Fishing Industry
Debate between Angela Eagle and Andrew George(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Debate between Angela Eagle and Andrew George(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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)
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
Debate between Angela Eagle and Andrew George(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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
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.