Fishing Industry

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry.

I place on record my appreciation of the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate and for bringing it back to its rightful place here in the main Chamber of the House.

The Prime Minister and his colleagues often tell us, rightly, that food security is national security. The focus of our discussions about food security is often what we farm on land, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we are an island nation and we are surrounded by seas which, if managed properly, can provide us with a source of good quality protein that can be harvested in a carbon-efficient way.

The people who work in our fishing industries often do so in difficult and dangerous circumstances. Still too many of them lose their lives in pursuit of our food and we should record our appreciation for what they do to keep us fed. I say “fishing industries” for a reason. Too often, we talk about fishing as if it were a single homogeneous industry, when the truth is very different. Even in my constituency, the issues facing inshore crab boats are very different from those facing the larger white- fish boats, which are in turn different from the issues facing the pelagic boats. Layer on top of that the interests of aquaculture, and we begin to get a sense of the complexity of seafood harvesting and production.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

As many Members may know, warmer sea temperatures brought unexpected numbers of octopus to the waters around South Devon last year, and my crab and lobster fishermen have seen their catch decimated. They have lost up to 80%, hauling empty pots for weeks on end. That means fleet members are now cancelling maintenance work and having to lay off crew. Our fishing communities desperately need support, whether to enable them to stay in the industry or to help them decommission and leave. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that support is desperately needed from the Government?

[Mr Carmichael]

It is critically important. I heard that for myself from my hon. Friend’s constituents when I visited Brixham not once but twice in the run-up to Christmas. It remains to be seen whether the invasion of octopus will be permanent because of changing water temperature, or whether it is just another of those blips that I think last happened in the 1950s. Whatever the truth of the matter, something has to be done for the industry that is there at the moment when the truth is finally established.

We speak about aquaculture as being all about finfish, but in my constituency and elsewhere the role of shellfish aquaculture is enormously important and deserves more attention, especially as we anticipate the conclusion of a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union.

Fishing is still a predominantly community-based and family-run industry. It may not shift the dial massively in terms of UK-wide GDP, but in those areas where it matters it is nearly always essential. In Shetland, caught and farmed fish account for approximately one third of our local economic product. We have benefited over the years from the presence of oil and gas, and now from a growing visitor economy, but they do not define our community in the way that fishing does. I labour that point because it matters. People would be forgiven for thinking that this is an industry determined to plunder the seas and extract every last living organism from it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fishing is predominantly a family business, and the people working in it want to hand on their business to the next generation. They have more of an interest in ensuring that there is a business to be handed on.

Fishing is an area of Government policy where good co-operation between our Governments makes a difference. That is what the industry needs and expects of us. Sadly, it does not always get it. The recent controversy around the fishing and coastal growth fund illustrates how it is fishers who lose out when that goes wrong. Let us remember that the roots of that fund lie in the decision of the Prime Minister to sign up for a 12-year extension of the catastrophically bad deal that Boris Johnson got us in the trade and co-operation agreement in 2020. Given that the EU was looking only for a five-year extension, it is quite an achievement to have managed to negotiate it up to 12 years. Let us also not forget that the loss of fishing effort traded away by the Prime Minister is worth about £6 billion over the 12-year period at today’s prices. If we were able to get half or even a quarter of that, the fund would never have been necessary.

To my mind, it makes perfect sense for the fund to be administered on a UK-wide basis, as was the case with the previous fund delivered by the last Government. That would, in fact, have been an opportunity for Scotland’s two Governments to work together collaboratively on the delivery, and might have been more reflective of the fact that Scotland’s fleet accounts for more than 60% of the UK fishing effort.

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

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very pertinent intervention. I have been to Stratford, and it is a lovely place. No community should be blighted by sewage at the hands of these water bosses. The point about volume, and not just hours of sewage dumping, is key.

The River Nidd, which once brought joy to families in Harrogate and Knaresborough, is now treated as a health hazard. Every year, kids are taken to hospital after playing and swimming in it. Dogs routinely fall sick and have to go to the vet if they dare go swim in the lido. That is not progress, but decline. Things are not getting better; they are still getting worse.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. In 2024, storm overflows at Harbertonford waste water treatment works discharged into the Harbourne river for more than 3,500 hours. In other words, raw sewage was pumped into the river, which flows into the glorious River Dart, for 40% of the year. As of this morning, the same storm overflow has been activated since 11 January. Does my hon. Friend agree that South West Water must not be allowed to get away with that?

[Tom Gordon]

That is another fantastic example of how poorly water companies across the length and breadth of our country are performing. It is entirely unacceptable. My hon. Friend and many other Liberal Democrat colleagues have done a fantastic job of holding the water bosses to account. Her constituents are very lucky to have her, and I am sure she will continue to do that.

Last summer, I took part in the Knaresborough bed race, which ends with participants crossing the River Nidd after running around town, up and down hills, with kids on beds. It is a fantastic event. If Members have not seen it, they should google it—even better, they should come and watch it. Hopefully, I will get a place to do it again this year. But in recent years the river crossing at the end has become contentious. There was talk of scrapping it altogether because of the danger of having to cross the river when sewage overflows have been pumping. Locals advise those competing in the race to drink a can of full-sugar Coke at the end in the hope that it will kill off any bacteria and nasty things that they may have swallowed during the river crossing. When that is the best piece of advice that people can give to those competing in a sporting event, something has gone very wrong. The regulation of the water sector is completely failing. No one should have to fear sickness from their local river in 21st century Britain, but that is Yorkshire Water’s legacy in my constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan.

Cleaning up our rivers is one of my top priorities, and I am delighted that the Government agree and have introduced more legislation and action on enforcement in 18 months than the previous Government did in 14 years. I was incredibly pleased to serve on the Bill Committee for the Water (Special Measures) Act—the subject of this debate—with some of the other Members present. The Act sets out, for the first time, a ban on water company bosses’ bonuses, and will ensure that the CEOs of water companies can even face criminal charges and imprisonment.

In Wales, Dŵr Cymru is our not-for-profit water company. However, I am afraid that being not for profit has not stopped it dumping sewage into our much-loved rivers. In 2023, we had a massive 2,383 sewage-dumping incidents in Monmouthshire. In 2022, the then chief executive took home £332,000, and a further £232,000 in bonuses. More recently, Ofwat stepped in and stopped the company paying out £163,000 in bonuses from customers’ money, so that was a step forward.

[Caroline Voaden]

In May 2024, an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in my constituency left 17,000 properties under a boil water notice for as long as two months. Although the incident is the subject of legal investigation, I would like to highlight my constituents’ frustration that the then CEO, Susan Davy, later picked up a share bonus of £191,000, bringing her total package for that year up to £803,000. Ofwat banned six water companies from paying executive bonuses, but I was shocked to see that South West Water was not one of them. Does the hon. Member agree that that is a clear illustration of why Ofwat must be replaced without delay, as it clearly fails to adequately protect the public interest?

[Catherine Fookes]

Our White Paper, published today, deals with the reform of Ofwat, so hopefully we will see an end to that kind of behaviour. In fact, I was just about to say that a total of £9.7 million was paid out in executive bonuses and benefits to water and sewage company executives between 2022 and 2023. The Act will stop bonuses for poor performances.

Let me move on to my favourite topic: our wonderful rivers, which we seek to protect with the Act. I would argue that in Monmouthshire we have some of the finest rivers in the UK. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), but they are much nicer than the River Tyne. The majestic Wye—the birthplace of tourism in the UK—the babbling Usk and the meandering Monnow are all wonderful rivers. They give us our sense of place, they provide recreation in the form of walks, kayaks or swims, and they are a magnet for tourism. They are the backbone of our local economy.

I will never forget the awe I felt when I first saw a flash of blue go past me as I was kayaking down the River Wye, as I saw my first ever kingfisher. It was an incredibly exciting moment. Rivers know no borders, and the Wye runs through four counties and two countries, so we must co-operate to manage it across borders. Fortunately, that is now possible given that we have two Labour Governments working together.

When I was growing up, my parents had no problem with letting me go and cool off by dunking myself in the chalk streams near my house. The only issue was the mess that I made when I came back inside. Now, though, parents have to be fearful of letting their children go in the river. The only thing on which I really agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) is the fact that dogs are now getting seriously ill in our rivers. A wonderful, usually bouncy, sprollie named Tess recently fell seriously ill with E. coli after swimming in the river, only recovering after many weeks of antibiotics.

We all want waterways that we can swim in, and water that is safe to drink and available to us, and we want it at an affordable price, so I am delighted that our two Governments in Cardiff and here in Westminster are working together. I am so grateful to the Minister for all her work and for supporting me in a meeting with the Wye Catchment Partnership and the Welsh Government, which resulted in £1 million for the River Wye action plan, which is just the start of the Wye’s recovery. I also thank all the non-governmental organisations and citizen scientists—the Welsh Rivers Union, Friends of the River Wye, Save the River Usk and the Wye and Usk Foundation, to name but a few—for all their work to help to clean up our rivers.

I am pleased that as well as the Water (Special Measures) Act, the White Paper has been published today, and it aims to overhaul the water system and strengthen regulation. It is the next piece of the jigsaw puzzle. The Deputy First Minister has confirmed that, following the Cunliffe review, the Welsh Government will publish their vision for water reform in Wales later this year, setting out the next steps and inviting views from others. I welcome the fact that there will be a shared transition plan, co-designed with the UK Government, that sets out the route to a new water system in Wales, and that interim arrangements, including a strategic policy statement for Ofwat and other regulators, will provide clarity during the period of transition.

I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for all their work so far on this vital issue. I hope the Minister can assure me that the UK and Welsh Governments will continue to work closely on our water courses as, of course, rivers do not heed boundaries.

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Dyke]

I wholeheartedly agree. The financial burden, and also the emotional burden, on farmers is devastating. We know the pressures our farmers are under already. With inheritance tax, the recent withdrawal of the sustainable farming incentive and the countryside stewardship scheme coming to an end this year, many farmers are on the brink. As we know, TB leads many to close their farm gates for the very last time, so proper compensation is crucial.

The current testing system is failing animals and failing our farmers. Too many infected animals slip through undetected, and many farmers lose clean stock completely unnecessarily. All the while, the taxpayer spends nearly £30 million per year on compensation alone to UK farmers. In total, the cost of TB is estimated to be well over £100 million per year to the public purse.

I recently visited Gatcombe farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), where the TB eradication project is being led by the farmer, Robert Reed, and his vet, Dick Sibley. The research carried out there over the last 10 years raises important questions for the Minister about how we should solve this problem. That work has shown that undetected infection in cattle is the main driver of transmission and that the current skin-testing method has serious flaws. Some cows pass the test 30 times over, but they fail more advanced blood or faeces tests. Enhanced testing is currently illegal in officially tuberculosis-free herds, despite the fact that the failure to detect TB and the lack of trust in the system are causing so many of the issues.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

A farmer in my constituency has engaged in some of the methods suggested by Dick Sibley at Gatcombe and has made practical changes to prevent TB from spreading in her herd. After years of positive tests and the brutal effect on her and her family’s mental health of losing much-loved pedigree animals, the changes appeared to have had the desired effect. However, it took a great deal of time and commitment for her to carry out the research needed to better understand the biosecurity and how to manage the herd—time that many farmers simply do not have. Does my hon. Friend agree that better advice and engagement with farmers would help to ensure they have the resources to understand alternative ways to prevent the spread within a herd?

[Sarah Dyke]

I absolutely agree: education is critical. It is also critical in allowing research to continue. Of course, that requires funding, but we also need the right capital investment in farms, so that they can carry out the herd management required to stop the transmission of bovine TB.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise our fruit-growing sector. It has been known for a long time that this scheme is coming to an end, and I am afraid the truth is that it did not provide very good value for money. We will replace it as part of our new food strategy, and announcements on that will be coming down the line. However, I am slightly surprised to hear that he is so keen to preserve an EU-based scheme. Who knew that there were Opposition Members still hankering to be in the EU?

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

5. If he will make it his policy to redistribute fines levied against water companies since November 2023 to the water restoration fund.

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

This Labour Government have launched the largest ever crackdown against poorly behaving water companies. As part of this operation, Ofwat has hit Thames Water with a £100 million fine, which is the biggest in British history. I am delighted to confirm today that fines collected by regulators will be directly invested in projects, led by communities up and down the country, to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the Minister for her answer on the water restoration fund, but it would be good to know when it will come back into action. A Liberal Democrat freedom of information request found that Ofwat has failed to force water companies to pay any fines for sewage discharge cases since 2021, despite sewage being pumped into waterways for over 3.6 million hours last year alone. Meanwhile, water company bosses earned a collective total of £20 million in the 2023-24 financial year. The water restoration fund provided valuable funds to local communities to improve water quality and river health. When will the Government stand up to the water companies, make them pay for the damage they are inflicting on our environment, and ringfence this money for communities, so that they can protect and improve their waterways?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady, but with respect, the response was in my original answer. As I confirmed, the water restoration fund is continuing as planned. Successful projects have been notified, and money has been announced and given. As I have stated, all the money collected from water fines will be diverted into nature projects to help clean up our rivers, lakes and seas across the country—and yes, that money will be ringfenced.

Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Petitions Committee for calling this important debate and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing it.

The call to end the cage age of animal farming is clear. It comes not just from Parliament and politicians but from the public, nowhere more so than in my constituency. More people have signed the petition to end the use of cages and crates for farmed animals in South Devon than in any other constituency in the country. That is a powerful message from a rural farming community, which is demanding a future built on compassion, not cruelty. I thank the 513 people from South Devon who signed the petition.

I urge the Government to keep their promise and finally take action to end the cage age of animal farming, not through vague pledges or delayed consultations but with a clear strategy delivered within this Parliament. Farrowing crates and other cruel confinement practices belong to the past. They cause immense suffering and deny animals, including the thousands of birds kept in cages for so-called sport, basic freedoms and dignity. In 2025, that is simply unacceptable.

The Liberal Democrats have a long-standing record of standing up for animals. We have consistently supported stronger penalties for animal cruelty and higher welfare standards in farming. In government, we put in place a ban on battery cages for laying hens. I would like to see that ban extended to all cages but, as others have rightly said, that must be done carefully and in consultation with farmers and producers.

For too long, we have been pushing the Government to launch a consultation into the use of farrowing crates for pigs, and to end the use of cages for farm animals. Our farmers are key to delivering that future. We know they care deeply about animal welfare, but they have been badly let down: betrayed by trade deals that undercut our high welfare standards, failed by poorly designed and delayed subsidy schemes, and denied the workforce and funding they need to thrive. To make these changes to caged animal farming, we must give farmers the support they need to transition.

Let us talk about that support, because the numbers are frankly outrageous. The Government are spending £67.5 billion on defence, or more than 5% of total public spending, while the entire DEFRA budget languishes at just £7.4 billion—barely 0.6%. Farming itself receives just £2.4 billion, or a meagre 0.2% of the national budget. To put that in perspective, all DEFRA spending—not just for farming but for the environment, food and rural affairs—adds up to just 11% of what we spend on defence. Food security is part of our national security, but how can we claim to prioritise food security, rural livelihoods or animal welfare with numbers like that? Farming takes the largest share of DEFRA’s budget, but it is nearly one third of a shockingly small pie. Meanwhile, the programmes meant to support the future of farming, improve animal welfare and restore our natural environment, including the sustainable farming incentive, countryside stewardship and landscape recovery, have been hit with a £100 million cut—cuts in the middle of a climate crisis, cuts while farmers struggle to meet the higher standards that we are demanding with fewer resources, cuts when public demand for ethical farming has never been stronger.

The Liberal Democrats stand with our farmers and our animals. We are calling for an extra £1 billion in the farming budget to support higher welfare standards, proper training and workforce investment. We will keep fighting to ensure no food can be imported or sold in the UK if it is produced in a way that would be illegal here.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. Does she agree that lots of British farmers, like many in my North Cornwall constituency, are trying to move away from confined systems such as crates, but that until the Government insist on applying UK animal welfare standards to imported food, they will be undercut by cheaper, lower-welfare imports?

[Caroline Voaden]

It is key that if we are going to demand higher standards here, we must apply the same standards to food that we import.

If the Minister truly believes that food security is national security, that needs to be backed up with real investment—not empty slogans or cuts on a spreadsheet, but real support for our farmers. I ask him to listen to communities such as those in South Devon, which are demanding that we act. We banned battery cages in 2012; now it is time to finish the job. Let this be the Parliament that truly ends the cage age.

Sewage

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

I will talk later about why privatisation of the water industry was such a colossal mistake, and that is one of the consequences—a predictable consequence. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point.

Recent research by Surfers Against Sewage covers all the water companies, but I am bound to pick out United Utilities as an example. United Utilities paid out £320 million to investors last year, while its customers—my constituents—will pay 32% more in bills. By the way, 11% of every one of my constituents’ water bills is going to service that company’s debts—debts racked up in part by borrowing money in order to give huge, undeserved paydays to their investors.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

In South Devon last year, we had an astonishing 49,904 hours of sewage leaks, or 5.69 years-worth of sewage pouring into the glorious Dart and Avon and into the sea around South Devon. Meanwhile, my constituents write to me about bills that have gone up by as much as 50%. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an outrage that the privatised water companies are able to carry on increasing bills, increasing dividends to shareholders and paying multimillion-pound salaries to CEOs while this obscenity of sewage pouring into our rivers, seas and lakes continues?

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend represents an utterly beautiful part of the country and she fights for it admirably; her constituents are lucky to have her. She makes an important point. I mentioned that 11% of the bills paid by my constituents in the north-west of England goes to service United Utilities’ debt, but that is one of the lowest levels. For many other colleagues on both sides of the House, their local water companies will be using up to 30% of the bills charged just to service their debt. The sewage scandal is an environmental scandal, but it is also a financial one—an affront to justice and fairness, as well as to our ecology.

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this important debate and other hon. Members for their informed contributions. In summing up for the Liberal Democrats, I would like to echo some of the points made and consider the Government’s approach to negotiations with the EU. I thank the Minister for his visit to Brixham straight after the election, and for his interest in the industry.

I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) that we need to negotiate with a clear head and try not to allow the Brexit psychodrama to colour our positioning too much as we go into the negotiations. However, it is fair to point out that our fishing communities were badly let down by the previous Conservative Government, who spent years promising that Brexit would be a boon for British fishers.

Perhaps in contrast to what was said by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the fishers in Brixham in my constituency clearly feel betrayed by the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. He toured the harbour and promised them the earth, then cast them adrift at the 11th hour, giving EU vessels virtually the same rights that they had under the common fisheries policy while burdening our own vessels with the millstone of veterinary certificates and border checks if they want to export their fish to their biggest market—the EU. In particular, our shellfish exporters have been incredibly badly affected by the red tape they now find themselves tied up in.

The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations described the post-Brexit TCA as a

“near-complete capitulation to the demands of the EU”.

The previous Government’s botched deal has undoubtedly harmed the UK fishing industry and caused great uncertainty, which is only increasing as the end of the transfer period approaches. As we have heard, it is not just fishers who are affected: it is the entire supply chain and the infrastructure that keeps our coastal communities vibrant.

The Liberal Democrats hope that the current Government are entering into negotiations with our valuable fishing industry uppermost in their minds. One tangible benefit for the industry post Brexit was the ability for the UK to develop its own fisheries management measures. The evidence-led process, which is intended to be focused on long-term environmental, economic and social sustainability, is very different from the common fisheries policy, which remains top-down, bureaucratic and riven by political compromise, as many Members have said. However, it is vital that real-world scientific data is incorporated swiftly into stock management decisions to reflect what is actually happening on the ground—or rather, in the sea.

The Liberal Democrats believe that there is a real issue in relation to data-deficient stocks, which is impacting the sustainability of fishing quotas. Bycatch rules are leading to fish being thrown back into the sea that will not survive, making a nonsense of sustainability objectives and impacting the livelihood of UK fishers who could land those fish. Small species of fish, which could be caught and offer economic benefit, are not properly accounted for in the quotas. The Government must consider appropriate ICES alternative advice scenarios, which deliver similar results for stock sustainability, to ensure that the socioeconomics have also been carefully considered.

Let us take pollack, for instance. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, a formal review by ICES is due in June 2025. That advice must be fed quickly into management decisions. There is currently no management in place for the recreational fleet, which the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation estimates to account for up to 50% of the total pollack catch. The zero total allowable catch for pollack severely impacts the under-10 metre fleet, which relies heavily on that stock. Catch data for the commercial and recreational sectors shows that the under-10 metre fleet is responsible for the lowest catches of pollack and the lowest impact on stock, yet that sector is impacted most by the current approach to management.

I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives for the Minister to commit to introducing any new management of the pollack stock with immediate effect upon publication of the advice, rather than waiting until January 2026. Will the Minister also look again at recreational catch limits? Anecdotal evidence suggests that a substantial tonnage of fish—even fish with zero total allowable catch, such as pollack—is caught by boats claiming to be recreational. We also need to look again at bluefin tuna catch limits. The species is now becoming more abundant in our waters and, as we have heard, is regularly caught by recreational anglers.

Members of the South Western Fish Producer Organisation, and those operating in and around Brixham, are concerned about the impact of recent annual quota negotiations on the highly valuable sole fishery in the western channel. The quota has been cut every year for the past three years. This year it was cut by 3%, despite the latest encouraging ICES advice identifying no immediate issues with the stock. The decision stemmed from a management decision made in 2023, as opposed to concerns about the stock itself. Catch limits unfairly target the inshore fleet of smaller boats. As we have heard, supertrawlers represent just 4% of UK fishing boats but account for 75% of all the fish landed, whereas the under-10 metre fleet accounts for just 1% of all fish landed.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that sustainability is at the heart of our post-Brexit fisheries strategy by reforming the fishing quota allocation system to reward the most sustainable fleet, and ensuring that all catch limits are set at sustainable levels. The example of Jof Hicks in the Isles of Scilly shows how imbalanced the regulations are in an industry that includes such a wide variance in vessel size and activity. We would radically overhaul how our quotas are allocated, prioritising support for small and medium-sized enterprises, revitalising local economies and better protecting our seas from environmental harm.

In 2018, then shadow Environment Secretary, Sue Hayman, said that Ministers needed to take

“urgent action to use the powers that they have domestically to redistribute fishing quotas to deliver a fairer deal for smaller boats.”

Now that Baroness Hayman is a DEFRA Minister, are the Government still in favour of redistributing quotas to support smaller boats?

We urge the Government to consider the roll-out of a multi-year quota system that would enable the industry to plan into the future, rather than adhere to the current annual cliff edge system. That would provide certainty for fishermen and the industry, and support the recovery of most of the fishing stock. However, we must also ensure that some flexibility is built into the arrangement, as climate change is affecting fish stocks. We can see from the arrival of more bluefin tuna in our waters that things are changing. It is vital that the industry is able to review catch limits as the marine environment changes.

EU vessels still have free access to UK waters in the six-to-12 nautical mile zone, whereas we do not have the same access to EU waters. The NFFO has described that distribution as “radically inequitable”; I am sure we would all agree. Under proposals published last week, we heard that the EU’s €150 billion defence fund will consider purchasing British weapons only if the Prime Minister signs a security pact with Brussels—something France has tied to fishing rights.

The President of the European Council has said that the EU will not let the question of fishing rights derail a pact with the UK on security and defence. Most Members present have echoed the point that we should not allow the defence of Europe and the security of our nation to be negotiated against the fishing industry. Will the Minister confirm that he will go out to bat as strongly for our fishing fleet in the negotiations as it looks like the French are going to? If not, will he at least try to get some of the red tape on exports to the EU removed?

The Labour general election manifesto said:

“We will seek to negotiate a veterinary agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks”.

Almost nine months later, British exporters have passed the milestone of 1 million export health certificates issued since Brexit, every one of them representing time and money lost by British fishers and farmers. Will the Minister assure our hard-working constituents that the deal for 2026 and beyond will include an end to the requirement for export health certificates, so that whatever our fishers are able to catch they can sell to the widest possible market at the best possible price?

Food security is national security. Protecting, promoting and supporting our fishing industry is vital to that security. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to some of the questions raised and points made today.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

We made the decision yesterday because we reached that point.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is beginning to feel a little like a game of Top Trumps in who can cause the most financial unpredictability to farmers, be it through the botched ELMS roll-out or the cancellation of this scheme at a moment’s notice. Half of Britain’s fruit and veg farmers expect to go out of business. The Minister says that he will support farmers to be profitable through fairer supply chains, but will he explain what that will look like?

Rural Communities: Government Support

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for rural communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I grew up in Edinburgh, went to Sheffield University and then moved for work to London, where I lived on and off for nearly 20 years, before moving to South Devon in 2007. I did not understand rural life before then; it was something that I had never experienced, because I had not lived it.

Over the past 18 years, I have come to realise that the rural-urban divide is one of the deepest divides in our country. I have learned a lot since about the difference between how a rural economy works and how things function in urban spaces. It is vital that at the top, making decisions, there are people who understand rural communities. It would be great to have someone from the rural south-west at the top table, speaking up for a part of the country that is so often forgotten when spending decisions are made.

I will not talk about farming today, even though we have a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the room—we are all aware of the immense pressure that farmers are under—but focus instead on the wider issues of rural life, which affect everyone from cradle to grave. If the Government want our economy to grow, they must remember that nearly a fifth of the population of the UK live in rural areas —areas where settlements have fewer than 10,000 residents. Let us look at what defines them.

Ten million people in the UK live in rural areas. The more rural the area, the older the average age, and the faster this average age is rising. Some 30% of the population of my constituency of South Devon are 65 or older—against 17% in urban areas. Work-based incomes are lower in rural areas. Net inward migration to rural areas in the UK is higher and growing, except among those aged 17 to 20, who are leaving in search of education and training opportunities.

People in rural areas travel almost twice as far as those in urban areas, but for those who do not own a car, travelling anywhere can be almost impossible. In many places, bus services do not exist, and taxis are prohibitively expensive: it can cost £150 for some of my residents to do a round trip to the nearest hospital. Access to healthcare is a challenge, because community services have been cut, hospitals can be a long way away and hospital transport is disappearing. My constituency does not have a single dentist taking on new NHS patients. Support for new parents in rural locations is thin on the ground.

The proportion of rural premises with access to gigabit-capable broadband was 47% last year, compared with 84% in urban areas, yet connection to high-speed internet is, if anything, more crucial when services are so scarce. Post offices are closing because of low usage, yet they provide an essential service, particularly to older people who do not drive and who need postage and banking services.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady. She is right to mention buses. If I miss a tube in London, another one is along in two minutes; if I miss a bus in Portavogie, I may have to wait half a day to get another one. Eleven banks have closed in my constituency. The alternative of a banking hub is okay, but it takes yonks—years—for it to actually be opened. Does the hon. Lady agree that if a bank closes a branch, it should have an obligation to open a banking hub, in conjunction with other banks?

[Caroline Voaden]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In my constituency we have two banking hubs, which are doing a good job and providing a valued service. In fact, he raises my next point, which was going to be that banks are closing; I will skip that.

Village pubs—often the only third space left where people can meet, socialise and build community—are closing. Opportunities for young people are limited, and worsened by the lack of rural transport.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many children in rural areas such as mine rely on the school bus? When the previous Government increased the age of participation from 16 to 18, they failed to also increase the age up to which children who live in rural communities get free transport to school, creating costs of up to £1,000 per family per child. Does she agree that that needs to be resolved?

[Caroline Voaden]

My colleagues are doing well at predicting what I am about to say. I have not shared my speech, but my next paragraph goes on to say that I heard from two pupils this morning about how they miss out on all the after-school clubs and activities because they have to be on the school bus and cannot get home later in the day. That directly impacts kids from more disadvantaged backgrounds, and embeds that disadvantage even further. It is something we must resolve.

We all know that there is an affordability crisis in housing, but it is massively exacerbated in areas with a high number of second homes and flats, and with flats and houses used as short-term lets rather than being residential.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One of the big problems that we have in my very remote constituency is the cost of delivery charges and surcharges. They are a lot higher than one would pay in cities such as Glasgow or Edinburgh. It is the same for the highlands of Scotland as it is for the rural parts of England. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good if the Government could look at this and try and take it down to a level playing field, so that people are not disadvantaged because of where they live?

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to the delivery of services and the costs later on.

Higher than average house prices coupled with lower than average wages is a toxic combination. The median full-time salary in South Devon is significantly below the national average, but the average house price—at £337,185 —is significantly above the national average. Newly built homes regularly go on the market for around £1 million. That means the house price to full-time salary ratio in Devon is 10:6, well above the English average of 8:7. Devon as a whole has the highest ratio in the south-west.

On top of all that, we must also look at the issue of deprivation. Deprivation in rural areas tends to be dispersed, which means it is much less well identified. However, south-west England is one of the rural areas where deprivation is more prevalent. In small communities, just one or two very wealthy residents can skew the figures for the whole settlement, meaning pockets of deprivation can be even more hidden. The index of multiple deprivation, used to capture need for core local authority services, is a relative measure of deprivation based on data from 2019. The index is urban centric and it misses small, dispersed rural pockets of acute deprivation. It is simply not specific enough to capture need—especially in social care.

In Devon, most sub-domains are less deprived than the national average. However, Devon is considerably more deprived compared to the national profile, when looking at housing quality and barriers to housing and services. Of the total Devon population, 47% fall into the most-deprived fifth nationally for the indoor environment quality measure. In rural areas, one in four households do not have a mains gas supply, and are more likely to be reliant on oil or solid fuels for domestic heating, which are less efficient and more expensive.

In 2022, the average fuel poverty in rural villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings was nearly three times as high as the average for England as a whole, and 25% of the Devon population were also in the most deprived fifth nationally for the housing services sector, which measures distance from services such as GPs, food shops, post offices and primary schools, along with measures of housing overcrowding and affordability and homelessness. It is not all thatched cottages from the front of chocolate boxes.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned that using deprivation as an indicator of demand for services does not consider local authorities with a higher number of elderly or vulnerable residents, and the additional demands those residents place on our services. Under the previous Government, DEFRA and the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities commissioned a piece of work to investigate rural deprivation as part of an update to the English indices of deprivation. It was anticipated to complete this year, so I ask the Minister for an update on when this work will be completed and published.

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

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech about the challenges that her constituents in South Devon are facing. Many of those challenges are similar to those in my own constituency in the Scottish Borders. Does she agree that all decision makers, whether in the Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities or banks, need to do much more rural-proofing of their policymaking process? Before they announce these policies, they need to understand more clearly the impact they will have on those in constituencies such as the hon. Lady’s and my own in the Borders.

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member’s point comes back to what I am saying about having people at the top table who really understand how these economies work, because so often those smaller communities are lost under the larger voice of the big cities.

In peripheral rural and coastal communities, which have higher levels of high occupational risk groups—for example, farmers and vets—social isolation and loneliness is a cause for concern, with higher levels of suicide and self-harm admissions and lower levels of referral to psychological therapies.

Rural isolation is particularly acute for older people who do not drive. With every pub, café or post office that closes, the opportunity to socialise with others, or even just have a conversation, disappears. It is also damaging for younger people; rural living means fewer opportunities for leisure, sport, socialising and part-time work, embedding disadvantage through a lack of opportunity to gain vital employment skills.

That all sets the scene for the challenges of living in and providing services to rural areas, and I am sure that colleagues will elaborate on many of them, such as buses, banks and broadband, but I would like to finish by looking at funding, because that has a real-world impact on rural communities such as mine, and the figures are—quite frankly—shocking.

Under the 2025-26 local government finance settlement, Government-funded spending power in predominantly urban areas will be £573 per head, compared with £407 in predominantly rural areas. Urban councils will get a huge 41% more per head than rural councils. Over 10,000 people, that equates to £1.66 million a year. Council tax per head will, on average, be 20% higher in rural areas than in urban areas. And, now, predominantly urban areas are to receive over seven times more of the proposed £600 million recovery grant than predominantly rural areas.

Last week, the Government announced continued funding for the rural England prosperity fund, with up to £33 million directed to the fund to

“improve local infrastructure and essential services that benefit rural communities and help businesses…to expand, creating jobs and kickstarting the rural economy.”

From 2023 to 2025, that fund was £110 million, so, while £33 million is welcome, it does equate to a 36% cut in annual funding.

We welcome DEFRA’s announcement of up to £5 million to go towards the continuation of important services for rural communities, such as capital funding for the refurbishment and development of much-needed community-owned assets, such as village halls and community centres. I have seen several of these projects in my own patch, with upgraded community centres doing vital work in bringing the community together.

However, the Liberal Democrats are concerned by the Government’s decision to allocate additional funding within the local government finance settlement on a need and demand basis. The new system of allocation will not recognise that the sparse and isolated nature of rural areas drives higher costs for the delivery of essential services, creates challenges in recruitment of staff for key services, and requires local authorities to provide a greater subsidy for the provision of public transport. We know that the challenges of recruitment are having a direct impact on inward investment into rural areas, because companies who want to invest in South Devon are anxious about doing so because they know that workers cannot afford houses in the area, so where will the workforce come from?

Likewise, the Government’s suggestion is that funding previously allocated to rural local authorities under the rural services delivery grant will be repurposed under the need and demand basis that jeopardises rural local authority funding. That is despite the grant providing rural local authorities with £100 million for the roll-out of essential public services, including emergency services and the provision of social care in 2024-25. We therefore urge the Government to provide rural councils with a funding settlement that reflects the impact of the rurality and sparsity of the areas they serve, through the application of the fair funding formula.

There is a lot to unpack here, but I have secured this debate to urge the Government to think about working more across Departments, and to bring people together to really consider the impact of departmental spending decisions, not only on that Department, but on each other. How do Transport decisions affect Education, and, with it, the wider skills agenda? How do the Health decisions that are made impact the economy in a rural area? How does the closure of hospitality businesses affect rural isolation, loneliness and mental health outcomes? I could go on, but will leave it to colleagues to give examples from their constituencies to highlight many of these issues.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. Members will have observed that the debate is oversubscribed, with a long list of people who want to contribute. Therefore, I urge discipline and an indicative limit of two minutes, and if you were not here at the start of the debate, you will not be called. We will start the winding-up speeches from the Front Benchers at eight minutes past 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I will not name all the speakers who contributed but, unsurprisingly, health, transport, phones, broadband and farming all came up in the debate, as did the pubs of Farnham and Bordon, which we must not forget. I urge the Government—

Climate and Nature Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I was actually right here on the Front Bench listening to my hon. Friend, and I agreed with a lot of what he said. However, we are here to debate the contents of the Bill and to decide whether they are something we should support, and I am afraid—to break with the consensus that has been expressed across the House this morning—that we cannot.

The Bill would undermine the power of this Parliament and its democratically elected Members and would bind their hands. As the Bill suggests, the Secretary of State would be duty-bound to act as directed by an unelected body. A world with a cleaner climate and with thriving nature and wildlife is one we all aspire to; it is the core belief of Conservativism that we should seek to leave the country and the world in a better place than that in which we found them, for both our children and our grandchildren. But I am afraid that this Bill would not do that.

In government, we aspired to be a world leader in the energy sector and to embrace a new energy mix that would reduce our carbon footprint, and that is what we did. We should want to pave the way for other nations, but it should be a path that they would actually want to follow. If the Bill means green levies, soaring bills, the highest electricity prices in the world, boiler taxes, job losses, and rejecting our ability to produce fuel domestically, while increasing imports from abroad and generating lower tax revenues as a result, nobody will follow this path.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Just last week, a report by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries—we know that by their very nature, actuaries are cautious people—stated that if we continue on our current path, a plausible worst case is that global GDP will collapse by 50% between 2070 and 2090, and that 4 billion lives could be lost by 2050. That is an unimaginable future. Does the shadow Minister agree that the cost of doing nothing will be way more than the cost of acting now?

[Andrew Bowie]

As I have tried to explain, not just to the hon. Lady but to the House, we have not done nothing. We led the world in so many ways—halving emissions faster than any other G7 nation, building at speed some of the biggest renewable offshore wind farms in the world, which are generating power for the United Kingdom right now, and ending the use of coal for electricity production. No other country has a record that comes close to matching the United Kingdom’s. This is not a case of doing nothing; it is about doing things in a sensible way that does not impose further bills or costs on British bill payers.