Fishing Industry

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), a Cornish colleague who is a very strong advocate for Looe and the fishing communities around her constituency’s coast. I want to emphasise a point that she made about the fishing and coastal growth fund.

As the Minister will be aware, the fishing industry is seeking not only engagement and consultation from the Government prior to the announcement, which we expect in April or May—perhaps she will tell us—but full consultation on the proposals. She knows that Cornish colleagues have endorsed and reinforced the case that the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation has made for a delegated fund of £10 million for small projects. We believe that that is a very good way of ensuring that funding gets to the places it might not reach if it were simply held and managed centrally.

I have been to quite a few debates like this one, including during my previous life in the House. I have been reflecting, particularly as the Government have published the animal welfare strategy, on my early days in the fishing industry. My family had a boat down in Mullion harbour. In the summer months, we used crab and lobster pots and did a bit of mackerel handlining to supplement the farm income. I remember that on the few occasions on which we were able to keep a lobster for ourselves rather than having to sell it, my parents debated the best way of killing it. Should we use the shock of putting it straight into boiling water—we are talking about the ’60s and ’70s, when we did not have the science behind us—or was it more humane to warm the water gently? I was only a child at the time, but I am sure that with the acute hearing of a child I sensed the lobsters screaming. At least we now have the science to tell us that lobsters are sentient beings.

I am pleased that the animal welfare strategy acknowledges that we need to move things forward. I welcome its commitment to publish guidance clarifying whether live boiling is an acceptable killing method and whether any legislative arrangements or amendments are needed in respect of the supply chain review. That is relevant to the industry, as an adjunct to this debate: it would be helpful to inform fishermen about how the supply chain will work.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to the negotiations. At the end of last year, we were somewhat shocked that the Government accepted rules from the EU that will govern how British fishermen can work in British waters, and that it seems they were changed at short notice and without any consultation. These were technical measures that will affect British fishermen in their own waters.

Surely that runs contrary to everything that we were assured Brexit would give the UK—the sunlit uplands in which we would be able to decide for ourselves how we manage our stocks and manage our industry. Will the Minister explain how that happened? Why was the industry not consulted about those changes? Why did they happen at such short notice? Is it because we are outside the pre-negotiations that happen within the EU, during which proposals can be fine-tuned? Were we simply caught out at the last minute?

The hon. Member 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 have acceded by permitting foreign vessels with historical entitlement to continue fishing within the zone for another 12 years. She will know that the industry is arguing strongly, certainly in Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly. Why we do not apply to those waters the same 221 kW engine power limit that applies within the 6-mile limit? Why was that not proposed as a countermeasure to what was thrown on the table by the EU at the last minute? Doing so would have given the British Government a bargaining chip at that stage.

As we missed that opportunity, will the Minister assure us that she agrees that that would be a sensible method of going forward? After all, it protects the inshore fishing grounds; it safeguards, or helps to safeguard, the marine environment; it supports a viable inshore fishing industry; it reduces the impacts from larger vessels coming into the 6 to 12-mile zone; and it provides an enforceable management tool, because it is already established. If she or the Government failed to take the opportunity of introducing it then, does she now accept that it would be a good management tool? Will she ensure that she presses for it?

On the so-called benefits of the EU-UK trade negotiations, we were assured that the export of fish from this country would be made smoother, more transparent and easier, and that the administrative regulations applying to it would be less burdensome. When I have spoken in recent weeks to exporters in my constituency, they have told me the opposite: it has now become more burdensome. In the interests of time, I will write to the Minister rather than going through the technical detail now, but it is important that the sanitary and phytosanitary changes that have been brought in be properly understood. They seem to have created new impediments rather than resolving things.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall referred to the importance of the next generation of fishermen. I have been a strong supporter of the Young Fishermen Network, which is based in Cornwall, since it was established. Matilda Phillips from my constituency has been pressing its case very strongly. I hope that the Minister will look at its manifesto.

There is a degree of absurdity here: we are recruiting new fishermen into the industry, but they are not allowed to go to sea under the age of 16. In the past, that was one way in which they could experience fishing. It can be done safely: one can regulate and put in the safeguards to ensure that it is done safely. I certainly went to sea well before I was 16. I did not go into the fishing industry, but I know many others who did. It encouraged them and provided them with a strong base. It also gave them ways to buy into the industry by getting in at the smaller, artisanal stage. Many of them, certainly from my area and my generation, became well-established members of the fishing community, from a very small base. I hope that that opportunity will still arise.

Finally, I hope that the Minister will consider how ultra low-impact fishing can be further incentivised and supported. I know one fisherman on St Agnes, one of the Isles of Scilly, who uses a sail—no engine and no plastic. He is doing his best to tick all the boxes and use a low-impact fishing method. Because he fishes for lobster, he has had a really difficult year as a result of the octopus bloom. He tells me that in spite of trying to do what society is encouraging fishermen to do, going the extra mile and being as sustainable as possible, he finds that he is over-regulated and that there are no incentives for him. I hope the Minister will be prepared to look at the case of Jof Hicks and others who are trying to do the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am a very generous person, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman’s representative bodies. He knows that fishing is devolved, but I understand that some issues are dealt with nationally, albeit not by my Department. Such issues are dealt with by my previous Department, the Home Office, but not by my current Department—I am obviously talking about the issue of visas, which been raised by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not want to give away internal Government issues, but I have a meeting in the diary with the relevant Home Office Minister, where I will discuss some of these issues. Although I cannot promise what the outcome will be, I can promise that the industry will be properly represented. I know that this matter is also relevant to aquaculture and processing, so I am more than happy to take into account any information that hon. and right hon. Members wish to give me ahead of that meeting. Having met some members of the industry around the country, I understand the pressures.

I have met many representatives of the fishing industry since assuming my role in September, and I had a hugely informative visit to Newlyn in December. I have been invited to Bridlington, to Shetland and to Newhaven, so I have an entire tour of the country coming up. I may not be present in the House for a long time, because I will be yomping around the coast to have a look at what is going on in both big and small sectors of the industry. The industry is very complex, and it is impossible to make generalised comments about it. What is important for an inshore small boat will be very different from what is important for a deep sea trawler that spends many months out at sea; 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—let me say that I am grateful for the invaluable contributions of my fellow coastal MPs on both sides of the House, who have brought the views of their coastal and fishing communities to the Floor of the House. I am listening. I know that I will not be able to please everybody, but I will do my best to understand the issues that are being faced.

The development of the fishing and coastal growth fund has been welcomed in some places and condemned in others. We have been working with the industry to understand the priorities of fishing and coastal communities, and to ensure that they 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 in discussions on the Floor of the House—making port-side improvements and ensuring that funding goes to all parts of the industry, including small-scale fishers as well as larger parts of the industry. The issues of education, entry to theusb industry and ongoing training have also come up.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) did not miss her chance to suggest that Cornwall should have a ringfenced allocation from the fishing and coastal growth fund—a request that I heard when I visited Newlyn. I am very interested in using 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. That does not always happen with Government funding. I do not want the money to go to people who are very good at making bids for funds; if possible, I want it to go to the places where it will do the most good, so I am in the market for listening to suggestions on how that can be properly brought about. After all, we have 12 years to try to make a difference, and I hope that the fund can do that.

[Andrew George]

I am very grateful to the Minister for coming to Newlyn, which is in my constituency, and for listening to the industry. The Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation proposes a dedicated fund of £10 million, and wants to ensure that it works with the Government to agree on a strategy to develop the industry over the next decade, including through the recruitment of new, younger fishermen.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I had discussions with the Cornish Fish Producers’ Association and the Young Fishermen’s Network on the quay down in Newlyn. I missed the hon. Gentleman at 5 am! Perhaps we can meet another time when I am down there. The bid has been well thought through in principle, and I am impressed with it. However, we have to wait until the fund is properly launched. At this stage, I cannot say anything other than how impressed I was with the bid. Decisions will be announced after our consultation with the industry is over. I am sure that the devolved Governments will be doing similar things with their parts of the fund.

In the negotiations on the fishing opportunities for 2026, we have been able to agree about 640,000 tonnes of UK fishing opportunities, worth roughly £1.06 billion, based on historical landing prices, including 610 tonnes, worth roughly £960 million, secured through negotiations with the EU, Norway and other coastal states. We have secured these deals against a very difficult backdrop of challenging advice for a variety of stocks, including northern shelf cod, against a legacy of 14 years of mismanagement, broken promises and neglected coastal communities.

Our approach to the negotiations is based on rebuilding trust with fishing communities, securing decent jobs, and restoring fish stocks so that our seas can support jobs and coastal communities for generations to come. We have worked closely with those in the sector to discuss the science—an approach the Conservative party refused to take, preferring to negotiate headlines rather than outcomes—as well as to understand their perspectives and requirements, and help them prepare for the impact of quota decisions.

We have achieved a number of resulting wins in this year’s negotiations, including more opportunities for our sea bass fishery, a commercially viable total allowable catch for Irish sea herring, valuable plaice and sole quota transfers, and flexes in the channel and the Celtic sea. The total allowable catches agreed with the EU and Norway have 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 to ensure the long-term sustainability of the stock. We have increased opportunities for our commercial pollack fishery, following two years of being unable to target the stock, and we have achieved a significant increase in the UK bluefin tuna quota from 63 tonnes to 231 tonnes. 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, and support good jobs and strong coastal communities for the long term.

At the end of his speech, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me about Norwegian access. We believe that the UK-Norway bilateral arrangements are fair and balanced, but I appreciate that some individual UK stakeholders may favour changes to the current arrangements. We take that into account in the negotiations each year and keep it under review. It is important to look at these deals in the round, because what is given away may also be swapped in the quota swaps, and therefore there are trade-offs. However, if he and those in the industry in his constituency feel that something is going wrong or that too much has been given away, he must let me know so we can ensure that the quota swaps are working as intended.

We are working at pace towards a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, and are aiming to have legislation in place by the end of 2027. The new agreement will slash red tape for UK seafood exporters and reopen the market 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 and planned, and done with, not to, our coastal communities. As part of addressing that, the Government for the first time gave a strategic steer to the Crown Estate on key risks and issues associated with areas of 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 that avoid Government priorities such as the fishing industry and environmentally sensitive areas. I hope to continue to work closely with those in the fishing industry to ensure that their voice is heard when we discuss how these things are done.

I am conscious of time, so I will finish by saying that bringing about change is incumbent equally on the fishing industry and on the Government. We want to work together to bring about positive change. We know that fishing faces many challenges, but with 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 fishing—and I certainly am.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We have to get the science right on vaccination trials. The turkey trial is being carried out because this is one of our most valuable stocks, so we cannot rush it. I would not want to get our turkey industry into a situation where the vaccination trial was rushed and we were not sure of the response, because if there is not international recognition of vaccinations, it destroys the trade.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T6. Season’s greetings, Mr Speaker. In October, a Censuswide survey of 200 farms showed that 76% felt under financial pressure from supermarket buying practices, and seven in 10 thought that the buying relationship between supermarkets and farmers had worsened in the past two years. When will the Government publish the outcome of the Groceries Code Adjudicator consultation, which took place in the summer, and bring forward regulations to improve that relationship and protect farmers?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We have already brought forward some sectoral regulations to improve fairness, but there is a built-in difficulty when there are small suppliers and very large buyers. The fairness regulations that the hon. Gentleman talks about have been put in place to try to redress that difficulty.

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention but I have to say that I disagree. The evidence is there for the badger cull to end immediately.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On the effectiveness of culling, the scientific papers often refer to the figure of 56%, but when we dig down into the detail it becomes less clear. There was variation in the testing regimes during the period when the apparent reduction was detected, so it was not clear at all. There is certainly a lot of science out there, but none of it is as clear as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) purports.

[Irene Campbell]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I still disagree with what the hon. Lady said.

Bovine TB in cattle can be controlled by cattle measures alone, as predicted by the independent scientific group in 2007. Many are of the view that badgers are not the primary cause of the spread of bovine TB and that culling them is a cruel and ineffective way to tackle the disease. With all the aforementioned evidence, it is only fair to ask the Government to stop issuing new licences for culls and instead focus on non-lethal intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Meur ras—pur dha—to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). If we are being boastful about the number of people who are supporting the petition, the St Ives constituency, I should say that which includes west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, came first with 470 signatures. It is worth pausing for a moment to respect the constituency for having achieved that figure.

I do not want to make light of the issue, though. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and others have rightly drawn attention to how it is a matter of deep emotion for everyone, but especially for the farmers who have been very deeply affected. Many farmers in my constituency have had a reactor and have been closed down and lost cattle. That has a very significant emotional impact on the family and on the viability of the holding, which is not something that we should dismiss or ignore.

I have been involved in this debate for many years. I was a member of the Agriculture Committee back in 1997—that shows my age—when randomised badger control trials started. At that stage, the independent scientific group used triplet areas, with proactive cull, reactive cull or no action, and my constituency was included. I was a strong supporter of the trial. I ran the gauntlet of a lot of animal rights campaigners at the time by supporting a cull in the area.

I believe that when we are establishing any kind of policy, we must base it on sound science; we cannot simply conjecture. The research by the independent scientific group provided a lot of baseline evidence against which we have been able to track and compare data over many years, which is really important. I supported it not because I wanted to see badgers culled, or because I felt that they were guilty, but on the basis that we needed to get the evidence. At the time, that was the only way of getting the evidence necessary to base our policy on sound science.

Since then, there have been many further iterations in the development of the policy. I remember the policy of proactive culling, which is rightly being brought to a close by the Government now, being brought forward within hotspot areas in 2014. The debates in the House of Commons at the time were sharply divided between team farmer and team badger—I think they even referred to themselves as such—while I was saying, “What about team science?” We need to base this policy on the evidence. Some people will remember the then right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who was the Secretary of State, accusing badgers of shifting the goalposts, which caused a great deal of mirth. We had a lot of fun at his expense on that occasion, I am sorry to say.

It is important that the Government look very carefully at the science as they go forward. To pre-empt what I will say at the end of my comments, I think they are coming to the right conclusion. I welcome the approach they appear to be taking. People have referred to badgers being involved in the spread of bovine TB, and it is reasonable to say that the science indicates that they are, but I would argue, and the evidence appears to show, that they are involved to a lesser extent than cattle-to-cattle transmission.

A 2021 University of Cambridge molecular genetics paper by van Tonder et al. demonstrated that, on the basis of the studies they undertook, bovine TB is 17 times more likely to spread between cattle than to originate from badgers. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. I imagine that she and her scientists have been looking closely at whole genome sequencing, which makes it possible not just to identify that there is a reactor, but to identify the source of the bovine TB and trace the sequencing process. That and the work of the University of Cambridge indicates where the infection originates. It is important to understand that when one is coming to conclusions in this respect.

While we were debating the matter in 2014, I was talking to Professor Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London, who was involved in the randomised badger control trials and other work and who advises the Government on their partnership group. We were working with farmers in the constituency on the first community-led badger vaccination project. The Zoological Society of London did some great work at the time. We recruited a lot of support among the community of people who were not vaccinators, although some wished to undertake the training to become vaccinators.

That was the start of the first vaccination project where the community offered to support our farmers in the roll-out in Penwith—that is in the Land’s End area, for those that do not know my constituency well. Unfortunately, in 2015 I had to go on sabbatical from the House of Commons and therefore was not able to follow it as closely as I would have liked to as a Member of Parliament. There was then a worldwide shortage of the BCG vaccine, so projects like that could not proceed for two years. Nevertheless, the work of the Zoological Society of London continued across Penwith and the St Austell and Helston areas and is now rolling out further work elsewhere in Cornwall. A paper it published last August in People and Nature—for which, I say to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, the abstract was in Kernewek, which is a first—demonstrated that the vaccination trials over four years in the St Austell area showed very productive results. I hope that the Minister and her scientists are prepared to look closely at that.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a helpful speech that benefits from his huge amount of experience. I congratulate the 229 people from my constituency who signed the petition. On the basis of team science, does my hon. Friend agree with Keith Cutler, a constituent of mine who is a past president of the British Cattle Veterinary Association, who has pointed out in academic papers that the DEFRA testing is really not up to standard and that a far better testing regime is needed? With better testing, there could be better monitoring and better control, preventing the cattle-to-cattle transmission, which, as we have heard, accounts for the greatest proportion.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is of course correct. The testing regime has been hotly debated—indeed, not just debated; successive Government Ministers and scientists have promised progress on the testing regime for many years. In 1997, the agriculture Select Committee looked at this issue and the benefits of shifting from the tuberculin skin test to the gamma interferon test. The gamma interferon is often used and is a much more sensitive test. It produces many more false positives, which perhaps one might argue is a good thing, and fewer false negatives, so perhaps, if one wants to have a baseline of clean cattle, one might use it, but it adds to the complexity. None of this is perfect, of course, but perhaps the Minister might address the issue of the testing regimes that the Government are prepared to consider using to get on top of the disease.

I have a range of questions that I would like to ask the Minister. The first is about the tuberculin test and the gamma interferon test. I remember that back in 1997 there was a lot of talk about the diagnostic instrument for vaccinated animals test, or DIVA test, which has been referred to already, to differentiate between infected and vaccinated cattle. Clearly, that would be a golden bullet and enormously helpful to the industry, because until we get across that line, no cattle vaccine, no matter how effective it is, can be used, because farmers would not be able to sell cattle into the marketplace if they were not able to undertake that differentiation test. In 1997 we were told that an effective DIVA test was up to 10 years away. Every time we look at it, it is always 10 years away; the date simply rolls forward. We have been dealing with this issue for many years, so I would like to know this from the Minister: are we any closer to securing a DIVA test?

Secondly, if we are going to base policy on vaccination, are there enough vaccinators and do we have a mechanism through which we can create more? My understanding is that at present we have nothing like enough people who have the licence to undertake vaccination. When we were rolling out the community-led vaccination trial in my own constituency all those years ago, we knew that we were fortunate to have a number of people available to us then, but we also knew at the time that if any of them were to fall ill, we would struggle to continue the work. Clearly, there needs to be significant investment in training, and it is not something that can simply be created overnight. Maybe we could bring in a lot of vets, but that is an expensive way of doing it. Perhaps the Minister would like to advise us on that.

Gatcombe farm, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) has been referred to on many occasions already, so I will not go into it, but have the Government taken a view of the Gatcombe trials? If so, what has been identified?

Can the Minister tell us whether we are on the cusp of the end of the culling? My understanding is that no new licences are likely to be granted. On the basis of the licences that have been granted, is it reasonable therefore to say that this winter will be the last when there is any culling at all? When the Government announced their policy last year, there was a lot of concern that there would be culling until the end of this Parliament, but it looks to me—I may be wrong—as if culling is going to end. If so, the vaccine, cattle security measures and biosecurity measures need to be brought forward as quickly as possible.

What lessons have the Government learned from the Welsh Assembly policy so far? Wales has been ahead of England and Cornwall for some time in rolling out vaccines. Have any lessons been learned through conversations with other Government Departments? Similarly, southern Ireland was undertaking a widespread cull policy, which it stopped. What lessons have been learned there? I do not know, and I wonder whether the Government are fully aware.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I first declare my professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her thoughtful opening of this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for her as a passionate advocate of, and champion for, animal welfare. I also thank the 102,458 signatories to the petition, including the 143 from my constituency of Epping Forest.

We have heard many contributions from across the House today about many of the tools in the toolbox for tackling bovine tuberculosis. We have heard from the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for St Ives (Andrew George), for Worcester (Tom Collins) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). Some of the key elements that came out in those contributions were the mental health impacts of this disease—I will touch on that later in my speech—and the different tools that are currently available to us, or are being developed, to tackle the disease. No particular tool is perfect, but we need to be looking at a combination of tools in the toolbox.

I think we can all agree that, as we have heard, bovine tuberculosis has devastating consequences, and at present there is no single method that, in isolation, is perfect for combating it. During this debate it has been encouraging to hear colleagues from across the House reiterate the fundamental key aim, which is that we all want to eradicate bovine TB. That aim should unite all stakeholders, including farmers, animal welfare groups, scientists and veterinarians. Loud and clear in this debate is the importance of animal welfare—the welfare of the cattle and also the badgers.

As we have heard, there are various numbers for the cattle that are slaughtered, but many thousands are slaughtered each year in the UK as part of the effort to eradicate this awful disease. Equally, there are different levels for the cost, but it is estimated that the cost to the UK taxpayer is £150 million per year, with additional costs falling on the cattle sector itself.

Bovine TB takes a terrible toll on farmers, leading to the loss of highly prized animals and, in the worst cases, entire valued herds. It has devastating impacts on farming businesses up and down the land, and as we have heard across the Chamber it has significant effects on the mental health of everyone involved.

In the last Session, I was a member of the EFRA Committee and triggered an inquiry and report on rural mental health. Some of the most powerful evidence we took was from the veterinary and farming sectors about the mental health impacts on farmers and other workers, including vets, from bovine TB. The stress and anxiety around the testing of a herd, the trauma and consequences of having positive reactors in a herd, and the implications and outcomes of infection in a herd are devastating. We cannot overstate the loss of animal life and the human emotional impact that result from infectious disease outbreaks in farming.

My experiences as a veterinary surgeon in the foot and mouth crisis in 2001 are a huge part of my journey to this place as a Member of Parliament. I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime.

Bovine TB is a very complicated situation, with complex epidemiology that, I am afraid, still very much implicates wildlife reservoirs such as badgers in the spread of the disease. The disease can be spread between cattle, from cattle to people—it is important to realise it is a zoonotic disease—and between cattle and badgers. The latter transmission can be from cow to badger and vice versa. The review for the Government by Godfray in 2018, which was updated in August this year, clearly states that there is transmission to and from badgers and cattle, and that the presence of infected badgers poses a threat to cattle herds. The Godfray review also emphasised the impact that the disease has on the welfare and wellbeing of farmers and their families—a discussion we have heard today.

In October 2023, NFU Cymru released the results of a survey it had conducted. Of the 507 farmers who had completed the survey, 85% said bovine TB had negatively impacted their mental health or the mental health of someone in their family. Over 93% said they were extremely concerned or very concerned about bovine TB. The 2025 update to the Godfray review also took time to stress the significant research undertaken on bovine TB and its mental health impacts, and recommended that

“those dealing directly with farmers in a regulatory or advisory capacity, received basic mental health first aid and suicide awareness training.”

I strongly support that recommendation and very much urge the Government to work to implement it as soon as possible, in addition to other, similar recommendations that we made in our EFRA report on rural mental health.

As we have heard today, there are significant challenges with the testing for and diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis. Testing is so important, and more work is needed on the optimal tests for the disease, taking into consideration both sensitivity and specificity. There is a debate about the strengths and weaknesses of the currently used single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin—SICCT—test. Godfray talks about the move to the more sensitive single intradermal cervical tuberculin—SICT—test. Indeed, the British Veterinary Association also talks about the potential roll-out of the interferon-gamma test as a supplement to the SICCT. Those diagnostic tests are just one tool in our toolbox to control and eradicate bovine TB.

During the tenure of the previous Conservative Government, in a major scientific breakthrough, the Animal and Plant Health Agency developed a companion candidate test—the so-called DIVA test—to detect infections among vaccinated animals, and differentiate a vaccinated animal from a naturally infected one, and the hon. Member for St Ives spoke about that test. That major breakthrough brought us closer to being able to strategically vaccinate cattle in England against this insidious disease but, as we have heard, we are not quite there yet with that test. I urge the Government and the Minister that this must remain a huge and urgent priority, and I hope she will update us on the progress of the field trials and roll-out of that vital tool.

The previous Government drove forward an ambitious strategy to eradicate bovine TB in England by 2038. That strategy set out a range of evidence-led interventions to tackle the disease in both cattle and wildlife, including by strengthening cattle testing and movement controls; introducing new help for herd owners to improve biosecurity measures on farms and manage down the risk of bringing the disease into their herds; and supporting the deployment of badger vaccination. I cannot stress enough how important biosecurity measures are in the control of this disease, just as they are for many other infectious diseases, as we have heard in the debate, and that too was emphasised by the Godfray review and by the British Veterinary Association.

I cannot pass the word “biosecurity” without stressing that this issue is another clear demonstration of how crucial it is that our biosecurity is firing on all cylinders, and that the APHA is fully equipped at the forefront of the UK’s fight against animal disease outbreaks and their potentially devastating consequences. After pressing the Government no fewer than 17 times in this Parliament to fully fund the redevelopment of APHA’s headquarters in Weybridge, I am relieved that their national security strategy committed £1 billion to do so. I welcome that major commitment from the Government, which continues the work started by the previous Conservative Government.

However, that £1 billion, combined with the £1.2 billion provided by the previous Conservative Government in 2020, still leaves us with a shortfall of £400 million from the £2.8 billion that the National Audit Office outlined is required. The current plans mean that the redevelopment will not be complete until 2034, with interim laboratories not in place until 2027-28. The 2025 update of the Godfray review explicitly concludes that a “lack of investment” in the APHA, and in DEFRA more widely, is still limiting our control of bovine TB. That needs to be addressed with urgency.

Our wider short-term biosecurity is equally vulnerable, as outlined this year in the alarming findings of two new reports by the EFRA Committee. The “Biosecurity at the border: Britain’s illegal meat crisis” report stated that seizures of illegal meat imports have soared from 164 tonnes in 2023 to 235 tonnes in 2024. If we think about the amount that we are not detecting, it is a frightening statistic. Meat being handled in poor sanitary conditions is already creeping through into our food chain. As with bovine TB, the EFRA Committee’s reports note that a key part of this problem is a lack of strategic resourcing by DEFRA, such as DEFRA currently funding only 20% of the Dover port authority’s operational coverage, which is only made worse by poor data collection and sharing at present.

All of that is against the worrying backdrop of the worldwide biosecurity context, with foot and mouth disease outbreaks this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia; African swine fever spreading across the European continent; and avian influenza, bluetongue virus and, as we are discussing today, bovine TB very much with us in the United Kingdom. Those are critical and grave threats, and we cannot afford any complacency by any Government of any political colour, so I urge the Government to carry on really focusing on biosecurity. I shudder to think of the consequences if this situation is not improved as a matter of urgency. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what the Government are doing about the biosecurity situation in her response.

We have heard about vaccination of cattle today, and another vital tool in the toolbox is vaccination of cattle against TB. At present, cattle are starting to be vaccinated with the cattle BCG vaccine, which is based on the human BCG vaccine—a weakened strain, which does not cause disease. However, the BCG does not give 100% protection against the disease. On its own, that particular tool is not the silver bullet; it needs to be used in combination. As Godfray states, the development of a successful BCG/DIVA product is still not there and still not guaranteed, so we need to make sure that it is scaled up and rolled out at pace. Therefore, cattle vaccination should not be considered as the end result, but as complimentary to a comprehensive testing and surveillance programme.

It is also important to highlight efforts to vaccinate the wild badger population. Practically that is, as one can imagine, a much more difficult job than vaccinating cattle. As Godfray states, the vaccination of badgers can help, but it may take over a decade based on current approaches. The Government launched a national badger population survey in February, and further surveying is scheduled to resume later this year to estimate badger abundance and population recovery. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify when the results of those surveys will be published.

The last Government supported efforts to control the spread of the disease, and a new version of the ibTB mapping tool was launched, which is enabling farmers to access information on TB-free farms and facilitate safer trading.

Unfortunately, this year’s update of the original Godfray review has concluded that

“there is only a small chance of meeting the target without a step change in the urgency with which the issue is treated and the resources devoted to eradication.”

Sadly, we again are being warned that a lack of resourcing when it comes to animal welfare is an obstacle to doing what we need to do. That must change.

Moving forward, strategies to eradicate the disease must focus on vaccination. However, until that can be done at the speed and scale required, other control methods are still required. That includes the use of culling in the wildlife reservoir population of badgers, which has been shown to be an effective method of controlling the spread of the disease. We have had debate about that today.

Part of ensuring that culling is undertaken as necessary is ensuring that, behind alternative tools such as vaccination, we have the body of evidence necessary to give us the clearest possible picture of their effectiveness, strengths and limitations. The National Farmers Union and the British Veterinary Association have emphasised the need for this evidence, particularly when it comes to the use of vaccination and its impact on herd incidence. That can not only have benefits in terms of how vaccination could be used as a potential exit strategy or to stop disease spreading into new areas, but could give confidence to farmers that alternatives to badger culling can be effective and motivate those with livestock at risk of bovine TB to take part in Government measures, particularly in the light of the fact that, as we have discussed today, the Government have announced that they intend to end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament.

When it comes to information collection and sharing, both the Godfray review and the National Audit Office have stressed the disappointing progress made on the livestock information transformation programme, which drives livestock traceability. The Godfray review’s updated publication this year found that speeding up progress on that programme is essential to eradicating bovine TB by 2038. The National Farmers Union notes that this is a huge opportunity for the industry to unlock a wealth of additional information; I urge the Government to look at how the benefits of that can be unlocked as soon as possible in the essential task of data gathering.

The Labour Government’s ending of the badger cull seems a high-stakes gamble and does not appear to follow all the science or the evidence. For example, the study by Downs et al. published in 2019 found that after four years of culling, reductions in TB incidence rates in cattle herds were 66% in Gloucestershire and 37% in Somerset, relative to comparison areas. In 2024, Birch et al. found that, in a study from 2013 to 2020, the herd incidence rate of TB decreased by 56% up to the fourth year of badger control policy interventions.

[Andrew George]

I am repeating myself, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that those research papers were questioned heavily as, during the period over which the statistics were gathered, they were not based on the same baseline nor on the same system as cattle testing at that time. Therefore, they did not compare like with like. That was very heavily questioned at the time, and it was never satisfactorily resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your watchful eye in Westminster Hall, Mr Stuart, on this first evening back. I begin by acknowledging the strength of feeling in this debate, including from 170 of my constituents in Wallasey and the 102,000-odd members of the public who signed the petition. For many, the idea of culling badgers—a protected species—is deeply upsetting and even unconscionable, and I understand and respect that view.

As many have said, this is a totemic and polarising issue. The fact is that over successive years, hundreds of thousands of badgers have been culled indiscriminately across a vast area, stretching from Cornwall to Cheshire and across to the midlands. For valid reasons, many, including the Labour manifesto, have described the policy as ineffective.

I will be clear from the outset that this Government are committed to ending the badger cull. We stand by that commitment, and I say again that the badger cull is ending. We have already taken decisive steps to bring the cull to its closure.

Bovine TB has a devastating impact on our farming community, as we have heard in great detail from all parts of the House. It has cost the lives of more than 274,000 cattle, compulsorily slaughtered in England because of the disease. It costs the taxpayer over £100 million a year, and it costs farmers dearly in lost income and extra business costs. We have heard about the stress and mental health problems that waiting for those constant tests have subjected many families to. Far too many farmers have suffered profound stress and hardship as a result. They live with the constant anxiety of regular testing, the financial strain of movement restrictions and the heartbreak of losing affected animals, often reared with care and pride over generations.

In the year up until June 2025, more than 21,000 cattle were slaughtered in England for bovine TB control. That is fewer than the year before—but that is little consolation for any farmer who has had to watch one of their animals being taken away. Since 2013, more than 247,000 badgers have been culled under licence. That is a very large figure, and a hard figure to hear. Our challenge is to strike the right balance: tackling bovine TB with urgency while protecting our wildlife. The Government are committed to moving decisively towards a future free from this devastating disease, and to doing so in a way that is effective and that earns the trust of the communities most affected.

The petition calls for an immediate end to the badger cull and a stronger focus on cattle-based measures. I want to respond to that clearly, because I understand, and we have heard in this debate, how deeply people care about the issue. This debate comes at an important moment—perhaps slightly too early, I must say, but the petitioners are the petitioners, and we get the debates when we get them—since we are refreshing the bovine TB eradication strategy introduced by our predecessors in 2014. It was they who instigated this cull.

A new strategy is being co-designed with farmers, vets, scientists, conservationists and the Government, all of whom will have a voice, in an attempt to deal with some of the polarisation in the debate. It will be informed by independent evidence in the review led by Professor Sir Charles Godfray. The update to that review, which was published on 4 September, has been referred to on several occasions.

On the role of badgers, the petition argues that wildlife are being scapegoated. I understand the use of that word, but we must be clear that transmission runs both ways within species and between cattle and badgers, as has been demonstrated repeatedly by using modern technology such as whole-genome sequencing. We must have an honest debate and, to have an effective policy, we must recognise the reality that TB infections go both ways, from one species to another and back again. The Government’s direction of travel, though, is clear: we are investing in non-lethal interventions—non-lethal for badgers, that is—and cattle-focused measures, including both cattle and badger vaccinations, to end the badger cull by the end of the Parliament.

The most sustainable way to protect farms and wildlife is by investing in measures to reduce infection in both species, such as badger and cattle vaccination. Sir Charles Godfray’s evidence review concluded that the overall package of interventions—cattle testing, movement controls and on-farm biosecurity alongside the badger cull policy—has contributed to reducing bovine TB in cattle, but it also concluded that it is not statistically possible to isolate the impact of each individual measure. He said that it was possible to control bovine TB effectively both with a badger cull and without one, and therefore we must see how to move forward in the best possible way, given the manifesto commitment on which we were elected last year.

The petitioners, and many voices in the debate, argue that badger culling should stop immediately. They say that it lacks solid scientific evidence, it has gone on too long and it takes the focus away from tackling bovine TB in cattle. But, however much one might sympathise with those views, it is not really about choosing between badgers and cattle. The real question is how to take those facts seriously and decide the best way to keep bearing down on bovine TB until we can finally get rid of it.

I say again that the badger cull is ending. The 2025 season is nearly over, and this is the final year of industry-led culling in England’s high-risk and edge areas. To provide a little more information about that, at the height of the badger cull there were 73 licences to cull badgers operating up and down the country, and in this season there are 21. By the end of this season only one licensed cull will remain. It will continue until the end of the season and then there will be an analysis to see how effective it has been scientifically. A decision will then be made about whether to continue with that final licence.

[Andrew George]

Is that licence in a low-risk area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful remarks. She says that the DIVA test is currently being tested, which is wonderful, but does she accept that, given it was possible to produce a vaccine within a relatively short time in the pandemic—I appreciate that civil servants seem to have a rather stretchy temporal language—a few years is not good enough? Can she be more specific, given that this is costing the country millions of pounds every year?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Well, I have been in the job a month—I will be more specific when I have had more time to chase the questions I want to ask the appropriate people. However, I will make the observation that covid was a virus, and we are not dealing with a virus in this instance. This disease is difficult to find, pursue and detect because it has evolved to evade detection, which is what these kinds of things tend to do.

It is not simple and easy. One has to be careful to ensure that things are safe and not try to chivvy along medical regulators just so that I can make a convenient announcement to Parliament. We need to know that things are safe and effective. As various people have said, if we are to unleash them and they are to be used with the Government’s scientific imprimatur, we had better be right about it; otherwise, we will get into a situation where we cannot tell whether cattle are vaccinated or infected. Once we are in that situation, we cannot ever come back from it. This has to be done in a precautionary way. I am probably as frustrated as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) by the speed at which it is going, but it will take as long as it has to, with chivvying at an appropriate level.

To end the badger cull responsibly we must continue to tackle TB in wildlife using tools that are backed by science. Badger vaccination is not about ignoring the role that badgers play in spreading TB, and it is certainly not about blaming wildlife; it is about reducing infection within badger populations in an area where they pose a risk to cattle without resorting to culling a protected species. That has to be an aim we wish to pursue. I am told that vaccinating 30% of a badger population is effective at achieving the goals we wish to achieve.

Multiple studies show that vaccination is an effective way of controlling the disease in badgers, which is why we are scaling up at pace. In 2024, more than 4,000 badgers were vaccinated. That capability will expand further with the introduction of a new badger-vaccination field force next year, which will see us partnering with industry to deliver more vaccination areas. Alongside that, a new national wildlife TB surveillance programme and an updated badger population survey are being put in place to ensure that the field force and other measures are deployed where they will make the greatest difference.

When bovine TB hits a farm, it is not just an entry on a spreadsheet or a data point in national statistics; it means months of restrictions, mental strain and real financial jeopardy. National numbers matter, but people live this day after day in the affected areas, which is why our strategy must be practical on the ground, understandable at the kitchen table and, above all, effective. It is also why we are co-designing it with those who face the devastating disease every day, ensuring that their experience and insight shape the solutions we put in place.

As I speak, a steering group drawn from the existing bovine TB partnership for England is overseeing several expert working groups involving over 100 individuals. These groups are focused on governance and resourcing, cattle surveillance and breakdown testing, accelerating cattle vaccination, trade and movement, and badgers and other wildlife, as well as how to respond to changing epidemiology. The plan is to present a new strategy next year. In doing so, we will deliver a step change that reflects the best available evidence, the lived experience of those affected and a shared commitment for England to be free of bovine TB by 2038.

We will consolidate and strengthen cattle-focused controls, testing, movement, biosecurity and advisory support. We will continue to advance the cattle-vaccination programme at pace—and we will see quite what that means. People with greater minds than mine have talked about the relativity of time, but I want it to happen as quickly as is safely possible. That way, when authorisations are in place, we can begin the roll-out. We are preparing for deployment so that we can go quickly as soon as we get the go ahead.

We will scale up badger vaccinations across large, contiguous areas, supported by enhanced wildlife-TB surveillance. This is how we will end the badger cull: by building the capabilities and viable alternatives that make culling less necessary. We should not underestimate the challenge, though. The nature of the disease means the strategy must remain flexible, adapting to the disease picture as that too evolves.

The petitioners who made this debate happen want a cattle-centred approach, farmers want certainty, fairness and access to all the tools that work on their farms, and scientists want us to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The strategy refresh is our chance to knit those threads into a durable plan to ensure that we achieve bovine TB-free status in England by 2038.

The Government will end the badger cull by the end of this Parliament. We will replace it—safely and credibly—with vaccination, strengthened surveillance, better biosecurity and, crucially, we hope, a cattle vaccine and a DIVA test that can build resilience into the herds. That is how we will reduce disease, costs and stress, protect a much-loved native species and restore hope to the farming families who have lived for too long under the shadow of bovine TB.

Sewage

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is also a health scandal. What water companies are doing by allowing sewage to seep into our coastal waters and rivers means that many people who enjoy that environment for swimming and so on fall ill, and many of them lose days at work. As well as covering the cost to the taxpayer of cleaning up the environment, the water companies should really be making a contribution to the Exchequer to cover sick pay and the costs to the NHS.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of his coastal and island communities in the far south-west. They are also very lucky to have him speaking up for them.

The Windrush Against Sewage Pollution and Save Windermere campaigns worked together on a recent report showing that the use of funds for capital projects by water companies around the country was at best wasteful and negligent and at worst, dare I say it, deeply suspect. They focused on the proposal by, again, United Utilities to spend almost £13 million of local bill payers’ money on an extension to a sewage outfall pipe into Windermere. WASP found this to be “excessive” and said it seemed unreasonable that 43 three-bedroom houses could be built for the price of putting a mere 150-metre sewage pipe into a lake. The report shines a light on what WASP considers to be inflated capital spending costs at water companies around the country, and it rightly asks what Ofwat is doing by signing this stuff off—signing off huge bill increases when water companies are not spending that money wisely.

Trail Hunting

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I do agree, and I will be coming on to that later.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am sorry to make another intervention on the hon. Gentleman—my neighbour in Cornwall. He is probably aware that I spent hundreds of hours in this House on this matter before the 2004 Act; I was pleased that in spite of all the intimidation and threats that I received at the time, the Act still went through. The point was made earlier that the voices of those who get their kicks out of chasing wild animals for sport need to be heard, and indeed they have been: we have already heard that the leaders of trail hunts admit that they are, indeed, a smokescreen. They have used that word themselves to describe what goes on with trail hunts.

[Perran Moon]

I agree with the hon. Member, and thank him not just for his intervention but for all his work to raise awareness.

The Hunting Act did not go far enough. It left certain loopholes, particularly the allowance for trail hunting, which has meant that the law is often undermined according to the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports. Despite the requirement for hunts to obtain landowner permission and follow strict regulations, there is significant evidence that trail hunts often lead to the unlawful hunting of foxes and other wild animals.

According to sources in Cornwall, there are five foxhound packs. Alongside trail hunts, some of those packs have continued to hunt foxes illegally and have been filmed sending hounds to dig out foxes hiding in holes, woodland and hedges. Many landowners continue to suffer horse and hound trespass, and uncontrolled hounds regularly end up spilling out on to roads, causing a danger to road users, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell).

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I come at this debate as someone who is not entirely new to fisheries debates, after having been involved in them in the early days of my parliamentary career in 1997 and on a number of occasions since. On how the fishing industry is perceived by the political process, I have always found that there seems to be an inverse relationship between politicians’ desire not to interfere with the fishing industry and the inevitability that politics has to interfere in order to help establish and sustain an industry that is so important to this country. Indeed, there is a further inverse relationship in the sense that the industries that work in and are exposed to the raw power of nature seem to have a higher degree of regulation and administrative burden that is disproportionate to their sense of freedom from office-based activity.

It is interesting that the political parties that always seem keen to use the fishing industry as the poster boys for their campaigns and send flotillas up the Thames do not seem terribly interested in discussing the detail when it comes to the hard miles.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Although he did not name the individuals concerned, did he consider the fact that they might have other fish to fry?

[Andrew George]

We could spend all morning exchanging fishing industry puns, but I think it would be better to get back down to the nitty-gritty of trying to advance policy for the benefit of the fishing industry.

The Minister will appreciate what goes on in my constituency, which he visited last summer when he came to Newlyn, Sennen and other areas around Cornwall to look at the activities within the industry. That was very much appreciated and he clearly has a very sincere interest in the industry. Although he is not personally responsible for what he has inherited, he has a significant task on his hands in helping the industry find a way forward. That is what I hope we can encourage him to do today, because the issue for us—I am speaking on behalf of the industry, which I have spoken to on numerous occasions—is how last year’s quota negotiations are impacting on the prospects for the industry this year.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate in a light-hearted way—initially, at least—which is a contrast to some of the previous discussions. Is he concerned about reports that our French allies are seeking to link fishing quotas to other matters, such as access to the €150 billion defence budget? Does he agree that the Government should clarify their position on this, and will he perhaps ask the Minister to do so this morning?

[Andrew George]

I am sure that the Minister heard that intervention. It does trouble me. If we go back to 1974, when Edward Heath was involved in the negotiation of our entry into the EU, and to subsequent negotiations, the fishing industry has often been used as a pawn—a bargaining chip. It would be a great pity if that happened again. I know that fishing Ministers do not usually sit around the Cabinet table, but I hope the Minister will use his influence to make sure the message is heard loud and clear within the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister that the fishing industry is not a bargaining chip that can be handled in that manner.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

My hon. Friend has spoken about political intervention. Fishery quota negotiations are difficult and nuanced at the best of times and understanding the granular detail of advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, for example, is never straightforward. It always goes badly wrong when we bring in other considerations. Does he agree that both our national security and our fishing industry deserve better treatment than the sort the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) just outlined, if indeed what is reported is true?

[Andrew George]

If we are to establish a sustainable fishing industry that is fair to UK fishermen, it is important that the industry is reviewed on its merits and on the basis of science, not on political horse-trading with other countries. I strongly accept that point.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

Given the debate we are having and the risk that our fishing communities could be used as a bargaining chip, does the hon. Member agree that, as the Government have said, food security is national security, and we cannot have our fishing communities and fishing stocks traded against defence in any way?

[Andrew George]

These negotiations are difficult at the best of times. We need to make sure these decisions are made on the basis of merit. Of course, we wish to re-establish UK fishing entitlement out to the 12 mile limit and to ensure that foreign vessels are not able to use their historic entitlements to fish within the 6 to 12 mile zone. Relative stability within the common fisheries policy left the UK, particularly in the western approaches, with a significantly poorer deal in comparison with many European countries, and that is the basis of a great deal of disquiet within the industry.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Member is being generous with his time. I am fortunate to represent the fishing fleet off the Berwickshire coast, which is relatively small but very active, together with the fish processing industry. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation produced a very helpful briefing note ahead of today’s debate. One of the points it makes is that, since the UK left the EU in 2020, the UK and Scotland’s opportunities have increased greatly, and those opportunities would not have been there had we remained in the EU. Does the hon. Member agree with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation?

[Andrew George]

No, I disagree. I think that overall, the impact on the fishing industry has been a net negative, certainly for people in my own region, who depend substantially on the export of fish to other European countries. In the past, the majority of the fish landed in Newlyn, which is a very substantial port in my constituency—at least 80%—went to France, Spain and other European countries. The impact that that and other things, including veterinary inspections, vivier export requirements and licences, have had on the industry has been significantly detrimental, so I do not accept that. That is a conversation that I would be very happy to have with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, but by no means can one say that Brexit has been a great success, because that is certainly not the case.

The fishermen in my area do not feel that they have been well treated as a result of those negotiations. As a passionate remainer, I was prepared to accept that on the face of it, there was a potential benefit. There should have been—fishing was the only industry in which it was possible to make an argument that there could be a potential benefit as a result of Brexit—but that has not happened, so I reject the basis of that intervention and the point made.

I hope that in time, the Minister will look at the opportunities, rather than taking the sort of stop-start approach that I am going to refer to today—I will get to that point after all the interventions. I hope he will look instead at a medium and longer-term setting of quotas, with rolling multi-annual quotas, perhaps of up to five years. That should be the Government’s objective, and they should work with scientists so that the industry can see a way forward, rather than having to adjust its business plans at very short notice, which is the case at present.

I will be adding a few small points about the small-scale, low-impact fishing industry; indeed, I come to this debate as someone with a limited amount of experience within the industry itself. When I was younger, our family had a boat at Mullion, in the south of the constituency, which used to supplement our income from the smallholding that we had. It was very low-impact, outboard motor and oar-based fishing activity that involved the setting of lobster and crab pots—very little of it was mechanised; it was all pulled by hand—and mackerel hand lining. It was low-impact fishing that we could only undertake during the summer months because of the storms that came into the coast in Mullion over the winter period. I have that experience, and many members of my family are engaged in the industry.

The Cornish fishing fleet has a value to the Cornish economy of £174 million, and 8,000 people are employed in the industry, so I particularly wanted to address the impact of the 2025 quota settlement on choke species. It is going to have a detrimental impact on the significant amount of fishing that takes place around the western approaches. The headline impact is that on pollack, which is very much bycatch fishing only. Boats under 10 metres are allowed just 75 kg per month. We have to remember that this is an ultra-mixed fishery, so even though those fishermen target other species, such as hake, it is hard for them not to catch pollack. Because pollack is healthier than the science seems to indicate, fishermen end up catching a lot more of it and, under the regulations, are obliged to land it.

When the long-term ban was announced last year, the previous Government provided financial support for only one year, and the Minister and the new Government have not announced any other compensation for those affected by the pollack ban. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has anything to say about that. The industry asked for management measures for the recreational industry. At present, there is no management in place for the recreation fleet. The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation estimates that up to 50% of the total pollack catch around our waters is taken by the recreational angling industry.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice for pollack is currently being benchmarked, as the Minister knows, and that formal review of the available science will lead to new advice in June. The House and I would be interested to know what power and influence the Minister has in that regard before June and over any decisions taken after June when the benchmarking process has been completed. Will he commit to introducing new management of the pollack stock on or before the completion of the benchmarking process? The industry cannot wait until next January.

There are similar problems with Dover sole. Our fleet is targeting megrims and monkfish, but Dover sole are known to be abundant in many areas. In areas VIIe, VIIf and VIIg, Dover sole are relatively abundant, and therefore the total allowable catch for those areas is relatively good, but data is lacking for areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk, which has led to a much lower total allowable catch as a precaution. For example, each boat can catch 400 kg of Dover sole per month in area VIIe, but in VIIh it is limited to just 30 kg per month. Because of the catches that have been experienced, that is a significant diminution in the activity that the industry can pursue.

In 2023-24, the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation fleet worked with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to collect genetic samples of sole in VIIe and VIIh areas to provide evidence of the genetic links between the two stocks. Unsurprisingly, they saw that Dover sole swim between those areas. If that is proven and accepted, there will be greater confidence in setting fishing opportunities for the fleet to target monkfish and megrim in those other areas. I hope the Minister will prioritise the review of the scientific evidence at the UK-EU Specialised Committee on Fisheries, with a view to making a joint request to ICES to amend the total allowable catch for Dover sole in that area.

Similarly, the industry is working with scientists, CEFAS and environmentalist non-governmental organisations to aid the recovery of the stock of spurdog—a slender shark found in our waters—by providing bycatch and discard data. The spurdog fishery reopened in 2023 with a 1 metre maximum landing size as a precautionary management measure. Spurdog is a non-target species in a mixed fishery, so its increasing abundance is leading to increased unavoidable bycatch, forcing vessels to discard fish over 1 metre in length. In December the written record agreed that that rule should be reviewed in 2024 and 2025, but so far no meaningful adjustment has been made. Will the Minister promise to follow through on the commitment to review the 1 metre rule and work with the industry to develop more sustainable management measures?

There has been a dramatic recovery of bluefin tuna in our waters over recent decades. In the past, the Atlantic bluefin tuna saw drastic cuts in catch limits, and a crackdown on illegal and unreported catches across its whole range. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas has taken that action over the last 20 years to reach a tipping point. Over the last decade the recovery has benefited that fishery, and has reached the shores of Cornwall, where sightings of bluefin tuna have increased by a factor of 60 since just a decade ago. The total allowable catch set by the International Commission is over 40,000 tonnes, more than half of which is allocated to the EU. In 2021 the UK received 50 tonnes of quota, initially for bycatch. In 2025, the UK quota is 66 tonnes, with 45 tonnes for commercial hook-and-line vessels.

Sixteen tonnes, almost a quarter of the entire quota, is set aside for accidental mortality from recreational catch-and-release permits. Tuna are vulnerable to unintended mortality due to the long fights they often endure with anglers, so mandatory training and strict handling procedures have been applied to some vessels, and 1,700 tuna have been released with minimal mortality. But in 2024 recreational catch-and-release permits were introduced, with a voluntary code of conduct and training. Will the Minister join a roundtable meeting of MPs, fishers and scientists to look at how the UK tuna industry can be managed more sustainably?

I will not detain the House for much longer, but there are other issues that I know the Minister is aware of, and which I have spoken to him about—particularly the impact of regulations on the small-scale fishing industry: day boats, under 7 metres, that fish around our coast and take less than 1% of the annual catch. Last summer I met Jof Hicks on the island of St Agnes in the Isles of Scilly. Over the last five years, he has gone out of his way to develop a fishery that has the lowest possible impact because there is no plastic or fuel involved: he uses sail and oar, and he makes his own crab pots entirely from natural materials—growing his own withies and tamarisk to make the pots. He is sustaining a living from that. Admittedly, some of the restaurants on the Isles of Scilly are able to provide him with relatively healthy prices for his produce, but he is nevertheless demonstrating that it can work. However, he complained to me that all the same regulations that apply to supertrawlers apply to him with his home-made boat and locally made lobster and crab pots. I urge the Minister to have a close look at that, perhaps with me. I am not arguing that this is the future for the fishing industry, or that we can feed the nation by this method, but it can make a measurable difference and provide an alternative way of catching fish in areas such as mine, and no doubt in other places. We could forge a different approach. If we could take unnecessary burdens from the shoulders of people such as Jof Hicks, that would be enormously appreciated.

I will bring my remarks to a close, because many others wish to speak. I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions raised. I believe that politicians and the fishing industry are all pushing in the same direction—towards a sustainable industry based on the best available science—but we need to ensure that the regulations that are informed by that science do not create unintended consequences that have a detrimental impact on fish stocks and the fishing industry.

Things have changed. The culture has changed, and the industry is much more engaged with a science-based approach than perhaps it was when I first engaged in these debates nearly 30 years ago. I hope that we will continue with openness and dialogue, and that we will push for efficiency in the way we update the regulations this year. The pressures on the fisheries I mentioned earlier, which are being affected by choke stocks such as pollack and Dover sole, need to be addressed before the end of the year.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.28 am; if Members bear that in mind, we can probably manage without a formal time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the UK’s fishing and seafood industry and particularly the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025. I thank all Members for their constructive and thoughtful remarks.

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, particularly about cetacean hunts. I assure him that we have pressed that case at every opportunity, and that is exactly why we will be proceeding with electronic monitoring. We have common cause on some issues.

We have heard from Members from all around the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and, of course, the south-west—and the views of hugely diverse interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) pointed out, this is a complicated sector. I will try to cover as many of the points that Members made as possible. I say that to give them a sense of where I am going and so they do not feel that I am leaving them out. I will start with some general points, and then touch on the reset with the European Union and say a bit about the spatial squeeze. I will then address the very detailed points that the hon. Member for St Ives made.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very thoughtful and sensible introduction, which covered a range of issues. I reiterate how much I enjoyed that visit in the glorious late summer last year—it seems quite a long time ago now. I very much enjoyed seeing the diversity of the fishing fleet in Newlyn and the fish market, and listening to the views of fishing and seafood businesses. It is only by having direct discussions with people working on the frontline that I can be properly informed. It is all very well sitting around having policy discussions, but it is best to hear from those people.

I want to restate at the outset just how important the fishing sector is as a source of sustainable food for our country—a number of Members made that point. There are also wider social, economic and cultural issues surrounding that historic sector. As the Secretary of State has said repeatedly, the Government are keen to co-create policy through listening to fishermen and their representatives. That will enable us to create better policy.

Fishing is, of course, a very challenging job, and as the hon. Member for Epping Forest rightly said, sadly it is too often dangerous. It is therefore always right to pay tribute to those who have been injured or have tragically lost their lives at sea over the last year. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch published its 2023 annual report in October, in which it detailed the tragic loss of four lives and the loss of three fishing vessels in 2023. It is always important that we remember that. It is also important that the good work to improve safety continues—I will touch on the regulatory issues later—and that safety is paramount. I am afraid that there is still under-reporting, as the marine accident investigation branch flags up.

This debate is about the fisheries negotiations for 2025 and the impact on the industry. It is timely because we published reports on the sustainability and economic outcomes of the negotiations just last week, so I thank the hon. Member for St Ives for securing it now. The independent sustainability outcomes report states that the number of fish stocks, set in line with scientific advice, stayed the same for 2025 compared with last year, while the economic outcomes report details the UK fishing opportunities for all UK quota stocks in 2025. As mentioned by the Select Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), those reports are quite complicated.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) about the figures, although I take slight issue with her: yes, 769,000 tonnes of quota is down a little, but I am told that its value is slightly up, at £1.04 billion—it is about the same. The issue is that our share has remained constant while the overall amount has fallen on scientific advice. We need to be mindful of this issue. One thing on which everybody agrees is that it is essential that we follow scientific advice. We obviously have to interpret that advice in line with legislation and policy, but we still have the global challenge of maintaining our fish stocks.

As an independent coastal state, our approach to all negotiations has been driven by our domestic priorities, and sustainability is at the heart. We aim to set catch limits that take account of the best available scientific advice, but we will always back our British fishing industry and, through negotiations, push for the best possible opportunities for British vessels. That is a complicated set of trade-offs and negotiations. Many different parts of the sector come to me, quite rightly, to make their case, and they do it well, but we have to get the best deal for everybody.

In that spirit, in our bilateral negotiations with Norway for 2025 we trialled a new approach by working closely in partnership with UK industry representatives to develop a package of quota exchanges. This approach stems from our commitment to putting more emphasis on delivering our policies and programmes in partnership with stakeholders—we are working with the industry, so it is not just us doing it.

Industry feedback about addressing the balance of those who contribute and those who benefit from the negotiations has been broadly positive. In the light of that feedback, my officials will this year be hosting a series of workshops with stakeholders to help us consider how we take forward our negotiations for the next year. I am determined that we do things differently under this Government, and I am keen that we co-deliver wherever possible.

The hon. Member for St Ives asked about multi-annual quotas, which we discussed a few months ago. When setting TACs for stocks, we are guided by the best possible scientific advice. For most stocks, that is provided annually by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, but for some stocks, such as black scabbardfish and northern shelf ling, ICES provides biannual advice, so we agree catch limits for more than one year. In some forums, we are seeking long-term management strategies that can provide greater stability for industry between years. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we are looking at this issue, but it is important that we respond to annual advice.

[Andrew George]

I am not a fisheries scientist, but a lot is known about the maximum sustainable yield and the recruitment of each of those species that are relevant for commercial fisheries, as well as about the length of life and when species reach sexual maturity. It is therefore surprising that scientists cannot provide some projections for future years. Even if the data is only indicative, it would be helpful for the industry to know it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will go away and discuss it further. Virtually every Member who spoke talked about our relationship with our near neighbours in the European Union. Clearly there is a negotiation going on by proxy, if not directly, at the moment, so I will not comment on the individual points that have been made other than to reflect that we are determined to get the best possible outcome for our nation. I am determined to get the best possible outcome for our fishing sector, because there is a widespread sense that people were sold short last time around.

The temporary adjustment period for fisheries access ends in 2026, as was agreed in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. The Government are absolutely committed to a reset with the European Union, but I assure the House of my determination that we get a good outcome for the fisheries sector. We have proven our ability to build a strong relationship with the EU on fisheries matters, including through the quota negotiations. We have had five years of annual negotiations, and we have built strong foundations on which to take forward future agreements that benefit our shared fish stocks and our respective industries. Other countries are clearly pushing very hard, and we will push equally hard for our sector.

In 2026, the fisheries heading of the trade and co-operation agreement will see access for EU vessels into the UK zone become a matter for annual negotiation, to sit alongside our annual consultations on catch limits with a range of coastal states and international fora on fishing opportunities. That is a very important point.

Our ambitions for fisheries are no longer tied to the EU common fisheries policy. We have our own objectives, and we are making progress on things like fisheries-management plans, which are very important. That is central to our priorities for UK fisheries and the thriving, sustainable industry we want.

Clearly, one of the biggest issues facing the sector is the spatial squeeze, and I want to send a message to the industry that I am absolutely determined to stand up for our fishing sector. We need to achieve a whole range of things in our waters, and food is one of them. That will only get more difficult in the coming period, but we have established a very good process for resolving these issues through our marine spatial prioritisation programme. We will take a strategic approach to managing those dilemmas, but I do not underestimate how strongly people in the fishing sector feel about this—it has been raised with me repeatedly. I insisted that we put out the very strong written statement a few weeks ago on protecting the fishing sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

We have had a very engaging and thoughtful debate, as the Minister said. In the small amount of time remaining, rather than going through each of the contributions made by the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and the Minister, I will bring the conversation back to the positive outlook for the future of the fishing industry that the Minister has encouraged us to accept. That is certainly the message we would like to come from this debate.

On the specifics of the future total allowable catch of pollack, the Minister quoted the ICES advice that it does not see any signs of recovery, which is contradicted by what the industry is seeing in its nets as we speak. I hope that we get updated advice before the end of the benchmarking period in June. I would appreciate it if the industry and I could meet the Minister at that point to ensure that we have the most up-to-date evidence, which will be critical to the opportunities for the rest of this calendar year.

I welcome the Minister’s comment on looking again at the regulation of the recreational sector. Those points are worth pursuing, as is what the Minister said about low-impact, small-scale fishing. Perhaps we could have further discussions on that, as I know many Members are interested to know how it can be advanced.

Clearly, the apparent tie that has been made between the fishing industry and defence is the worrying backdrop of the debate. Likewise, the trade and co-operation agreement has cast a shadow over this very productive debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

As I have said to many hon. Members, I am always happy to try and meet farmers whenever I can, and I will add my hon. Friend to my list. I absolutely understand her point, but there was a fundamental problem with the schemes as designed, which we inherited. We need to do better in future. That is what we will do as we redesign them.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

What assurance can the Minister give farmers in my constituency? A site of special scientific interest has recently been designated in the Penwith area, which is supported by a recent designation of landscape recovery. We now seem to be in a position where there will be no support for that at all. How will my farmers adjust to the new regime, and what assurance can the Minister give them that the funding will be in place to support their actions in the SSSI?

[Daniel Zeichner]

There is some complexity in that question that I might need to address directly with the hon. Gentleman. Landscape recovery is absolutely not affected, so it depends on the exact nature of the application.

Draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 General Committees

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thoroughly endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Epping Forest and the questions he raised. I will make three quick remarks, the first of which is to embellish his point about whether the figure in the regulations takes sufficient account of anticipated development. The Government have committed themselves to significant housing growth in the coming years. With the Environment Agency’s projections extending the area of flood risk to new locations—it is inevitable that they will extend further over time, as all Members of Parliament will be aware—to what extent does the figure in the regulations take fully into account projected development growth in flood risk areas?

Secondly, what action can be taken when a planning application is made in a flood risk area where the Environment Agency has warned against development and the local authority grants planning permission in spite of that advice? In those circumstances, will properties be protected under the Flood Re scheme, or will they be penalised because the advice of the Environment Agency was ignored, including by the local authority that provided planning permission, placing a burden on the public purse?

Finally, on my first point about the development that the Government are planning and the areas to which the Environment Agency is extending flood risk zones in its 30-year projections, to what extent is that burden taken into account in the calculations? It is not just the developments that are happening, but the extent of the flood risk areas, which will inevitably grow over time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

1. What steps he is taking to promote biodiversity recovery.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

This Government are determined to halt and reverse the trend of nature loss in our country and end the cycle of destroy, regret and restore. We are investing £400 million in tree planting and peatland restoration. We have announced a new nature restoration fund and set out plans to end the use of neonicotinoid pesticides that harm our precious pollinators.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted nations on this planet. The “State of Nature Report 2023” indicated that up to one in six UK species faces the risk of extinction. The Minister’s reply is very encouraging, but just last week the Chancellor, promoting the Government’s growth agenda, urged us to

“stop worrying about bats and newts.”

If it really does come to that, who speaks for the Government, and whose side is the Minister on—the Chancellor or threatened wildlife?

[Mary Creagh]

We have to end the false dichotomy between creating places for people and creating places for nature. The previous Government introduced biodiversity net gain, which means that when a developer builds somewhere, they must deliver a 10% BNG for nature. That is in its early stages, after just a year, but we are looking to see how it might be extended. With the nature restoration fund, we have established a more efficient and effective way to allow obligations related to our most important sites and species to be discharged at scale, which has the greatest environmental benefit and is a win-win for nature and people.

Climate and Nature Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and the excellent work she has been doing in advancing the Bill. Indeed, for many years I have supported it in its previous iterations in the local authority in Cornwall. I had a speech prepared to encourage the Government to support the Bill, and I have listened to what my hon. Friend said about the importance of advancing the essence of the Bill. Since then, we have heard from the Green party, and I worry that we are now at risk of playing politics with an important matter. I believe that what is most important now is that we bring parties together with a shared agenda, and find a way forward, rather than generate divisiveness at this stage.

[Adam Thompson]

We have heard extensively about the importance of cross-party consensus, and I believe we have been having a fantastic discussion to that end. Does the hon. Member agree that in the name of cross-party consensus we should be working together and not just party political grandstanding in favour of the Green party?

[Andrew George]

Yes, of course I agree. I am a strong supporter of the Bill and want it—certainly its intent—to proceed as rapidly as possible, and for us to make progress in all the areas that have been advanced. We must challenge and ensure that we not only meet the commitments that successive Governments have made in relation to our climate targets, but that that that is achieved and reviewed on a regular basis. To be fair, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made clear, successive Conservative Governments have made important advances on nature conservation—from the Wildlife and Countryside 1981 onwards. It is not right or proper to besmirch any particular party for having failed in this area; we may well have arguments, but what we want is to bring together a political consensus to ensure that we can take these matters forward.

On nature, we face a significant crisis. I do not claim to be an expert, although I have been a lifelong member of the Cornwall Wildlife Trust and I support all its work. I have also supported a number of projects in my constituency—for example, during the summer months, I volunteer on a butterfly transect in my locality to track the decline of butterflies. Some might ask, “Well, what is the relevance of that?” but butterflies are the model organism through which to study habitat fragmentation, habitat loss and climate change in this country, and the weather vane for how we as a nation are doing.

I have to say that the results of the transect are extremely worrying, and although I am more of a bag carrier and scribe for my wife, it is certainly an educative and helpful process—I would encourage all hon. Members to undertake similar volunteer work in their constituencies to track and monitor what is going on with our wildlife. The locality where the transect takes place is a particular hotspot for the silver-studded blue, and we are tracking its decline there. However, nationwide, in the last 14 years, the common blue has seen a 51% decline, and there has been a 65% decline in the green-veined white. The small tortoiseshell has seen a 59% decline, and the painted lady an 81% decline. There have been significant declines across all species within that period, and that needs to be looked at.

At the same locality, we have also observed migratory birds coming to the coast and the shorelines of west Cornwall. One that I track and that I have a particular interest in is the Arctic tern. Remarkably, Arctic terns migrate—one would advise them not to—25,000 miles from the south pole to the north pole, or from the Antarctic to the Arctic. They stop over on our shores, and it is such an enormous privilege to have such remarkable creatures stopping by.

As they arrive, a bit like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds after she has rowed across the ocean, they are met with dog walkers who—this is not through ignorance or malevolence; well, it is not through malevolence—disturb them and make them unable to feed and rest, at the very time when they most need to. We need to address that through legislation, as well as education, which is vital. I do not think that there is any malevolent intent on the part of walkers who take their dogs to the coast and disturb the wildlife in that manner, but we need to engage with the public. Legislation like this gives us the opportunity to engage and regulate in a manner that I hope will bring the public with us to protect wildlife.



Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will conclude in order to give others an opportunity to speak. I do hope that before Green party Members decide to press the matter to a vote, they will talk to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds a little more and ensure that we bring the House together today so that the purpose of this legislation can be advanced. That is the most important thing of all.