Veterinary Products in Waterways

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I am delighted to secure my first Adjournment debate, and for it to be about veterinary products in waterways, specifically neonicotinoids such as fipronil and imidacloprid. From now on, for your sake and mine, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall be referring to these neonicotinoids as neonics.

I have been extremely keen to secure a debate on this matter for some time now, having had it raised with me before the general election by a constituent, Ueli Zellweger, who is a vet. It is high time that we gave this topic the scrutiny that it so desperately needs.

We are a nation of pet lovers. It is estimated that there are around 25 million cats and dogs in the UK. I speak as a doting dog and cat owner myself and I know that our furry friends are an integral part of millions of British families. And so when fleas and ticks come biting, bringing discomfort and annoyance to our beloved pets, we of course want to act swiftly and efficiently to alleviate their suffering.

Flea treatment products containing fipronil and imidacloprid are seen as a highly convenient and effective way of dealing with the problems caused by fleas and ticks. In the UK, Imperial College London claims that fipronil is an ingredient in 396 different pet anti-flea and tick treatments, with imidacloprid authorised in some 138 veterinary products. However, this convenience comes at a cost to our waterways and associated ecosystems. Popular though these products are, safe they are not. These two ingredients are extremely toxic. They are very powerful killers indeed and the picture is not pretty. In fact, so powerful are these chemicals that just one drop of fipronil has the potency to wipe out 30,000 bees as well as causing serious neurological damage and hampering the mobility of thousands upon thousands more.

As well as this, according to extensive research conducted by Imperial College London, one monthly flea treatment for a large dog contains enough imidacloprid to kill a staggering 25 million bees. The decline in pollinator populations, which in part can be attributed to the use of imidacloprid, threatens agricultural productivity and has very serious long-term implications for our national food security. This is not simply a mere triviality to be neglected.

Authorities have recognised the toxicity levels and the hideous harm that these chemicals can cause on the natural world. Since 2017, fipronil has been banned in agricultural use, and imidacloprid has been banned since 2018. But given the unregulated nature of these chemicals in relation to flea products, we are allowing these products into our environment through the back door, and our aquatic and nearby ecosystems are paying the price.

There is not just one route for these neonics to enter our British waterways. It is important to be aware of all the various pathways towards this pollution. The most obvious, and most direct, is simply the contact of pets with water bodies themselves. If a dog goes swimming in a river after receiving their course of treatment, the product is then introduced into the waterways, allowing it to enter our rivers, lakes and streams and go wherever the water takes it, wreaking havoc as it travels. Dissemination can also occur because of rainwater run-off, with residual product washing off from treated animals into drainage systems and ending up in our waterways. Equally, the washing of pet bedding and even pet owners’ hands are thought to be common ways in which these dangerous products enter our waterways.

There are some less direct pathways that still pose a problem—and at this point I must apologise to those currently eating their supper. These products are generally harmless to our dogs and cats, but they can be absorbed by our four-legged friends. Once absorbed, the products can be excreted, and even when responsible owners clean up after their pets—something that is not universal, unfortunately—the traces of fipronil and imidacloprid left behind can still prove incredibly damaging once washed into our waterways.

Studies have revealed that imidacloprid is one of the most frequently detected pesticides in dogs’ urine, but the level is still comparatively low, with the National Office of Animal Health finding that only around 11% of topically applied fipronil is systematically absorbed. The shedding of treated hair or skin can also lead to a pathway being created.

Once these products are in our waterways, not only are they utterly deadly for the thousands of native aquatic organisms in the UK, but they are highly toxic to sea and freshwater fish. Even at low concentrations, fipronil can be disruptive to aquatic life cycles. River sample data gathered by the UK Environment Agency over the course of a two-year period between 2016 and 2018 from 20 different waterways in England discovered fipronil residue in 98% of freshwater samples and traces of imidacloprid in 66% of all samples.

Beyond the effect on our waterways, other studies have found fipronil to be incredibly toxic to birds. It brings me no joy to report that this is not just an aquatic problem. Indeed, through a process of collecting 103 different bird nests, researchers found that every single one without exception contained fipronil, and an overwhelming majority had significant remnants of imidacloprid.

The truth is that the decline in aquatic insects that emanates from the flowing of these products in our waterways affects fish populations, who rely on these insects as a primary food source. This in turn impacts bird species that prey on fish, producing a dangerous snowball effect that reverberates throughout the ecosystem. This deterioration of biodiversity greatly diminishes the overall resilience of our ecosystems, exposing a vulnerability to factors of climate change and invasive species.

One of the most troubling aspects of the likes of fipronil and imidacloprid is their persistence in the environment. The chemicals disintegrate slowly and can remain in soils and waterways for extensive periods of time. In the case of imidacloprid, scientists say that the residual effect lasts in soil for months, sometimes even years, and the breakdown product of these chemicals is understood to be even more toxic than the parent compound.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Member agree that some pet owners may not be aware of how bad this issue is, and so packaging, usage guidance and point-of-sale advice for pet treatments should give some warning of the danger that the product could affect aquatic life if it ever entered watercourses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Gilmour]

I am coming on to that later, but the hon. Member is absolutely right.

It is also important to note that the economic costs of mitigating the environmental and health impacts of these chemicals are substantial.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Would the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Gilmour]

With pleasure—and happy birthday.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this issue forward. She is right to outline the problems with fipronil and what it can do to our water, but there are many other things that can affect water. Northern Ireland Water goes around all the farms providing a free service collecting herbicides, weed killer, sheep dip, insecticide sprays, rodenticides, fungicide sprays, veterinary medicines and empty containers. Take all those things out of the country and away from the waterways and we can make our water cleaner. This issue is not just about the specific chemicals that the hon. Lady mentions; there are many other things that need to be removed as well. Does she agree with that?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I thank the hon. Member for his interesting intervention. I agree, and I will talk about farmers in particular in a moment.

It is also important to note that the economic cost of mitigating the environmental and health impacts of these chemicals is substantial. Water bills are set to rise precipitously this year, causing pain to the average consumer. In Tiverton and Minehead, rises of 20% and 32% have been announced by the two water companies that supply us. Purifying contaminated waterways and restoring the ecosystems blighted by those chemicals requires significant financial resources, placing a burden on communities and straining local government purses. How much of that financial impact is reflected in these bill rises? Are consumers facing price rises in their water bills because we are not effectively regulating problem products such as neonics?

We know that there is an issue with our water quality—the issues at Dunster beach and Blue Anchor in my constituency spring to mind. That is why the Government passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—and why my party leader fell into Windermere several times during the general election campaign to raise awareness. When will we clean up our act and put in place the firmest restrictions on these polluting water companies? When will we look at what we can do to stop other pollutants from getting anywhere near our waterways in the first place? I will be interested to hear from the Minister whether this cost has been factored into the Government’s thinking on this issue, and whether there could be some answers to the questions I have posed.

On a broader note, I will touch on how we can help our farmers and those in our rural communities with these environmental challenges. Our waterways make up a key part of our natural biodiversity, but each part relies on the other. That makes the recent decision to axe the sustainable farming incentive scheme all the more worrying and damaging to our rural communities. If there is not the money for sustainable farming, agricultural practices will naturally follow economic sense, if not the careful environmental custodianship on which our farmers pride themselves.

Farmers are suffering at the hands of this Government, and with them so suffers our environment. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the House that her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are doing everything they can to support our farmers as they balance the agricultural and environmental needs of the land? Will she also ensure that due consideration is given to the restoration of the SFI scheme, so that we can keep making progress on our environmental goals, hand in hand with farmers, and not be distracted from the harms of damaging products such as the neonics that I have been talking about by losing our much needed local and rural allies?

I am aware that this speech has been slightly doom and gloom, but I will now turn to what we can do as an alternative. Research has shown that the likes of coconut oil, citronella oil, good old lavender and eucalyptus provide good natural and, most importantly, non-toxic alternatives for flea and tick repellents. The market is awash with collars for cats and dogs infused with these essential oils, which are both practical and natural. There has been very little emphasis on these solutions. We should be doing much more to promote the benefits of these chemical-free remedies.

As seen in recent developments in Switzerland, where the Government are carrying out water testing, there is a clear need for environmental impact assessments of the use of fipronil and imidacloprid. These should be launched as a matter of urgency, and I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on this point. We Liberal Democrats have called for any emergency authorisations of neonics to be revoked, and for the introduction of tighter restrictions on their use. I invite the Minister to comment on the state of play and whether there is a serious appetite in the Government to address this issue.

It is clear that we have a serious challenge on our hands. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) said, these products are advertised widely and sold ubiquitously. I am not blind to the fact that these products have brought undeniable benefits in pest control, but their unintended consequences serve as a stark reminder of the need for sustainable and nature-friendly practices. I genuinely believe that there is a desire to do more to regulate these highly toxic chemicals. Lawmakers were right to impose a blanket ban on fipronil and imidacloprid in agricultural settings in 2017 and 2018. The will should be there to ensure that these products cannot be allowed to continue damaging our freshwater ecosystems. Further regulation is the only way forward to remove harmful contaminants and arrest the degradation of aquatic fauna in this country’s waterways.

The Government also need to go further and faster in regulating our waterways and the water companies damaging them overall. The Water (Special Measures) Act is a good first step, but the Government can and must do more. Ofwat is failing in its duties. The time has come for a new clean water authority to replace it as we up our game in protecting our precious waterways. I see no reason why reforms designed to keep neonics out of our waterways cannot come hand in hand with our push to keep sewage and other contaminants and pollutants out of our waterways.

In the short term, for neonics, restrictions should be placed on the trade of fipronil and imidacloprid, with the only exception to their continued use coming under strict conditions of prescription only by veterinary medical professionals and for a limited time period. We know that Amazon and the over-the-counter market in pet stores can lead to the propagation of those products in our natural environment, so restrictions would make some sense.

When the time allows, a ban for all other usage should certainly be in the Government’s scope. It is clear that decisive action must be taken on this matter. Could the Minister shed some light on whether the Government would be willing to assess the potential merits of moving in that direction? From all that I have seen, that appears the prudent—and perhaps only—direction to take.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Dr Murrison, and it was lovely to see you last night. [Laughter.] No, no, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Obviously, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this vital debate. It is always excellent to see so many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues here in Westminster Hall to support our rural communities.

As the Member of Parliament for the overwhelmingly rural constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, I am incredibly proud to represent such a beautiful part of the world. However, for all our natural beauty, we are not without our problems. On Monday, I met Sir Chris Whitty to discuss how my constituency is at the sharp end of what can only be described as a dentistry crisis, with dental practices closing in droves. My constituency sits within a dental desert.

In 2024, according to the House of Commons Library, the proportion of adults in Tiverton and Minehead who had been seen by a dentist in the previous two years was well below the average in England. In Somerset, the figure was just 32%; in Devon, it was 34.7%; and the average for England was 40.3%. The data for children in my constituency is even more troubling. In Somerset, only 42.3% of children had been seen by a dentist in the previous two years; in Devon, it was 46.6%; and the average across England was 54.4%. The disparity between those figures is appalling.

As many colleagues have mentioned, young people in rural areas such as Tiverton and Minehead are getting a woeful deal. The gaps in sixth-form provision, save for the few places at West Somerset college and Petroc college, are detrimental to the aspirations of students who wish to pursue further education.

Without wishing to sound as if I am asking for the world, there is a lot to be done to improve the lives of people in Tiverton and Minehead. I will not relent in highlighting these issues, because I want to ensure that my constituency, and of course rural communities up and down our country, are not overlooked.

Bathing Water Regulations

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this critical debate.

While covid-19 undoubtably brought on many challenges, one positive outcome was the surge in open-water swimming. More people than ever before enjoyed blue spaces for recreational activities, reaping significant benefits for both their physical and mental wellbeing. However, many were more cautious about diving into freezing cold lakes, rivers and streams when they were aware of the level of bacteria and pollution present in our waters. As Liberal Democrats, we have long and passionately campaigned on this issue. Last year, the Lib Dems discovered that water companies had discharged sewage over 100,000 times in areas designated as current bathing waters, putting public health and local ecosystems at risk.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

My constituency of Tiverton and Minehead neighbours the patch of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Very recently, one of my constituents shared a harrowing story with me, in which his children fell seriously ill after swimming in a local river last summer. These public health risks are further exacerbated by bad flooding in our areas, as we have seen in recent episodes, which sweeps contaminants and overwhelms sewage systems into our waterways, degrading water quality. Does my hon. Friend agree that stricter regulations must be introduced in the interest of public health and to ensure that our bathing waters are safe for everybody to enjoy?

[Pippa Heylings]

I completely agree. I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington said: that is why we need tougher action on the water companies. We also need to take action on combined sewers and make improvements to the small sewage treatment works on many chalk streams, like in my constituency. However, today’s debate is about bathing site designation, which is one of the effective levers that can be used.

We are talking about the proposed reforms by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to bathing site designations. I would like to talk about the second core reform being proposed, which I am concerned would lead to a real reduction in the number of bathing sites being designated, rather than the increase that we should see, particularly for inland waters. The second core reform says that we should

“Include the feasibility of improving a site’s water quality to at least ‘sufficient’ as a criterion for final designation. This would avoid poor value for money, by limiting expenditure where water quality improvement is not feasible or proportionate.”

To best demonstrate why that reform would not only fail but could also damage water quality in our rivers, it is worth sharing the story of Sheep’s Green in my constituency. For centuries, people have been enjoying Sheep’s Green—a popular spot on the River Cam. It was at Sheep’s Green that we worked to bring in a bathing site designation, because of the poor quality of the water.

In October 2023, the Cam Valley Forum, a local voluntary organisation, submitted an application to DEFRA to grant Sheep’s Green designated bathing water status. That came after three years of hard work by local volunteers, which is truly commendable, and was based on the success of the River Wharfe. Sheep’s Green had been used for decades without official recognition, and the idea of getting it designated bathing status had widespread public support. Over the course of a 10-week consultation, the Cam Valley Forum received more than 500 responses, with an overwhelming 93% in favour of the designation. South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridge city council also formally backed the proposal. Anglian Water, with whom I worked, also fully supported the designation application.

Once designated, as predicted by local volunteers and citizen scientists, Sheep’s Green was classified as having poor water quality. That triggered a statutory obligation for improvements to clean up the source of the pollution—the Haslingfield sewage works in my constituency. For years, local citizen scientists had suspected it was the culprit. Now, finally, Anglian Water was legally required to act.

Bathing water status also unlocked funding from Ofwat under the water industry national environment programme. Tens of millions of pounds vital for the infrastructure improvements needed to reduce the sewage discharges were made available for Haslingfield, with work expected to begin in the next two years. These improvements will not just benefit swimmers at Sheep’s Green, but have a wider impact on the ecological health of the River Cam.

However, had core reform 2 been in place when the Cam Valley Forum began its journey in 2020, there would have been no bathing water designation for Sheep’s Green. Without that designation, there would have been no investigation by the Environment Agency, no identification of Haslingfield sewage works as the source of the pollution and no legal requirement for Anglian Water to take action. The WINEP funding would not have been available and we would have lost the opportunity for water improvements and nature restoration in South Cambridgeshire.

In short, core reform 2 would have inadvertently blocked the clean-up of hundreds of rivers. Local organisations like the Cam Valley Forum are not just highlighting a problem with their concerns around core reform 2—they are demanding action. They are rightly pushing for bathing water status because it is a vital tool for driving cleaner, healthier rivers. We should be supporting these efforts, not hindering them.

Climate and Nature Bill

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for all the work she has done and the courage she has shown to get us to this point. I think I am right in saying that she learned her rowing craft in Northwich in my constituency, and the strength and tenacity she has shown today is typical of members of that rowing club. I thank her for what she has done.

It is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak on this issue today, because, alongside the fight against child poverty, it is one of the core issues that defines why I entered politics and how we must act not for today but for tomorrow. We must take immediate and bold action to secure a sustainable future for our planet, our environment and our children, who will inherit the world that we shape today. The climate crisis is the defining challenge of our times, and bold action is essential to combating it. Climate change and environmental destruction are not distant threats. They are realities that we face today, and they pose an existential threat.

The science is absolutely clear: our planet is warming at an alarming rate, and the resultant consequences are dire. As the Met Office reported just a couple of weeks ago, 2024 was the warmest year on record globally and the first year that was likely more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. From rising sea levels to devastating floods and wildfires to unprecedented heatwaves, the effects of climate change are being seen today and they impact everyone.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Cooper]

I will not, because a lot of Members are trying to get in, and I want to make sure that everyone has a chance to speak.

I am convinced that to tackle this challenge, we must commit to a just transition, with ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that not only put us on track to meet our global commitments but pave the way for a cleaner, greener future for generations to come. We must protect our precious natural ecosystems. The biodiversity crisis is a pressing issue, with species declining at an unprecedented rate. The World Wildlife Fund reported in October that between 1970 and 2020, there was a catastrophic 73% decline in wildlife populations. It is essential that we not only seek to halt that decline but prioritise the restoration and preservation of habitats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an unpaid director of Reach community solar farm. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on bringing this important Bill to the House, and on all the negotiations she has had to try to secure cross-party agreement on it.

I started campaigning on the environment quite a long time ago. My main concerns then were that whales were at risk of becoming extinct and we had a hole in the ozone layer. The international community came together and we now see that whale populations are increasing and the blue whale has been brought back from the brink of extinction. We also phased out chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer is repairing. So when we work together, we can achieve great things. I have been hugely impressed and encouraged by the cross-party agreement—with one or two exceptions—on the real need to move forward. I hope that we will not throw this away at the last minute. We have a way forward that would address a lot of these things.

We now know that our challenges are far greater and that we need to worry not just about other species’ survival, but about the survival of our own species. More frequent and damaging wildfires and floods are taking human lives as well as destroying property, farms and wildlife. In my constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire, farmers are having to contend with rapidly changing seasons.

[Rachel Gilmour]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill strives for that adaptation in farming, recognising the urgent need to develop agricultural resilience and sustainable farming practice, and actually offers true financial support, which would help our farmers?

Foot and Mouth Disease

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken with passion and conviction about that dreadful time, and I fully respect that. We were notified of the outbreak on Friday; today is Wednesday. Of course we are ready to move to the next stage should it be necessary, but at this point the key priority must be ensuring that we keep the disease out of our country, and that is where the attention is currently focused. In the dismal eventuality that we have to move to measures within our country, we will of course work very closely with everyone who needs to be involved.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I am sure that my farmers, like me, will be hugely grateful to know that the ban will operate with cross-party support; our farmers are more important than party politics. Back in 2001, I was the Liberal Democrat candidate for the Totnes constituency. The amount of communication with farmers before the outbreak was the only thing that made it easier for them to understand what was going on, because one could not go on a farm once it had started. May I encourage the Minister to communicate with farmers as much as he can during this very difficult time?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her recollections of that time. I reiterate that we are trying to ensure that foot and mouth disease does not arrive on our shores. Should that happen, we will move to another phase. We are not at that point yet, and it is important to reassure people that we have excellent measures and excellent people in place. They are working very hard to ensure that we do not get to that point.

Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for setting the scene. I am aware that the Minister serves on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee and has been a sterling voice in examining the legislation aimed at safeguarding our rivers and improving water quality.

I remember that wee song “Messing About on the River” from when I was a child—which was not yesterday, by the way. I will not sing it now, because if I sing there will be thunderstorms outside, but I am conscious that water has featured in all our lives from an early age. I will give the Northern Ireland perspective, where we have the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

rose—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Jim Shannon, please carry on.

Future of Fishing

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of fishing after 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.

Britain has some of the richest fishing grounds in the world within our 200-nautical-mile, or 230-mile, coastal limit, within which we own both living and non-living resources. Historically, that gold mine has supported a flourishing fishing industry, as well as an extensive fish-processing industry, to supply valuable, healthy, sustainable food to both domestic and export markets. Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands enjoy a profitable and sustainable fishing industry and are the model to which we should aspire.

In June 2016, 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union in an unambiguously worded referendum called by David Cameron. To understand the demise of our fishing industry, which was severely damaged by both world war one and world war two, it is important to understand the history. Britain, Russia and Serbia have always provided the balance of power between the frequent Franco-German wars on the continent. After the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, Europe enjoyed 100 years of peace, free trade, and both fishing and general prosperity. In 1914, a unified Germany precipitated the worst ever European war, which combined improving armament technology and early forms of biological warfare, resulting in massive loss of life. That war was followed 20 years later by another brutal, German-inspired war, which caused widespread death, dislocation and economic misery as Hitler sought to conquer Europe. The British establishment came close to surrender to Mr Hitler, avoided only by the inspirational Winston Churchill.

The post-war socialist reconstruction of Europe reflected the continent’s loss of confidence and the need to mutualise the risk of another Franco-German conflict. The British empire began to break up, and the British establishment lost the will to govern a proud sovereign nation as socialism precipitated a visit to the International Monetary Fund and a sterling crisis in the 1970s.

We joined the European “Economic” Community in 1973. British fishing was one of the sacrificial industries to pay the price for that membership, as the other member states were free to fish outside a 12-mile coastal band, with some allowed to fish in the 6 to 12-mile zone. It is interesting that the Dutch were active in fishing our waters before we won the fourth Anglo-Dutch war in 1784, with the North sea described as “the principal gold mine” of the Dutch. After the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, in which Admiral Nelson, a proud—

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I came here under the misapprehension that I was attending a debate on fishing. I know my history perfectly well. Could we move on to fish, please?

[Rupert Lowe]

That was a very unhelpful intervention. Nevertheless, I will carry on as I was before.

It is interesting to note that after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, in which Admiral Nelson, a proud Norfolk man, played a prominent part, British fishing had a golden century. My constituency, Great Yarmouth, is known as the herring capital of the world, with herring fishing at its peak between 1900 and 1913, when up to 12 million tonnes of bloaters were landed, processed and sold. Sales were domestic, with a prolific export of smoked herring going to both Germany and Russia. Mackerel, cod and sole off the Dogger bank were also prolific.

Since our membership of the EU, European fishing fleets have fished our waters heavily, using questionable methods such as electric pulse fishing, which damages the seabed and destroys biodiversity. Supertrawlers continue to plunder our waters, scooping up whole shoals of fish, including seabass, common dolphin, bluefin tuna and John Dory, driven more by profit than by conservation.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs marine management is allowing EU vessels to help themselves to our fish, unmonitored and unregulated. EU supertrawlers have destroyed fisheries off west Africa, have been banned in Australia and are causing controversy in Chile. Our EU membership severely damaged our fishing and fish processing industries, with the threat of breaking up our legacy fishing skills, permanently destroying our fishing expertise. Fishing and processing will require extensive investment, but the full return of our fishing rights in 2026 under the deficient Brexit arrangement will be a golden opportunity to rebuild both industries and revitalise our coastal communities, which have been overlooked and badly treated.

The model for this reconstruction has to be Iceland, which took control of her 200-mile coastal waters and is now a flourishing centre for fishing and fish processing, with a vibrant export market. Within two weeks of the now-forgotten cod war, we were importing Icelandic fish, to be processed in Hull factories, which were desperate for raw fish to keep their staff employed. Holland, France and Belgium have huge factories in rather the same way.

Europe has, by design, made Brexit very difficult for the UK. It has quibbled over quality, created uncertainty and filibustered in the hope that the UK will rejoin its failing post-war trade bloc, founded on a protectionist, socialist philosophy. It needs our fish. Currently the French have 92% of cod quota in the channel, and three times the British allocation of Dover sole, four times more cod and five times more haddock in the Celtic sea.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I have 1,600 farmers in my constituency. Some 432 farms will be affected by this silly idea, not to mention the families, their employees and the shopkeepers who rely on our rural economy. This policy is insensible, irrational and plain wrong in its interpretation of real life in our rural communities. It will be like the highland clearances. Hundreds of years of tradition will be lost to the taxman. Before I ask the Minister to think again, I can say with absolute certainty that the policies of the Conservative and Labour parties have reaffirmed the fact that the Liberal Democrats are the only true champions of farmers and the countryside—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Rachel Gilmour]

Sorry. Will the Minister—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sit down, please. The question was long enough. We do not need to start playing politics around the Chamber.

Farming and Food Security

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

It is, and a further concern in my constituency is that the consultants who do soil sampling for the developers are often felt to be interpreting and grading the quality of soil in a way that is not consistent with local knowledge.

Back in May, the previous Government allocated £50 million of additional support to farmers hit by the wet weather. They extended the farming recovery fund to 1,000 more farmers, so that it covered all those affected in England. On top of that, in March, we announced the allocation of an additional £75 million to internal drainage boards, which are essential to protecting agricultural land from floods and storms.

We now have a Labour Government who neither understand nor care for rural communities. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] They were not so vocal when they launched their manifesto, which devoted just 87 words to farming. There was not a single mention of farming in the King’s Speech, because the Government have made the active choice to de-prioritise British farming and food production.

On the immediate challenge, the answer to a recent parliamentary question backs up what the sector is telling me. The £50 million of additional farming recovery fund support is yet to be paid out. We have just established that we have had the wettest weather for 150 years and that 10 counties have had particularly challenging weather, yet despite having a known scheme, with an extra £50 million, they have not allocated that much-needed, time-critical support. The Secretary of State needs to explain why. The NFU says its members simply cannot wait any longer for the support, yet Labour seems to want to keep them waiting. Reports suggest that the £75 million for the internal drainage boards is also on a go-slow, and we need to know why.

For the longer term, Labour Ministers have overruled officials to cover some of the country’s best farmland in solar panels. They have rejected the plans for binding food security targets. It has even been suggested in media reports that they plan to cut the farming budget by £100 million. Indeed, it was reported that the NFU president has said that his members are being “kept up at night” by the “cliff edge” that Labour’s lack of commitment on the agriculture budget is causing.

The Government need to change course. They need to give immediate confidence to the sector and show that they care about food security. To do so, they need to commit to five things: first, that the full £50 million of additional wet weather support we announced in May will be paid out in full.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

As the first ever female director of the National Farmers Union in 100 years, I think I can speak with some credibility here. I represent Tiverton and Minehead, which includes the Quantocks and Exmoor. I have to say, you have some chutzpah—my farmers tell me that you sold them down the river. I say to Government Members that we need to work together on this, because our lot on the Liberal Democrat Benches know more about farming than they do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that if they use the word “you”, it means me.