the chair of the select committee for her, for her questions. I would I would reassure her. I have imposed nothing. I took a representations and listened to them from local councils. And today I'm merely responding to the I'm merely responding to the representations I heard. Most councils will go ahead. It is the councils themselves that have
12:07
12:07
Alison Bennett Portrait Alison Bennett MP (Mid Sussex, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call the. Spokesperson Alison Bennett. and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I refer the House to my register of interests. Today's announcement interests. Today's announcement begs three questions about waste, about incompetence, and about trust about incompetence, and about trust in democracy. Firstly, waste councils across the country have already committed significant public money in good faith in preparing for these elections that the government repeatedly assured them would go ahead. Cancelling them at this late stage is not cost free.

So will the Secretary of State commit today to reimbursing councils in full for every pound spent as a result of these cancellations? Or are local taxpayers now expected to pick up the bill for ministerial indecision? Secondly, incompetence. Will the Minister explain why, having repeatedly told hon. Members, including at the Housing and Community Select Committee on the 11th of November and during oral questions here on the 24th of November, that elections scheduled for May 2026 would go ahead. A U-turn happened a few weeks later in December.

What new information came to light between November and December that prompted this change of heart? And finally, trust in democracy in West Sussex, councillors will serve for six instead of four years. This is not the short period as stated by the Secretary of State in 2021. The world was a very different place. We were at the peak of the Boris bounce. The electoral map and the world have changed dramatically since then, when public trust in politicians is low, it can never be right for those who are up for re-election to decide whether they want to face their electorate.

Today's decision undermines trust in elections and in democracy. Surely the Secretary of State can see that this plays into the hands of those who want to undermine our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

democratic institutions. Interstate. Yeah. I would remind her that these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would remind her that these postponements, at the request of councils, only affect those councils that will shortly be abolished anyway. And it's so that abolished anyway. And it's so that we can have elections to the new councils that will replace them more quickly. And again, as with more quickly. And again, as with the shadow Secretary of State, I would respectfully suggest that her argument is actually with those
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:18
Steve Reed Portrait Rt Hon Steve Reed MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Streatham and Croydon North, Labour )
-
-
Well, he knows full well that I can't comment on legal proceedings. It would be entirely inappropriate. It would be entirely inappropriate. But I think the best response to his question would be, to quote the new sheriff in town, who's sitting new sheriff in town, who's sitting directly in front of him, who took exactly the same decision and exactly the same circumstances. And exactly the same circumstances. And this is a direct quote from him, elections in such such circumstances risk confusing voters, and would be hard to justify when members could be elected to serve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shortened terms. For once, he got it absolutely right. Luke Murphy. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First take issue with the absolute brass neck of the shadow Secretary of State, I think said in his statement, talked about the government putting pressure on local government finances and then devolving the blame, and nothing could better describe the policy could better describe the policy and destructive austerity policies of the last government that devastated local councils across devastated local councils across the country. On the matter in hand, I welcome the decision in Hampshire and Basingstoke for election to go ahead, which was the will of local councillors, though I respect that different areas have different circumstances.

Can I ask the Secretary of State, though, are we still on track for the local government reorganisation process in Hampshire, in Basingstoke? And in Hampshire, in Basingstoke? And can I impress upon him the importance of reaching his decision that endorses the proposal from that endorses the proposal from Basingstoke, Hart and Rushmoor for a North Hampshire authority?
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:28
None Portrait Select Committee Statement: Select Committee Statement on the Fourth Special Report of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, Tackling the energy cost crisis: Government Response, HC 1624
-

Thank you, Madam.
12:28
Bill Esterson Portrait Bill Esterson MP (Sefton Central, Labour)
-
-
Deputy Speaker, and with permission, I will make a statement on the government's response to the on the government's response to the Energy Security Net Zero Select Committee report tackling the Committee report tackling the energy cost Crisis, which we published in October, and the government response was published yesterday. This issue is very much at the heart of what families up and down the country are dealing with now. I stood in the last election on a commitment to bring energy bills down, and I welcome the government decision to reduce them by £150 from April, £150 is a start on the road to the cut of £300 which was mentioned at the election in July 2024.

We should be honest though, the solutions to high energy costs are often presented as easy. They are not. Although the underlying truth is very simple indeed. Bills are too high. In large part the legacy of years of underinvestment in the infrastructure and the lack of long term planning. The Warm Homes Plan, which was also published yesterday and which the government refers to in its response to the select committee report, gives encouragement that many people will see their bills fall through the adoption of clean technologies.

Insulating homes delivers warmth, health co-benefits in addressing cold, damp and mould. It offers security and is an effective way to lower bills. Perhaps the success of the gas safe of gas safe as a model over very many years, provides an idea of how to ensure confidence in the insulation of homes following the well documented failures of Eco. In the government's response to our report on retrofitting last year, it promised to update us once the Warm Homes Plan was published.

Hopefully the Minister or probably more accurately, his colleagues, are preparing to do just that. Our report, published yesterday, offered the government recommendations on how consumers and business energy costs might be reduced in the immediate term. The inquiry into the cost of energy continues pressing for answers on why electricity prices in the UK remain stubbornly higher than in countries such as Germany and France, and what energy reforms are needed to help with industrial competitiveness. In our report, we made a number of recommendations about supporting those facing fuel poverty.

We recommended that the Warm Home discount be targeted using a tiered approach, so that funding is allocated based on household need and energy usage, and the value of the rebate be linked to wholesale prices. We recommended that the Cold Weather Payment be reformed, so that the £10 payment is made to eligible households every day. That the Met Office forecasts that the average temperature will be zero degrees or below the following day. The key to helping those in real need is enabling energy companies to properly identify those customers who need support and relief.

We called on the government to work out how data might be used to target support to those that need it. The government agreed with us on the importance of data sharing, but believed that its taskforce was already making progress in this area. Sadly, the government rejected our call for better targeting of the warm homes discount and for a social tariff, claiming that the Warm Homes discount was already a social tariff, which is not the evidence that we heard.

It also rejected our calls for a fairer approach to cold weather payments. The level of consumer debt is alarmingly high and growing. We noted that the network companies have recently benefited from flaws in the price control system that overestimated the impact of inflation on their borrowing costs. We recommended that the government should recover the excess profits made and use it to clear much of the debt. We regret that the government rejected our recommendation, not least as by rejecting that recommendation, the government is admitting that consumer debt will continue to be added to everyone's bills.

And according to one retailer, we took evidence from, that is £160 a year. We called for Ofgem to limit the back billing period for customers with a smart metre to six months. The government referred us to Ofgem and indicated some broad support. We heard that bills fall 3% from having a smart metre that works even before trying to maximise the benefits, and pleased to say that we had agreement from the government about the importance of better, more ambitious smart metre rollout.

We recommended that the Ombudsman's job would be more effective if it was placed on a statutory footing, and better enabled to enforce its decisions. The government agreed with us. We also recommended that the Ombudsman should cover small and micro-sized businesses with the ability to make awards up to £50,000. We thought that energy companies should not be able to pursue customer debts, which were currently being considered by the Ombudsman. The government told us it was content to rely on Ofgem rules that companies should only pursue debt in a proportionate manner.

It was clear to us from the evidence we heard, that a complaint before the Ombudsman is sufficient to suggest that the retailer is not currently being proportionate in its actions. Our main recommendation for businesses and industry follows a suggestion from UK to provide an opt in scheme that would provide businesses with certainty about costs, as uncertainty is almost as damaging as the high prices themselves. I hope the government will act on these recommendations and it says it will keep them under consideration.

We also heard about businesses being put onto contracts, where the costs might not be as transparent as they should be. We also think that businesses should be allowed to exit energy contracts up to 14 days after their first bill. My committee colleagues are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge we face with energy bills. The Secretary of State spoke yesterday about the potential to use tariffs to cut bills. We identified other opportunities to cut bills. Over time, we will recommend more.

I would just make this plea that the government takes a look at the evidence behind the recommendations in our report, and considers whether it might want to adopt more of what we suggested. It wouldn't be the first time that a government had rejected select committee recommendations, only to quietly adopt them later. Thank you Claire Young.
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:39
Bill Esterson Portrait Bill Esterson MP (Sefton Central, Labour)
-
-
Well, that's that's really looking at the second part of our looking at the second part of our inquiry. But we've heard evidence on this already. The price cap at on this already. The price cap at the start of 2024 was £1,928. It's the start of 2024 was £1,928. It's now 1758 is due to come down further over the next few months, according to the retailers. I think it's also important to compare, like with like we have to increase the capacity of generation in this country, doing it by gas fired power stations compared to renewables.

Renewables are 40% cheaper than on a like for like comparison for new generation. We saw that we saw just in the last few days that reforms. Favourite leader Putin intervened again and we had an immediate spike in gas prices. And so the evidence is very strong that the the government is on the right track. We have the immediate fall in the price cap from the figures that I read out, and we have the government agenda, but we will be looking in the second part of our inquiry, much of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the detail, and making further recommendations on how to cut bills in the short term. Chris Hinchliff.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. There are two conclusions in the Select inquiry th conclusions in the Select inquiry th are particularly important. First, the reducing energy costs for everyone should be made the top everyone should be made the top policy priority, and secondly, that there is no shortage of money in
12:41
12:41
Bill Esterson Portrait Bill Esterson MP (Sefton Central, Labour)
-
-
Grateful to him. And as I said in my statement, the years and in my statement, the years and years of underinvestment which are was the complete opposite of what was the complete opposite of what was promised when the energy system was privatised in 1989, have led us was privatised in 1989, have led us to this place. It is the very, very large contributor to contributors to why we have the challenge with energy bills that we face now. Now, the committee heard evidence from 3G that as much as £500 profit is made in the private sector from an average household bill.

When we recommended that the debt be written off by using the excess profits made by the network companies, we were told that this would cause a chill effect on on future investment. Of course, that that problem wouldn't be there if we hadn't gone down the privatisation route the way that we have. So he makes a good point, but we are where we are, and we are going to have to find answers to to how we bring down bills further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from the measures already taken by the government. Final question Jim Shannon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I first of all, thank the chair and the Select Committee for considering this matter. It's a massive issue and they're right to do so around some 40,000 older people, over 10% in Northern people, over 10% in Northern Ireland live in poverty. Energy poverty is perhaps one of the biggest outlays that they have. And
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:45
Alistair Carmichael Portrait Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP (Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
its rightful place here in the main chamber of the House, the Prime chamber of the House, the Prime Minister and his colleagues often tell us, rightly, that food security is national security. The security is national security. The focus of what we talk about in discussions about food security is often around what we farm on land, often around what we farm on land, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we are an island nation and we are surrounded by nation and we are surrounded by seas that, if managed properly, can provide us with a good source of good quality protein that can be harvested in a carbon efficient way.

The people who work in our fishing industries often do so in difficult and dangerous circumstances. Still, too many of them lose their lives in pursuit of our food, and we should record our appreciation for what they do to keep us fed. I see fishing industries for a reason. Too often we talk about fishing as if it were a single, homogenous industry. When the truth is very different. Even within my own constituency, the issues facing inshore crab boats are very different from those facing the larger whitefish boats, which are in turn different from the issues facing facing the pelagic boats layer.

On top of that, the interests of aquaculture and you begin to get a sense of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

complexity of seafood harvesting and production. Of course. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. As many members may know, warmer sea temperatures know, warmer sea temperatures brought unexpected numbers of octopus into the waters around South Devon last year, and my crab and lobster fishermen have seen and lobster fishermen have seen their catch absolutely decimated. They've lost up to 80% hauling They've lost up to 80% hauling empty pots for weeks on end, which means the fleet members are now cancelling maintenance work and having to lay off crew.

Our fishing communities desperately need support, whether that is enabling them to stay in the industry or decommissioning to help them leave. Would my hon. Friend agree that this support is desperately needed from the government?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is absolutely, critically important, and I have heard for myself from my hon. Friends myself from my hon. Friends constituents. When I visited Brixham, not once, but twice, actually in the run up to Christmas. actually in the run up to Christmas. And it remains to be seen whether this invasion of octopus is something that is going to be permanent because of changing water permanent because of changing water temperature, or whether it is just another of those blips. I think it last happened in the 1950s.

last happened in the 1950s. Whatever. The truth of the matter is, though, there has to be something for the industry that is there at the moment when the truth then is finally established. We speak about aquaculture as all being about finfish, but in my constituency and elsewhere, the role of shellfish aquaculture is enormously important and deserves more attention, especially as we anticipate the conclusion of an SPS agreement with the European Union. Fishing is still a predominantly community based and family run industry.

It may not shift the dial massively in terms of UK wide GDP, but in those areas where it matters, it is nearly always essential. In Shetland, Scotland, farmed fish accounts for approximately one third of our local economic product. We have benefited over the years from the presence of oil and gas and now a growing visitor economy. But they do not define our community in the way that fishing does. I labour this point because it matters. You would often be forgiven for thinking that this is an industry determined to plunder the seas, and to extract every last living organism from it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Fishing is predominantly a family business where the people working in it want to hand on their business to the next generation. They have more interest in ensuring that there is a business there to be handed on. Fishing is also an area of government policy where good cooperation between our governments makes a difference. It is not. It is what the industry needs and expects of us. Sadly, they do not always get it. The recent controversy around the Fisheries and Coastal Growth funds illustrates how its fishers, who lose out when that goes wrong.

Let us remember that the roots of that fund line lie in the decision of the Prime Minister to sign up for a 12 year extension of the catastrophically bad TCA deal that Boris Johnson got us in 2020. Given that the EU themselves were only looking for a five year extension, it is quite an achievement to have managed to negotiate them up to 12. Let us also not forget that the loss of fishing effort traded away by the Prime Minister is worth, we think, about £6 billion over the 12 year period at today's prices.

If we were able to get half or even a quarter of that, then the fund would never have been necessary. To my mind, it makes perfect sense for the fund to be administered on a UK wide basis, as was the case with the previous fund delivered by the last government. That would, in fact, have been an opportunity for Scotland's two governments to work together collaboratively on the delivery, and that delivery could have been more reflective of the fact that Scotland's fleet accounts for more than 60% of the UK fishing effort.

Instead, the government in Whitehall acquiesced to demands from the SNP government in Edinburgh to devolve the administration with devolution. Inevitably, there followed the application of the Barnett formula and as a result of that we receive only 8.3% of the fund. Madam Deputy Speaker. I could weep. One of the rare occasions when they do manage to agree something, they still manage to do it in a way that works to the detriment of the fishermen

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in my constituency. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That does does the hon. Member. It's a matter of considerable It's a matter of considerable regret that the Scottish Government asked for the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund to be devolved without first agreeing the mechanism outside the Barnett formula. That would reflect the fact that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would reflect the fact that Scotland has a larger share of the of the fishing industry. That would have been perfect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That would have been perfect sense, and I think it was certainly also regrettable that somewhere it became said that the SFF, the Fishermen's Federation, had asked for this when they obviously had not. But it requires a good, mature working relationship between the two governments and unfortunately, we are just not there at the moment. That may change after May, but who knows? The irony of the first, created by SNP Ministers about the allocation of the Coastal Growth Fund, was not lost on fishermen in Shetland, as the Shetland Times pointed out, Shetland received only 5% of the Scottish Government's Marine Fund, despite the fact that we account for 20% of Scotland's fishing product.

We were assured by local SNP politicians that this was entirely different as their scheme was, and I quote, merit based. So presumably that means that we only got our quota share because we were not good enough to get the rest. The relationship between the UK government and the devolved administrations is one thing. More important still is the relationship between all governments and the industry as a whole. When any government thinks it knows better than the industry, than we know that bad outcomes are just around the corner.

Never was that seen more clearly than it was when the SNP in Edinburgh, along with our coalition partners and the Greens, sought to close down vast areas of fishing grounds by designating them as highly protected marine areas. That was something that was only stopped in a second by the most colossal campaign by industry and community organisations around the coast. It should never have been so difficult to make our own government back down, and measures that were so obviously an existential threat to coastal and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

island communities. I give way. Thank you madam. Thank you. My colleague, for giving way. And my colleague makes some very good points about where government are misjudging matters. Charter are misjudging matters. Charter fishermen in Torbay are extremely worried that the three bag limit on pollock could devastate their pollock could devastate their industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the government need to monitor this extremely need to monitor this extremely closely and see what the massive impact could be on this industry?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend makes a really relevant point, and it comes to the heart of how decisions are made, because it is critically important that government is able to take on that government is able to take on the infinite nuance and complexity in fisheries management. And you do that by being in the ports on the that by being in the ports on the quayside and talking to the fishermen, the processors, the auction houses, the transporters auction houses, the transporters and all the rest of it.

The signs, however, remain that the same attitude still persist within the Scottish Government. Members will have heard me speak before about the difficult situation facing our pelagic fleet, as a result of the quota cuts still to be finalised from the year end negotiations that will put our pelagic fleet under serious pressure. At times like this, being able to land fish in the place where they will get the best possible price becomes more important than ever. So the increase in the requirement of pelagic boats to land in Scotland limits unnecessarily their scope to maximise the restricted opportunity that they have.

Again, it has not gone unnoticed that nationalist voices in the Shetland Times condemn the change, while in the pages of Fishing News, Gillian Martin, SNP quite stridently supports her ministerial colleagues. Madam Deputy Speaker does not have to be like this. Our fishing fleets are round the coast of the island. Communities ask only to be heard and listened to by government. They do a difficult and often dangerous job and they should not have to contend with that being made even more difficult and yes, occasionally more dangerous by the people that we elect to serve here and in other UK legislatures.

A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very quick one. Thank you. And when the right hon. Member speaks about the hon. Member speaks about the fishing industry being heard, I hear reports from Shetland. The SNP say that Shetland would be listened say that Shetland would be listened to if they had a seat at the SNP table. I have a message to Shetland. table. I have a message to Shetland. We have a SNP MSP in the Western Isles and we haven't been listened to for 18 years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to for 18 years. Well, I'm sure that is a message that will indeed be heard with some interest in the Northern Isles, because we need in island communities to learn from the experience of each other. There are lessons to be learned from the management of fisheries in different parts of the country. Before Christmas, I visited Brixham with the Select Committee as part of our ongoing inquiry into fishing in the marine environment. Many of the things I heard there are very similar to what I will hear when I am back in Shetland, in fact, speaking to fishermen around the country, the same issue rears its head time and time again.

Spatial squeeze the salami slicing of access to traditional fishing grounds as a result of other marine and maritime activities, now poses a clear and present danger to the viability of our fishing industries as a whole. The hon. Member yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am most grateful. He talks about the obstructive nature of some of the authorities. Does he some of the authorities. Does he share my concern about some of the inshore fishing and conservation authorities, such as Eastern Ifca, that have caused grave concern to my fishing constituents in Boston, my fishing constituents in Boston, who are furious about the increasing interference and regulations? It's almost as though they want to actually stop the whole fishing industry as opposed to enhance it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't know the specifics around the eastern ifca, though, if he wants to write me about it. he wants to write me about it. We'll see if I can help him out in any way, shape or form. But I think any way, shape or form. But I think it just comes back to the point that I made earlier. You have to listen to and be informed by the listen to and be informed by the fishing industry, whatever the, whatever the, the locus that you whatever the, the locus that you have in this.

And I think by the same token, the fishing industry have to accept that all of us are not always going to get everything that they want. But in relation to spatial squeeze, no single demand is unreasonable. The development of offshore renewable energy, aquaculture, marine protected areas, the laying of cables and pipelines, the use of sea for leisure and doubtless other purposes. The list goes on. And at every turn of the wheel it is fishing effort that is reduced in order to accommodate something else.

The root cause of the problem is that no one is holding the ring. To look at the whole picture of how our seas are being used, in particular, the policy of compensatory MP for damage caused to the seas by development. Daniels, where feels particularly unjust and illogical.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I thank my co-chair on the fisheries committee for giving way. And does he not consider that the marine spatial prioritisation marine spatial prioritisation programme that was introduced last summer is going to do exactly the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

job that he is seeking to be delivered? Well, I hope it will. It remains

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I hope it will. It remains to be seen, but as the hon. Lady knows, because she is working with me as co-chair of the APPG on fisheries and with the hon. Member for Cambridge as our independent co-chair, on coming up with a fisheries strategy for the whole country. And I think it is that lack of strategy that really needs to be addressed. The government have got a bit of a backlog as far as strategies are concerned, and this one is not even joined the queue yet.

So that is why we are doing that job. I think that any initiative without the strategy is always going to struggle. So I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to junk a couple of pages of my speech here. But the House should be in no doubt. And this is true in all four parts of the United Kingdom. If the spatial squeeze on our fishing industry is allowed to continue as it currently is, then we shall soon risk losing its critical mass as a productive industry.

Once that is lost, we may never recover it. For the families in the communities affected, that would be catastrophic. Fishing families are hard working and economically productive. People take away their ability to earn a living at sea and they will not just sit idle, they will, doubtless with heavy hearts, move to do something else, somewhere else that will change forever. The nature and character of our coastal and island communities, and not in a good way. I hope that the government will hear the warning and act before it is too late.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a concern that is very specific to my constituency and that is the operation of Norwegian access to our local waters. There are, as I speak, here today in London, big, powerful vessels appearing around Shetland that have not been there in the past. We often speak about the North Sea fishing area, but in reality so much of the international fishing effort has become concentrated around Shetland. Shetland fishermen have called on the UK government to reduce the reciprocal catch limits between the UK and Norway in our annual bilateral fisheries agreement.

That appeal has not been heard. This is effectively the one major source of fishing effort in our waters, over which we can still have some annual control. The official preliminary figures showed the Norwegians catching over 22,000 tonnes of demersal fish in UK waters, while the UK caught just short of 9000 tonnes in Norwegian waters. That is not a fair or balanced deal. We have long held the view that Norwegian access is a good thing for the Shetland fleet, not because there are many Shetland vessels going into Norwegian waters, but several larger Scottish vessels do go, taking them in their catches away from our waters.

It illustrates well the subtlety and complexity of managing effort in shared waters. A degree of Norwegian access is welcome, but the current agreement in catch limits are clearly favouring Norwegians at the cost of our own fleet. The stats show Norwegian safe characters in UK waters, doubling from 8000 tonnes to 16,000 between 24 and 25. Safe. Let us not forget, is one of the stocks under pressure. Things are tough enough without a doubling of Norwegian effort on a key stock, and one that is concentrated mainly around Shetland.

By contrast, the highest UK demersal catch in Norwegian waters this year has been about 4000 tonnes of haddock, a bit of a disparity. So can I ask the Minister to give some urgent attention to the lowering of the reciprocal cap from 30,000 to 20,000 tonnes a year? There is a commitment in the agreement to review the current cap throughout the course of this year. It is something that fishery fishing industry representatives in Shetland have called for in the past, but now it needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency.

In this, I am merely the interlocutor. If the Minister wishes to discuss it with the real experts, then she will find them in Shetland. And I hope that once the days lengthen a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

little bit, we may see her there. Yeah. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper and I call Anna Gelderd. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. And my thanks to the right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my thanks to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate. I want to start by thanking all of those who helped support our fleets when helped support our fleets when things go wrong. Having previously worked for the RNLI, I have seen how devoted and brave their volunteers are, many of them fishermen themselves who rush to help others. In particular, I pay tribute to the men and women of the Looe station that I had the pleasure of visiting recently.

They really are the best of us. And to the Coast Guard stations and search and rescue crews. I want to thank the many charities that do so much
13:02
Anna Gelderd Portrait Anna Gelderd MP (South East Cornwall, Labour)
-
-
to support our communities and fishing families, including seafarers UK, the Fishermen's Mission and Fishmongers Hall, to Mission and Fishmongers Hall, to name just a few. I also want to thank Seafood Cornwall Training, who do so much to help new entrants who do so much to help new entrants across our region, something I'm very passionate about and run safety courses for our fishermen. safety courses for our fishermen. It cannot be overstated how important their work is and how continued government support is vital to prevent money from being a vital to prevent money from being a barrier to safety.

We are very lucky to have Clive Palfrey in our patch. A born and raised Looe lad, a former fisherman, our lifeboat launch manager and a senior coxwain a man who has dedicated his life to fishermen's safety and has led so many initiatives, including the first rollout of life jackets with personal locator beacons. So can I offer the Minister to support a Minister between her, Clive and others to better understand why so many still face tragic losses in this industry, making it the most dangerous peacetime occupation and what can be done to prevent further deaths? Fishing communities in Looe and Polperro are iconic.

They are woven into the fabric of the town's heritage and history, but be under no illusion how diminished they are from their former glory, not just by the greatly reduced number of vessels, but just how hard it is for them to make a living and to support their families and communities like mine. Last year's Great Inshore Fishing Survey made for grim reading. If we are serious about the future of fishing, we must make it accessible for that next generation. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, young people currently cannot step aboard a fishing vessel until the age of 16, even though this is prime age for learning practical skills.

We also lack structured support, mentoring that allows traditional knowledge, safety guidelines and best practice to pass between generations. A properly funded mentoring and training pathway, alongside Help to Buy schemes for boats, licences and quota would make fishing a realistic career again rather than a closed shop. And as Basque stocks rebuild 2026, fishing opportunities are limited to those already permitted to catch bass, which closes the door to new entrants developing skills and landing bass lawfully. This risks locking the next generation out of the industry at the very moment that recovery should be creating new opportunity.

Cornwall's fishing industries and communities have a long and proven history of managing a successful industry, and that record should be recognised. So I support the call for the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation for a ring fenced allocation from the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund to deliver a Cornish pilot fishing strategy and take our fishing and seafood sector towards a stable, confident way as we reset our relationship with the EU. So can the Minister set out when applications to that Fishing and Coastal Community Growth Fund will open, and the timelines and how funding priorities will be structured.

For example, where the allocations will be categorised by science, management skills or fleet support. So coastal communities like mine can prepare credible and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well-targeted bids. On that point. I will. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and she is speaking with real expertise and personal experience on this issue. As the chair of the Select Committee chair of the Select Committee mentioned in November, we had the chance to visit Brixham, and there we heard firsthand that government funding for fleets has often been focussed on keeping old vessels, some of which are 60 years old, in service. That might mean that service. That might mean that they've got upgraded equipment that can boost catch values, but then the crew are stuck with outdated and substandard living quarters.

So they're calling for the growth fund to pay towards new vessels that could massively improve both profitability and quality of life for crews. I Cannock Chase is about as far from the sea as you can get, but even I can see the logic of that. So would she agree with me that it would be far more efficient and impactful for us to use the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

funding in that way. And thank you. And I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think he raises his intervention. I think he raises a really important point and particularly references my area of the world, which I'm very grateful for him doing so. And Doctor Simon for him doing so. And Doctor Simon Thomas and Doctor Bryce Stewart are doing particularly brilliant work locally with fishermen, and their latest report was published just this morning. I'll happily share that with members here today and with the Minister, and offer to with the Minister, and offer to support a meeting to learn more about this work and more leading research coming out of south East Cornwall and the South West, particularly on fishing.

One such challenge that our most sustainable fishermen face is the allocation of Pollack, crater rod and line fishermen, many of them under ten metres, use one of the most selective and low impact methods available, yet they are restricted to around 200 kilos a month. That level does not even cover genuine bycatch once the bass season opens. Without access to a traditional pollock quota, these fishermen are left with no viable options unless they are fortunate enough to secure a tuna licence. So a fair rebalancing of pollock quota towards this fleet would support sustainability, reduce waste and keep our small boats working.

Something I know the Minister is particularly passionate about. The last Labour government left the previous government with the Marine and Coastal Access Act, and a clear map to develop the healthy seas and sustainable stocks we need. After 14 years of mismanagement. The Fisheries Minister has inherited a poorly managed stocks that have led to closures and reduced fishing in key species like pollock and bass, and an industry that's been restricted by home-grown red tape. That leaves our inshore fleet in a more burdened, less viable, more vulnerable state than ever before.

So I welcome the work being done to negotiate a new bespoke deal that will remove mountains of this red tape and allow our seafood industry to grow as trading becomes easier. Fishermen in the southwest are also dealing with an unprecedented octopus bloom, which has had a devastating impact locally on crab, lobster and scallop fisheries. For many of my boats, this has translated into lost income, financial strain and a real concern for their wellbeing. So even if the bloom subsides, there is a serious risk that shellfish stocks will not recover quickly enough to support the potting fleet for many years.

So again, I welcome the work of local scientists and fishermen working together, including the report I previously mentioned. This is exactly why investment in industry led science really matters. It reflects real conditions on the water and gives us advice grounded in lived experience. As an independent coastal state, the UK has both the opportunity and the responsibility to manage our own waters sustainably. Stronger protection of inshore grounds, including a 221 kilowatt engine power limit in the 6 to 12 mile zone, applied equally to UK and EU vessels, would safeguard smaller boats and reduce conflict.

A clear limit on vessel size inside 12 miles reflects a well-established standard in other nations, aligns with Ifca practice, and would give real protection to the smaller inshore boats that are active in areas like mine. It is vital for our government to turn this tide and make meaningful change. Sort out the inherited mess and make the most of our valuable national resources of fish and shellfish stocks. And to that end, I wish to highlight just six points. And I know I've already taken quite a lot of your time.

But first, will the government Commission work on a fairer regime, one that moves away from a system where there is able to buy and lease quota, succeed, while those able while smaller scale fleets struggle? This regime needs to fund science data collection, monitoring and enforcement, recognising the central role of our small boats and coastal communities and it would support a just transition, prioritising low impact fishing, social value and long term stewardship of our seas while aligning fishing activity with marine protected areas.

Secondly, will the Minister do all she can to get to the bottom of the inshore vessel monitoring and catch up failures that were imposed under the last government's red tape industry warned that the IBM's process wasn't robust and the kit was not fit for purpose. Years later, one device is still not working as it should, while the monitoring this kit provides isn't being delivered. The stress and frustration that I hear from the fishermen continues and grows, and the same applies to the catch app.

These systems need, at the very least, a clear plan and a timetable for fixing them. I'd be very grateful if she could outline that. Too many of our commercial stocks are data deficient, creating uncertainty that hits small scale fishermen hardest. We already expect our fishermen to provide extensive data on location, catch size and value, but this information is not being fully used. The consequences of overfishing, of illegal discarding and pressure from exceeding quota limits damage the marine environment and undermines responsible fishermen.

This is why data and science, though perhaps not the most exciting part of our debate, really matters. And I urge the Minister to look seriously at how AI can be used to unlock the value of the data that we already collect. This was raised in a written question of mine about fishing efforts in areas like the Cornish 6 to 12 mile zone that local fishermen are worried about. And fourthly, the Pollock Fishing Industry Science Partnership, led by Doctor Simon Thomas, working with fishermen that I mentioned earlier, delivers robust evidence at a fraction of the cost of conventional studies and has directly informed this year's Pollock TAC TAC.

By contrast, the previous government spent around £450,000 on a close kin DNA study that remains unpublished. Fisheries science partnerships like this show that it is possible when fishermen are treated as partners and we get real time data, trust and value for money importantly. So I strongly support the use of the Fishing and Growth Fund for industry led science projects like this. So benefits stay in our ports like Looe rather than being lost to leasing and speculation. And fifth, I want to congratulate Brixham and Newlyn Fish markets for a successful year and thank them particularly for accommodating the sale of landings from our fleet in Looe and Polperro.

With the closure of Looe and then Plymouth Fish Markets, our fishermen now face long and costly journeys across Cornwall or into Devon simply to sell their catch. So for the tidal ports of Looe and Polperro, where return times shift daily, this creates real logistical pressure. And I asked the Minister, when considering the Fishing and Growth Coastal Growth Fund, to look at that long term support for routes to market that can be secured for isolated ports. I know we previously discussed that and I thank her for her engagement.

Thank you. Yes, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my hon. Friend for highlighting so many key issues, but also key developments and but also key developments and successes that we can see in our fishing industry. Portsmouth North has a smaller fishing industry than has a smaller fishing industry than it wants than it once did with 30 to 40 vessels, and it's providing many, many small businesses. One many, many small businesses. One thing I wanted to ask is, does she agree with me that in order to sustain our fishing industry in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sustain our fishing industry in the United Kingdom, we must make sure there are training routes for our young people? Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I completely agree that young people in our coastal communities are the future of this industry, the heart of our communities, and we must do all we can to work with them to have a sustainable future industry for them. In considering the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, I asked the Minister to look at that long term support for the routes I previously mentioned for isolated ports.

And finally, I welcome the government's commitment to the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund and the Fisheries Seafood Scheme. I asked the Minister to ensure that these schemes work for that smaller, owner operated fishermen. Larger businesses have the capacity to prepare their bids and projects, whilst small boats often miss out simply because they lack the administrative time or support. And over previous years we have seen schemes close before. Many fishermen could even submit an application. Something I know causes real concern and frustration in my community.

The last Labour government addressed this by funding regional support officers who helped small fishing businesses develop their plans, gather quota and complete bids, and I urge the Minister to consider restoring these roles or support system like it and basing them in areas like mine where small scale fleets are concentrated, so the help and funding reach the fleets that it's meant to support. So finally, we import and eat almost double what we catch and export in seafood. So while we may be a nation of fish and chip lovers, we only consume 20% of what we catch with some of the best seafood in the world coming from our own waters, and particularly that of south east Cornwall.

We can all play a part by choosing locally caught fish at the tills and at the checkouts, backing our local fishermen not just with words but with our demand. And I recognise those unsung heroes of our fishing industry, the families and loved ones that support the brave fishermen, the unsociable hours and the uncertainty of the work schedules means I know loved ones and families. Support is vital to keep those home fires burning,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we should pay tribute to all that they do. Thank you. To make me feel hungry now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew George. Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Member pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall, a Cornish colleague who I know is a very strong advocate for Looe and and the fishing communities around, around her coast. And just to around her coast. And just to really emphasise the point that my, my Cornish colleague has has mentioned with regard to the, the, the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, that the Minister will be aware that that not only is the fishing industry seeking from from the government and engagement and consultation prior to the announcement, which we're expecting in in April or May, perhaps the Minister will tell us later, but but also that they're they're fully consulted on on those proposals as well.

He she knows that that she knows that that that that Cornish colleagues have have endorsed and and reinforced the case which has been made by the Cornish Fish Producers organisation for a delegated fund of £10 million for small projects, which we believe is is a very good way of ensuring that it does get to the places that it otherwise might not reach, if it's simply held centrally and managed, managed centrally in that way. In coming to this debate, and I've been to quite a few of them in the past in my in my previous life in the House, I've been reflecting, particularly given that the government have brought forward the animal welfare strategy.

On my early days in the fishing industry, we had a boat, the family had a boat down in Mullion Harbour, and in the summer months we would we had a crab and lobster pots and do a little bit of mackerel handlining there as well to supplement the farm income. And I remember at the time, my, my parents having some difficulty and debate as to the on the few occasions when, when we were able to keep a a lobster for ourselves and not and not have to sell it, that the what was the best way of killing the the lobster to to eat.

And one feeling that is was a used the shock of of putting it straight into boiling. We're talking about the 60s and 70s. We didn't have the science behind us. Then put it, put it straight into boiling water, or to warm it gently that that that's a more humane way. And and I was only a child at the time, but but I remember, of course, having the acute hearing that children do have that I, I'm sure I sensed the, the lobsters screaming as, as they were treated in that way.

But at least we now have the science which is telling us that they are sentient beings. And I'm pleased to say that the the the animal welfare strategy acknowledges that we need to move things forward. And I welcome the fact that it commits to publishing guidance to clarify whether live boiling is is is acceptable, is an
13:18
Andrew George Portrait Andrew George MP (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
acceptable killing killing method, and how through the supply chain and how through the supply chain review, whether whether any legislative arrangements or amendments are needed. So so in amendments are needed. So so in terms of an adjunct to the perhaps to the debate that we're having today, it is relevant, I think, to the industry, and I think it would be helpful to the to the fishermen themselves to be informed so that themselves to be informed so that they know how, how the supply chain is going to work from, from there thereon the, the in terms of the negotiations which my which my right hon.

Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland was referring to earlier, at the end of of last year, we were we were somewhat shocked to see that the government accepted rules that from the EU that are going to govern how British fishermen can can work in, in British waters, and that they were changed, it seems, at short notice and without any consultation. These were technical measures that are going to affect British fishermen in their in their own waters. And it's surely contrary to all the things that we were assured that Brexit was going to give the UK in terms of this, this the sunlit uplands of being able to decide for ourselves how we manage our stocks and manage our industry.

I mean, if the Minister could explain how that happened, why the why the industry itself was not consulted about those those changes, why it happened at at such short notice? Is it because we're out of those pre-negotiations which happened within the EU where they can, where they can fine tune their, their proposals and simply. Simply catch us out, as it were, at the last, at the last minute. And indeed, my hon. Friend for South East Cornwall referred to the difficulties within the 6 to 12 mile zone, and the fact that in spite of everything the government has acceded to permit foreign vessels with with historic entitlement to continue fishing within the six to to 12 mile zone for for another 12 years.

She will know that the industry are arguing very strongly, and certainly this is very strong strongly in Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly as well. Why not apply the same 221 kilowatt engine power limit within, within, within those waters, as applies within the the six mile limit? And why was that not, for example, proposed as a countermeasure to that which was thrown on the table at last minute by the EU? I mean, to have done that would have given the the British government a bargaining chip at that stage.

And and as we've missed that opportunity now, could the Minister assure us that that that number one that she she agrees that that would be a sensible method of going forward, because, after all, it protects the inshore fishing grounds, it safeguards the marine environment or helps to do that. It supports viable inshore fishing industry. It reduces displacement of impacts from larger vessels coming into the 6 to 12 mile zone. And it establishes an enforceable management tool because it's already established.

So. So if if she failed or if the government has failed to introduce it or to take the opportunity of introducing it, then would she accept that it would be a good management tool and one that she will ensure that she she presses to achieve going, going forward? With regard to the the the issue of the benefits of the of the or the so-called benefits of the EU, UK trade. Sorry negotiations. We were assured that that that that the the the export of fish from this country going forward would be made smoother and more more transparent and easy.

And the administrative regulations which would apply to it would be less burdensome, I have to say, speaking to those constituency in in recent weeks, the opposite is the case. They're saying that it's become now more burdensome. And what I'll do is rather than going through through the technical detail now because of time, I will, I will, I will write to the to the Minister because I really do think that it's important that, that those SPF. Changes which have been, have been brought in are properly understood, that actually the they they seem to have created new impediments, new impediments rather than rather than resolve them.

My old friend South East Cornwall referred to the importance of of of the next generation of, of fishermen. And, and certainly I've been a strong supporter since they've been established of the Young Fishermen Network, which is based very much in Cornwall, and Matilda Phillips, who is from my constituency, has been pressing their their case very, very strongly. And I hope that the Minister will look at their, their manifesto because there are there is a degree of absurdity that if we're going to recruit new fishermen into the industry, but they're not allowed to go to sea under 16.

And in the past, that was that was one way in which they could experience fishing. And one can do it safely. I mean, one can regulate and, and, and put in safeguards to ensure that it's done safely. I mean, certainly I went to sea well before I was 16. I haven't gone into fishing industry, but I don't know many others that that did. And and it it certainly encouraged them and it provided them with a very strong basis. And also ways in which they can they can help buy into the, the industry, you know, get in at the smaller the artisanal, you know, stage.

And many of them certainly from my, from my area and certainly from my generation, were able to kind of go through and become well established members of the of the fishing community from a very small base. And I hope that that that opportunity arises as well. And then and then finally, I hope that the Minister will, will, will consider how the the ultra low impact fishing can be, can be further incentivised and supported. I've got one fisherman, for example, in Saint Agnes on the Isles of Scilly, who uses sail.

No engine. What whatsoever, no plastic and and is is doing his best to tick all the boxes as far as the low impact fishing method that is using and because he's he's he's fishing for lobster, he's finding that of course, he's had a really difficult year with with the with with the, the the octopus bloom that's been referred to earlier. But the fact is what he's saying to me is that is that in spite of him trying to do what we as a society are trying to encourage fishermen to do at the kind of extreme end of of going, going the extra mile to, to be as sustainable as possible.

He's finding he's overregulated and there's no incentives for him for him to do that whatsoever. And I hope that the Minister would be prepared to look at the case of, of Josh Hicks and others who who are trying to do the right thing. But on that basis, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for giving me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the opportunity. Melanie Onn. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making the time for this debate, for restoring it into the main for restoring it into the main chamber, which we have been asking for for many years. Congratulations to the chair of the Select to the chair of the Select Committee. My, my, my right hon. Friend and fisheries APPG Co-Chair Friend and fisheries APPG Co-Chair for securing the debate. And this government has taken steps to bring greater stability and long term thinking to the sector.

But it hasn't been without controversy as it continues to allow EU vessels into UK waters for another decade plus, with no protection for non-quota stocks. And as the hon. Member for St Ives made a point in his speech. A very good point. I thought just about negotiations with which they arrived upon us, with next to no engagement either with the sector or within this House for future negotiations. It would be preferable, to say the least, that there were efforts made to keep this House informed and those who have an interest on behalf of their constituents, an ability to engage directly with those who are negotiating.

However, the agreement reached with the EU last year has provided at least some parameters of operation. There is an understanding of where the
13:27
Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn MP (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, Labour)
-
-
industry will stand until 2038, and the new SPS agreement has the potential to significantly reduce red tape for seafood exporters. Given that more than 60% of UK Given that more than 60% of UK seafood by value is exported to the EU. That matters enormously to EU. That matters enormously to processors and exporters in places like Grimsby, the UK seafood processing sector supports more processing sector supports more than 17,000 full time jobs, including over 5500 in the Grimsby cluster alone.

It is a modern, innovative industry that enables British landed fish to reach domestic and international markets. We produce around 310 million fish fingers per week, around 3 million fish fingers per day. Yes, we were inside the factory on the BBC and we were very proud to see them. And I'll talk a little bit more about the importance of fish fingers when I talk about British procurement, which was a subject of the Cabinet Office questions this morning, continued investment in modernisation, innovation, marketing and workforce skills will be essential and I welcome the leadership being shown by the UK Seafood Federation, headquartered in my constituency, particularly with its focus on skills and careers as a priority for the coming years.

Now, in the circumstances, given all that has happened for the sector in recent years, I have to welcome the £360 million Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, which I think and I think does actually focus on those fishing communities. It has to be for those fishing communities to boost skills, support business security, which is something that we've heard already today. Business expansion and promote fishing as a career. This is exactly what's needed to strengthen local economies. And I will, of course, be doing all that I can to ensure that Great Grimsby sees some benefit of that funding, and I'd welcome any update from the Minister on the details of that fund.

Who can apply? How do they apply? What are the criteria and when can we expect to see all of that detail? There is still work to do in ensuring fishing and seafood are fully recognised in wider government thinking. Too often, the sectors treated narrowly as a regulatory challenge rather than as a part of the solution to food security, which I know is an important factor for the government. And as part of the solution to regional growth and resilience as well, we saw that this week in the government's assessment of global biodiversity loss and national security.

It rightly highlighted risks to food systems, but it didn't reference fish or seafood at all. And as an island nation, I think we should be more confident in recognising the contribution. In fact, not even the contribution. The necessity of properly managed fisheries to a resilient food system. As a believer of the importance that offshore wind plays as a critical part of our energy system, and as well as being a representative for an historic fishing town, I really do feel like I'm at the heart of the challenge when it comes to considering spatial squeeze.

Steps have been taken to address conflicting industry interests. As I mentioned earlier in my intervention, the Marine Spatial Prioritisation programme, introduced last summer, set out clear location specific, specific priorities for fisheries, nature and other uses of our seas. But fishers are still worried. They must be engaged with and listened to. They don't have the same power as those big wind development companies, or those big communications companies that are laying cables and very often feel potentially compounded feelings over a number of years that when it comes to the considerations of their needs, that very often they are last on the list.

And so the the Minister has to focus her support with the on, on the, on ensuring the needs of fishermen and making sure that their voices are heard against some of those other organisations so that they feel confident in the representation that they have from this government. I said I'd come back to fish fingers. I do want to come back to fish fingers when we're talking about how we could encourage the nation, which I think is gradually turning to become much more of a health conscious nation, judging by the number of people not here in the chamber today, but the number of people here who are on various weight loss jabs, their health is becoming much, much more conscious at the front of their mind.

Eating fish is something that can help with the nation's health. It is very high in omega three. It has excellent source of protein. And how can we institutionally bring this into the UK economy through our public institutions? And I think that there is a really great opportunity at looking at a healthier nation, integrating increased amounts of fish into our schools, into the NHS, into prison services, something that would not only help to boost UK industry, also help to improve the brainpower and concentration of our young people and those who are unwell and need to heal quickly, and making sure that fish and fish products from around this country are included in the National Food Strategy.

I just want to also underline the importance of the work being led by the all party group on fisheries on a National Fisheries Action Plan. My colleague mentioned it in his comments earlier. Since leaving the EU, action has been taken to look at stock management, but there doesn't. There is not a single coherent strategy for the fishing and seafood sector as a whole. Responsibilities seem to be spread across lots of departments, making the system complex and fragmented. A clear, forward looking plan could bring together issues of space, labour, skills and sustainability, providing the long term direction that the industry needs.

And I certainly look forward to engaging with the Minister on this as a cross-party group, fishing has a strong and important legacy and will always have a future in the UK. The foundations have been put in place, but increased ambition and enthusiastic partnership with coastal communities will be crucial in ensuring these future opportunities do not slip through the net.
13:34
John Cooper Portrait John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you and the hon. Member >> Thank you and the hon. Member for St Ives raised the question of the correct method of dispatch for lobster. Can I counsel them against the method which I tried, which was the method which I tried, which was to pop them in the freezer? By the time I opened the door, they had eaten all my ice cream and three of eaten all my ice cream and three of my five ice lollies. Even as we speak, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Chic Parisians are enjoying long distance and coquille Saint-Jacques, perhaps with a crisp glass of Chablis. Lucky them that seafood almost certainly comes from the pristine waters of Scotland. But one of the difficulties that we face in getting that seafood into France via Boulogne is red tape and the red tape. And this is where the government, I think, should step in. That red tape is blamed on Brexit. In fact, it comes from the far side of the short street. This is a difficulty created by the French, perhaps because of protectionist ideas.

Who knows? But it should not take an entire renegotiation of the SPS agreement to get this sorted out. We could have this changed and changed quickly. And the other danger with the renegotiation of an SPS deal is that it may impact on the free trade agreements that we are doing around the world. We have recently signed one with India, for instance, and the CPTPP agreement, which is easy for me to say we need a better name for this could be imperilled by effectively reducing ourselves to rule takers rather than rule makers.

With a new SPS deal. The other issue that many of our fragile coastal communities face is that they have full employment and going to see is not for ever. And I speak as the son of a marine engineer. I, meanwhile, get seasick in a Bath, so I would certainly not want to go aboard a fishing boat. As we've heard, it is an exceptionally dangerous occupation and even at the best of times is difficult and hard work. So the Home Office has a role here because it's exceptionally difficult to fulfil the requirements to bring in workers from elsewhere who are crucial to this industry.

And I would wonder if the Minister might touch on this. I appreciate it is a different department, but we need some simplification of the rules around this and a realisation that these these rules are in place and are making things exceptionally difficult for. Sometimes long established businesses who should have a great future. And again, touching on that red tape issue, one of the seafood producers in my constituency, West Coast Sea products from Newbury even now are facing difficulty getting scallops into France, not because the quality of their product is anything less than exemplary, but again, because of the rules and the difficulties that are being placed in their way.

As I say, not by Brexit, but by the French themselves. So perhaps we could hear something on that, and perhaps we might be able to unblock this logjam. Thank you. Yeah.
13:37
Torcuil Crichton Portrait Torcuil Crichton MP (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I pay thanks to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the Backbench Business Committee for bringing this important debate to the chamber and paying tribute to all those who have cast a net or hauled or pulled on a muscle rope to sustain us from the seas. We've been fishing around the waters in all our islands for for millennia. And just like the right hon. Member's constituency, island life in the Western Isles is still shaped by the rhythms of the sea and the fishing fleet in the islands, while a shadow of the fleet that sustained the international herring industry in the early 20th century is still a mainstay of the economy.

And less than two years ago, these small fishing communities saw off an existential threat from the SNP and Greens Scottish Government, which would have effectively wiped out the industry. These, the hated, highly protected marine area proposals, which would have closed ten of Scotland's waters, were seen off by protests by songs from Skipinnish and Battersea fishermen Donald Francis MacNeil. But there is a lingering suspicion that the agenda has not gone away. Since the collapse of Hpmas, there have been fears that existing MPAs, marine protected areas and other designations will become pegs on which further restrictions could be hung.

The rebranding of Hpmas without the colourful measures of banning canoeing or paddleboarding could be a danger. Now it is understood the Scottish Government will be consulting on 173 sites. And although the Outer Hebrides sites have not been confirmed, it is expected that 20% of the total sites may be in Hebridean waters. And if there is a lesson, there are a couple of lessons to be learned from the Hpma debacle. The first is for anyone across the UK tempted to back the greens either today, tomorrow or next May.

Is that the combination of Greens and SNP in Scotland have actually set back marine conservation by a decade and a half at least, and we need. The other lesson is that to sustain fishing industry in communities like mine, we need to end uncertainty and to ensure that we have a conversation to ensure that we have conservation. We need conversation. We need talks to the fishing industry and communities about sustainable management, talks with the people, the fishing communities who are in fact the experts on sustainability and talks on what is essentially their self-interest.

Nobody knows how to responsibly steward our waters better than the fishermen themselves. And there is powerful evidence from my constituency that self-imposed controls by the communities themselves increase the value of landings in the. In the last year, the value of landings in the Western Isles has gone up to 16 million, a 4% rise. And that increase in value is really the result of pot limitation efforts. Various other measures, including banning larger crab vessels from operating within six miles, and the statistics demonstrate the folly there was of trying to impose top down measures on conservation when the when the local fishing fleet provides the conservation measures, the dividends are obvious and the majority of of income generated by the Western Isles boats was from the prawn sector 9 million.

The scallops were down 14%, but these up by 25%. It's mostly due to the presence of processing in the islands. Macduff Shellfish factory in Stornoway has attracted more boats and there are other processors in the islands who face massive logistical barriers, not just getting to the continent but getting to the mainland in the first place. Thanks again to the the debacle, the ferry debacle, which the SNP has, has, has, has presided over. But as well as successes, there are major challenges.

The Member for Dumfries and Galloway hinted at the problems of of recruitment to the sector. In an area like mine where De-population and the demographics leave, a doughnut shaped hole with the working age population should be. That is a huge challenge. And the proposals by the by the Migration Advisory Committee on Skilled Worker visa Changes would have a profound effect on recruitment to the industry. In mine, the EU, if oversee hiring for fishing roles ends in December 2026, parts of the country, including mine, will be significantly impacted.

And while it is not the minister's department, her support and the government's support in in flexing in flexing these, these requirements would be appreciated. And the effect of that is is quite obvious. I, skipper from the Western Isles, has been in touch with me recently to say that about seven years ago, when he had a local crew of seven, he is now forced to employ three crew members from Ghana, and his son and himself now skipper the vessel back to back in order to fish at every opportunity to to make sure that they pay the foreign crews the right wages, which are considerably more than he and his son take home themselves.

And these are the challenges that face the local fishing fleet, and not the only ones. High fuel costs, access to markets as as I've said. And sometimes red tape, red tape from Whitehall itself. And again, this is not the minister's department but the Western Isles Islands Council, Colonial and shire, and I suspect other local authorities across our coastal communities have faced a recent challenge from HMRC, which I wrote to the Treasury about recently. The council may lose its authority as a registered dealer of control of controlled oils, which supply 14 fishery piers across our island chain which make up the Western Isles.

Now these sites are in remote locations and combined with the physical geography, as I've explained, and and the need of fuel supplies available out of normal hours means the sites cannot possibly be physically or remotely monitored, as HMRC says they have to be. The council have been informed by HMRC that unless the sites are monitored and that they are satisfied that all the sales are for legitimate licence use, then the sites are under, licences may not be approved, so we should.

We see there as we saw with conservation measures, the disconnect often between bureaucracy and the reality of island and fishing communities. And and while I welcome, I really do welcome the government's 260 million Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund and regret, as I said earlier, my intervention, that the direct proportion of that fund is not going where it should be to, to, to, to Scotland, where, where a large part of the UK's fishing effort is. It's regrettable that the Scottish Government demanded that the, the the that they control the fund without agreeing a mechanism beyond the Barnett formula.

And I agree with my hon. Friend from the south east corner is no longer in her place that that fishing and coastal fund should be directed towards the recruitment of new entrants to young people into the industry. There are commendable efforts in the Western Isles to get young people into the industry with with some success, but our population levels are so small that that that that can only go so far. And that coastal fund and the fishing coastal funds should be directed towards these small inshore coastal communities to help revive them and revive these coastal economies, rather than be handed out to the millionaires or the quota Barons who who currently rule, rule the oceans fishing quotas themselves.

And that could be the subject of a whole other debate, should serve the public good, not narrow interests. And if we are serious about the future of our coastal communities, quotas must be looked at again, should have a social value, should be aimed at the long term benefit and sustainability of our coastal communities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah yeah yeah yeah. Mr. Logan, I was this is a curious set of circumstances, isn't curious set of circumstances, isn't it? I mean, I could always just it? I mean, I could always just move on and on and on. Right. Shall we see a proper bob, a proper Bob?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Seamus Logan Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seamus Logan Madam Deputy Speaker, I do apologise. Nature was trying to call Madam Deputy Speaker, but I'm afraid she will have to wait. I want to thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for applying for this debate, and all those who supported his application, and the backbench Committee for allocating time on this important subject. However, I do regret that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member opposite for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, used so much of their time Government.
13:46
Seamus Logan Portrait Seamus Logan MP (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Not allow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The plain fact of the matter. Madam Deputy Speaker, is that I, along with those hon. Members, are along with those hon. Members, are elected to deal with matters in this place. And my advice to those members is if they're so concerned members is if they're so concerned about Scottish matters in Holyrood, please stand for election there. please stand for election there. Now, I do want to give a bit of context before I deal with those matters that are relevant to matters that are relevant to Westminster.

Fishing is no, I'm not. No, I'm not going to. Yet. Later on I may allow interventions, but I do want to get to the. I do want to get to the second paragraph. Madam Deputy Speaker, before I get an intervention. The fishing is an incredibly important livelihood for so many of my constituents. Fraserburgh and Peterhead ports are among the largest fishing ports in Europe in terms of the tonnage and value they consistently bring in across Scotland. The Scottish Government's Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistics show that the Scottish Scottish fishing industry value in 2024 was 756 million.

This is the highest value for the last ten years. Scotland's sea area is six times larger than our land area and accounts for 63% of the UK's exclusive economic zone. It's no surprise, therefore, that Scotland accounts for the largest part of the UK's fishing industry, generally accounting for around 60% of total UK landings, both by tonnage and value. So the industry is obviously important to Scotland's rural and coastal communities. It's a key part of Scotland's food economy and it provides employment all around our coast.

The issue of this debate is so crucial to my constituents. But regrettably, regrettably, Madam Deputy Speaker, actions taken by the Westminster Government regarding the Scottish fishing industry are regarded by my constituents as treacherous. Firstly, we had the EU UK agreement announced last year which saw fishing access arrangements extended for 12 years, rather than the preferred annual renegotiation, which would have ensured better leverage for fishers going forward. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation described this decision as disastrous to Scottish fishing, and described the UK government's view of the fishing industry as expendable.

The Prime Minister said this UQ deal was a win win, but that characterisation, Madam Deputy Speaker, is risible. Then, as if to pour salt in the wound, the 360 million Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund allocations saw Scotland receiving just 28 million over 12 years, or just over 2.3 million a year. 7.8% of the fund. How on earth is that approach sustainable? It is an unmitigated disaster for Scottish fishers, trading away access to Scottish waters and refusing to mitigate that policy through the Coastal Growth Fund is simply creating the conditions for the Scottish fishing industry to fail a sector worth, as I said, 756 million to the Scottish economy facing changed conditions with no consultation, as has been acknowledged by hon.

Members, mitigated by a pitiful amount by this UK government. The Scottish Government was sidelined in the allocation of the Coastal Growth Fund with a pathetic excuse that the Scottish Government had requested a devolved approach. Now we learn and we've heard members referring to the fishing news. Now we learned from the fishing news that the decision to apply the Barnett formula was because of a decision by the Treasury to baseline the marine allocation for 20 2425, rather than having it ring fenced.

So at no point, just to clear this up for members who commented on this earlier. At no point did the Scottish Government say that the allocation should be Barnett ised. They simply asked for the devolved, for the devolution of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the decision making on that fund to way. Well, what on earth did they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, what on earth did they expect? They asked for devolution. With devolution comes the Barnett ization. Is he going to stand there ization. Is he going to stand there and tell us that they did actually ask for the rebasing in the way that we saw previously, because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we saw previously, because I've certainly never heard that suggested. And we've taken evidence on this in the Select Committee. Well, I thank the hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I want to address that now under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, when we were part of the European Union, the UK received approximately. The UK received approximately £207 million over six years, of which Scotland received 46% 46% Minister, not 7.8%. So that's why Scotland wanted that matter devolved, so that we could properly support the Scottish fishing industry in the same way that the European Union and the UK did in the past.

So why way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and initially politely declined his offer to to stand for the Scottish Parliament because the Na h-Eileanan an Iar is an excellent candidate and Donald McKinnon next candidate and Donald McKinnon next May he will wipe out the SNP and give us a real voice for the give us a real voice for the islands which haven't been listened to in 18 years. And I would just ask the hon. Member that we have ask the hon.

Member that we have much to agree on here, on the share of the Coastal Fishing Fund, and we must, and I would like to remind you that the fund will be there for a decade, and what is past is past and without rancour. I think we could work together across the fisheries, APPG and through other organisations to make sure that more of this fund goes to our coastal communities, but particularly to our fragile coastal communities, the inshore coastal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities that need support. Interventions shouldn't be that long. Seamus Logan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

long. Seamus Logan. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Member for his intervention. He will know that in reality, we do work very well reality, we do work very well together. Under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and his colleague across Shetland and his colleague across the chamber, and I accept the point about the Coastal and Fishing Growth Fund. And I think he agrees Growth Fund. And I think he agrees with me that we need a review of that decision.

But I'll come back to that later. Why? Why, we ask, did the Scottish did the Westminster Government change the approach? And Barnett has the formula? Well, many of my constituents think it's because there are no votes for Labour and no prospect of ever winning another seat north of the Tay, alongside perhaps your own. Well, I can I can tell the Minister that that isn't going to change any time soon with this approach, because this government is stealing our money to prop up their failing support in coastal communities in England, the recent Freedom of Information request revealed that the Secretary of State for Scotland had made no effort, zero effort, to lobby Defra to discuss a fair and proportionate allocation given Scotland's massive contribution to our food sector, what is the point of the UK Government Scotland Office if it doesn't stand up for Scotland? Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, as if the above were not enough, visa restrictions by the Home Office have been suffocating.

The growth of fishing in Scotland, as referred to already key sector stakeholders, have raised concerns about the changes to visas coming into force at the end of this year and the impact that this will have, particularly in processing. There are concerns about visa provision extend to hiring workers for operations within the 12 nautical mile limit, given the overlap in fishing grounds. Clarity on this point from the Minister, and I appreciate it's not within our brief. Nevertheless, clarity on this point from the Minister at least to tell us that she is lobbying the Home Office on this point so that people in industries in my constituency can actually thrive and contribute to a growing economy.

But please, please don't try and tell us that we need to hire local people. This mythical workforce sitting at home twiddling their thumbs simply does not exist because we are at full employment in my constituency, and efforts to recruit young people into this industry are simply not working. Just ask Mike Park at the Scottish White Fish Producers Association. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, the future of fishing in Scotland is at a precarious stage and I want to use this opportunity to plead with the UK government.

Please listen to the Scottish Government, the Scottish fishing industry and fishermen and women to get this right. One more U-turn won't make much difference to this government considering the number of already made, but it will make the world of difference to fishing and coastal communities in Scotland. It's not too late to give Scotland a fair deal. Thank you Charlie Dewhirst.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and maybe I'll start by thanking the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for applying for and Shetland for applying for today's very important debate. I'd like to start by paying tribute to the fishermen and women of Bridlington and Hornsea in my constituency, and also to the RNLI and to the inshore rescue, who keep and to the inshore rescue, who keep our fishermen safe right across the UK. The House will be well aware that Bridlington is the lobster that Bridlington is the lobster capital of Europe, landing over 300 tonnes every year and the largest shellfish landing port in the UK.
13:56
Charlie Dewhirst Portrait Charlie Dewhirst MP (Bridlington and The Wolds, Conservative)
-
-
And I hope that the next time that the Minister is back in Brid, she has the opportunity to sample some of our fine fresh seafood at salt on the Harbour or at the old lifeboat station opposite the spar, lifeboat station opposite the spar, and I do welcome the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, but I do caution that it is £360 million over caution that it is £360 million over 12 years, so £30 million a year. And if you take a harbour like Bridlington and think of the cost of a major upgrade, or in fact just normal maintenance to harbour walls, that often runs into millions of pounds.

So my fear would be that we can run out of money very quickly in terms of doing major capital projects, but I do hope that those capital projects can apply to this fund, and I do hope Bridlington be able to benefit from it. I also hope that we will be able to address some of the skills issues. That is a key, key issue for the fishing industry. Getting children from school into the industry, attracting them and making sure that we do have the next generation of people out there at sea because it is a real problem right up and down the country at the moment.

Another area I would like to talk about is spatial squeeze. The government is consulting on a land use framework at the moment, which is welcome, but we need something similar for the marine environment. We've already heard from other members today about the challenges of juggling renewable energy, such as I have a very large offshore

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point. Is he giving way on that point. Is he surprised to hear that the SNP deny the existence of spatial squeeze? And advisers told senior figures in the government not to talk about spatial squeeze? Spatial squeeze is real and can I just return to that real and can I just return to that point as well? About the lobster capital of of the country? I think you'll find in fact, we don't have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you'll find in fact, we don't have to divide on this, but I think you'll find it's Port William. I think I think on that second point, we are going to have to agree to disagree, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right in terms of spatial squeeze. If it isn't an issue, I don't understand why it takes up so much of the briefing from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. They, I suspect, are the real experts in this area. I now turn to the deal and the frustration that our fishing industry, fishing industry, has been sold out for the next 12 years in return for an SPS deal that has yet to be negotiated.

Now, I fear things have got worse since that announcement was made. In fact, referring back to the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, they have contacted MPs saying that in last year's negotiations between the UK and the EU that concluded in December, something new happened that has deeply alarmed UK fishermen, as well as deciding fish quotas for 2026. As expected, the two sides also agreed new fisheries management rules for their respective national waters. We are told that the EU proposed these measures and that the UK negotiating team was blindsided by their inclusion in the talks.

Nevertheless, they agreed to them. Rules that govern how British fishermen can work in British waters were changed at short notice and without consultation, at the request of the European Union. And this is unprecedented, it says it was startling to learn that the collaborative, evidence based process that we all thought we were working within had been set aside in favour of a bargain struck between civil servants over a few days in London and Brussels. More troubling still, the rules will be more lenient in EU waters.

That says to me, sell out again and it sets a direction of travel as we go through this process. Process of negotiating an SPS deal with the European Union, that it is clear that we are negotiating from a very weak position, willing to do whatever the EU pleases, to have a deal done by the end of this year. And I think this government could maybe learn lessons from the last government about setting false deadlines for negotiations over trade, because I'm happy to admit that there were mistakes that we made in the early days post-Brexit, so I would caution against doing the same.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to touch on bottom trawling, an issue that has become a focus for anti fishing groups and something, if it were to be banned in a band across our marine protected areas, would destroy the industry overnight and decimate certain coastal communities. A lot of the the campaign against this is misrepresenting the industry. It is not as damaging as as some of these organisations say it is. And I think it's something I hope the Minister will take up with the industry and ensure that they are properly represented in any negotiations over the use of that technique.

And in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm proud to represent such a successful fishing industry and as, as as I know that Bridlington is so close to her heart, I would love to have the opportunity to meet her, maybe even in Bridlington, and meet meet the local fishermen to discuss the future of the industry and do what we can do what we can together to support the lobster capital of Europe. Thank you Jim Shannon.
14:01
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I thank the honourable right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for setting the Orkney and Shetland for setting the scene so incredibly well. We thank him for that. His knowledge of fishing is something that I envy. And but I'm always very pleased to come along and support him in a secondary role. As as in this debate, I represent as Strangford in northern, a strong fishing community, Portavogie in particular, and I rise to relay a number of issues that have been raised with me in which government has to.

I'm very pleased to see the Minister, and the Minister will know that a request to ask the Minister to ask requests. I'm hoping that the Minister will be very keen to to to accede to that request. And so perhaps, maybe I've asked as well. I want to pay a special thanks to Doctor Lynn Gilmore. She's the chief executive officer of the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation. She's in charge of that organisation is doing extremely well. Madam Chair, Margaret Thatcher saying if you want something said ask a man, but if you want something done, ask a woman.

So we have a woman in charge of the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Fish Organisation, and I look forward very much to deliberate. The hon. Lady in her position as chief executive is doing. The House will be very aware that the seafood industry in Northern Ireland plays a vital role in supporting the economies of our coastal communities. In 2023, the fishing fleet comprised some 211 registered vessels and employs some 445 people, with the majority of vessels fishing in the Irish Sea from the three main ports of Portavogie, Mike Kane, Strangford, but also from Ardglass and Kilkeel.

Are the fishing producers. Organisation represents all of those three three ports and elsewhere, as well over ten metre trawlers, mainly targeting the Nephrops, account for around half of the fleet. Today, at least 70% of the Nephrops fleet are reliant on non-EU migrant crew, one of the highest rates in the United Kingdom fishing industry, and they form a very, very important part of the workforce. Recent data showed that approximately some 50,500 tonnes of fish and shellfish were landed within Northern Ireland Irish fleet, worth some £80 million, and Nephrops accounted for 46% of landings by value.

I want to put those stats on record, Madam Chair, because really important to understand the the importance of of the fishing sector in Northern Ireland and for my constituents, in particular, the Northern Ireland fishing sector also supports some 18 seafood processing operators, generating a further 62,000,000 in 2023 and supporting a further 570 full time jobs. These numbers, though, belie the true value of the industry, the cultural and historic importance. Others have referred to it, the skills handed down through generations, and the pride that our communities taking the fishing industry is immeasurable.

And sadly, all of this has been threatened by issues outside of the control of the men and women who risk their lives to put delicious local seafood on our plates. The Northern Ireland fish Irish fishing industry, so valuable to our economy and our coastal communities, is facing unprecedented challenges. And my friend, who spoke for the Scottish National Party, outlined the issues for crew and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland did that as well. I suspect others will if there's a key, key issue, that is the one that I would want to underline.

Foremost amongst these issues are those relating to visas for overseas crew. In a recent letter to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Northern Ireland, industry leaders outlined a cliff edge that they are facing in relation to skilled worker visas which have become unavailable to the fishing industry beyond 2026. Really, really worrying. Except for a limited period of time and with the species of crew already working in industry can be renewed. They also highlighted the escalating salary thresholds and again, the thresholds have been a bugbear for some time.

And English language requirements industry are experiencing and requested an urgent meeting with the meeting with the Minister to discuss these issues. The result of the issues, if not addressed, could see a loss of up to 70% of crew on Northern Ireland vessels, potentially tying up almost 100% of the Northern Ireland Nephrops fleet within a few short years. Really? Really. This is this is the the last chance saloon. That's where we're at. Cascading impacts on processing businesses and fishing communities, and the potential for a loss of workforce continuity and traditional generational knowledge.

Industry have repeatedly requested a bespoke visa for fishing as they ramp up efforts to recruit more local workers back into the industry. The minister's response at that time offered nothing to industry, was in part contradictory and ended with the Minister declined to meet Northern Ireland industry leaders to hear their concerns. So I know that the Minister in particular here, because the hon. Lady and I have had many discussions and work together on many things, has always been responsive. And I would ask, please, if you don't mind, I'd have a heart for the fish and I would ask the Fisheries Minister.

The Home Secretary and myself could meet to go into the detail of what is needed to save the fishing industry, and I request that meeting could take place as my major request. Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Minister and relating to where we are. Others would would perhaps. Maybe like. But I know on behalf of Northern Ireland fish producers and fishing fleet, it's really important. Fishing occupations will no longer be eligible for the skilled worker visa post 2026. No visa route will exist for recruiting foreign deckhands, eliminating the only legal pathway for vessels needing crew to operate inside the 12 metre.

So the the importance of this cannot be underlined off. The fishing industry needs a dedicated immigration route for fishing crew post 2026, preferably in the form of a bespoke visa. This would protect British businesses when recruitment drive seeks to source more domestic labour for the fishing industry in the long term. I remember a few years ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was an advert put in the European magazine Fishing Magazine to recruit people from Europe to come to the fishing sector.

Out of that, there was 100 people replied. There was only, I think it was ten people who expressed an interest and there was only one of them turned up for the interview. So I make that point, because sometimes when you look around about in the United Kingdom, but also across the EU at that time, that the potential workforce, but it just wasn't there. The Northern Ireland want an opportunity to brief the Minister and to highlight industry concerns that if nothing is done in the short to medium term, the British businesses will fail.

It is, Minister, that straightforward very briefly wish to highlight the fact that the Northern Ireland fishing industry is facing an unsustainable decrease in the Irish Sea available fishing grounds through expanding offshore marine protected areas. Proposed bans on bottom towed gear and rapid offshore renewable development. In comparison, agriculture fishermen do not hold the property rights to the areas of food production, and that's a fact. It's not like farming. Fishing is an easy target for displacement. Additionally, fishing areas have no statutory basis for protection, unlike marine protected areas or now offshore renewable developments.

So we are looking at the combined effects of the spatial restrictions already in place or under development that can threaten the operation and the financial viability of the Northern Ireland trade. And this has lost some 4728km of fishing grounds in the Irish Sea in the last couple of decades. That's around three times the size of London. Just to give an idea of what it means, implementation of management measures and MPAs in the Northern Ireland offshore area, and the additional area for offshore renewable energy zones within the same constrained Irish Sea region threaten a further reduction.

So it's not just that reduction. There could be more. So I believe we need to see evidence based decision making and site specific management on the principle of sustainable use, rather than blanket spatial plans for all known or certainly environmental benefits. And core of this core of this must be the Northern Ireland Fishing organisations designation as statutory consultees in marine planning. So that's my second ask when it comes to to looking at marine planning, that the Northern Ireland fishing organisations could have that that that say that discussion that part to play in the process and there should be statutory consideration given to the impacts of displacement.

Excuse me. Fishing effort between any area becomes unavailable to fishing. So that would enable the Northern Ireland fishing sector to have that impact. And to sum up, the Northern Ireland industry seek government support for a balanced planning system which protects fishing as a legitimate food producing industry vital for the UK's fishing industry and its people and the economy and national food security fishing communities in Northern Ireland. Having already faced decades of disruption and reduced fishing grounds, lack of local labour, increasingly unpredictable quotas now face a series of simultaneous pressures that threaten their long term viability.

Fishermen confronted with such changes are left with profound uncertainties that accentuate financial stress, as well as mental health issues for them and their families. So in every aspect of policy, from quotas and migration to marine protection areas, offshore wind developments, fishermen are under pressure. The fishing industry has shown over many years prepared to work constructively with government and the hon. Member, right hon. Member for Shetland, Orkney set that point down as a marker that the fishing sector want to work with government.

They they want to protect the seeds that they're fishing in because there has to be sustainable. And that's what they're about. They want to do that. Then we I hope the government would wish to work with them, respond positively to scientific recommendations, increase levels of gear selectivity to reduce impacts on the environment, and operate within one of the most heavily regulated fishing regimes in the world. Before anything else in Irish Sea, at the beginning of time, there was when God created the world.

He created the Irish Sea, and he created fishing part of life. That's before it all happened, you know, so ever mindful of our members were the original stakeholders. And I think I can quote the Bible accurately when I say that in the beginning God created heaven and earth and he created he created the sea in between. When it comes to food security as well as economic security, will depend on being able to maintain a sustainable fishing industry within Northern Ireland. With the right foresight and committed cross-government policy, this industry will be able to sustain itself, remain productive and remain the cornerstone that has been for centuries, since the beginning of time within the communities that live along our coast.

By ignoring nonsense, by ignoring the concerns of Northern Ireland fishing communities, a rich heritage could be lost that would indeed become irreplaceable. Thank you so much James MacCleary.
14:12
James MacCleary Portrait James MacCleary MP (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker >> Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker and I first start out by referring you and members to my register of interests, as I'm an unpaid director of the New Haven Fishing director of the New Haven Fishing Community Interest Company, and as such, I see first hand what's happening to our local fishing industry. And I rise today to specifically talk about the impact on our town. We have a small but long standing fleet in New Haven, and it is our fishing heritage that is under threat.

We have between 15 and 20 active vessels working out of New Haven, catching soul, plaice, brill, turbot and other bits and pieces off our Sussex coast. But much of that fish goes elsewhere for processing all corners of the UK and in fact, beyond. Before it ends up coming back to our plates. We're exporting those jobs. We're we're increasing emissions and we're missing the chance to build our local economy and indeed invest in a small part of the government's growth agenda. I believe this has to change.

We want our fish processed locally, creating jobs in coastal communities, not shipped abroad and back again, and then sometimes back again and back here once more. The recent plans to bring processing back to New Haven are exactly what we should be doing nationwide, but it needs long term commitment from the government if it is to stick. In the meantime, we're also losing our fishing community, the charter boat fleet that historically brought customers year round to New Haven's tackle shops, pubs and restaurants has almost completely disappeared.

A constituent of mine runs the last charter company in New Haven. During recent works at the port, he was forced to relocate temporarily, promised he could return. Now he's being told he can't come back, despite government funding for a new pontoon, supposedly for the fishing fleet. It is this kind of bureaucratic nonsense that puts marginal businesses like his into receivership. Is that kind of bureaucracy that brings generational businesses like his and like many others in our town to an end, in some cases, after decades or even hundreds of years of operation, when we invest in coastal infrastructure, it should support the entire fishing community, commercial vessels and charter boats that are bringing economic activity to our towns.

Both are vital to a thriving coastal community. We have been successful in attracting government investment support local fishing industry in New Haven. Some £12 million for new landing stages, processing facilities and other facilities in the town and my thanks to our local council, Lewes District Council and indeed my predecessor, Maria Caulfield, who are both very supportive of that support of that bid for funding, which has been essential to giving our fishing industry in New Haven a chance, just a chance of surviving and thriving in the future.

But we need to do far more support our fishing businesses if they're going to be sustainable in the long term. And here's what's really at stake. Without new people entering the industry, small, independent businesses will disappear. They'll be replaced by massive multinational companies and EU mega trawlers that disrupt our wildlife, deplete our fishing stocks and send their catches to distant markets. In our case, many flagged to the Netherlands, we'll lose local jobs and an industry that communities like ours depend upon.

Our local fishing businesses are largely family affairs generations taking on the businesses from another. It is a tough and sometimes very dangerous job. In November 2020, our community was shocked to wake up to the news that the Joanna C trawler had sunk off Newhaven, tragically taken the lives of two fishermen, a reminder of the risks that our fishing boats take every day in unpredictable seas. And I should take a moment to pay tribute to our local RNLI crews that are based out of Newhaven and indeed our volunteer Coastwatch, who do incredible work trying to keep our fishermen and other sailors safe.

The government must acknowledge that support for small fishing businesses to encourage more young people to sea fishing as an attractive career choice, is essential for the future vibrancy of the industry. There is a real danger that we continue to fund an industry that simply doesn't have the people to continue it in the future, and it then ends up just withering on the vine. We want to see a different future for the industry. We need to slash the red tape that strangling our fishing industry.

Invest in coastal infrastructure, not just building pontoons, although that is very important for our town, but ensuring that they actually serve the communities they're meant to support. Give coastal towns the powers and resources to develop their fishing economies and attract young workers working in concert with local schools and colleges to build a skills base for the future, not just for our fishing industry, but in many of our coastal deprived communities where there is a lack of skills base to take advantage of some of the opportunities being created by investments like our investment in our fishing industry locally and others, and we must also put sustainability at the heart of everything we do.

We need to look carefully at the impact on marine protected areas in a way that is done hand in glove with the fishing industry to ensure that protections for sustainability do not do catastrophic harm to the business we seek to support, and we must rebuild depleted fish stocks. The sight of massive Dutch trawlers off our coast, which you can see operating quite often in the distance, hoovering up fish out of the sea and depleting the stocks, meaning our own predominantly line and pole fishermen can't actually catch anything when they go out to fish is soul destroying for people who are already in a very challenging industry, we must ensure that fishing stock negotiations after 2026 get proper democratic scrutiny.

As has already been mentioned by a number of other members. This is because the Conservatives Brexit through through our industry into chaos and unfortunately, the government has let that happen again. When the extended fishing rights to the EU for more than ten years. And for what? Nothing but some general commitments to negotiate further down the line. Newhaven has fished these waters since the 1580s. Madam Deputy Speaker fishing families have worked there for over 200 years in some cases. Indeed, the names of some of the fishing families are known by pretty much everybody in the town.

It is a close knit community in that way. We have local fish shops, plans for new restaurants, and a community that wants to buy local catches. But right now we have a local fleet that is struggling to even stay in business. My coastal communities aren't an afterthought. They're the frontline of our food security, our environmental stewardship, and our cultural heritage. And we must deliver a fair deal for fishers real investment and sustainable practices working with government. And I would be remiss not to take the opportunity to extend an invitation to the Minister to come down to Sussex by the sea and visit our fleet in Newhaven.

Too often, very small fleets like ours can be overlooked in the discussions about the fishing industry. My hon. Friend, the right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, mentioned in his excellent introductory speech about how fishing can be treated as a homogeneous industry where all areas are the same. And I would say that our small fishing fleet is as worthy of protection as any others, but can be easily overlooked in wider discussions about a larger industry and the power for communities like in like Newhaven to control their own future.

And I want that to be with a thriving fishing industry at its heart. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I come to the front bench contributions, I would just like to extend a warm welcome to the chamber this afternoon to the chamber this afternoon to the Minister for education for Ontario, who has been listening to members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contributions. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Sarah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Member for Orkney and Shetland, on securing this important debate and for his powerful speech. And I and for his powerful speech. And I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for today's debate. The UK's fishing industry is central to our national economy, contributing over £1.4 billion annually and supporting more than 11,000 fishers. However, despite the sector's economic value, the industry post-Brexit is continuing to face numerous
14:20
Sarah Dyke Portrait Sarah Dyke MP (Glastonbury and Somerton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
challenges, insufficient government support and has been left to fight an uphill battle against environmental neglect and regulatory stagnation. The previous government's ill conceived Brexit government's ill conceived Brexit deal has impacted negatively on the UK fishing industry and created deep uncertainty regarding its future. Our fishing communities feel unrepresented and anxious feel unrepresented and anxious about the industry's future economic viability. Within the terms of the Uk-eu Trade and Cooperation Agreement, post-Brexit, UK fishing became subject to a number of regulations.

Given this, it's unbelievable that the current government's Ministers, in effect, have agreed to continue with the conservative plan for fishing, subjecting the industry to another 12 years of neglect through the agreement. At last May's UK EU reset summit, as EU boats will now have access to our waters until 2038. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrats hope that the summit would provide the opportunity for a reset which would benefit our fishing industry. However, they just got more of the same.

We believe that had the government been more ambitious and sought to secure a new customs union, better benefits for our fishing industry would have been secured. Whilst it is positive a comprehensive agreement has been secured both across both trade and defence. The government must now work with our fishing industry to understand the impact this extension will have on them. Greater cooperation is necessary given the raft of regulatory changes to the EU applies to all vessels, but fishers don't feel supported by the government or by the Marine Management Organisation.

That gave industry just five days notice of changes. While poor communication regarding new gear marking and catch reporting has only furthered confusion and uncertainty in the industry. Madam Deputy Speaker, the sewage scandal that has blighted our waters for far too long urgently needs addressing now. Glastonbury and Somerton, although landlocked, is home to diverse watercourses including the rivers Brue and Parrot, which offer excellent fishing for local anglers. Upstream towards Broughton, the River Brue supports local trout fishing, while further downstream around Glastonbury and towards Highbridge, the River Parrett is dominated by coarse fishing such as roach, chub, perch and pike.

Both rivers are valued ecological areas for our local communities and our region's biodiversity. However, these watercourses have not been left untouched by pollution, with the River Parrett in Langport having experienced 54 separate sewage spills in 2023, amounting to 455 53 hours of pollution. And devastatingly, in 2025 alone, all the watercourses in my constituency were subjected to over 45,000 hours of pollution and across the wider.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Lady will know the debate is on the fishing industry, not on sewage pollution of rivers not on sewage pollution of rivers per se. Perhaps you'd like to return to fishing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but while the impact on coastal communities is even more coastal communities is even more secure and economically damaging, the chamber will know that fishing waters in Cornwall, including in my hon. Friends, the constituency of St Ives, have been greatly affected by pollution, with many forced to close after high levels of e-coli were found sourced locally in locally sourced oysters and mussels for local shellfish growers. The actions of unresponsive and irresponsible water companies has destroyed consumer confidence in locally sourced fish, decimating demand and threatening the viability of local producers across many coastal regions.

And despite our coastal communities desperate pleas, the government's inaction by both the previous conservative and now within the current Labour government has resulted in pollution incidents having shockingly increased by 27% last year. Liberal Democrats have been very clear that tougher regulations to prevent raw sewage spillages into waterways must be delivered. But the government's white paper, published on Tuesday, whilst containing some welcome measures, doesn't go far enough.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not going to make the point again. This is a debate on the fishing industry. The hon. Lady has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fishing industry. The hon. Lady has made her point about pollution. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may return briefly to Somerset. if I may return briefly to Somerset. And this is relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker, the European eel was once Speaker, the European eel was once part a key part of the country's identity and so abundant it was identity and so abundant it was even served as the local currency, and it was the most economically significant part of Somerset's fishing sector.

The presence of this keystone species is said to be the leading indicator for the health of our wetlands, river and natural habitats. But unsurprisingly, the European eel is currently deemed to be critically endangered species, with a 90% drop in its population since the 1980s owing to habitat loss and migration barriers. Somerset ERA Recovery Project, founded by Vanessa Baker Hughes, is leading community efforts to restore the county's local eel population through conservation and cultural efforts. But despite their best efforts, their work is not bringing the significant changes that they would like, because removing barriers and installing the passes is essential for this species survival because its survival is dependent on migration.

By balancing conservation efforts with sustainable fishing, we can secure the stability of the sector into the future, and more of us can enjoy the culinary delicacy that is ale. Madam Deputy Speaker, across the wider South West, we are seeing a stark decline in fish species along our coastal areas within. My hon. Friend for South Devon's constituency, the octopus bloom of last year has led to an 80% decline in the crab catch, so significant that it is forcing local fishers to consider early retirement or career changes due to their inability to make ends meet.

Fishers within south Devon and across the South West need greater support from the government to stay in business while they learn to adapt these concerning ecological changes and require flexibility on catch licences in in order to remain in business. And last May, the Liberal Democrats welcomed the government's announcement of a £360 million Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund after the industry had been let down consistently by nearly a decade of successive conservative governments. The current government must not follow the example of the Conservatives for a lasting impact to be realised through greater investment, our coastal towns must be given a voice in how this money is spent.

This vital funding should not be spent on generic community assets like benches and public facilities in coastal towns, but instead appropriately targeted to empower our fishing communities, providing them with greater powers and resources to invest in coastal infrastructure and services through delivering a comprehensive plan for spreading economic opportunity, the Liberal Democrats would ensure the fund supports initiatives to enhance awareness of the career opportunities within this sector and strengthen skills to retain workers, but, crucially, to attract younger workers to support future growth.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is clear that our fishing and coastal communities cannot afford another decade of neglect. The previous conservative government left our fishers in the lurch and hung out to dry. While the current government have failed to grasp the opportunity to secure a genuine reset that would provide both stability and opportunity, but instead they have chosen to continue along a botched Brexit deal for the industry until 2038. Madam Deputy Speaker, our fishing industry deserves better.
14:29
Neil Hudson Portrait Dr Neil Hudson MP (Epping Forest, Conservative)
-
-
Shallow Minister Doctor Neil Hudson. Hudson. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I first of all congratulate my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend, the chair of the EFRA Select Committee, who I have a huge amount of respect for, with for his expertise and dedication in these and other important areas for securing this vitally important debate. And we've heard many contributions from across the House today. The chair of the committee spoke passionately about issues such as spatial squeeze, and also talked about the the imbalance in the situation with Norway as well.

The Member for South East Cornwall talked about how dangerous a profession this is and the importance of people in this sector, and very much in terms of the importance of data and science. The hon. Member for St Ives talked about the importance of bringing in the next generation into this profession as well. The Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes talked about the importance of fish for our food security. Again, talked about spatial squeeze and very much talked about the importance of fish being an important part of a balanced, healthy diet for the UK population.

The hon. Member for my hon. Friend for Dumfries and Galloway talked about some of the key logjams of logistics, bureaucracy and red tape facing the sector and talked about a pragmatic approach to workforce issues. The hon. Member for the Western Isles talked about some of the debates about the designation of marine protection areas conservation, and again struck out chords on workforce issues. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East the importance of the industry to his rural and coastal communities, and again highlighting workforce issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and the Wolds again talked about spatial squeeze, the importance of the next generation and flaws in the recent EU negotiations. I fear he was starting a bit of a lobster war with his hon. Friend for Dumfries and Galloway, and I would just remind him that they are indeed sentient creatures. The honourable my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford, a passionate advocate, as ever, for his industries and communities in Northern Ireland, and again talked about some of the key issues about workforce issues and food security.

And finally, the hon. Member for Lewes talked about the importance of the fishing heritage in his community and the importance to his local economy. Now, fishing has always been Madam Deputy Speaker vital to the United Kingdom, the lifeblood of communities up and down this country, across all four nations of our UK. I want to pay tribute to the brave and hard working fishermen and women, the processors, the transporters, the traders and everyone else who does so much to harvest and deliver this precious food source so vital to our food security and local economies up and down the land.

And I want to thank representative bodies like the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation for all they do to champion and advocate for these vital industries. His Majesty's Official Opposition are committed to standing up for and supporting our coastal communities and our fishing industries as an independent, sovereign coastal nation, our fishing rights are a fundamental asset and we cannot weaken them. And they are crucial for maintaining our food security and indeed our economy. The previous conservative government made progress in making us an independent, sovereign coastal state, including our work to secure the EU, UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement for fisheries in 2021, which we used as a catalyst to secure £970 million in fishing opportunities by 2024, and uplifted quota at a value of £146 million, including significant gains for the pelagic sector.

The current government had to renegotiate on quota and access under the terms of that agreement. Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, the fruits of the government's negotiation with the EU were somewhat spoilt. It was quite simply a sell out that, frankly, throws our fishing industry under the bus for the sake of closer ties to the EU. That industry representatives have described the deal in no uncertain terms as a horror show and giving away the best Cod we still had. Now we conservatives are fundamentally clear that we stand with all our hardworking fishermen and women who will be significantly impacted and have their fishing capabilities restricted because of this retrograde deal.

Now, back in March, when it was first being seriously suggested in the public discourse that fishing rights may be bargained away for access to the EU Defence fund, I asked the then fisheries Minister in no uncertain terms, to confirm that the government would not capitulate on our fishing rights. The Minister responded to me that they were determined to get the best possible outcome for our sector, and unfortunately, the government caved in to pressure for seeking closer ties with the EU at any cost.

And worse still, we learned, despite caving in, the EU have still refused the government that closer ties on defence, while nations as far afield as the Faroe Islands have the option of being able to negotiate with the EU yearly and improve their lot when it comes both to quotas and access. The government's deal means that our fishing industry is locked into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

current arrangements. For 12 years. The Minister. Give way. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. I thank the Shadow Minister for giving way. He's speaking about the European Union. I've also heard European Union. I've also heard just today about requests from the European Union regarding the size of fishing nets, which apparently the British government have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the British government have accepted without question. Is he aware of that? Neil Hudson. I thank the hon. Member for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. And yes, some of these requests, we basically have to take a very logical view across the United Kingdom, and the UK government has to be strong in their deliberations when requests like this come in, because we've got to make sure that our waters are protected. Now, the Leader of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Opposition explicitly set no one. Of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Five tests for this government's agreement with the EU. The government have not come even close to meeting this test. His Majesty's Opposition note that two in most its most recent discussions, for the first time, technical the first time, technical management rules were brought into the frame of negotiations, which are a clear sign of the increasing are a clear sign of the increasing influence the EU is starting to have as a result of these changes, something that the hon. Members intimating that there whilst we all of course welcome any funding to support the fishing sector and improve the welfare of coastal communities, the Government's Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund really was just a sort of sticking plaster exercise.

Yes, a significant amount of money, but it was really to try and cover up their errors in their fishing policy so far. Now the Minister across the Dispatch Box will remember, I asked her when that fund was announced, to confirm any practical details of how this fund would be delivered, how it would support fishermen and women and the coastal communities. And importantly, if the government can confirm whether the funding would be front loaded, the only way that the government can begin to repair some of the harm that they've started to cause since taking office.

Now we absolutely support any funding provided to fishing and coastal communities, as I've said, and when we were in government, we in fact brought in the £100 million UK Seafood Fund to support the future and sustainability of UK fisheries and the seafood sector. Allocating funds for science, research, infrastructure, skills and training across the house, across the sector and we've heard across the house today the importance of data and research and science. And that's we need to collect that and we need to fund that from the autumn Budget documents.

We also know that the government have planned to spend £25 million of that fund for the financial year, 2627. Now, this is a small part compared to the £360 million in the fund. They must provide this funding as soon as possible and in a way that makes an actual difference to fishermen and women and to coastal communities. Now, talking of the Budget, like much of the country, people in in fishing and coastal communities will have been anxious about the autumn Budget and its changes.

We in the opposition are concerned about the impact of the tourist tax on coastal communities that rely on tourism serving a double blow. On top of the difficulties the fishing industries and coastal communities have already faced because of the government's increase in National Insurance employer's contributions, leaving employers having to make very difficult choices as to such as refusing to hire new staff, freezing pay or worst of all, letting people go. And this is really hitting the fishing industries to ensure high ecological and environmental standards in fishing from all fishing countries, including the UK, which is paramount for sustaining our precious seas and oceans and ensuring responsible global trade.

A scientific, evidence based approach is non-negotiable, but there has to be a precious balance struck whilst ensuring ecological and environmental standards. We must ensure, two that we ensure the ability of the fishing industries to survive and then indeed thrive. We must be clear that when we are talking about marine welfare, improving marine welfare from some negative practices, fishermen and women in the UK are very much trying to act in the best interests of the ecosystem on which they depend.

And we've heard from across the House that the experts on nurturing and protecting that precious resource are the people who fish that resource. Likewise, an evidence based approach must be at the centre of the solution tackling spatial squeeze, which we've heard a lot about today. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is vital that while we enhance our abilities to deliver clean energy, offshore wind must be delivered in the right way and in the right place. Looking at all the evidence, including on how many offshore wind impacts, how how the offshore wind impacts the fishing industry, and indeed the ecosystems and marine life.

The Marine Recovery Funds regulations that came into force in December last year, while compensating for environmental damage caused from offshore wind, fails to compensate fishermen and women for any harm to their livelihoods done by offshore wind projects. This is just another missed opportunity from this government to protect the industry that is unfortunately embedded in its approach at present. Now, Seafish is recent report into the issue of employment in the fishing industry for 2024 showed an increasingly ageing demographic in the sector, and difficulties for many to access the skilled labour that fishing demands.

And we've heard that pretty much from every speaker today, the importance of workforce and moving forward without new fishermen and women, the industry will not have a future. Will the Minister please confirm today what they are doing to tackle this existential threat to the industry? Part of solving this problem must, of course, look at the actual practice of fishing itself, which is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry. Financial instability, the tough conditions and the physical stress can have a significant impact on one's mental health.

And I must here commend, Madam Deputy Speaker the work of several charities, such as the bearded fishermen Charity, Fishermen's Mission, Fish Well, the Angling Trust for for working with fishermen and women to support their mental health. It would be welcome if the Minister could perhaps address the House with what measures the government are taking to make fishing safer and to help improve the physical and mental health of our fishing men and women. Madam Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, fishing is vital for our local communities, our economy and our food security, which is very much national security.

This government had the room to make real progress on the good, albeit not perfect, legacy it was given, and unfortunately, it is adrift from the shore when it comes to truly grappling with the challenges facing the industry or has actively worsened the situation with its decisions such as this awful EU deal. The government must wake up, steer its ship in a new direction in this matter, or it will see the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

industry sink on their watch. Minister Dame Angela Eagle.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Dame Angela Eagle. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to respond to what I think has been to respond to what I think has been an extremely good debate across the House, obviously, with many members House, obviously, with many members reflecting the issues that they've discovered in their own constituencies and bringing them to constituencies and bringing them to the floor of this chamber as we expect them to do. So. I like to
14:42
Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Wallasey, Labour)
-
-
thank also the Member for Orkney and Shetland for his tireless commitment to championing the commitment to championing the fishing industry, but but also for persuading the backbench Business persuading the backbench Business Committee to have this debate on the floor of the House. And I know that my friend, the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, who worked very closely with the hon. worked very closely with the hon. Gentleman in his work on the fishing industry, as has also delighted to be here, ensuring that an important local industry in her constituency is properly represented and its interests are properly reflected on the floor of this House.

Now, fishing is an incredibly important industry to the vitality of many coastal communities. It's culturally and socially important. It's a way of life passed down from generation to generation, and it's evident in the town's very built environment. From the jetties and marinas to town fronts where the boats moored, the fish huts that dot many a local promenade, not least the one where I was born and grew up as the hon. Member for Bridlington and the Wolds, was so generous to a point out in in his contribution.

The key to achieving. Collaboration, which we need to ensure the future of our fishing industry is is working with those who know the industry best to deliver opportunities for the future. We also have to remember that fishers contend with tough working conditions, a point that has been raised by many honourable and right hon. Members on all sides of this debate. It's a difficult and dangerous life, but one that is often undertaken with passion and commitment. I want to pay tribute to all those who've been injured or have tragically lost their lives at sea, providing us with world class fish and seafood which the UK is rightly revered for.

I want to pay tribute to the RNLI, who often go out in very dangerous conditions to rescue and save lives. People at sea and I want to commend the ongoing efforts of the fishing industry to improve safety efforts, which I believe must continue as a priority. At the moment, fishing industry is operating in a very challenging environment, as we've heard again from all sides there are promising areas in the industry, the communities which we also wish to enable the industry to grasp.

It's the case, though, that sectors within the fleet are struggling. There's the increasing competition for marine space. Again, our marine spatial prioritisation programme helps mitigate this, and I thank industry leaders for the data that they've shared and contributed to, which is hugely improved. The programme's insights into this key challenge. Pressure on stocks also means that we must carefully manage fisheries, including in some cases by significant reductions in total allowable catch and changes to other measures. The sector contends with barriers to exports and Labour's work to develop new markets and ease administrative burden of trading in what is obviously a highly perishable foodstuff is complex and it will take time, but that work has begun.

Meanwhile, it can be hard again, as we've heard, particularly with the hon. Member for Strangford, the other hon. Members, that it can be hard to recruit staff and entry into the industry requires significant investment. So in this context, the ability to change and adapt is very important. And fishing has a good record in doing this. Fishing businesses have to mitigate the impacts on stocks that are under pressure and adapt to changing distributions of fish because of climate change, respond to changing consumer demands, adopt new technologies and develop new skills.

It's a task which this government will continue to support the industry to navigate. We're supporting and encouraging the industry to organise and collaborate, to plan confidently and to invest for the long term. And I will continue to work with industry experts, big and small, who know the sector best to build a thriving and sustainable fishing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

industry. I'm happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman Jim Shannon. Thank you Minister, for for for her response, sir. I also asked if it's possible and if you would agree to having a meeting with the representative from Northern representative from Northern Ireland. I feel, and they feel, that it would be advantageous for us all to find a better way forward for the sector. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the sector. Thank you. I am I I'm a very generous person and I'm more than happy to person and I'm more than happy to meet with the hon. Gentleman's representative bodies, so long as he understands that fishing in this whole area is devolved. But I understand that there are some issues which are dealt with nationally, albeit not by my department. They were my previous department, but not this department. And I'm obviously talking about the visa issue, which been raised by several members and hon.

Members on all sides of the House. I, I don't want to give away internal government issues, but I do have a meeting in the diary with the relevant Minister for the Home Office coming up, where I will discuss some of these issues. But I can't promise what the outcome of it will be. I can promise that the industry's issues will be properly represented. I know this applies also to aquaculture as well as fishing industry itself and processing. So any information that Honourable and right hon.

Members wish to give me very quickly ahead of that meeting, I'm more than happy to take into account before I go to it, but absolutely understand, having met some members of the industry around the country, I understand what the pressures are. I have met many representatives of fishing industry since assuming the role in September, and I had a hugely informed, informative visit to Newlyn in December. I've been invited to Bridlington, I've been invited to Shetland, I've been invited, I think, to new, new New Haven as well, so I can see that there's an entire tour coming on.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I may not be present in the House for a long time because I'll be jumping around the coast having a look at what's going on in both big and small sectors of the industry. I have to say that the industry is very complex, and it's impossible to simply make generalised comments about it. What is important for an inshore small boat is going to be very different to a deep sea trawler, which spends many months out at sea.

So I understand the differences. On that note, having plotted my escape from this place for a few nice visits, I know the importance of seeing and understanding for myself the diversity of the industry which sits at the heart of our national identity as an island nation. I'd like to thank the invaluable contribution of my fellow coastal MPs on all sides of the House in bringing the views of their coastal communities and fishing communities onto the floor of the house, and I appreciate that that is being done, I am listening.

I may not be able to. Madam Deputy Speaker, please everybody. I know I won't, but I will do my best, at least to understand the issues that are being faced now. This includes the development of the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, which has been welcomed in some places and condemned in others. But I just want to say we've been working with the industry to understand the priorities of fishing and coastal communities and ensure that those help shape the fund so that it can drive growth for the future.

Several themes are emerging from the initial engagement, including the importance of developing the industry's workforce for the future, something that has featured very much in the discussions that we've that I've been listening to on the floor of this house, including port side improvements, ensuring funding goes to all parts of the industry, including small scale fishers, as well as perhaps larger parts of the industry. Also, I have to say the issues with education, entry to the industry and ongoing training have also come up.

Now, the hon. Member, my hon. Friend, the Member for South East Cornwall, didn't miss a chance to to mention the the Cornish suggestion which I've heard and listened to down in Newlyn when I went to visit them about a ring fenced fund. I have to say that I am very interested in trying to use the fund to ensure that money is made available to those who know their areas best, so that it can be put to best use, because that does not always happen with government funding.

I don't want it just to go to people who are very good at making bids for funds. I want it to go, if possible, to the places where it will do the most good. And so I am in the market for listening to suggestions about how that can be properly brought about. We, after all, do have 12 years to try to make a difference, and I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this fund will very much be able to do that. I'm happy to give way. To the Minister for giving way,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Minister for giving way, and also very grateful to her for coming to Newlyn in my constituency and to listening to the industry and to listening to the industry that they're on the proposal coming from the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation for a fund of £10 Organisation for a fund of £10 million. The purpose of that is to ensure that it works with the ensure that it works with the government to agree a strategy to, to to develop the industry over the next decade, including recruitment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of of new young fishermen. And discussions with the Cornish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And discussions with the Cornish Fish Producers Association and and also the Association of Young Fishermen on the quay down there. I Fishermen on the quay down there. I miss the hon. Gentleman at 5 a.m. but perhaps another time when I've but perhaps another time when I've when I've gone down there, but I do. I do know that it's important that this bid has been well thought through in principle, and I'm impressed with it. However, we have to wait until the fund is properly launched.

I can't say what anything other than how impressed I was with it at this stage, but decisions about that will be done in due course and be announced in due course. After the consultation that we're doing with the industry at the moment is over, and I'm sure that other devolved governments will be doing similar things with their parts of the fund. Now, we have in our, in our. Headlines and negotiations on, on the on the fishing opportunities for 2026, being able to negotiate around 640,000 tonnes of UK fishing opportunities worth roughly £1.06 billion.

Based on historical landing sites, which include landing prices, which includes 610 tonnes worth roughly £960 million, secured through negotiations with the EU, Norway and other coastal states. We've secured these deals against a very difficult backdrop of challenging advice for a variety of stocks, including northern shelf cod, against a legacy of, I think, 14 years of mismanagement, broken promises and neglected coastal communities. Our approach to negotiations is based on rebuilding trust with fishing communities, securing decent jobs today, and restoring fish stocks so that our seas can support jobs and coastal communities for generations to come.

We've worked closely with the sector to discuss the science and approach to the party opposite refused to take, preferring to negotiate headlines rather than outcomes, to understand their perspectives and requirements and help them prepare for the impact of quota decisions. We've achieved a number of resulting wins in this year's negotiations, which include more opportunities for our sea bass fishery, a commercially viable total allowable catch for Irish Sea herring, valuable place and quota transfers and flexes in the channel and the Celtic Sea.

Total allowable allowable catches agreed with the EU and Norway, which enabled the continuation of the mixed demersal fishery in the North Sea, avoiding the cliff edges and uncertainty that characterised negotiations year after year. We have agreed a new management model for North Sea herring, which will help ensure the long term sustainability of the stock. We've increased opportunities for our commercial pollock fishery following two years of not being able to target the stock, and we have achieved a significant increase in UK bluefin tuna quota from 63 tonnes to 231 tonnes.

Now, looking forward, we need to continue to focus on working closely with the industry to improve the scientific understanding of fish stocks and consider further improvements to management measures that protect fish stocks, support good jobs and strong coastal communities for the long term. Now, the the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me about Norwegian access at the end of his initial speech. In this debate. The UK Norway bilateral arrangements, we believe, are fair and balanced, but I appreciate that some individual UK stakeholders may favour changes to the current arrangements, and this is something we take into account each year in the negotiations and keep under review.

So it's important to look at these deals in the round. What is given is also it's also swapped with some of the quota swaps that happen. But and therefore there are trade offs. But if the hon. Gentleman and particularly the the industry in his constituency feel that something is going wrong or too much has been given away, he must let me know so that we can ensure that this quota swap is working as we intended. We're currently working at pace towards a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, which we're aiming to have legislation in place by the end of 2027.

The new agreement will slash red tape for UK seafood food exporters and reopen the market for for GB shellfish from certain domestic waters, which will make it easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner and strengthen the economies of our coastal communities. We are supporting offshore wind development as a key part of achieving the government's mission of making Britain a clean energy superpower. The transition to clean power must be fair, planned and done with, not to our coastal communities.

As part of addressing this for the first time, the government gave a strategic steer to the Crown Estate on key risks and issues associated with areas for potential future offshore wind development in the English sea. This steer, provided through the Marine Spatial Prioritisation Programme, is helping to guide the Crown Estate in identifying suitable areas for future offshore wind, which avoid government priorities such as the fishing industry and environmentally sensitive areas. I hope to work closely and continue to work closely with the fishing industry to ensure that we ensure that their voice is heard in the way in which these things are done.

I'm conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I just I just want to finish the my contribution today by saying that bringing about change is something that's equally incumbent on the fishing industry. As the government, we want to make sure we work together to bring about positive change. We know that fishing faces many challenges, but through close collaboration, openness to innovation and a government willing to take responsibility rather than make excuses, there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fishing, and I certainly am. Michael to wind up. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not know if the Education Minister from Ontario that you welcomed is still here, but that is unfortunate. Many of my family immigrated to that province in the early 19th century, so it's nice to see some of them coming back now. Can I please record the appreciation? I think of us all for the engagement in the run up to the engagement in the run up to today, but also throughout the year of the various fishing organisations, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, for me, the Shetland Fishermen's Association, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.

I think it's worth placing on record that Mike Cohen and Felix Davis have been in the gallery throughout our debate. If that's not an illustration of their determination and commitment, then I do not know what is. We have had, I reckon, 13 backbench contributions, as well as the three frontbench, the usual
15:00
Alistair Carmichael Portrait Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP (Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
range of issues tax quotas, spatial squeeze. We managed to diversify squeeze. We managed to diversify into how to kill lobsters in the reintroduction of eels. The hon. Member from Strangford took us back Member from Strangford took us back to the beginning of time. I thought that it was a happy contrast between his speech and so many that we have sat through over the years we have sat through over the years that did not take us back to the dawn of time, but did just make it dawn of time, but did just make it feel like we had done that.

The Minister gave an impressive list of the asks that she has been getting, and that's going to be daunting to pick winners here. Can I encourage her, though, to see that as a positive? Because it shows that there are people in this industry who want to develop, who want to see it grow, because this is a great industry that can have a great future. If we just give them a few of the basic tools to get on and do that. So thank you for allowing us to ventilate the issues here today, and I'm sure that this is an issue that we will be returning to in the future.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many are as of that Paper, as many are as of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it, the ayes I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. There doesn't appear to be any need for the front benches to swap over. So we now come to the backbench debate on the impact of import standards on the import standards on the agricultural sector.

I call Sam Carling, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
15:01
Sam Carling Portrait Backbench Business: General Debate on the impact of import standards on the agricultural sector Sam Carling MP (North West Cambridgeshire, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move that this House has considered the impact of import standards on the impact of import standards on the agricultural sector. I'm delighted to have secured today's debate. I'm very grateful to all of the colleagues who signed my colleagues who signed my application, and indeed to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time, and I'm happy to take interventions on my speech take interventions on my speech this morning, this afternoon. This debate is about the imbalance between our high domestic farming standards, which prioritise animal welfare and the environment, rightly so, and our imports, which often fall short.

The government's animal Welfare strategy, published just before Christmas, shows our ambition to protect animals, all animals, from needless cruelty and suffering. It's the biggest and most ambitious animal welfare programme in a generation. It includes measures to phase out the use of cages in farming, move away from using carbon dioxide to gas pigs and introduce standards for the humane killing of fish. That is real progress and reflects overwhelming public support for safeguarding animal welfare. But when we improve domestic animal welfare standards, we have to be careful that we aren't just exporting cruelty overseas.

British and Northern Irish farmers want to see animals treated well and have good lives. But as things stand, UK farmers are undermined by low welfare imports. Many countries which we import animal products from don't share our standards, and so those products are cheaper to produce and sell. It means our farmers find themselves in an impossible situation, often unable to compete. So stalls, for example, are banned in the UK. But 95% of pork imports come from countries where they remain legal. British shoppers buying bacon have no way of knowing whether the pig that produced it spent its pregnancy in a cage so narrow it couldn't turn around.

It's the same for hens. Battery cages are already banned here, and it's brilliant that we are committed to phasing out cages altogether. The government should be congratulated on that. But long term, as a next step, we need to think about imports to. The animal welfare strategy states that we will protect our sensitive sectors and uphold animal welfare standards. Where we consider overseas produce has an unfair advantage. So the government recognises the issue. Now is the time to put it into practice.

Brexit has resulted in a massive increase in non-EU imports over the last few years. Whilst most EU imports have similar standards to the UK, this often isn't the case in non-EU countries. 95% of countries with access to our markets have lower welfare standards than we do in just four years, from 2023 to 2024, non-EU beef imports increased by 31%. Poultry went up by 60%. For pork, it was 81%, and for eggs it was a staggering 228%. New trade deals for the UK are welcome, but we need them to uphold our high standards both on animal welfare and pesticides.

When crops, the price of a good deal cannot be accessed to the UK food market on more favourable terms than our domestic farmers, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman Amanda.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, can I commend the hon. Gentleman for North West Cambridgeshire bringing this forward? He's absolutely right to underline these issues. But does the hon. Member not agree that the recent and this most recent one, recent and this most recent one, the EU Mercosur deal, opens the EU market to increased imports of agricultural products such as beef, agricultural products such as beef, poultry, sugar and ethanol under tariff rate quotas, which may well sacrifice the quality for cash. And sacrifice the quality for cash.

And this will have an unwanted knock on this will have an unwanted knock on effect to our which hon. Gentleman very clearly trying to save and look after. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When he makes his point. Well, and I'm going to touch on EU regulations later on in my speech on this. So far our Labour on this. So far our Labour government has a stellar record in negotiations with India. We refuse to lower protection on goods like to lower protection on goods like pork, chicken and eggs. In talks with Korea, we've secured new commitments on animal welfare stronger than anything they have stronger than anything they have ever signed up to in any previous trade agreement.

The next step is to equalise all our import to equalise all our import standards rather than just new agreements, and we can't go back to full alignment with the EU either. The EU still allows south stalls, foie gras and fur farming, all of which fall short of our standards. Switzerland successfully negotiated an animal welfare carve out in its SPS agreement with the EU. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the government is seeking similar exemptions for animal welfare in the UK EU negotiations.

This would ensure we retain the ability to restrict imports that don't meet British welfare standards. Let me now address any arguments about the impact on food prices these changes could have over the past few years. Of course, food inflation has hit households across the country and we all want prices to be more affordable. But I think we can all agree that this shouldn't come at the expense of high standards. In the long run, undercutting our farmers is going to make our food security worse, leaving us more dependent on less reliable markets overseas.

As this government has repeatedly said, food security is national security. That means

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defending our farmers from a flood of low quality imports. The hon. Gentleman give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. hon. Gentleman mentions food

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Gentleman mentions food imports and illegal imports. Next month will be the 25th anniversary of the devastating foot and mouth of the devastating foot and mouth outbreak, and nowhere knows better than my Carlisle Northumbria constituency. Just what happens constituency. Just what happens when foot and mouth takes hold. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that illegal meat imports heighten the risk of animal diseases such as foot and mouth? And as you agree that we do need a coordinated strategy that involves government, local authorities and local port authorities to ensure that we're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

countering those biosecurity risks. Highlighting the biosecurity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Highlighting the biosecurity aspect of this, my farmers two have been significantly impacted by foot and mouth disease in the past, and I know how important an issue that I know how important an issue that is. And she put her point on the record. I was talking about the potential arguments around food prices. Research from Animal Policy International shows that were we to act on this issue, the cost to consumers would actually be very small. Banning battery cage egg imports, for example, would cost just 2 to £0.04 per person per year.

And since all major supermarkets have already committed to phasing out caged eggs, most consumers would feel zero impact. With battery cage imports going to independent retailers and food service. As it stands, the boosted domestic farmers, by contrast, would be huge. UK egg farmers could gain up to £15 million annually in Ipswich. Goods imports were banned alongside price stabilisation, by removing imports that undercut UK eggs by up to £0.20 per dozen. That doesn't cost the exchequer. It

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be quite a significant benefit to the Exchequer. I will give way. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. You, Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I was at Nobel Foods just last week as part of the NFU fellowship programme, and they were explaining actually not just about the lower standard of welfare. Actually, one of the things that we need to make sure with, particularly with eggs, sure with, particularly with eggs, is that they're safe. You're too young to remember. But I remember the salmonella outbreak when I was a teenager. And I think one of the things we have to be clear is about food safety and making sure food safety is as important on our imported goods as our home grown produce.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I couldn't agree more with my hon. Friend. I remember doing that scheme myself last year. I thought it was incredibly valuable. I it was incredibly valuable. I encourage other colleagues in the room to do it in the future. The NFU are doing a brilliant job with it. Polls show that consumers don't it. Polls show that consumers don't want these low welfare imports either. 9 in 10 people support banning them. That's unsurprising. banning them. That's unsurprising. We are a nation of animal lovers, after all, but that level of cross societal support on an issue is really rare and should be really rare and should be celebrated.

81% of my constituency North West Cambridgeshire is made up of agricultural land. It means I spend a lot of time talking to farmers about what they need to thrive, and this issue comes up all the time, and members don't have to take my word on that. They can take the words of Lloyd and Matt, two farmers I know from Lords and farm at Ramsey in my constituency. Here's what they have to say. We grow high quality produce to high standards, sometimes for little and often no profit, to see imported produce coming into our country that doesn't meet the same standards that we have to achieve seems wrong.

We want a level playing field and to feel that we are valued. So much effort, time, passion and pride goes into everything we grow on the farm. We not only grow quality produce, but also do this while improving habitats for wildlife and reducing our environmental impact. Farmers do so much more than just produce the food we eat. We are an integral part of the communities we are proud to call home. We need to back British farming. And who could disagree with Lloyd and Matt on that? It's certainly not easy to be a farmer.

Long, difficult work is set against razor thin profit margins, unpredictable weather variability made worse by climate change, and distinct unfairness in the supply chain as it stands. So what's the ask here? If we're doing so well as a government on new trade deals, what am I advocating to be changed? Well, it's about legislative change to tackle the flaws in the previous trade deals already damaging farmers like Lloyd and Matt. I'm glad that the government is backing farmers, allocating a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production over the course of this parliament.

But tackling the unfairness of low welfare imports is something that would make a real difference to farmers in my constituency and across the country. Indeed, just on Tuesday, the select committee took evidence on how important a fair approach on imports is to farm profitability. And it's not just a case of welfare standards. It's environmental too. Crops that have been treated with damaging pesticides are being sold here in the UK, despite those pesticides being banned here. That's not good news for the environment. Try to pronounce this correctly.

Imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid highly toxic to bees, was banned in the UK from 2018, yet has been found on potatoes, peas and grapes imported from several countries. As with lower welfare imports, the UK will face pressure to weaken our domestic pesticide standards to secure new trade deals. Pesticide Action Network have highlighted some potential pitfalls over the India trade deal, particularly as India allows the use of 62% more pesticides classed as highly hazardous than the UK. I'd be grateful if the Minister could confirm that is being kept under review.

We know what happens when we compromise our standards for trade. I'm afraid the Conservatives did it often. They're flawed. Australia agreement increased Sheepmeat exports by 162%, despite many Australian lambs being subject to live skin cuttings without anaesthetic in a painful process known as mulesing. Banned in the UK by the last Labour government. Our sheep farmers certainly didn't thank the party opposite for the impact that trade deal had and is still having on their livelihoods. And with the US reportedly demanding the UK adopt lower standards in trade talks, I'm glad that we have been clear in response that our standards are a red line and that we have committed to high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in any deal.

That is exactly the approach we need, but we must be consistent about it. Change has support across the board, notably from the NFU and animal welfare bodies like Animal Policy International, both of whom I want to thank for their ongoing work in this area. This has strong support across the political divide. There are massive majorities of conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters that support banning imports of animal products produced by farming methods banned in the UK. So what does change look like in practice? All campaigners and the public want is consistency to ensure that all agricultural products sold in the UK, whether domestic or imported, adhere to British welfare and quality standards.

If it is not good enough to be produced in Britain, it shouldn't be sold here either. Here, here and legally, there's precedent in several areas. Slaughter standards are consistent with certification required to ensure that imports are slaughtered to at least a standards equivalent. In the UK, shark fin imports and exports are completely banned. The Ivory Act 2018 bans the import of ivory products. We ban the import and sale of cat and dog fur. There are numerous precedents that can be applied here, and it makes sense to do it across the board.

World Trade Organisation case law says that the UK can apply its animal welfare standards to imports, and the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission has confirmed that the UK has free trade agreements do not prevent us from implementing stricter import regulations based on welfare standards. So can I ask the Minister if she will consider legislation to require improved animal imported animal products to meet British welfare standards, as we already do for slaughter standards, aligning import with our domestic standards is backed by farmers, backed by consumers, backed across the political spectrum and backed by rural environmental and animal welfare organisations.

We have strong legislative precedent, we have legal clarity. We know that the impact on prices would be negligible. We know that our economy would benefit. We would have confidence in the welfare of our animal products. We would have confidence in the quality of fruits and vegetables on shop shelves. These are big, tangible benefits. Taking action would do so much for Lloyd and Matt in my constituency, and the thousands of others like them across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This government has shown promising signs so far.

Let's build on that and take the next crucial step.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper Charlie Dewhirst.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think I'd like to start by sort of scene setter about why we import so much food and why we aren't self-sufficient, because we're never going to be self-sufficient in food, when certainly not in bananas or avocados, for example, and also in some of the meat sectors, we will not be self-sufficient. And while we do self-sufficient. And while we do produce very large quantities of lamb and beef in pork, for example, where only 58% self-sufficient, I think it's a little more in poultry, but pork, if we were 100% self-sufficient, we would have to export so much more to achieve a carcase balance and to achieve value for the farmer from the pig.

That actually would be quite a challenge. As a great nation of bacon butty lovers, we do eat a lot of bacon to the extent that we have to import a certain amount of bacon. Therefore, we are exporting other cuts of of a pig, such as belly pork to Europe and fifth quarter to China. And all of that adds value and achieves a better price for our hard working farmers. The other thing I think it's important to point out today, and to make sure that when we are talking about these matters, when we talk about SPS agreements, that doesn't cover some of the issues we've discussed around welfare.

They are separate. And some of the challenges we have with those agreements. And our trade negotiators are very much aware of this. It's obviously you start you can fall foul of World Trade Organisation rules if you tell another country what welfare standards you expect them to employ, and you can find yourself in difficulties over that. So we need to be conscious when doing any agreements with other countries, any trade agreements, that we would only allow market access where we are satisfied that those standards have been met.

Now, in terms of EU, UK import export relations and
15:16
Charlie Dewhirst Portrait Charlie Dewhirst MP (Bridlington and The Wolds, Conservative)
-
-
livestock and meat at the moment. Obviously we are of a relatively similar welfare standard at the similar welfare standard at the moment. I don't this is in no way a criticism of the member of North West Cambridgeshire. It's all quite West Cambridgeshire. It's all quite technical, but the stalls are not the same as farrowing crates and the cell stall, which I'll come to the cell stall, which I'll come to in in 1999, was a challenge because the EU didn't implement it the EU didn't implement it immediately caused us a lot of problems.

Farrowing crates are a topic of conversation at the moment. It's part of the animal welfare strategy the government has published, and it's something the industry has been working on very closely for a number of years now, because there are around 60,000 traditional farrowing crate in place in the UK to convert those to a sort of freedom varying system requires planning permission. It requires you to, you know, you can't just pull it out and replace it. It's going to be a huge challenge.

And I think one I hope the Minister is aware of, because the issue we had in 1999 with the ban was that there was not a sufficient transition period. And I hesitate that the Minister is is experienced enough. She was here at the time, yes, you were there and we lost 50% of the British pig industry. That didn't mean that we ate 50% less pork. It meant we just imported a load more from abroad. So whatever happens and whatever measures are taken through, whether it's on pigs or poultry or anything else, it's really, really important that what we don't do is reduce our domestic food production, lower our food security, reduce British jobs in farming and replace it with jobs abroad meat produced abroad, often to standards that we would not like.

And that's going to be a key issue, actually, as as the government takes forward its animal welfare strategy to ensure that we don't diverge or move too far ahead of European Union producers, because we are reliant on a huge amount of meat to come from the European Union. And if we put our farmers at greater cost in terms of production, then we are going to disadvantage them and naturally that will be displaced. So I think it is it is really, really important.

I think the discussion and the hon. Member's right to raise the US as well, the US does still have south stalls, which as we say, banned 27 years ago in this country. They do not have ambitious targets to reduce antibiotics like we have, and we've reduced the pig industry. They've reduced it by 69% since 2015. So making real progress without the intervention of government and a recognition that we do need to use fewer antibiotics. The issue with that is it adds cost.

It lowers your production levels because you're not able to use these outdated methods, particularly with the south stalls. And that puts us at a cost disadvantage with some of these trading partners. So when it comes to the US and I was closely involved with the negotiations on the Canada deal, my previous life before being elected to this place, and that was a similar challenge. They they have methods that we wouldn't accept and that in certain areas, in fact, in pig, specifically in the Australia deal, they were not included at all because we felt that their standards were not sufficiently high enough to import.

So I know that, you know, the Minister is definitely aware of this, and I think it's important that we all work together to ensure that we any moves we take on trade and food imports, we should always be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mindful, always mindful that we protect the great British farmer. Thank you Lee Pitcher. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. In Doncaster East in the Isle of Axholme, agriculture is both a key part of our local economy and of our identity. The Isle of Axholme alone consists of around 50,000 acres, characterised by a mix of intensive characterised by a mix of intensive agricultural land, including significant arable land and a historical, unique, unique system historical, unique, unique system of open field strip farming, particularly around parishes like Haxey and Epworth by one farmer in England.

I've been categorically assured that we have the best soil for growing the tastiest spuds in the world. So when it comes to neeps and tatties for Burns Night festivities over this weekend, you
15:20
Lee Pitcher Portrait Lee Pitcher MP (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, Labour)
-
-
know where to come and shop. Now. No one takes life up as a farmer because they wanted an easy time. because they wanted an easy time. Farming is hard. Farmers pour their heart and soul into their land. I know that from my wife's family. I know that from my wife's family. I see that from my window at home, up before the break of dawn and out after the owls have emerged. My farmers meet the rules. They pay for assurance, inspections and traceability. But when it comes traceability.

But when it comes time to sell their crops, their meat and their products, they find they are not on a level playing field. They are undercut by imports produced to lower standards at a lower cost. And that Madam Deputy Speaker is just not right. So over the last year or so, I've spent a significant amount of time understanding that out with my farmers in the constituency. I visited farms across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, attended round tables with local farmers, held surgery appointments, attended farmers shows, markets and fairs, and hosted several here in Westminster.

And I'm hoping to meet our Epworth and District Young Farmers Network soon. Are currently raising money for the Yorkshire Air Ambulance and the Lindsey Lodge Hospice, and attending the first ever Owl Country Show in the autumn. I've spent time listening directly, directly to their concerns being raised and I want to feed back clearly here today to the Minister in Parliament about what they are telling me and what we can do to support them. So I'm going to give you some examples that they have shared with me.

Madam Deputy Speaker. So let's take grain for a start. Grain merchants can import grain that is not red tractor assured and too often arrives without the paperwork you would expect for something going into our food chain. UK grain is grown to a higher standards than that matters, and that's also really, really matters. But it also costs more to produce. So when imports come in cheaper, it drives prices down below the production costs here that we have. And when UK Assured Grain is then bulked out with imported grain, it makes a mockery of the premium that our farmers have earned through the quality that they are producing our potatoes.

I've already mentioned them, but we can grow potatoes in this country, yet we see vast quantities imported from as far as Portugal simply to shave costs. And that's madness. When you factor in the distance, the carbon, and the message it sends to domestic producers who are doing the right thing day in, day out, the same story is being repeated in beef. When we bring imports produced to lower welfare standards and a scale that drives down unit costs, we are effectively punishing British farmers for maintaining high welfare and traceability.

And there are double standards and crop protection. Oilseed rape has become far harder to grow successfully here after key plant protection products were banned, leaving growers exposed to pests like cabbage, steam cabbage, stern flea beetles. Yet imported crops can be treated with products that our farmers are not allowed to use. That is not a level playing field and I'm going to keep repeating that as we go on. It is a tilted one. Finally, sugar. We have sugar beet growers close to processing plants in this country, sustaining jobs and local supply chains.

Yet sugar cane can be imported from countries where it's been treated with chemicals that have been banned here, but then are processed in the UK. And I'm, and I'm told, end up on our supermarket shelves with packaging covered in a Union flag that implies British provenance. So I'm calling on the government to do three things for our farming community today, and I would love the Minister to be able to respond to those if she can. We need stronger equivalence in our import standards.

If a product cannot be produced here under the rules, it should not be able to undercut our farmers on our shelves. We need robust enforcement and paperwork checks at the border, because standards on paper are meaningless without compliance in practice, and we need honest, clear labelling that protects British trademarks and gives consumers the information they need, not marketing that blurs the origin or standards of what they are buying. UK farmers are frequently inspected, licensed and held to higher welfare and environmental rules that delivers food that is safe, traceable and trusted.

The least we can do is ensure our trade and import regime rewards that efforts rather than undermining it. Let's help our farmers be able to plough their fields successfully in the future by levelling up the playing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

field for them right now. Thank you. Ann Davies madam. Did firstly, may I refer the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did firstly, may I refer the house to my register of interest? As most of you know, I'm a dairy As most of you know, I'm a dairy and sheep farmer from West Wales and I'm very much aware of the volatility of markets and the effect that this has on our sector.
15:25
Ann Davies Portrait Ann Davies MP (Caerfyrddin, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
effect that this has on our sector. Sheep and beef prices have been steady for the last year or two year or so, but dairy has absolutely crashed in the last, well since August September, down by between 9 and £0.12 a litre, which is around 25 to 30% of income, with inputs, of course, remaining exactly the same. That's unsustainable. And the welfare standards we adhere to when producing foods here is exemplary, and standards continue to rise. However, while setting even higher standards at home, we allow the import of products produced in countries with lower standards.

Animal welfare strategies like that announced for England last month, highlight the link between welfare standards and food security, with the public agreeing that imported food must be equal in standard to home produced food. But this has to be mirrored in trade agreements, which are being negotiated. Our farming community cannot be traded off, as has happened in the American deal. The farming community deserve no less than equality and standards, and my Caerfyrddin farmers certainly deserve no less than equality and standards.

Interestingly, the CLA acquired some figures through a Freedom of Information request to see how many local authorities and government departments procured UK and local food, and if these organisations had a policy actually to buy local food. Only one government department, the FCDO, had a policy and only one other government department, the Department of Health and Social Care, could say how much local food they procured. Of the 215 local authorities, only 26 were able to provide information on the amount of UK or local food they procured.

And this really isn't good enough if we only produce 60% of what we consume and if we can support locally produced food, then we will import less locally and Caerfyrddin Keir Mather County Council are working hard to ensure that we put locally produced food onto the public plate, and this work is being done on a council owned farm in partnership with social Farms and Gardens Foods and the Health board and others in order to give our children and elderly top quality vegetables.

And if we can do this in Carmarthenshire, then surely more councillors can support our local agricultural community in this way. Sustainably produced, fresh, nutritious, nutritionally dense food is what we all need and deserve. So to close, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are all aware that we import around 40% of the food that we consume, but none of this food is subject to minimal animal welfare or environmental protection standards. Import standards are almost entirely related to fruit to product safety and the threat to human health and the environment, rather than how they are produced.

Establishing animal welfare and environmental standards will ensure that the food we eat, whether it's produced here at home or abroad, meets high expectations of British consumers, with core standards implemented alongside balanced and commercially meaningful trade deals. International trade cannot only drive economic growth, but can help our farmers become sustainable,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resilient and supported businesses. John Josh Newbury. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I very much thank my hon. Friend, the Member for North West Cambridgeshire for securing this vital debate and for his very thoughtful speech. And I extend that actually to other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, too. who have spoken in this debate, too. It's an important opportunity for us to consider an issue that sits at the intersection of the food we at the intersection of the food we eat, trade, animal welfare, and the sustainability of our rural economy.

The UK's post-Brexit free trade agreements have rightly opened up new opportunities for British exporters, but they have also raised concerns about how imports are produced, particularly as we look to increase our level of ambition on welfare by cutting tariffs on agricultural products from partner countries. Those deals can unintentionally allow products to enter the UK that are produced to far lower animal welfare or environmental standards than those expected of our farmers, and these are minor issues. They go to the heart of how we support our brilliant domestic producers, and how we maintain public confidence in the food we eat, practices that are banned or tightly regulated in the UK, like conventional battery
15:30
Josh Newbury Portrait Josh Newbury MP (Cannock Chase, Labour)
-
-
cages for hens sale stalls, tail docking of pigs and certain pesticides remain permitted elsewhere, and those products inevitably end up on our supermarket shelves without clear protections. Imports produced in protections. Imports produced in this way risk undercutting our farmers, and they undermine the principle that high welfare principle that high welfare production should be the norm, not just for British producers. The Trade and Agriculture Commission, Trade and Agriculture Commission, which advises the government on trade deals, has highlighted these differences and warned that they have both ethical and economic consequences.

British farmers investing in high welfare sustainable production should not be left competing on an uneven playing field against imports produced by much more cheaply by cutting corners, and that applies to raw materials as well as finished products. On Tuesday, the environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that I sit on heard from the formidable Baroness Battersea about her profitability review, and she mentioned a comment made by Sir Liam Fox, who, when he was trade secretary, argued that post-Brexit the UK should shift to importing cheaply produced raw materials and then add value to them under the Union Flag.

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I agree with Baroness Battersea that we should reject that reductive view of the value of the excellent raw materials our British farmers produce. We should be proud of and protect them as well. Many organisations, including the NFU and the National Pig Association, have called for core standards for imported agri food products. These standards would ensure that all food sold in the UK, whether domestic or imported, meets the welfare, environmental and production standards expected by the British public.

It's entirely reasonable for consumers to expect that pork, beef, eggs or poultry, for example, produced abroad meet very similar or the same requirements as those produced here. But two other realities that we have to confront in this debate and which the APPG for UK Food Security, which I chair has discussed at length, are the cost of food and keeping our shelves stocked. As someone who represents a constituency with pockets of deep deprivation, including neighbourhoods in the 5% most deprived in the country, I'm concerned that a rapid move to equalise all import standards could have a knock on effect on affordability of food, which, as I'm sure hon.

Members right across the House will be aware, has been very high, particularly over the last five years. Equally, we don't want to see a repeat of the empty shelves that we all remember during the pandemic, which brought home the fragility of just in time food supply chains when unexpected disruption hits. But as the Member for North West Cambridgeshire said, though these issues are interlinked and the more we undermine our domestic supply, the more prices will go up and the more reliant we will become on overseas imports.

The government has recognised these varied concerns in the trade strategy published last June, it was clear that the government will uphold high animal welfare standards and will not lower food standards to accommodate imports. It explicitly acknowledges practices that are not allowed domestically, like Slough stores and battery cages, and commits to assessing whether those imports have an unfair advantage. I hope it will find that they do when necessary. Powers like quotas, exclusions and safeguards will be used to protect domestic sectors that are most at risk.

This approach is welcome. It strikes a balance between maintaining the benefits of free trade and ensuring that British farmers are not undermined. But as we've seen in previous trade deals, including in discussions with the United States, it's vital that these protections are clear, enforceable and applied consistently. Without them, we risk creating a market where the lowest welfare welfare products set the price, not the highest standards. Equally important is transparency for consumers. Recent polling by opinion for Humane World for animals shows that the British public often misunderstand what products labelled as, for example, welfare assured or carry the red tractor logo actually guarantee.

For example, 65% of people incorrectly believe that welfare Assured prohibits pigs and chickens from being kept in cages, and 67% believe it prohibits the use of CO2 for slaughter. If consumers discover that labelling doesn't match the reality they think it does. Nearly half would feel misled, angry or disappointed. So clearly mandatory labelling is vital. It will protect consumers, supports domestic producers and ensures that imported products adhere to the same high standards. Or at least we can see if they don't. Public support for stronger labelling measures is overwhelming, with 77% backing a new animal welfare labelling law and three quarters supporting stricter enforcement by trading standards and the Advertising Standards Authority to prevent misleading claims.

Now, I acknowledge that labelling right will require so many tricky balances, and there's only so much space on a packet as well. I don't downplay those issues, but by combining robust import standards with transparent labelling, the government can ensure that trade works for farmers, for animals and for consumers alike, reinforcing confidence in the British food

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system while maintaining fairness and ethical standards. And I'll give way. Member for giving way. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member for giving way. And I think he highlights a really important point about the challenges of potential welfare labelling and the fact that if our labelling and the fact that if our imports are not labelled in the same way in which they probably would not be because it wouldn't be would not be because it wouldn't be possible to do that, that could put British producers at a disadvantage in terms of what a consumer might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in terms of what a consumer might think and how something is being produced. So we just need to be conscious of that. I think. Josh Newbury.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and he is absolutely right. We need to be very careful right. We need to be very careful when we're considering this, how that will affect imported goods and that will affect imported goods and therefore consumer sees in the supermarket. My take is that if we supermarket. My take is that if we maybe educate consumers on what we are labelling in terms of our are labelling in terms of our standards, and therefore if those labels are absent, what the implications might be for imported products, we can better inform them and also protect our own domestic producers.

I think that's something that will inevitably have to go alongside any work on improved labelling for our products. Yes, briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I still agree with me that actually, if we can unify our import standards with our domestic standards, that problem disappears standards, that problem disappears in many ways because they'll be the same, and therefore we won't have the labelling that could undermine our farmers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our farmers. I would agree with him, but I would also point out that there will inevitably be some producers will inevitably be some producers who want to produce to higher standards than the minimum, particularly in this country. And I particularly in this country. And I think they should be fairly recognised for that and rewarded for that. So I think there will always be a need for a clear, transparent labelling system. Getting that right, as I said, will be tricky, but I think it's really important that farmers who are producing to higher standards get the fair recompense for that.

And I too, hope that the Minister might be able to update the House on where work on labelling has got to so that consumers can make informed choices for them and their families. But ultimately, this is about more than import export figures on a screen. It's about fairness for our farmers, transparency for consumers, and the sustainability of our whole food system. As this House debates the impact of import standards, I urge the government to continue its firm commitment to core standards and to ensure that free trade agreements work for farmers, consumers and British values alike.

Thank you. Thank you Adrian Ramsay.
15:37
Adrian Ramsay Portrait Adrian Ramsay MP (Waveney Valley, Green Party)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire for leading this important debate. The UK prides itself on having some of UK prides itself on having some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I have welcomed last month's animal welfare strategy, which promises to welfare strategy, which promises to go further still. I particularly welcome the planned ban on farrowing crates for sales and cages for hens. These are crucial, important steps forward in our animal protection in this country, and I've called on the government to set out clear timescales for their delivery and support for farmers during this transition.

The animal welfare strategy reflects years of campaigning by animal protection organisations and growing public demand for change, and marks a significant step forward with real commitments on animal welfare standards. But there are some glaring gaps to what is legal, what is illegal to produce here because it's too cruel, remains legal to import and sell. That is incoherent. It undermines public confidence and it leaves higher welfare. British farmers facing unfair competition. The principle should be straightforward if a practice is too cruel to produce in Britain, it should be too cruel to import into Britain.

Yet the reality tells a different story. 97% of our pork imports come from countries where sale stalls are still legal, despite the practice being illegal here for 25 years. Battery cages may be banned here, but they remain widespread elsewhere, and imports of eggs have increased more than 12 fold in the last year alone. Since the Australia trade deal was signed. Lamb imports have risen by over 160% despite cruel practices such as mulesing. Illegal here. Remaining common there. This is not a niche concern.

According to the RSPCA and the Compassion in World Farming, 95% of countries with UK market access have lower animal welfare standards than the UK. HMRC data shows non-EU imports of eggs have more than tripled since 2020. Poultry imports have risen by 60% and pork by over 80%. In trade discussions with the United States administration, Ministers focussed on food safety and sanitary standards, but this focus risks leaving a huge loophole for imports produced in ways that would be illegal here.

Widening the welfare gap instead of closing it. And while the UK will maintain its ban rightly on hormone treated beef and chlorine washed chicken coming from the US, it was looking to compromise in other areas. Higher welfare. British farmers are paying the price. The NFU has been clear farmers want trade deals, but not at the expense of being undercut by food produced to standards that would be illegal on their own farms. Over 90% of British livestock farmers support restricting low welfare imports, and the public agrees.

More than 4 in 5 people support banning imports produced using methods outlawed here. We need a statutory requirement that animal products sold in the UK, whether produced here or imported, meet British welfare standards. We also need mandatory welfare labelling that applies equally to imports. The Animal Welfare Strategy's consultation commitments on this don't go far enough. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd be grateful if the Minister could set out how the government intends to close this loophole and ensure our individual trade deals and overall policy fully reflects the ambition that's rightly included in the animal welfare strategy.

The standards of our higher welfare British farmers at home should not be undermined by lower welfare standards abroad. We should not be importing cruelty and our farmers deserve a level playing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

field. OK. Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. Isn't it wonderful to get to Thursday? Business runs fast. No time limit and some time to go, Madam Deputy Speaker. Rejoice. I Madam Deputy Speaker. Rejoice. I shall rejoice whether you all do. Madam Speaker, will be a different matter. This has been an excellent
15:42
Adam Jogee Portrait Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)
-
-
matter. This has been an excellent debate, and I particularly enjoyed the speech from the hon. Lady from West Wales. I went through her constituency last summer on the way to go and see my hon. Friend from Mid and South Pembrokeshire. So next time I shall stop off for a cuppa and we can see her in action. Madam Deputy Speaker, and like my hon. Friend from Doncaster, I married a woman from a family of farmers, so I well know his experience and shared interest in these issues.

Madam Speaker, my hon. Friend from North West Cambridgeshire gave an excellent speech to open this debate, but I want to focus my remarks on the farming industry and the willing farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme and for the House's information. I too, like our hon. Friend, the Member for North West Leicestershire am on the National Farmers Union Fellowship Scheme this year, and am the vice chair of the International Trade All Party Parliamentary Group. Madam Speaker, as you've heard me say before, Newcastle-under-Lyme is an age old market town in North Staffordshire and it's surrounded by the green, rolling hills for which England is known and of which we are all proud.

Wales too, of course, and I promise every single farmer I met in the months and years before the general election, and in the time since that, I do whatever I can to support farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire and across our country. And that means defending our standards every single day. That's why this debate is important. And so I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it to the House today. That's why I'm also pleased that we got to the right place on April, and the inheritance tax threshold for farmers and farming families.

There has been much commentary on this issue and much genuine concern felt by farmers in my constituency and those up and down the United Kingdom. But a number of us raised it loudly, repeatedly and thankfully effectively. And thanks go to to the NFU and all the farmers in my patch who spoke out. And as I say, I'm grateful to their colleagues in government for ensuring we are now in the right place. It's why I also set up my farmers forum soon after the general election, because after years of being let down and forgotten, I wanted my farmers back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme to get the hearing.

They deserve the support they need and the opportunities to thrive, to keep us fed and to keep going. There is, Madam Deputy Speaker, so much in our United Kingdom that we should be proud of. And Britain's farmers are just one example, and I'm sure that I feel sure that Staffordshire and our farmers, particularly those in Newcastle-under-Lyme, are leading the way. They are the backbone of our food system. They tend to our land. They produce the clear majority of what ends up on our dinner tables, and they allow us all to feel a sense of pride.

Their contribution underpins our food security and strengthens rural economies. Take the speeds Madam Deputy Speaker Burnley Hall Farm, who are responsible for a brilliant fireworks display in November each year, and the Burnley show each August, and you'll all be all colleagues, including yourself, would be very welcome to come and enjoy the festivities this year or the Kenley's Plum Tree Park Farm, where you get grass fed lamb boxes supplied seasonally, as well as the dog playground. They've diversified their offer to consumers, to their neighbours and to our community, and helped put our part of the world on the map.

And so I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will come and see the success stories in Newcastle line for herself before too long. I am, Madam Deputy Speaker, firmly of the view that we should always buy British that smart and necessary for our farmers, and for the future of British farming. It's also good for our pubs, our shops and our restaurants, and I hope that colleagues on the frontbench, not this Minister, there's plenty for her to do, but others that will do what the previous conservative government didn't do and get a hold of the challenges facing the hospitality sector in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the nation, and ensure the support for our town centres and local businesses is delivered quickly and speedily.

Madam Speaker, I just want to, as I make that call to support those businesses who are and who are in turn supported by our farmers and our farming sector locally. Want to just think about the brilliant local businesses who stand with our farmers every single day? Madam Deputy Speaker, take Plant and Wilton in Newcastle town centre, a wonderful family butchers, which of course gets meat from our farms both locally and up and down the kingdom. At pubs like The Swan in Birtley, the Albert in town, all moments away from farms tended to by brilliant farmers.

Madam Speaker I suspect where they, some of those brilliant farmers, enjoy a pint or two from time to time. The Butcher's Arms and Audley, where Mark, the landlord, is known for his excellent cooking prowess, again using British food from British farms. Madam Speaker, many of whom are located in Staffordshire. But the art film Will Stanton where I've also seen. And when you think about the standards Madam Deputy Speaker acquired for the meat and food that we eat in the pubs I've referred to and people enjoy up and down our country, I think it's important that we make sure, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we make the case for the highest and strongest British standards every

**** Possible New Speaker ****

step of the way. Madam Speaker, I see you enjoying my speech so much you almost threw me off course. Now. On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point. hon. Friend Lee Pitcher. When we talk about food

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When we talk about food standards, we're also talking about the kind of food and the quality of food that we get in our public services. And would you agree with services. And would you agree with me that one of the best things that we can do and push forward with is making sure that as contracts fade making sure that as contracts fade out for our our government services, that the food is locally produced and we we make sure that at least

**** Possible New Speaker ****

50% of that is, is is bought locally. I thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend makes an thank my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If I think about the example of the Royal Stoke Hospital, which is across the road from my constituency border, but is staffed by and serves the vast majority of my constituents, and making sure that the patients at making sure that the patients at that hospital, the workers at the hospital, are able to enjoy the highest of standards.

The best of highest of standards. The best of British food is, I think, an excellent point, and I feel sure the Minister will agree and make that clear in her sum up. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker. Constantly thinking about the impact and benefits of the House of British standards, it makes me want to highlight just how important it is for us to remember that the issues facing the agricultural sector and British farmers who work day in and day out to deliver the highest of standards, didn't start in July 2020 for the price of milk.

Trade deals undercut our farmers. Access to labour are just some of the long standing challenges, the hon. Lady from West Wales points out in her remarks. To the farmers. Like her and many in Newcastle, I'm working to the highest. British standards have been forced to endure for far too long, not to mention Madam Deputy Speaker that under the previous government there was a £358 million underspend in the agricultural Budget across the last three years of that government, and I hope that my friend the Minister will confirm that under this Labour government, farmers will always receive the support they need, not just to maintain the highest of British standards Madam Deputy Speaker, but to make sure that food production is more sustainable and more profitable.

And whilst the Conservatives sold out and undercut farmers and trade deals and we mustn't forget that. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues in government to continue their principled approach because, as my friend from Doncaster pointed out, we must always back British standards. We must always back British food, and we will never bargain either away. We must never sign trade deals that leave our farmers and Newcastle-under-Lyme exposed, or allow lower quality imports to undercut British producers, deliver day in and day out and to the best of standards.

Madam Speaker, there is a very big and serious export potential for British food, and I want people right across the world to buy British, to eat British and to benefit from the highest of British standards. Now I'm co-chair, Madam Speaker, of the Commonwealth All-Party parliamentary Group, and I urge colleagues in government, and I know the Minister and the Secretary of State are planning targeted overseas missions, but I urge them to look at the Commonwealth as a default partner of choice, because we already have age old historical ties.

But more importantly, as we look to ensure that we export British produced goods to the highest of standards, we are benefiting as much as we can. And can I also stress the Minister that she speaks to her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that all our trade envoys are banging the drum for British food. Because British food is produced the highest of standards, which we know the world can only look to for inspiration. And while Scottish salmon is the kingdom's leading food export, I hope the Minister will do whatever she can to help me increase exports of Staffordshire oatcakes because the world deserves nothing less.

Madam Deputy Speaker, now, simply put, we must protect our farmers, we must uphold our standards, and we must make British food at home and abroad. Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the challenges over April, I welcome the steps being taken by the government to give British farmers the tools, investment and confidence they need to thrive. We are creating a new Farming and Food Partnership board, chaired by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the environment, and this board will bring together farmers, producers, excuse me, farmers, processors, retailers and the government so that those working on our land have a real voice in how policy is made and how we can always maintain the highest of British standards.

We rely on trade Madam Speaker to complement what we grow here, to give families year round choice, to help stabilise prices, to protect our supply chains. When global shocks are hit. And I know the Minister will agree with me to make sure that the highest of British standards are maintained to and supported. We won't always get everything right and nor will we always make everyone happy. Madam Deputy Speaker. But we do need to listen to our farmers and our food producers, because they're the ones who are flying the flag for the highest of standards.

They're the ones who we need to make sure undercut when food comes from elsewhere with lower standards. And my message to farmers and producers, Newcastle-under-Lyme, is that this government and me hear them loud and clear, and they have our full

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support here. I now call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Sarah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson Sarah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire on North West Cambridgeshire on securing this really important debate. And I'd also like to thank the Backbench Business Committee the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this debate to proceed. Madam Deputy Speaker, the UK agricultural sector Speaker, the UK agricultural sector has experienced an enormous shift on leaving the European Union. There was simply no plan in place for farming and international trade, and the post-Brexit era has seen seven different DEFRA, Secretaries of State and five different prime Ministers.

And as Baroness Battersea said in her recent Farming Profitability review, this has led to a complete lack of consistent political direction at a time when farming needed it the most. Nothing has done more to increase the cost of farming and to reduce farm incomes than the
15:53
Sarah Dyke Portrait Sarah Dyke MP (Glastonbury and Somerton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Conservatives botched Brexit, and it has harmed and undermined protections for animal welfare and the environment. But the conservative government didn't stop there. In addition, they set a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements in how they went trade agreements in how they went about in their negotiations, stripping away parliamentary scrutiny and forcing terrible deals scrutiny and forcing terrible deals through have given unfair advantage to imports from countries with much poorer standards, which would fail to meet the high quality British production standards.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrats demand that every new trade deal should be subject to proper scrutiny, but this government's refusal to do so in their latest trade agreement with President Trump, despite calling for proper oversight while in opposition, is a reminder that Parliament has not yet taken back control. Now, I am proud to come from a farming background. My family have farmed in and around Somerset for over 250 years, and my brother continues the family business now.

He, like all farmers, take great pride in what they do and despite much turbulence in the industry, they work hard to provide the nation with food for our tables and in large part remain resilient to most market shocks. But bad trade deals have allowed butter and cheese imports from Australia, New Zealand and the United States start to land on our shores in increasing volumes, flooding our domestic markets at the expense of British farmers. Yet these products are under no obligation to have point of origin labelling, and this has inevitably led to UK milk buyers slashing farmgate milk prices to a level that is simply unacceptable and unsustainable.

Now, I recently met with rich clothier MB, the MD of Family Run Farms near Bruton. And Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm sure that you will join me in congratulating Rich, having recently been appointed an MBE for services to sustainable agriculture and food production in the King's New Years Honours list. Wyke farms is one of the UK's largest independent cheese producers, crafting award winning cheddar and butter from Somerset for now over 160 years and under Richard's guidance, it now exports products to more than 160 countries.

And Rich recently told me that people want to eat food produced to British standards of welfare, environmental and food safety, but currently they have no way of knowing and being able to make that choice. And that is what is important to ensure that our consumers know what they are buying and they are able to make that choice. But because of Brexit and the government and the government are now forced into agreeing poor trade deals that continue to undermine British farmers and the food that they produce.

Madam Deputy Speaker, over the past few months, milk prices have been in freefall, leaving many dairy farmers on a financial cliff edge. Milk prices currently are well below the cost of production, and we've seen thousands of litres of milk being thrown down the drain, and I fear there will be much more to come over the next few months if we don't do something about it. Madam Deputy Speaker, given the absence of point of origin labelling in our trade policy, products are often offered to customers without appropriate labelling, often allowing them to masquerade as UK produced.

This is why I introduced the Dairy Farming and Dairy Products Bill that would force the government to ensure that any trade deals do not negatively impact British dairy farmers. Liberal Democrats have also been keen to ensure farmers and growers receive fair treatment in the supply chain, as existing protections are no longer sufficient to tackle unfair practices by large buyers. We want to reform and strengthen the Grocery Code Adjudicator, merge it with the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, and give it greater powers and resources.

Madam Deputy Speaker, a sensible trade policy that ensures British consumers are protected from imported food produced at lower standards would be illegal for British farmers to operate at Is as it is required now. Liberal Democrats are champions of free trade. We know the benefits it brings British farmers and businesses, but we also know that regulatory alignment is key to this. We cannot allow British farmers to be undercut by cheaper imports. However, soon Canada will ratify the UK CPTPP membership, which, worryingly, could open the doors to products from farming systems that are banned here and further undermine British farming.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Battery cages have been rightly banned in the UK since 2012, but the CPTPP agreement could allow Mexican farmers who use battery cages to export large number of eggs to the UK, and these eggs will be produced in a manner that would simply be illegal here. This would force farms like Silverthorne Farm near Milborne Port, who have 15,000 hens who are all free to roam over their 32 acres to compete with lower standard imports that operate at a fraction of the cost.

The government have recently realised their animal released their animal welfare strategy after promising the largest increase in standards in a generation. Now, while the Liberal Democrats have long called for and support many of the measures, the government have announced, the strategy lacks a commitment to protect UK food security and farmers through trade policy. And I'm Deputy Speaker. DEFRA have stated that they will consider whether overseas producers have an unfair advantage. And unfortunately, it's clear, I'm afraid, that the answer is yes, they do.

And it's worth recalling that one former environment Minister slammed the UK Australia deal, saying the UK gave away far too much for far too little, while another one described it as not very good for British farmers. Now, I am glad that the government is prepared to use the full range of powers at its disposal to protect the most sensitive sectors, as there is little doubt this is needed. The government must urgently renegotiate the Australia and New Zealand trade deals to uphold high standards on food safety, animal welfare, health and the environment.

And if these standards cannot be met, we should withdraw from such deals. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Democrats are clear that an SPS agreement with the EU is an absolute priority to cut red tape, reduce checks and lower costs for exporters, and we have called for an agreement to be delivered as soon as possible and to be modelled on the existing EU Swiss veterinary deal, guaranteeing enhanced access to the single market with minimal checks. We also want a bespoke UK EU customs union to rebuild our economy and support British producers with tariff free movement of goods between EU member states, strengthening domestic economic growth.

A far more ambitious free and fair trade deal with Europe is an absolute necessity. It will give the government some kind of financial scope. It needs to keep at least a few more of its promises to improve our vital public services. But any upcoming agreement does pose some risks to British farmers, as any agreement could limit the UK's ability to apply our own standards for imports, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Swiss model based on mutual recognition of animal health measures to be replicated here.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Conservatives sold British farmers down the river in their desperation to agree trade deals based on arbitrary deadlines. But there is now an opportunity to properly protect British welfare standards in all future deals, and this must be at the forefront of this government's minds in all future negotiations, as it is critical for UK farming, UK food

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security and national security. Shadow Minister Doctor Neil Hudson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hudson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I start by thanking the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire for securing and excellently opening this important excellently opening this important debate, offering members across the House the opportunity to discuss an issue central to our national issue central to our national interest and indeed to our values. The speeches we have heard today reflect the deep commitment across this House to our farmers, our food standards, animal welfare, the environment and the integrity of British agriculture.

We have heard a range of contributions today. My hon. Friend from Bridlington and the worlds and can I. I pay tribute to his expertise coming in from the pig industry, and I thank him for his work on the. EFRA Committee. He talked about the complexities of the global trade in meat, the importance of food security and a sensible transition on husbandry regulations. And also he touched on inappropriate antibiotic use, and I will touch on that. Madam Deputy Speaker, in due course, the hon.

Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme talked about the importance in the grain and the sugar sector in his part of the world and the importance of transparency in labelling. The my hon. Friend, the Member for Caerfyrddin and I pay tribute to her and her family on the farm, bringing that expertise into the House of Commons is just brilliant and thank you for all you do. She talked very much importantly about welfare standards and food security and the importance of local food procurement.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase and I thank him for his excellent work on the EFRA Select Committee as well, and talked about the importance of food security and, again, transparency in food labelling. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley important is a proud advocate, talking about the importance of high animal welfare standards. And he talked about the important bands that we uphold on hormone treated beef and chlorine wash poultry. And I will touch on that in due course. And finally, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, the importance of buying British and very importantly, the importance of exporting British as well.

So I thank him for his comments. Now, standards Madam Deputy Speaker are not abstract. Trade matters. They
16:04
Neil Hudson Portrait Dr Neil Hudson MP (Epping Forest, Conservative)
-
-
are questions of fairness, food security and indeed moral duty. security and indeed moral duty. British farmers are rightly proud of producing food to some of the highest animal welfare, highest animal welfare, environmental and safety standards in the world. They do so not only to comply with the law, but because to comply with the law, but because it is right. It is therefore indefensible to allow them to be undercut by imports produced to standards that would be illegal in the United Kingdom.

Now, I am proud of the record of the previous conservative government in advancing animal welfare, such as banning the export of live animals including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter with the Animal Welfare Livestock Exports Act 2024, increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years. With the Animal Welfare Sentencing Act 2021, and importantly, enshrining animal sentience into UK law with the Animal Welfare Act 2022, and thereby establishing the Animal Sentience Committee, such that any new legislation that we consider must pay due regard to animal welfare.

I was also very proud to co-sponsor the conservative initiated Animal Welfare Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets Act 2025 to tackle the cruel puppy smuggling trade and the horrific practice of dog ear cropping in the United Kingdom. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have brilliant farmers who farm to the highest animal welfare standards and we should be very proud of that fact. And as I've said many times before, in this House, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. On this.

British farmers follow strict rules on banning growth. Promoters on housing and welfare conditions, and on environmental protections. Now these standards carry costs and responsibilities that farmers accept because they reflect public values. The injustice arises when food produced to lower standards overseas is allowed to enter our market and compete directly with food produced under our higher rules. That does not raise global standards. It simply exports cruelty and imports unfair competition. Now, we conservatives have consistently defended those standards in 2024, when the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon.

Friend, the Member for North West Essex, served as the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. She suspended the talks, the trade talks with Canada after Canada insisted on included hormone treated beef. That decision sent a clear message that the UK will not compromise on important bands, such as against hormone treated beef, ractopamine treated pork or, as we've heard, chlorine wash poultry and indeed, bovine somatotropin dairy, all of which remain illegal in the United Kingdom. These practices merely hide substandard and unacceptable, in some cases husbandry methods, and are not positive at all for animal or indeed bird welfare.

I was proud that the previous conservative government stood firm with these bans on such products in our negotiations with Canada. I urge the current government to maintain that firm position on those bands. The United Kingdom has, amongst the strictest welfare laws in the world. By contrast, countries such as Canada and the US still allow hens to be kept in battery cages. Here, 83% of eggs come from free range or barn systems, and the government has committed to phase out all cages for laying hens by 2032.

The opposition has made clear that we very much support banning cages or close confinement systems, where there is clear scientific evidence that these are detrimental to animal and bird health and welfare. This is in keeping with much of the United Kingdom's existing legislation on the use of cages and crates, including on the ban of keeping calves in veal crates. Introduced introduced in 1990, the ban of keeping cells in close confinement stalls in the UK, introduced in 1999, and the ban on battery cages for hens in 2012.

Under the previous conservative government, Ministers were clear that it was their ambition for farrowing crates to be no longer used for sows. Indeed, the new Pig Welfare Code clearly states the aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary, and for any new system to protect the welfare of the Sao as well as her piglets. And I emphasise that as well as her piglets, and it's important that the industry is heard and we have, as we have heard today, a sensible, workable, pragmatic transition that works and upholds animal welfare.

Future trade deals must insist on core standards, or we risk encouraging systems that our own laws reject. Transparency Madam Deputy Speaker also matters. Consumers should be able to see how their food was produced. The previous conservative government, consulted in 2024 on improved welfare and origin labelling. But the Labour government's animal welfare strategy, released just before Christmas, offers only vague intentions on labelling, with no timetable or binding commitments. Clear mandatory labelling would empower UK consumers and reward UK farmers who do the right thing.

I also want to highlight the emergence of products in the UK that do not meet our animal welfare and environmental standards, potentially is being compounded by the alarming situation facing our national biosecurity, with disturbing reports of foot and mouth disease emerging abroad, including in Europe. Last year, African swine fever advancing at the continent of Europe, and the ongoing outbreaks in this country of avian influenza and bluetongue virus. We must maintain our vigilance after raising concerns in Parliament on 17 occasions.

I was pleased the current government finally listened and agreed to commit to funding our vital animal, plant and health agency. Weybridge headquarters redevelopment started by the conservative government. I would like to thank the Apha, whom I visited again last month, for their tireless work, particularly in the face of the ongoing avian way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. As the Member of Parliament who has the animal plant Health Agency in the animal plant Health Agency in my constituency. Confusingly named the Weybridge Centre is actually in Newhall. I'd just like to thank the Newhall. I'd just like to thank the Minister for his. So the shadow Minister for his advocacy on this, and the government for putting in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the funding for the redevelopment. I thank my hon. Friend for his very kind intervention, and he proudly stands up for that important institution that I know that the Minister has visited, as has the the Minister in the other place. And it's important cross-party, that we support something that is so critical to our national security. But the very real consequences, Madam Deputy Speaker, for human and animal Health from illegal meat imports, as we've heard today, are a disaster waiting to happen unless the government maintains vigilance and steps up.

Now, our ability to detect and seize illegal meat imports at our borders is being tested to its limits. According to the Defra, between January and April 2025, the amount of illegal meat that had been seized, 72,872kg was close to that seized in the whole of 2024, 92,382kg Dover Port Health Authority alone has seized 367 tonnes since 2022. Now, given this ongoing threat, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is essential that sufficient funding is provided to our agencies at the border and that routine surveillance and spot checks can be carried out in Dover and other ports to prevent illegal meat and products of animal origins from entering the country.

In addition to upholding our standards that we're talking about today and protecting our biosecurity and safeguarding animal welfare, it is vital, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the United Kingdom has enough veterinary surgeons. At this point, I must declare both a professional and a personal interest as veterinary surgeon, a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and a graduate of Cambridge Veterinary School. And at that point I'll raise further. The UK does not train enough vets domestically. Vets play a vital role, obviously, in animal health and welfare, which we've been talking a lot about today, but also in food safety, public health and disease control.

Again, this all comes into this debate on standards. That is why I am deeply concerned about the possible closure of Cambridge vet school, recommended by the Council of the University's School of Biological Sciences. Now, I know the Minister is very aware of this, as I've raised this with her in the chamber and with her and her colleagues in Defra. We cannot maintain animal welfare or food security without adequate veterinary capacity, and I urge the government to act and press Cambridge University to stop this shortsighted possible closure.

In addition, the Veterinary Surgeons Act of 1966 needs to be updated and although it was mentioned in the government's animal welfare strategy, there was no timeline or indeed urgency. Again, please Minister, I urge the government to act. The government's record, sadly, on supporting farmers gives us cause for concern. Just look at the treatment of the sector with their ill judged and awful family. Farm tax only partially U-turned. I don't believe we are still in the right place. There is much more we still need to do on that.

By permitting imports imported under weaker standards, they also risk favouring overseas producers over British ones. Now Ministers say they are passionate about animal welfare and food standards and I will take them on that. But their both, their record and their rhetoric tell slightly a different story. Their keenness to merge with the EU standards is worrying, especially on animal welfare, where our standards in the UK are higher. Returning to EU regulatory alignment would make US rule makers, not rule makers.

Preventing farmers from adopting innovations such as gene editing. Now the Labour manifesto spoke about food security, but failed to set out a clear plan to protect farmers from low import standards. The conservative government's Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Act of 2023 laid the foundations for the development of disease and climate resilient crops, and the breeding of animals and birds that are resistant to harmful diseases like avian influenza and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. The landmark Animal Welfare Livestock Exports Act of 2024.

As I've mentioned, ended the inhumane export of live animals for slaughter or fattening. These are important achievements. Yet we on this side of the House have concerns that these vital acts may be repealed, watered down or weakened because of the pursuit of this current government's reset with the EU. I hope the Minister today can assure the House that these safeguards will remain intact, and we won't take a backward step on animal welfare and indeed, innovation in the agricultural and food security sectors.

We have already seen how sectors such as fishing can be treated as bargaining chips in international talks, with our UK fisheries sold away to Europe for 12 years to try and at this stage in vain, get access to the European Defence Fund. Farmers are looking on closely and are understandably worried that agriculture could also be a bargaining chip. If import standards are watered down in the name of smoother trade or convenient deals. British farmers may lose out by being denied access to revolutionary tools such as gene editing, precision breeding that the EU is slow or reluctant to adopt.

Moreover, animal welfare will be weakened, consumer confidence damaged, and the long term resilience of our food system will be put in jeopardy. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not about protectionism. This is about our values. Farmers are asking for a fair and level field on which to compete. That means import standards that reflect the standards required of British farmers and demanded by British consumers. Clear red lines in every trade negotiation. Proper enforcement at our borders and no agreements that sacrifice agriculture for political expedience.

So can I ask the Minister directly? Will the government guarantee that no food produced to lower standards than those required of British farmers will be allowed into our market? And will they commit to not trading away our standards in future negotiations? I would also welcome her response on public procurement of food, and we've heard a bit about that today. Currently, the government buying standards have a loophole, sadly still in them, allowing public bodies to bypass high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost.

If we are to lead globally on animal welfare, we must uphold those principles here at home. Import standards are fundamentally about trust trust between farmers, consumers and also the government. British agriculture depends on that trust. On these benches we will examine every agreement, every regulation and every concession that might risk undercutting our farmers and weakening our standards or indeed compromising animal health and welfare. His Majesty's most loyal opposition urged the government to support agriculture and defend the standards that the British people hold dear.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate goes to Deputy Speaker. This debate goes to the heart of something this government cares deeply about the future of British farming and the future of British farming and the food on British tables. And I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Member for North West Cambridgeshire for securing it and all the members for their all the members for their contributions to this debate. Let me be direct about what we're trying to balance in this area.

British farmers produce most of our food, two thirds of it in 2024. That's 65% of everything we eat is
16:19
Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle MP (Wallasey, Labour)
-
-
produced in this country. When it comes to actually what can be actually grown or reared in this actually grown or reared in this country, that figure rises to over three quarters. That is 77%. So in other words, we don't grow our own other words, we don't grow our own bananas or mangoes and we can't grow our own citrus except in particularly hot weather. So we have to import other food. Now, the have to import other food. Now, the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bridlington and the Wolds use this phrase carcase balance, which is also important to think about when one is talking about the balance between exports and imports, because in the UK we only eat particular bits of the animal, we don't eat all bits of the animal, and it's useful to be able to export those bits that the British public don't particularly want to eat.

That means that the farmer that produces that particular animal gets more of a return for it than they would get if those markets weren't open. So the benefits of having open trading markets for such things might potentially be very great indeed for UK producers. And whilst we we are and I will spend much of the rest of this debate talking about standards for imports, we have to remember that exports are also important for our own home-grown industry and exports.

Are harder to gain if one is too closed about the imports that one is trying to sort of allow in trade deals, because trade is a two way thing. And so I would caution everyone who's thinking about this debate to think about that balance as well as what we would actually like to see when we come to trade deals, because it's real and it exists, and we ought to take it seriously. There's something to we have to remember that we're a trading nation.

Trade gives families access to food that we can't grow here. It keeps prices affordable. It means we can get food out of season all year round that we may wish to have. And it provides a safety net when disease, drought or conflict disrupts supply chains. So although being able to grow most of what we want to produce here is an important part of food security, so is having reasonable, predictable, acceptable access to other markets so that we can import when we have to if there's a particular issue.

So the question isn't whether we trade, it's how we trade and on whose terms. Now this government's been clear we won't sacrifice British standards on the altar of trade deals. All imports must meet UK food safety requirements and that is not going to change. We've been clear and it's been mentioned by members on both sides of the debate today of the House today. We've been clear that hormone treated beef and chlorine washed chicken are banned in the UK and will remain so.

And as the hon. Gentleman member for Epping Forest pointed out, that is because the such treatments designed to hide what's happened as a result of production methods, and it's something that we are firm that we won't allow. There are potentially other issues with such things in the human food chain that we don't wish to have our consumers risk. So we understand frustrations and that there can be frustrations from farmers here are held to higher welfare standards than some competitors abroad.

Sometimes there are good reasons for those differences. We haven't heard about any of that in the debate today, but farmers across the world face different geographical environments. They face different climate conditions, different disease risks. But practices like sandstorms and battery cages are banned in this country for good reason. We won't pretend that every difference in global standards is acceptable just because it happens to be legal elsewhere, and we spend our time trying to persuade other countries to see the sense of adopting our higher standards for food production.

When it comes to livestock, as we've said in the trade strategy, we won't lower food standards and we will continue to uphold high standards in animal welfare. We will always consider whether imports have an unfair advantage, and what the potential impact of trade agreements could be on UK food production. That's why in our trade deal with India, as my friend the Member for Cambridgeshire pointed out, we kept tariffs on pork and chicken and eggs because we were concerned about the welfare standards we use, the powers we have and we will do so again where our farmers and our values are at stake in that India deal, we also secured commitments to cooperate on animal welfare.

The first time India has ever agreed to this in a trade deal, the Independent Trade and Agriculture Commission recognised this achievement in pursuing our policy on animal welfare protections as a part of our trade deals. We are proud. We have a proud history of leading the way in ensuring the very best care for animals. In December, we published our Animal Welfare strategy and again, members on both sides of the House have referred to it, which will improve the lives of millions of animals in the UK.

We recognise that animal welfare is a global issue, and we will continue to champion high animal welfare standards around the world, promoting robust standards nationally and internationally. Our recent trade deal with a career includes comprehensive language on animal welfare that goes beyond anything career have agreed to date. We will continue to strengthen cooperation and information exchange on this globally important issue on eggs from Ukraine. And this is something my hon. Friend mentioned in his opening speech. We are 90% self-sufficient in eggs in this country.

The Ukrainian trade in eggs is about 1% of our supply, and that is partially done as a support for them and their industry and their economy. In the situation, the global situation they find themselves in at war with Russia. But even despite that, and I've met both Ukrainian agriculture Ministers, they are working hard to ensure that they can come into compliance with EU regulations in egg production as soon as possible, and we are helping them to try to do that.

So the debates that we're having about animal welfare with respect to these egg imports are real and they're happening, and I have raised them personally with both Ukrainian agriculture Ministers. So protecting standards isn't enough on its own, though, we are backing British farmers to create a productive, profitable and sustainable future for farming. This support, we believe, is essential for our country's economic growth and food security through new technology, streamlined regulation and nature friendly farming schemes, we're helping farmers to produce food for the nation, a stronger and more productive domestic farming sector is in our national interest, and will keep high quality British food on the shelves for consumers.

The heart of our approach is working in partnership with the sector, which is why Secretary of State and I are grateful to Baroness Battersea for her recent review into farming profitability. We are taking forward a series of measures from the review to deliver practical support and long term certainty for farmers. We recently announced a new Farming and Food Partnership board as part of our actions, and this brings farmers, processors and retailers together because food security isn't just about what happens on the farm, it's about the whole food chain all the way from the farm to the fork.

Farmers will have a seat at the table when policy is developed, and their voice will shape what the government does. Different parts of our food system face different challenges, and the hon. Lady talked about what's happening in the in the dairy sector at the moment, but they also face different opportunities. Now together we intend to develop sector plans which target growth in sectors like horticulture and poultry. First sectors where there's significant untapped potential to increase home-grown production and this will be followed by other sectors again, where there's real scope to grow more of our own food.

Because when British farming thrives, consumers benefit with affordable, high quality food on their tables. As well as supporting producers at home. We're working to extend the international reach of British food and drink. We will continue to focus on new markets for the sector. We have 16 agrifood attachés around the world opening doors for British producers. Last year alone, their work was worth an estimated removal of barriers, which created £127 million of export value for our home-grown producers. This includes opening British pork access to Mexico and removing costly barriers for British dairy exports to Egypt.

And this year, the Secretary of State and I will be leading dedicated trade missions to showcase British food and drink overseas and help boost our exports. Our high standards are something that we should be proud of. The reputation of our top quality produce helps us unlock new markets, and many of those we deal with see UK food as at the top of the quality mark, and they want to have access to it closer to home. The majority of our agrifood trade is with the EU, including around 70% of our agri food imports.

So that's why the SPS agreement with the EU to slash red tape for the businesses that trade most with our nearest neighbours, is so important, it will make agrifood trade our biggest market cheaper and easier to engage with. The agreement will bring down costs for UK producers and will remove most of the regulatory trade barriers. We've been clear about the importance of high animal welfare standards, and the EU has accepted that in some areas, the UK will need to retain our own rules.

We like in all trade deals this government will do will maintain red lines in our negotiations. I want to close with this. We're a nation that's always led on animal welfare. In 1999, the Labour government banned stalls before most of the rest of the world had heard of them. I understand the issues that the hon. Member for Bridlington raised just to reassure him. I hope that we're working closely with the industry on transition in some of the areas that I mentioned in the current animal welfare strategy, such as banning farrowing crates and moving away from enriched cages for hens.

We don't want the law of unintended consequences, but we do want increases in animal welfare. This government will not allow that legacy to be undermined through the back door by trade policy. We will protect our farmers, uphold our standards and back British food at home and abroad, which is what food

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security means, and that is what this government will deliver. Sam Carling to wind up. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. I'm glad to have a couple of minutes to wind up after what I think has been an incredibly valuable debate, covering a whole range of different points, starting with the hon. Member from Burlington and the Wallasey, I think agrees with me. There were think agrees with me. There were various sort of bits of discussion there I actually referred to in my speech. He raises very importantly speech. He raises very importantly the issue of farrowing crates, which remained an issue in the UK as well.

But as he was saying around wanting to make sure that our farmers aren't undermined, that's the whole point of this, right? It's about making sure that the standards we expect of those come overseas are the same, at least in order that they're not undercut in that way. So yeah, we agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster in the Isle of Axholme also, I think, made some excellent points around the enforcement of standards and honest labelling because everyone will know here just how many emails we get from constituents around the practice of farm washing, where products that have been brought in from overseas mistakenly and misleadingly in many cases, try to apply themselves to meet British standards when they don't.

What sort of big union flags and everything? As my friend said, we need to get on top of that. The Member for Caerfyrddin talked about how we need to make sure more of the public sector is prioritising buying British, and I think that's a really important point and something I know the government has made commentary on. From Cannock Chase. My friend made references to Baroness Batters and the issue of this in her profitability review, which I think she makes explicit reference to very positively.

We had the member from Waveney Valley reinforcing some of the points I made just around the undercutting of farmers, and how much I'm sure that impacts his constituents. And then, of course, we have the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme talking about, again, the importance of buying British and the critical link to the hospitality industry, including the various pubs in his constituency, the names of which he treated us to, and then moving on to the hon. Lady, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I think the comments on the Australian trade deal were particularly useful and also relate to what the shadow Minister was talking about.

He spent some time talking about the Conservatives record. There is some good stuff in there, but may I just quote to him this from Michael Gove, a former DEFRA secretary, speaking about the previous conservative government. We negotiated poorly with Australia and New Zealand, but particularly with Australia, in defence of our farmers in the anxiety to secure trade deals. We did not think about the long term. That's his words, a Conservative Party conference. So I just encourage members to reflect a bit on that.

I did have one comment to make if I got an intervention from from reform, but they haven't turned up, so that didn't happen. But that comment would have been if someone had tried to to attack us on this. And of course, the leader of reform went to America recently to call for economic sanctions against the UK. Far from lowering tariffs for British beef exporters, as we have done in our landmark economic deal with the US. So if I may just wind up by referring to the comments the Minister made, if I can find my notes on, there we go.

I'm grateful to her for speaking about the need to ensure our farmers can export as well. It's a really important part of this year's, of course, right? There's a balance to be struck, and I thank her for detailing some more of the government's examples of success in this area. I didn't mention Ukraine specifically with eggs specifically, because I think I'm very consciously aware of the issues she raises. But I'm very grateful to hear of some of the positive measures she referred to there around perhaps getting some progress to be made over there.

So I would just reiterate, really, this government has been clear that worsening our animal welfare standards and allowing import of low welfare goods is a red line for us. We're not going to do it, and that's positive. But that leaves us the question of, well, why don't we legislate to make sure of it? Because I trust this government. I can't say I trust a future government and I don't trust the trade deals, sadly, are already in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place. So thank you very much. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal assent to the following acts. Unauthorised entry following acts. Unauthorised entry to football matches at 2026. Sentencing Act 2026. Holocaust Sentencing Act 2026. Holocaust

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Memorial Act 2026. We now move on to the petition. Petition. Adam Jogee. Madam Speaker, the petitioner,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Speaker, the petitioner, residents of the constituency of Newcastle Lyme, declares that the A5 two five outside Meadows Primary A5 two five outside Meadows Primary School and the A5 31 at the junction of Crewe Road is an adequate, dangerous and putting the lives of the people of Newcastle lives of the people of Newcastle Lyme at risk. Acknowledges that in December 2025, a parent was knocked December 2025, a parent was knocked down, dropping their child off to school, and that there have been many more near misses in the many weeks and months before us.

Calls upon the police, Fire and Crime Commissioner and Staffordshire and Staffordshire County Council to act sooner rather than later to make this road fit for purpose. Further recognises that traffic calming measures, including traffic light, speed bumps, speed cameras, a reduced speed zone or roundabout modification would meaningfully improve safety. Notes that each and every parent should feel safe dropping their children off at every school in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and further notes that a corresponding petition online on the same issue has reached 290 signatures from the good people who live, learn and work in Newcastle.

Underline.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition safety of the A525 near

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition safety of the A525 near Meadows Primary School. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn. Doctor. Ben Spencer. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The amount of money local government authorities have, such government authorities have, such as Surrey County Council and the new East Surrey and West Surrey Unitaries, has a huge impact on data day to day impact on residents. It determines the provision of services, protection of our communities and is essential to the many businesses and voluntary organisations through both policy and the many direct contacts held
16:37
16:38
Ben Spencer Portrait Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
-
-
is a complicated matter. It requires changes in contracts, staffing, locations and every other aspect of running a large and complicated organisation. And yet complicated organisation. And yet we have no information on how this transition will be funded. It cannot possibly come from existing cannot possibly come from existing budgets, given the situation outlined above. If services are to be maintained. There's no clarity be maintained. There's no clarity on what will happen to staff during this transition. Many jobs are at risk.

Some have already sought new, more stable opportunities elsewhere. All face additional pressures as a result of reorganisation, and the risk is important. Decisions will be delayed, leaving Surrey stuck in stasis and beyond transition. We must look at the foundation of the new unitary system cells. We all know the concerns over local authority debt. Some councils, such as Runnymede and covers part of my constituency. Most of my a big chunk of my constituency were able to operate a commercial strategy with sound financial management, meaning the risk of high debt was mitigated by clear controls and revenue provisions.

But this is an exception to many other local authorities have borrowed heavily without the knowledge or systems to manage the risk, none more disastrously so than Woking. Woking's failures are unparalleled for the size of the authority, both in terms of scale of debt and failure of financial management and scrutiny. Yet, despite announcements that the government is proceeding with local government reform, there is still no clear plan what to do with the Woking debt. In October last year, the government announced debt relief totalling half £1 billion in 26 and 27 to to assist Woking recovery.

But this still leaves over £1.5 billion of debt, which, under the government plans, may shortly become the liability of residents across West Surrey. On that point, I pledge to give way to my hon. Friend Surrey Heath.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He's giving an excellent speech that I think really draws out the pressures that his residents and pressures that his residents and mine and indeed, the hon. Gentleman for Farnham and Bordon face. Surrey, for Farnham and Bordon face. Surrey, West Surrey unitary authority as a whole, faces the prospect of beginning its life on day one with £4.5 billion worth of debt. And the hon. Gentleman raised a very hon. Gentleman raised a very important point about the vital public services that need to be paid for my residents, and I am sure his are as well, are concerned that when West Surrey comes into existence, those public services could falter and fail on day one.

I wonder through the hon. Gentleman, could I ask the Minister what reassurance we can have that that will not happen, and that some kind of financial package will be offered to my residents and his?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for the intervention. I have an intervention for them on the Minister rather than me, but I hope it gives Minister time to prepare for what I also suspect is an inevitable question that she, I an inevitable question that she, I hope she addresses in the in the winding up. I'm very happy to thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. For giving way. And from Surrey to Staffordshire there is some to Staffordshire there is some concern in my part of the world, Newcastle-under-Lyme, about what a potential new unitary may look like and what that impact on the debt that a current council may have. And if a new unitary is formed, that that debt is carried over. So I just want to add my concerns to his. This isn't a party political party political issue. This is about making sure that people are not being forced to take up or pay the bill for debt that others have brought together.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member opposite from Newcastle-under-Lyme for his his intervention, and he's exactly intervention, and he's exactly right. This is an issue that affects all areas when it comes to local government reform. When it local government reform. When it comes to debt and other commitments which are in in neighbouring authorities. And it actually brings authorities. And it actually brings me precisely onto the point I was about to make, which it's really about to make, which it's really not fair that my constituents in Runnymede should have to pay for the failed decisions of Woking politicians, both those in power and those who failed in their duty to scrutinise decisions, all of whom they never got to vote for.

The scale of the remaining debt, when combined with other local authorities, means that the new Worcester unitary will be bankrupt from day one. New local authorities should be established on a sound and equal footing, so provision of services can be determined by local need. The government needs to urgently put forward a sound, long

**** Possible New Speaker ****

term financial plan for both Unitaries East and West in Surrey. Will my hon. Friend give way?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure to give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for a very impassioned and powerful speech on impassioned and powerful speech on this matter, which I wholeheartedly agree. I think he's being somewhat polite, by the way he describes polite, by the way he describes what this new unitary authority is going to be. Essentially, if it is saddled with the debt from Woking saddled with the debt from Woking and a number of other boroughs, it will essentially be stillborn from the start.

And residents in my areas in Farnham, Hazelmere and the other Surrey villages that I represent will be worse off because of it. Does he not agree with me that at that the government must write off that legacy debt, or at very least ring fence it so that our constituents don't face the penalties for the problems? And to be frank, the absolute mess that was left by other boroughs and their politicians.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He's a lot more hard in his Anchorage in terms of in terms his Anchorage in terms of in terms of his issue, and I very much respect him for that. It at the respect him for that. It at the very least, at the very least, I think that we need to have a well think that we need to have a well thought out plan and strategy in terms of what is going to happen with this block of debt.

There's a variety of different options in terms of how how it can be managed and how it can be dealt with. What I think is what I think is a fundamental problem. And my constituents raised in me and my constituents are really worried about services. Service providers, be it charities and businesses are really concerned about, is that decisions which have been made in a neighbouring local authority, which they have had no involvement, no dealing with, are going to have material impact on them when the when the West unitary is being set up and at the moment I realise the scale of the debt is a complicated, it's a huge problem to deal with.

It's a complicated problem. I don't envy the Minister in terms of coming into this, in terms of trying to find a way through that. What I, what I really wanted to express to her is that we need to have this debate and this discussion around it. I'm glad we've got this forum this afternoon to do so. So that the Western but but frankly, other unitary authorities which are being set up and which there's a problem can be dealt fairly. We know what's coming down the tracks.

And as I say, my residents are, you know, aren't going to be punished for decisions which have been made and other authorities that they never got the chance to vote for. This is fundamentally, fundamentally unfair. And I you know, my constituent, by the way, this isn't something which in some ways we're not used to in in my part of Surrey because we, we sit on the penumbra just on the outskirts outside of London. And there are plenty of policies that come from the, the, the mayor of London.

It's all from London, which affect us in a whole range of negative ways, and that we don't have the ability to vote for. So unfortunately, I think this is far and away the most substantial, and that there is just so much fear and concern and uncertainties in terms of what's going coming, what could be, what we expect to be coming down the track. Now, of course, there's a huge irony in all this, because Surrey is one of the largest contributors to the Exchequer in our country, crossing local authority funding, impacting services and many contracts.

Local authorities maintain risk serious harm not only locally in Surrey but to the national economy. For example, if the government doesn't effectively fund local highways, it will lead to deteriorating road conditions, resulting in more temporary emergency repair works. We all know the nightmare that that causes which causes delays, costs millions in lost work hours, missed appointments, longer transit times for good which damages the economy and by virtue, damages the national economy. If the government doesn't effectively fund adult social care, it of course Barking the hospitals pressure on health services, impeding effective recovery and care.

If the government doesn't effectively fund planning services, it means to lengthy delays in assessing applications for homes and businesses, but crucially, risks enabling rogue development, which blights Surrey and other areas. While planning enforcement remains a discretionary service, there is a real risk that this is increasingly seen as a nice to have, not essential tool to protect communities, and evidence shows that enforcement rates continue to fall in face of funding pressures. Pressures, inappropriate development, illegal development, people essentially cocking a snook at the planning system and building my constituency in places across the country is a serious, serious problem.

Rightly so. My local residents are, when it happens, absolutely incensed and critical to trying to stop this and turning it around is not only stronger powers around enforcement, something I've been campaigning on, but for years now. But is making sure that the very least we have the resources to do proper planning enforcement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Happy to give way. Grateful to the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving away again in his area. In his area, perhaps, as in mine, In his area, perhaps, as in mine, we've had increased housing targets of up to 150% as a consequence of this government's decision. And I understand their commitment to to house building, but that also opens house building, but that also opens up the floodgates to opportunistic development that is unplanned and that actually requires incredible expertise and funding planning departments to ensure that it's appropriate and is then enforced.

Those are exactly the kind of services that risk being cut back at just the time that they face the greatest pressure. So does the hon. Gentleman, again, agree with me that we need to have some kind of financial resolution to ensure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these services are continued into the future. Well, thank you very much for bringing up the issue about housing bringing up the issue about housing targets. I'm planning, in terms of local authorities. So my local authorities. So my constituency covers the majority of the local authority, and I think the local authority, and I think it's roughly around a third of the Elmbridge local authority in the Runnymede Authority. There is a Runnymede Authority. There is a local plan, so there is no risk of the opportunities development.

The the member mentions in the Elmbridge local authority, there isn't a local plan. And so there is a opportunity. There is an opportunity development. There's applications going in the way which are causing huge amounts of concern to to local residents. In the common downside South Devon and Laura Trott area in in particular. And in fact, just at the end of last year, I wrote to the Secretary of State to, along with councillors from Elmbridge to raise our concerns about the fact that because of local government reorganisation, again, Surrey has found itself stuck in status.

The I mean the there is no local plan in Elmbridge. Can that be put together? By the time we hit the election of the the shadow authorities? I mean, awful name when you think about it in terms of how you're sort of setting things up for, you know, when we're knocking on doors asking for support for the shadow authorities. But, you know, but how are they, you know, how how you know, what are Elmbridge to do? Do people do my constituents living in the constituency effectively have to wait a year and a half before we have the full authority going, when the shadow authority transfers over before we can have some sensible progress when it comes to getting plans in place so that we can protect people from opportunities, opportunistic development.

And that's before we even talk about the the scale of the housing targets, which are sort of disproportionate in terms of Elmbridge, how that spread. And the question I'm going to ask the Minister a bit later in terms of the absence of a commitment for a Surrey mayor who would be responsible in part in terms of planning decisions. I mean, it's I hope members can see from the conversation it's all a bit of a mess, you know, really in terms of where we're at.

And it's my constituents who are sort of and local businesses who are stuck in the middle of it and in fact, perhaps none more sensitive or concern or more, you know, there's nothing there's no topic which I think is more sensitive and concerning was the issue in terms of where we find ourselves with special educational needs provision. You know, we all know the impact of what happens when this is when this isn't, you know, fully funded. You know, it's obviously a, a national issue.

But I must say I would really like to, to welcome the work the county council has been doing. And Councillor Jonathan Hardy to improve transparency and engagement locally, and really turning the dial in terms of what's happening for families and children with special educational needs. But ultimately what's needed is, you know, national changes to services and support and the funding to to bring forward delivery. And without this, without the local funding, the opportunities for children to reach their full potential are limited.

It causes something, a term which is called coined failure demand, which is when services don't provide what's needed early on and you end up creating more demand in the system later on, you know, really harming and limiting children, notwithstanding all the pressures on families and siblings and the schools who are going above and beyond to try and support them. The government knows these risks. I know the Minister, you know, knows and appreciates these risks. I hope they also know it's a false economy to cut costs right now, and the resulting economic and social impact of not funding these essential services will really be calamitous locally.

Now, of course, as night follows day, I, I fully expect the government ventures and others will see this as an opportunity to blame the conservative government. And of course, I totally acknowledge that local government has struggled as a result of difficult financial decisions over the years. But the really is no more capacity for cuts, which is why we need to address this now. And I want to use this debate as a plea to move beyond any sort of blame game and political posturing, and to work together to address the real risks that we face and establish a sound financial basis for effective local authority finances.

Given the clear risks more than anything else, we now need certainty. Residents and businesses need to know that they will not be shackled with high costs resulting from other local authorities, poor financial management. Businesses and charities who have contracts and partnerships need certainty over their future, and we all need to know that there will be adequate funding so we all will retain access to essential services local authorities provide this. Can't wait until after the May elections. Our voters need to know what authorities they are voting councillors to clarity over the scope of the powers of the authorities, and this is the Minister's opportunity to answer 1.5 million Surrey Surrey resident questions how will local authority debt be dealt with? Will central government ensure an effective funding, or do Ministers intend to rely on constant tax rises despite the cost of living pressures? These are council tax rises.

These are taxes on working people, as she would I. The government, I assume, would define it. Will we have a mayor and if so, can we have the details and how can we prevent the long term risks of government? Continues to prioritise short term funding cuts for once, just for once? Would this government put

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Surrey first? Yes. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I start by thanking the hon. Member for Runnymede and hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge for opening this debate on the important topic of funding for local government in Surrey and for local government in Surrey and for the thoughtful, constructive and eloquent way in which he has and eloquent way in which he has made his opening remarks. Can I also thank him for acknowledging that we have inherited a very challenging context? I don't intend to do any party political back and forth.

The reality is the inheritance was incredibly tough and we are working at pace to try and rectify this in an impossible context for everyone involved. We share his view that local government is absolutely at the front line of delivering services to the people of this country, and they can only do this when central government works with them in partnership to overcome the shared challenges we face. Indeed, our local government reforms, including funding reforms and reorganisation, will enable local councils that are empowered to deliver local services equipped to drive economic growth and equipped to work in the interests of their communities.

That is a shared goal, that is shared priority, and we will work with anyone, across any political party in order to deliver that, let me turn to the local government finance settlement first, and just put on record that this is the most significant move yet to make English local government more sustainable, and that is a core priority against a really tough backdrop that local authorities across the country are having to navigate through. We are delivering a fair funding. We're targeting more money to the areas that need it most through, and then we're putting in place multiyear settlements.

First time that we have done this in a decade. This will give councils the certainty to have to make the longer term calls so that they can take a more preventative approach and do less on crisis management. Now for the local authority in Surrey, by the end of the multi-year settlement period in 20 2829, the provisional settlement makes available almost £1.5 billion of core spending power, and that is an increase in totality of 7.7. 3% compared to 20 2425. We acknowledge that there has been a cut in the core grant, but as has been the case for the last decade and a half, we look at the totality of core spending power, and it is going up that does not in any way negate the fact and negate the fact that we know it is a tough context to local government having to operate in after having to operate in a really tough context the last decade, but we are trying to give sufficient flexibility in the
16:58
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
approach that we're taking to enable local authorities to weather enable local authorities to weather that. For the first time since 2013, 2014, the government is updating the relative needs formula that forms part of how local authorities forms part of how local authorities funding allocation is calculated. Now, this has involved more using more up to date data, including the more up to date data, including the recently published in 2025 indices of multiple deprivation as part of our assessment of needs. And we know that that is leading to a redistribution across the country.

That is tough for some authorities to absorb. But the the principle behind it is the authorities and the communities that have huge levels of need and deprivation. We think it is only right and fair that we target more support to those authorities. I say this as a London constituency, MP, where London is taking some of that hit, but we see that as fair across the country. If in the end what we care about is supporting the communities that need the most help, we're also simplifying and consolidating 36 revenue funding streams worth over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

56 billion. Honour. I beg to move that this. House do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House do now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. Minister. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So we are simplifying, consolidating 36 revenue funding streams worth over 56 billion over three years. This will provide, we three years. This will provide, we hope, greater flexibility, stability, certainty for local authorities. We recognise that funding reform is just one part of the story, and that's why we're committed to simplifying local government by ending the two tier system and establishing new single tier unitary authorities.

And the hon. Member has spoken about this again, I think across the House, the end goal that we're trying to get to is consistent. There is common ground there. We want authorities that are sustainable, that are strong, that can deliver for your residents and your constituents. For Surrey, as the Secretary of State has decided, subject to parliamentary approval, that we will move towards the two unitary councils, East and West Surrey, now, on the question of debt which was raised and rightly raised, we are very alive to the pressure being faced by the new Unitaries because of the historical debt.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, we've announced an unprecedented commitment to repay in principle 500 million of Woking Borough Council debt in 2627. This is the first tranche of support and we will continue to explore what further support is required and how we can work with West Surrey Authority, the new West Surrey Authority, to resolve the debt issue. Because we are very clear that at the heart of this, our residents, our people whose our collective responsibility is to ensure that we are delivering for them, and so we are committed to working together to make sure that they are protected and committed to working together, to make sure that they have the quality and level of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

services that they absolutely deliver. Floating point. I think I thank the hon. Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. And I from what she's saying, it sounds like that she accepts that the remaining debt she accepts that the remaining debt is still unsustainable to be dealt with at a local level. Is she teasing us with a future announcement of further monies, or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

announcement of further monies, or is it more just a general ambition? Sir. I would I would in no such thing as tease with announcements that sit with the with the Chancellor. But what I would say is that the thing that we have said, sir, partners on the ground in local authority is that this is a shared problem and we are committed to working together to find a resolution. We understand the pressure that the historical debt will place on the new authorities, and it is incumbent on all of us to find a way through that ensures that on the other side of it, we have local authorities that are sustainable and that can survive, and that can deliver the quality of services for the local residents that's required.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would you give way? She's I'm so grateful that she gives way. Just a moment ago, she said that she will be working with the the the West. I think she said she's going to work with the West in terms of resolving with the West in terms of resolving this issue. How does she at what stage in the process does she anticipate a sort of decision and anticipate a sort of decision and resolution is going to be made? Because we're not going to have the West Surrey Authority as a operational statutory unit until spring about next year.

We've got elections to the shadow authorities this year. And the shadow authorities, as I understand it, won't have any powers until this date when they when it's transferred to the full authority. So still the current county council and the district borrowers will still have the statutory powers. Is she saying that there's going to be no debt resolution until West Unitary set up? Is she saying that there will be a resolution when the shadow authority's in place, or are we going to have a resolution on this before the elections this May? Because I think that's really important for our residents.

They I think they really need to know what they're voting their councillors to and what set up they're going to have to deal with it. Could she, could you say today, you know, even her that she can guarantee or it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an ambition to get this resolved before we get to those elections, Minister. Well, we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, we. Are already working with all the authorities of all involved. That is why, for example, we put in is why, for example, we put in place the 500 million to work in authority. We will continue working. authority. We will continue working. We've been doing that historically. We'll continue working with them in order to resolve this. I can't give order to resolve this. I can't give a time frame, in part because it requires all parts of us to come together to understand the scale of the problem, but critically, how we can work together and the levers that are available to us.

But what I hope he he will hear is that there is a shared commitment to resolving this, and we will make sure that we're working with the constituent local authorities to get to a resolution. I'll make a little bit of progress if I if I may. And look, I just want to also acknowledge that we know the pressure that that social care is creating on local government finance system and that this is squeezing vital services. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of planning, but we're seeing it across services that are not non-statutory.

And ultimately, if we come back to the core, the core thing that local government can deliver are effective services that hold and build our communities together. And we all want to make sure that that is preserved. And that is why we are driving through some pretty punchy reforms across, for example, children's social care, the biggest transformation in a generation, with the historic 2.4 billion of investment over the multi-year settlement period into family partnership programs. That's why we're building a national care service based on quality care.

Backed by 4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care compared in 2028, 29 compared to 2526, and for send a special education needs and disabilities. We will bring forward a full white paper because we understand that there is a pressure, we understand the impact it's having on local government finances, and we know that we must find a way through in order to make sure that we are delivering the best possible services for children and families that need that support, but doing it in a sustainable way.

I will give way briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am terribly grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, who has been extremely open in her been extremely open in her responses so far. One of the side effects of the financial pressures that Surrey is facing as a that Surrey is facing as a consequence of special educational needs is the so-called safety valve agreement, and one of the agreement, and one of the consequences of that is a school, a proposed school in my constituency called Frimley Park Academy, which called Frimley Park Academy, which has the money designated to it.

The DfE agree that it should go ahead, but because of the safety valve agreement, Surrey is not able to go ahead because of the ongoing operational costs of that school. It is an example of where the financial constrictions are having a material effect on. The provision of a really vital educational offering. Could I perhaps ask the Minister to take that point away and inquire about whether that could be freed up to ensure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the school can come to my constituency? I'm very happy to take that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very happy to take that point away, and we will write back, either from my department or from the DfE in order to provide an answer. Let me just end finally, by addressing the question that was addressing the question that was raised about devolution and the devolution process and the move towards a mayor, we are absolutely committed to devolution. I have spoken to the the leader of Surrey, where I've made very clear that we want to move forward.

The first step for us is creating a strong strategic authority that is empowered to start driving economic change, that can bring constituent authorities together to make strategic decision making, and we want to move forward with that at pace. So we will work with the new Unitaries. We will work with partners on the ground to make sure that we are building that strong economic footprint, building the institution that allows us to move to the next stage of devolution. And to sort of conclude, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, can I just thank? Yes, Gregory Stafford. She's been extraordinarily generous and I, I just don't want generous and I, I just don't want her to have missed the very important question from my hon. Friend from Runnymede and Weybridge Tonbridge, which was about a Surrey Tonbridge, which was about a Surrey mayor. Can she confirm whether or not here today in this chamber, we will be getting a mayor in Surrey

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be getting a mayor in Surrey before the end of this parliamentary term. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So ultimately that will be a question locally. The process is always to put in place a combined authority first and foremost and get that working. For my many years of working in this space of devolution, the big lesson that I've learned, and we look across to the Greater Manchester Combined authorities that if we get that strong institution working in partnership first and foremost, able to hold power and deliver economic development functions, it makes the mayor far, far stronger and more effective.

And so the first stage for us is working with the constituent authorities to move forward with that strategic authority. We want to do that with pace. We want to make sure that we are equipping it with the powers that it needs so that it can start driving economic prosperity for the area, so it can take on strategic planning powers, so it can take on transport powers, so it can start investing in the local community. And then we can then move through the stages of devolution.

But the commitment for devolution, Surrey is absolutely there and we will work with partners in order to deliver that. Can I thank all the hon. Members for the points that they have raised for their passion, their commitment, their advocacy for Surrey and the powerful points that they have made? I hope they have heard through this debate that we as a government, are absolutely committed to fixing the foundations of local government finance against an incredibly difficult backdrop. We are ready to listen to concerns of any local authority about reforms that are ongoing.

We know they are difficult, we know they are punchy. We are doing them because we think it is necessary if we are to get local government back on a sustainable footing. But we are determined to work together across party lines in order to make sure we're delivering our shared goal, which is services that work for constituents in every part of this country. And the government is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely committed to that. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say I. I the ayes that opinion, say I. I the ayes have it. Order, order! I need to
09:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Cabinet Office
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page