5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Last year, in their UK-EU trade deal, the Government sold out British fishermen, giving away 12 years of access to our fishing waters, and we have seen that the Government have form in using our fishermen as pawns in negotiations. Will a Cabinet Office Minister please confirm that, in any trade negotiation or sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, no part of our fishing industry will be returned to the common fisheries policy?
T7. Last week, the Government briefing suggested that the security services were “relaxed” about the proposed Chinese mega-embassy, yet this week, we have learned that MI5 has been asked to reroute sensitive financial cables because of it. Will the Minister for Security explain how both those statements can be true, and tell the House which one reflects the Government’s assessment of the security risk and threat from that embassy?
I thank my hon. Friend for his impassioned and powerful speech on this matter, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I think he is being somewhat polite in the way he describes what this unitary authority is going to be. Essentially, if it is saddled with the debt from Woking and a number of other boroughs, it will essentially be stillborn from the start, and residents in my areas of Farnham, Haslemere and the other Surrey villages that I represent will be worse off because of it. Does he not agree that the Government must write off that legacy debt, or at the very least ring- fence it, so that our constituents do not face the problems —to be frank, the absolute mess—left by other boroughs and their politicians?
From what the Minister says, it sounds as if she accepts that the remaining debt is still unsustainable to be dealt with at a local level. Is she teasing us with a future announcement of further moneys, or is it more of a general ambition?
The Minister is being extraordinarily generous with her time, but I do not want her to miss the opportunity to respond to the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) about a Surrey mayor. Will she confirm whether we will get a mayor in Surrey before the end of this parliamentary term?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate. It is not the first time that I have heard her make the case for Aldridge station, which she does with considerable force. She has been not just consistent but consistently impressive and determined in her campaigns for that station, and on wider transport issues, particularly in the west midlands. Much has been said about the daily reality facing passengers, businesses and communities across the midlands and north Wales region, where ambition has too often outpaced delivery. Transport is not an end in itself; it is the wiring that allows our economy to function and when that wiring is faulty, growth stalls, opportunity narrows and communities are left behind. That is nowhere clearer than in the midlands. A recent report by the Centre for Cities put it starkly, stating that “Transport is the wiring that allows urban economies to function” but that in large UK cities outside of London that wiring is simply not working as it should. Today, with a fragmented network, only around 600,000 people, just 20% of the city region, can reach Birmingham city centre efficiently. But with properly integrated transport, increased bus frequency and reduced journey times, that figure could rise by over 250,000 people—a 44% increase—and take connectivity to nearly 30% of the city region. That is not a marginal gain; it is the difference between a city region that functions as a single labour market and one that does not. Buses, of course, remain the backbone of local transport, particularly for young people and those without easy access to a private car or to rail. Targeted youth fares, such as those introduced in Tees Valley and Wales have shown what can be achieved, but fares alone are not enough if services are unreliable, infrequent or poorly connected to rail and tram networks. Integration is the missing piece. Joining up existing networks so that they function as one system is the fastest and most cost-effective way to improve public transport in England’s major cities outside London. With greater devolved powers, metro mayors can increase frequency, reduce journey times and better connect buses with commuter rail and tram networks, but only if national Government provide clarity, consistency and backing. The consequences of poor co-ordination are most visible on rail. The midlands rail hub, about which we have heard a lot in this debate, is critical to unlocking capacity, improving frequency and enabling stations and services that would better connect communities across the region, but instead of certainty, we have partial funding, endless reviews and projects left “subject to future decisions”—a phrase worthy of whatever sequel comes to “Yes Minister”. This matters not just for the midlands but for north Wales too, particularly when it comes to open access rail, which has the potential to deliver connectivity more quickly and introduce genuine competition. Proposals from Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway to operate direct services between Wrexham and London would significantly strengthen links among north Wales, the midlands and our capital. That is exactly the kind of market-led connectivity that can expand access to jobs, education and private investment. But open access services can succeed only if the supporting infrastructure is in place. Capacity constraints, missing stations and poor integration with local transport risk meaning trains pass through communities, rather than serve them. If the Government are serious about improving connectivity across the midlands and north Wales, they must ensure that decisions on infrastructure enable new services, such as the WSMR, rather than frustrate them. The wider connectivity challenge is felt acutely around Wrexham industrial estate—one of the largest in Europe. Major employers there, including JCB, Platts Agriculture, Kellogg’s and Net World Sports, have highlighted persistent difficulties for workers travelling from the surrounding villages due to poor public transport links into the estate. There was a welcome announcement of a new bus network designed to link communities with industrial estates in the Flintshire and Wrexham investment zone, but business and residents alike are still waiting for the detail: routes, frequency, timelines and how the services will integrate with existing rail and bus networks. Connectivity is about not just long-distance rail, but whether someone can reliably get from their village or town to work on time and at a reasonable cost. Without last-mile integration, growth zones risk becoming isolated islands of investment. Those challenges are mirrored elsewhere in north Wales: the A55, the north Wales main line and the Menai crossings are strategic routes not just for Wales but for the entirety of our United Kingdom, yet road projects have been frozen, rail electrification funding has been withdrawn, and a blanket 20 mph policy has been imposed without regard for the economic impact—or any regard for common sense. Labour’s explanatory memorandum acknowledges that default 20 mph limits could cost the Welsh economy up to £9 billion, yet the policy was forced through, despite a record-breaking Senedd petition opposing it. Only yesterday, it was confirmed that repairs to the Menai suspension bridge, one of just two crossings linking Anglesey to the mainland, will be delayed yet again, and that it will now stretch into 2027. That grade I listed structure, approaching its 200th anniversary, remains subject to weight limits and traffic lights, and there is still no long-term plan for resilience. That is not a minor inconvenience; it affects emergency response times, supply chains, tourism and livelihoods. That is why the Conservatives have consistently argued for a third Menai crossing, working constructively to deliver the infrastructure that north Wales needs. In the midlands and north Wales, the pattern is the same: ambition without delivery, promises without integration and growth plans without the connectivity to support them. If the Government are serious about growth and levelling up, they must focus on delivering better transport connectivity now, joining up existing networks, backing proven projects, supporting new rail services and ensuring people can get to work, education and opportunity. The Government’s call for evidence on an integrated national transport strategy closed in February 2025, but we are still waiting for the outcome. I therefore ask the Minister when the results of that consultation will be published, and how they will support better connectivity across regions such as the midlands and north Wales, rather than adding further uncertainty. As Jonathan Spruce, a trustee of the Institution of Civil Engineers, told the Transport Committee, planning transport without an overarching framework is “like trying to solve a jigsaw without the picture on the box”. The Government must help put that picture in place so that regions can plan, spend and connect with confidence.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has already addressed clause 1 in broad terms, so I do not propose to repeat what he said, other than to express my agreement with his concerns about the unintended consequences and potential impact of nationalisation on passengers. I recognise that that is the Government’s decision and that, with their majority, they will be able to carry it—unless they have a huge rebellion on a scale we have not seen before, which is highly unlikely. Let me address my hon. Friend’s new clause 38. As a Government Minister, I saw that the easy bit was coming up with a strategy and pushing some legislation through the House; the hard bit—and the bit that makes the difference as to whether something works for our electorate and for the great British public—is the implementation and delivery of the intent behind the strategy or legislation. There can be no doubt that this legislation is complex and represents a significant change to a service and industry that is relied on by many, day by day, up and down this country. The Minister knows I have a lot of respect for him. He has risen up through the ranks rapidly but justifiably through his abilities and talents. I have seen in the past his willingness to listen and reflect on different perspectives, so I gently encourage him to look at new clause 38 with an approving eye. It is not onerous. It is a written ministerial statement that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham proposes, which is not a challenging thing to produce in a Government Department and then lay before the House. Although on occasions such scrutiny might test the Minister’s patience, I have to say with the benefit of hindsight that the scrutiny that comes through that publication and having to go through the process of summarising where we have got to in implementing a policy can often lead to that policy being kept on track and to course corrections as it is implemented, and can genuinely improve outcomes and delivery for the public. I conclude by gently commending my hon. Friend’s proposed new clause to the Minister. I hope he will look at it with an approving eye or at least an open mind.
May I ask, on a factual point, what assessment the hon. Gentleman has made of what the cost of that 50% discount would be?
I appreciate the Minister’s points. How does he see the drive towards electrification, for all the good reasons he has set out, sitting with building a degree of resilience into the rail network? The hon. Member for Nottingham South, the other Minister, may have experienced the problem that I had last weekend, when, due to attempted overhead cable theft, a load of trains through the east midlands were cancelled. That happened because there is no back-up mechanism to move those trains if the electrical supply is not there. How do we square that circle of making sure that a bit of resilience is built in?
I have only a few brief remarks to make. Having read both new clause 8 and amendment 130, which is effectively consequential, I say to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that they appear to be perfectly reasonable and sensible proposals that seek to focus, as we should be doing, on the passenger. I have a couple of points consequent to that. I see the intent behind the provisions; my only query is that I cannot see in the language of the new clause or amendment where the teeth are when it comes to enforceability. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has in mind exactly how that would operate, but I would be grateful if he clarified how the provisions would be enforced and where the teeth are when it comes to the travelling public. I also associate myself with his question to the Minister, about delay repay. The focus of all we are doing should be on the passengers—the service users of our railways. The passenger has paid to use that service. Again, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm on the record that there is no intention to weaken the delay repay scheme once GBR is in operation. The key is for the Government, rather than seeking to weaken delay repay to save money, to actually put their money where their mouths are and be confident that GBR will improve reliability. That way, GBR will not have to pay out so much because the trains will be doing what they are there to do for the travelling public. I hope the Minister can give that assurance as he winds up.
The Minister has just said that the watchdog will have strong powers, but then uses words like “consultation” and “taking account of”. I have taken Bills through this place, and there are other words, like “should”, “could” or “must have regard to”—in fact, Bills rarely say, “must”; they normally say, “should pay attention to” or “should heed”. What actual powers will the watchdog have to compel GBR or the Secretary of State to take a particular course of action?
I regularly find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for West Dorset—possibly to the detriment of us both—on a whole range of things, and I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson again on this occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham is right to highlight that amendments 133 and 35 are not dissimilar in their intent and in what they seek to achieve. It is important, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield says, that while we do recognise the desire and the need to drive up an increase in the use of railways for transporting freight, at the moment we risk disproportionately focusing on that to the detriment of traveling passengers. If there was any tension there, I would posit that freight may win out. Yet in the Bill, it is the traveling passengers who will be not only paying for their tickets but essentially, as taxpayers, paying to subsidise or backfill any additional funding needed for the railways as a nationalised industry. Given that, it is vital that the passenger is front and centre of the thinking behind the Bill and how GBR comes into being. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham rightly highlighted the importance of the culture of the organisation. It may inherit DNA from predecessor organisations, but GBR will be a new organisation, and that gives the Minister and the Secretary of State an opportunity to help shape that culture. I have a genuine concern that in what is being done, the power of the passenger—of the paying public or the market—is diluted by virtue of creating what is essentially a state monopoly in GBR. What the amendments proposed by both my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage seek to do is to put the passenger back into the mix in some way, and require that their voice has to be heard alongside that desire to drive up usage for freight. If there is a target or an obligation on GBR to drive up passenger numbers, it will have to be responsive to what passengers want, what they see and the experiences they have on the railways, which will drive them to use those railways more often. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, who knows of what he speaks. But at the moment, with the perfectly reasonable desire to increase the use of railways for freight, we risk that being unbalanced to the detriment of the passenger and their voice not being heard. For that reason, I am supportive of both amendments in seeking to make sure that the passenger remains front and centre of how GBR operates.
I will speak relatively briefly about a slightly tangential but linked point about co-operation with local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has already made the point about non-mayoral authorities. Whatever the direction of travel by the Government, there will still be a significant number of areas not covered by a mayoral authority when the Bill—should it pass through Committee and the House—comes into effect. I think that the wording of clause 5 risks excluding, even if only for a time, a number of relevant local authorities. I have broader concerns about the duty to co-operate—the duty to work together. Rightly, it focuses on the operation of the railways, and that link, I suspect in intention if not in drafting, with transport authorities. However, there is a need—if this is not written in the Bill directly, perhaps the Minister can explain how he envisages it working in practice—for broader co-operation by GBR with local authorities. To give an example, in Syston in my constituency, we have the very real challenge of flood risk around the brook that runs through the centre of the town. Lots of work has been done by the local flood group and others to reduce that risk and to get the Environment Agency to take steps to clear the brook, which I have also been very active in, but one of the key issues that remains is a pinch point in the brook under a railway bridge, an asset of Network Rail. The problem is a footpath that is built alongside, under that bridge, that takes up a chunk of what could be waterway with a bank. An idea has been advocated to me by members of that group, and especially by Chris—I will not use his full name—who is a very active member. He suggests, “Couldn’t Network Rail be persuaded to remove the footpath and the bank and instead come up with an engineering solution, a metal bridge or metal footpath, that allows water flow underneath?” That sounds like a sensible and practical idea, and I will of course press it with Network Rail, but I use it as an example of an issue that often occurs when railway assets are, quite rightly, very carefully protected by Network Rail because of the impact on passenger trains and safety aspects. The situation can be incredibly difficult. I have not yet tried my luck with Network Rail—hopefully it is listening and might be receptive—but it can be very difficult to get it to agree to change its assets at the request of the local flood authority or council, for example, and co-operate because it sees that as a significant expense and a potential disruption to the railways. While I hope that I will receive a constructive response in due course, will the Minister address how, if he is not including this in the Bill, he would envisage GBR being obliged to work in a co-operative and constructive fashion with local authorities and other public bodies when their assets are part of the mix of that conversation?
I congratulate my friend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the EFRA Select Committee, on securing this vital debate. I have a huge amount of respect for him, given his expertise in, and dedication to, these and other important areas. We have heard many contributions from Members across the House today. The Chair of the Committee spoke passionately about issues such as spatial squeeze, and also talked about the imbalance in the situation with Norway. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about how dangerous a profession fishing is and the importance of people in this sector, as well as about the importance of data and science. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about the importance of bringing the next generation into this profession. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) talked about the importance of fish for our food security; she also talked about spatial squeeze and about fish being an important part of a balanced, healthy diet for the UK population. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) talked about some of the key logjams of logistics, bureaucracy and red tape facing the sector, and about a pragmatic approach to workforce issues. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) talked about some of the debates regarding the designation of marine protection areas, about conservation, and about striking accords on workforce issues. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) talked about the importance of the industry to his rural and coastal communities, and also highlighted workforce issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) again talked about spatial squeeze, the importance of the next generation, and flaws in the recent EU negotiations. I fear he was starting a bit of a lobster war with our hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway; I remind him that lobsters are indeed sentient creatures. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always a passionate advocate for his industries and communities in Northern Ireland, also talked about some of the key issues, including workforce issues and food security. Finally, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the significance of the fishing heritage in his community and its importance to his local economy. Fishing has always been vital to the United Kingdom—it is the lifeblood of communities up and down this country, across all four nations of our UK. I pay tribute to the brave and hard-working fishermen and women, the processers, the transporters, the traders, and everyone else who does so much to harvest and deliver that precious food source, which is so vital to our food security and to local economies across the land. I also thank representative bodies such as the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation for all they do to champion and advocate for those vital industries. His Majesty’s official Opposition are committed to standing up for, and supporting, our coastal communities and fishing industries. As an independent, sovereign coastal nation, our fishing rights are a fundamental asset; we cannot weaken them, and they are crucial to maintaining our food security and our economy. The previous Conservative Government made progress in making us an independent, sovereign coastal state, including through our work to secure the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement for fisheries in 2021. We used that agreement as a catalyst to secure £970 million in fishing opportunities by 2024 and an uplifted quota at a value of £146 million, including significant gains for the pelagic sector. The current Government had to renegotiate on quota and access under the terms of that agreement. Unfortunately, the fruits of the Government’s negotiation with the EU were somewhat spoiled. It was quite simply a sell-out that throws our fishing industry under the bus for the sake of closer ties to the EU. Industry representatives have described the deal in no uncertain terms as a “horror show”, and as giving away “the best card that we still had”. We Conservatives are fundamentally clear that we stand with all our hard-working fishermen and women, who will be significantly impacted and have their fishing capabilities restricted because of this retrograde deal. Back in March, when it was first being seriously suggested in the public discourse that fishing rights might be bargained away for access to the European defence fund, I asked the then fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), to confirm that the Government would not capitulate on our fishing rights. The Minister responded that he was “determined to get the best possible outcome for our fishing sector”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 366WH.] Unfortunately, the Government caved in to pressure to seek closer ties with the EU at any cost. Worse still, we have learned that despite the Government caving in, the EU has still refused them those closer ties on defence. While nations as far afield as the Faroe Islands have the option of negotiating with the EU yearly to improve their lot when it comes to both quotas and access, the Government’s deal means that our fishing industry is locked into current arrangements for 12 years.
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. When requests like this come in, we have to take a very logical view across the United Kingdom and the UK Government have to be strong in their deliberations, because we have to make sure that our waters are protected. The Leader of the Opposition explicitly set “no reduction in our fishing rights” as one of the five tests for this Government’s agreement with the EU. The Government have not even come close to meeting that test. His Majesty’s Opposition also note that in the most recent discussions, technical management rules were brought into the frame of negotiations for the first time. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East has intimated, that is a clear sign of the increasing influence the EU is starting to have as a result of these changes. While of course we all welcome any funding to support the fishing sector and improve the welfare of coastal communities, the Government’s fishing and coastal growth fund was really just a sticking-plaster exercise—yes, it was a significant amount of money, but it was really to try to cover up their errors in their fishing policy so far. As the Minister will remember, when that fund was announced, I asked her to confirm any practical details of how the fund would be delivered; how it would support fishermen and women and coastal communities; and, importantly, whether the funding would be front-loaded, which is the only way that the Government can begin to repair some of the harm they have started to cause since taking office. As I have said, we absolutely support any funding provided to fishing and coastal communities. When we were in Government, we brought in the £100 million UK seafood fund to support the future and sustainability of UK fisheries and the seafood sector, allocating funds for science, research, infrastructure, skills and training across the sector. Today, we have heard from Members across the House about the importance of data, research and science—we need to collect that, and we need to fund it. From the autumn Budget documents, we also know that the Government plan to spend £25 million in the financial year 2026-27, which is a small part of the £360 million in the fishing and coastal growth fund. They must provide that funding as soon as possible, in a way that makes an actual difference to fishermen and women and to coastal communities. Speaking of the Budget, like most of the country, people in fishing and coastal communities will have been anxious about the autumn Budget and the changes it contained. We in the Opposition are concerned about the impact of the tourist tax on coastal communities that rely on tourism—that tax will serve a double blow on top of the difficulties the fishing industries and coastal communities have already faced. Owing to the Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions, employers have been left to make very difficult choices, such as refusing to hire new staff, freezing pay or—worst of all—letting people go. This is really hitting the fishing industries. A scientific, evidence-based approach is non-negotiable if we are to ensure high ecological and environmental standards in fishing across all fishing countries, including the UK—standards that are paramount for sustaining our precious seas and oceans and ensuring responsible global trade. However, a delicate balance has to be struck. While ensuring ecological and environmental standards, we must also ensure that the fishing industries are able to survive and, indeed, thrive. When we talk about improving marine welfare and addressing some negative practices, we must be clear that fishermen and women in the UK are trying to act in the best interests of the ecosystem on which they depend. As we have heard from Members across the House, the experts on nurturing and protecting that precious resource are the people who fish it. Likewise, an evidence-based approach must be at the centre of the solution tackling spatial squeeze, which we have heard a lot about today. It is vital, as we enhance our abilities to deliver clean energy, that offshore wind is delivered in the right way and in the right place, looking at all the evidence, including on how offshore wind impacts on the fishing industry, ecosystems and marine life. While the Marine Recovery Funds Regulations 2025, which came into force in December, compensate for environmental damage caused by offshore wind, they fail to compensate fishermen and women for any harm to their livelihoods done by offshore wind projects. That is just another missed opportunity to protect the industry by this Government. Unfortunately, it is their embedded approach at present. Seafish’s recent report on employment in the fishing industry in 2024 showed an increasingly ageing demographic in the sector, with difficulties for many to access the skilled labour that fishing demands. Pretty much every speaker today talked about the importance of workforce moving forward. Without new fishermen and women, the industry will not have a future. Will the Minister please confirm what the Government are doing to tackle this existential threat to the industry? Part of solving the problem must look at the practice of fishing itself, which is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry. Financial instability, the tough conditions and the physical stress can have a significant impact on people’s mental health. I commend the work of several charities, including the Bearded Fishermen Charity, the Fishermen’s Mission, FishWell and the Angling Trust, to support fishermen and women with their mental health. What measures are the Government taking to make fishing safer and to help improve the physical and mental health of our fishermen and women? In conclusion, fishing is vital for our local communities, our economy and our food security, which is national security. This Government had the room to make real progress on the good—albeit not perfect—legacy they were given. Unfortunately, they are adrift from the shore when it comes to truly grappling with the challenges facing the industry, or they have actively worsened the situation with their decisions, such as this awful EU deal. The Government must wake up and steer their ship in a new direction, or they will see the industry sink on their watch.
I start by thanking the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this debate and opening it so excellently. It has offered Members from across the House the opportunity to discuss an issue that is central to our national interests and our values. The speeches we have heard today reflect a deep commitment across this House to our farmers, our food standards, animal welfare, the environment, and the integrity of British agriculture. We have heard a range of contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst)—to whom I pay tribute for his expertise on the pig industry, and whom I thank for his work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—talked about the complexities of the global trade in meat, the importance of food security, and a sensible transition on husbandry regulations. He also touched on inappropriate antibiotic use, which I will speak about in due course. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) talked about the importance of the grain and sugar sectors in his part of the world, and of transparency in labelling. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and to her family on the farm. It is brilliant that she brings that expertise to the House of Commons, and I thank her for all she does. She talked about welfare standards, food security, and the importance of local food procurement. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), whom I also thank for his excellent work on the EFRA Committee, talked about the importance of food security and, again, transparency in food labelling. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), who is a proud advocate for high animal welfare standards, talked about the important bans that we uphold on hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed poultry; I will touch on those in due course. Finally, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) spoke about the importance of both buying and exporting British. I thank him for his comments. Standards are not abstract trade matters; they are questions of fairness, food security and moral duty. British farmers are rightly proud of producing food to some of the highest animal welfare, environmental and safety standards in the world. They do so not only to comply with the law, but because it is right. It is therefore indefensible to allow them to be undercut by imports produced to standards that would be illegal in the United Kingdom. I am proud of the previous Conservative Government’s record on advancing animal welfare. We banned the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter, under the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024; increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years under the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and, importantly, enshrined animal sentience in UK law under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the Animal Sentience Committee. That means that any new legislation that we consider must pay due regard to animal welfare. I was proud to co-sponsor the Conservative-initiated Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 to tackle the cruel puppy smuggling trade and the horrific practice of dog ear cropping. In the United Kingdom, we have brilliant farmers who farm to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be proud of that. As I have said many times in this House, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. British farmers follow strict rules on banned growth promoters, on housing and welfare conditions, and on environmental protections. Those standards carry costs and responsibilities that farmers accept, because they reflect public values. The injustice arises when food produced to lower standards overseas is allowed to enter our market and compete directly with food produced under our higher rules. That does not raise global standards; it simply exports cruelty and imports unfair competition. We Conservatives have consistently defended our standards. In 2024, when the Leader of the Opposition served as the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she suspended trade talks with Canada, after Canada insisted on including hormone-treated beef. That decision sent a clear message that the UK will not compromise on important bans, such as bans on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork, or—we have heard about these today—chlorine-washed poultry and bovine somatotropin-treated dairy, all of which remain illegal in the United Kingdom. Those practices merely hide substandard—unacceptable, in some cases—husbandry methods, and are not positive at all for animal or bird welfare. I was proud that the previous Conservative Government stood firm on the bans on such products in our negotiations with Canada, and I urge the current Government to maintain that firm position. The United Kingdom has among the strictest welfare laws in the world. By contrast, countries such as Canada and the US still allow hens to be kept in battery cages. Here, 83% of eggs come from free-range or barn systems, and the Government have committed to phasing out all cages for laying hens by 2032. The Opposition have made it clear that we very much support banning cages or close confinement systems where there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal and bird health and welfare. That is in keeping with much of the United Kingdom’s legislation on the use of cages and crates, which includes a law to ban keeping calves in veal crates, introduced in 1990; legislation banning keeping sows in close confinement stalls, introduced in 1999; and measures to ban battery cages for hens, introduced in 2012. Under the Conservative Government, Ministers were clear that it was their ambition for farrowing crates to be no longer used for sows. Indeed, the new pig welfare code clearly states: “The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets.” I emphasise that last part. It is important that the industry is heard and, as we have heard today, that we have a sensible, workable, pragmatic transition that works and upholds animal welfare. Future trade deals must insist on core standards, or we risk encouraging systems that our own laws reject. Transparency also matters; consumers should be able to see how their food was produced. In 2024, the Conservative Government consulted on improved welfare and origin labelling, but the Labour Government’s animal welfare strategy, released just before Christmas, offers only vague intentions on labelling; there is no timetable and no binding commitments. Clear, mandatory labelling would empower UK consumers and reward UK farmers who do the right thing. The emergence in the UK of products that do not meet our animal welfare and environmental standards is potentially compounded by the alarming situation facing our national biosecurity. With disturbing reports of foot and mouth disease emerging abroad—including in Europe last year—African swine fever advancing up the continent of Europe, and the ongoing outbreaks of avian influenza and bluetongue virus in this country, we must maintain our vigilance. After raising concerns in Parliament on 17 occasions, I was pleased that the current Government finally listened and agreed to commit funding for the vital redevelopment of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s headquarters in Weybridge, which was started by the Conservative Government. I thank APHA, which I visited again last month, for its tireless work, particularly in the face of the ongoing avian influenza situation.
I thank my hon. Friend for his very kind intervention. He proudly stands up for that important institution, which I know the Minister has visited, as has the Minister in the other place. It is important that, cross-party, we support something that is so critical to our national security. As we have heard today, the very real consequences of illegal meat imports for human and animal health are a disaster waiting to happen, unless the Government maintain vigilance and step up now. Our ability to detect and seize illegal meat imports at our borders is being tested to its limits. According to DEFRA, the amount of illegal meat seized between January and April 2025—72,872 kg—was close to the amount seized in the whole of 2024, which was 92,382 kg. Dover Port Health Authority alone has seized 367 tonnes since 2022. Given the ongoing threat, it is essential that sufficient funding is provided to our agencies at the border, and that routine certification surveillance and spot checks can be carried out at Dover and other ports, to prevent illegal meat and products of animal origin entering the country. It is vital that—in addition to upholding standards, protecting our biosecurity and safeguarding animal welfare—we ensure that the United Kingdom has enough veterinary surgeons. At this point, I must declare both a professional and a personal interest: I am a veterinary surgeon, a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and a graduate of Cambridge Veterinary School. The UK does not train enough vets domestically. They play a vital role in animal health and welfare, which we have been talking a lot about today, but also in food safety, public health and disease control—all things that come into this debate on standards. That is why I am deeply concerned about the possible closure of Cambridge Veterinary School, as recommended by the council of Cambridge University’s school of biological sciences. I know the Minister is very aware of this issue, as I have raised it with her in the Chamber, and with her colleagues in DEFRA. We cannot maintain animal welfare or food security without adequate veterinary capacity, so I urge the Government to press Cambridge University to stop this short-sighted possible closure. In addition, the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 needs to be updated. Although that was mentioned in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, there was no timeline or urgency. Again, I urge the Government to act. Sadly, the Government’s record on supporting farmers gives us cause for concern. Just look at their treatment of the sector, as instanced by the ill-judged and awful family farm tax, on which they have only partially U-turned. I do not believe that we are in the right place, and there is much more that we still need to do on that. By permitting imports produced under weaker standards, the Government risk favouring overseas producers over British ones. Ministers say that they are passionate about animal welfare and food standards, and I take them at their word, but their record and their rhetoric tell a slightly different story. Their keenness to merge with EU standards is worrying, especially on animal welfare, given that our standards in the UK are higher. Returning to EU regulatory alignment would make us rule takers, not rule makers, preventing farmers from adopting innovations such as gene editing. The Labour manifesto spoke about food security, but it failed to set out a clear plan to protect farmers from low import standards. The Conservative Government’s Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 laid the foundations for the development of disease and climate-resilient crops and the breeding of animals and birds that are resistant to harmful diseases such as avian influenza and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. As I have mentioned, the landmark Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act, ended the inhumane export of live animals for slaughter or fattening. These are important achievements, yet the Opposition have concerns that these vital Acts may be repealed, watered down or weakened because of this Government’s pursuit of a reset with the EU. I hope the Minister can assure the House that those safeguards will remain intact and that we will not take a backward step on animal welfare and innovation in the agriculture and food security sectors. We have already seen how sectors such as fishing can be treated as bargaining chips in international talks, with our UK fisheries sold away to Europe for 12 years to try—at this stage, in vain—to get access to the European defence fund. Farmers are watching closely and are understandably worried that agriculture could also be a bargaining chip. If import standards are watered down in the name of smoother trade or convenient deals, British farmers may lose out by being denied access to revolutionary tools such as gene editing and precision breeding that the EU is slow or reluctant to adopt. Moreover, animal welfare will be weakened, consumer confidence will be damaged and the long-term resilience of our food system will be jeopardised. This is not about protectionism. It is about our values. Farmers are asking for a fair and level field on which to compete, which means import standards that reflect the standards required of British farmers and demanded by British consumers, as well as clear red lines in every trade negotiation, proper enforcement at our borders and no agreements that sacrifice agriculture for political expedience. Can I ask the Minister directly whether the Government will guarantee that no food produced to lower standards than those required of British farmers will be allowed into our market? Will they commit to not trading away our standards in future negotiations? I would welcome the Minister’s response on the public procurement of food, which we have heard a bit about today. Sadly, the Government buying standards still have a loophole that allows public bodies to bypass high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost. If we are to lead globally on animal welfare, we must uphold such principles here at home. Import standards are fundamentally about trust—trust between farmers, consumers and the Government. British agriculture depends on that trust. Opposition Members will examine every agreement, every regulation and every concession that may risk undercutting our farmers and weakening our standards, or indeed compromising animal health and welfare. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition urge the Government to support agriculture and defend the standards that the British people hold dear.
Since the Budget, the hospitality industry has been very anxious. We have heard from the Treasury and the Chancellor that a package is coming forward. I spoke in the Budget debate asking when it will come forward, we have had urgent questions about it, and we have had an Opposition day debate. Even when debating the Finance (No. 2) Bill, we directly asked the Minister when the package is coming forward. We still need those answers for pubs, restaurants, cafés and hotels; they need to know who is in and who is out. Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to come to the House next week to make a statement on exactly this subject in order to end the anxiety in the hospitality industry?
I support unitarisation and the efficiency savings it brings, but may I caution the Secretary of State a little on his language? A lot of the waste he is talking about is people’s jobs. Many hard-working council workers, who have huge uncertainty about what will happen to them over the next couple of years, will be concerned to hear that sort of language used as we discuss this in the Chamber. What support is he giving local authorities to help those council workers find new jobs once the LGR process is complete?
I have the Animal and Plant Health Agency in my constituency—it is confusingly named the Weybridge centre, but it is actually in New Haw—I thank the shadow Minister for his advocacy on this issue, and the Government for putting in the funding for the redevelopment.
The amount of money that local government authorities have, such as Surrey county council and the new east Surrey and west Surrey unitary councils, has a huge day-to-day impact on residents. It determines the provision of services and the protection of our communities, and it is essential to the many businesses and voluntary organisations in the area through both policy and the many direct contacts held with local service providers. We heard again this week claims that the Government are boosting funding for councils, but the reality does not live up to the rhetoric. Surrey county council’s budget is being reduced by over £50 million for the next financial year. Surrey is negatively impacted more than any other area despite increased demand and escalating costs just to maintain existing service levels. The Government’s calculations simply do not provide enough money for statutory services such as adult social care provision—and we all know about the urgent action that is needed to improve the special educational needs system and support available for children, schools and families. Instead of investing in services, the Government are slashing central grant funding for Surrey. Despite that, Surrey county council has managed to put forward a balanced budget, thanks to hard work led by Councillor David Lewis, but the situation as it stands is unsustainable, and the risks are mounting. The Government need to act. In addition to the counterproductive funding decisions being made by the Government, we have the added complication of local government reform. Changing the structures of local authorities is a complicated matter. It requires changes in contracts, staffing, location and every other aspect of running a large and complicated organisation, yet we have no information on how the transition will be funded. It cannot possibly come from existing budgets if services are to be maintained, given the situation I have outlined. There is no clarity on what will happen to staff during the transition. Many jobs are at risk, and some have already sought new, more stable opportunities elsewhere. All face additional pressures as a result of reorganisation, and the risk is that important decisions will be delayed, leaving Surrey stuck in stasis. Beyond transition, we must look at the foundation of the new unitaries. We all know the concerns about local authority debt. Some councils, such as Runnymede borough council, which covers a big chunk of my constituency, were able to operate a commercial strategy with sound financial management, meaning that the risk of high debt was mitigated by clear controls and revenue provisions. However, they are the exception. Too many local authorities borrowed heavily without the knowledge or systems to manage the risk, and none did so more disastrously than Woking borough council. Given the size of the authority, the failures at Woking are unparalleled, both in terms of the scale of the debt and the failure of financial management and scrutiny, yet, despite announcements that the Government are proceeding with local government reform, there is still no clear plan about what to do with the Woking debt. In October last year, the Government announced debt relief totalling half a billion pounds for Woking borough council in 2026-27, but that still leaves more than £1.5 billion of debt, and under the Government’s plans, that may shortly become the liability of residents across west Surrey.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although it sounds like it was more for the Minister than for me. He has given the Minister time to prepare for his inevitable question, which I hope she addresses in her speech.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is exactly right: through local government reform, all areas could be affected by the debt and other commitments of neighbouring authorities. That brings me to the point I was about to make, which is that it really is not fair that my constituents in Runnymede could have to pay for the failed decisions of Woking politicians—both those in power and those who failed in their duty to scrutinise decisions—because those constituents never got to vote for them. The scale of the remaining debt, when combined with the debt of other local authorities, means that the new west Surrey unitary will be bankrupt from day one. New local authorities should be established on a sound and equal footing, so that the provision of services can be determined by local need. The Government need urgently to introduce a sound long-term financial plan for both unitaries in Surrey.
My hon. Friend is a lot harder in his language on this issue and I very much respect him for that. At the very least, we need to have a well thought-out plan and strategy for what is going to happen with the block of debt. There is a variety of different options for how it can be managed and dealt with. Here is the fundamental problem that my constituents—service providers, charities and businesses—raise with me and are really worried about: that decisions made in a neighbouring local authority, which they have had no involvement in or dealings with, will have a material impact on them when the west Surrey unitary authority is set up. I realise that the scale of the debt is a huge and complicated problem. I do not envy the Minister in trying to find a way through. I am glad that we have this forum for debate this afternoon, but we need to have these debates and discussions so that the west Surrey unitary authority—and, frankly, others that are being set up that face similar problems—can be dealt with fairly and so we know what is coming down the tracks. My residents are not going to be punished for decisions made in other authorities that they never had the chance to vote for. That is fundamentally unfair. By the way, in some ways this is not something that we are unused to in my part of Surrey. We sit on the penumbra—just on the outskirts—outside London, and there are plenty of policies that come from this awful Mayor of London that affect us in a whole range of negative ways and which we do not have the ability to vote for. Unfortunately, this situation is far and away the most substantial we have faced, and there is so much fear, concern and uncertainty about what may be coming down the track. Of course there is a huge irony in all this, because Surrey is one of the largest contributors to the Exchequer in our country. Cutting local authority funding, and impacting services and the many contracts that local authorities maintain, risks serious harm, not only locally in Surrey but to the national economy. Let us consider some examples. If the Government do not effectively fund local highways, that will lead to deteriorating road conditions, resulting in more temporary emergency repair works. We all know the nightmare that that causes, with delays, costs of millions in lost work hours and missed appointments, and longer transit times for goods. That damages the Surrey economy and, by virtue, the national economy. If the Government do not effectively fund adult social care, that will cause bed blocking in hospitals and pressure on health services, impeding effective recovery and care. If the Government do not effectively fund planning services, that leads to lengthy delays in assessing applications for homes and businesses and, crucially, risks enabling rogue development, which blights Surrey and other areas. Although planning enforcement remains a discretionary service, there is a real risk that it is increasingly seen as a “nice to have” and not an essential tool to protect communities. Evidence shows that enforcement rates continue to fall in the face of funding pressures. Inappropriate and illegal development—people essentially cocking a snoot at the planning system, and building anyway—is a serious problem in my constituency and in places across the country, and my residents are rightly incensed. Critical to stopping this activity and turning the situation around are not only stronger enforcement powers—for which I have been campaigning for years—but, at the very least, the resources to do proper planning enforcement.
I thank the hon. Member for raising housing targets and planning in local authorities. The majority of my constituency is covered by Runnymede local authority and, I think, roughly a third by Elmbridge local authority. In the Runnymede authority, there is a local plan, so there is no risk of the opportunistic development that he mentions. In the Elmbridge local authority, there is no local plan, so there is opportunistic development. Applications are under way that are causing huge concern to local residents in the Cobham, Downside, Stoke D’Abernon and Oxshott area in particular. In fact, at the end of last year, I wrote to the Secretary of State along with councillors from Elmbridge to raise our concerns about the fact that, because of local government reorganisation, again Surrey has found itself stuck in stasis. There is a local plan in Elmbridge. Can that be put together by the time we hit the election of the shadow authorities? When you think about it, the term itself is an awful one—try knocking on doors and asking for support for the shadow authorities! What is Elmbridge to do? Do people living in the Elmbridge part of my constituency effectively have to wait a year and a half, until we have the full authority going when the shadow authority transfers over, before we can have some sensible progress when it comes to getting plans in place to protect people from opportunistic development? That is before we even talk about the scale of the housing targets, whose spread is disproportionate in Elmbridge; and I will ask the Minister later about the absence of a commitment for a Surrey mayor, who would in part be responsible for planning decisions. I hope Members can see that it is all a bit of a mess, and my constituents and local businesses are stuck in the middle. No topic is more sensitive or concerning than where we find ourselves with special educational needs provision. We all know what happens when that is not fully funded. I welcome the work that the county council and Councillor Jonathan Hulley have been doing to improve transparency and engagement locally, really turning up the dial on what is happening for families and children with special educational needs, but ultimately we need national changes to services and support, and the funding to bring forward delivery. Without the local funding, the opportunities for children to reach their full potential are limited. It leads to failure demand, which is when services do not provide what is needed early on, thereby creating more demand in the system later, and that harms and limits children. That is notwithstanding all the pressures on families and siblings and on schools, which are going above and beyond to try to support those children. The Government know these risks—I know the Minister knows and appreciates them. I hope the Government also know that it is a false economy to cut costs right now. The resulting economic and social impact of not funding these essential services will be calamitous locally. Of course, as night follows day, I fully expect Government Members and others to see this as an opportunity to blame the Conservative Government, and of course I acknowledge that local government has struggled as a result of difficult financial decisions over the years, but there really is no more capacity for cuts. That is why we need to address the issue now. I want to use this debate as a plea to move beyond any sort of blame game or political posturing and work together to address the real risks that we face and establish a sound financial basis for effective local authority finances. Given the clear risks, more than anything else we now need certainty. Residents and businesses need to know that they will not be shackled with high costs resulting from other local authorities’ poor financial management. Businesses and charities that have contracts and partnerships need certainty about their future. We all need to know that there will be adequate funding so that we all retain access to the essential services that local authorities provide. That cannot wait until after the May elections. Our voters need to know what authorities they are voting councillors into. They need clarity over the scope of the authorities’ powers. This debate is the Minister’s opportunity to answer the questions of 1.5 million Surrey residents. How will local authority debt be dealt with? Will central Government ensure effective funding, or do Ministers intend to rely on constant tax rises despite the cost of living pressures? These are council tax rises—taxes on working people, as she and the Government, I assume, would define them. Will we have a mayor in Surrey? If so, can we have the details? How can we prevent the long-term risks if the Government continue to prioritise short-term funding cuts? For once—just for once—will this Government put Surrey first?
I think the Minister said a moment ago that she would work with the west Surrey authority to resolve the issue. At what stage in the process does she anticipate a decision and resolution? The west Surrey authority will not be an operational statutory unit until spring next year. We have elections to the shadow authorities this year. As I understand it, those shadow authorities will not have any powers until vesting day, when they are transferred to the full-fat authority, so the current county council and the district and borough councils will still have statutory powers. Is the Minister saying that there will be no debt resolution until the west Surrey unitary authority is set up? Is she saying that there will be a resolution when the shadow authority is in place, or will we have a resolution before the elections this May? That is really important for our residents, who need to know what set-up the councillors they are voting for will have to deal with. Can she guarantee, or even say that it is her ambition, that she will get this resolved before we get to those elections?
As I have said many times, I represent one of the largest rural constituencies in the United Kingdom, and Eskdalemuir is one of the most rural parts of that constituency. Constituents there remain extremely concerned about BT’s proposal to switch off analogue lines, given that the area has very poor mobile reception and frequent power cuts. Will the Minister and the Cabinet Office more generally satisfy themselves that the arrangements in place for this switch-off will not impede resilience and will ensure communities such as Eskdalemuir are not cut off during extreme weather events?
The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill is still under consideration in the Scottish Parliament and has not been passed, contrary to the views of a number of Members of this House. This week, a number of measures had to be removed from the Bill because they were not compliant with the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish Ministers suggested that they were in an ongoing discussion with the UK Government about a future section 104 order. Can Ministers update the House on the current discussions with the Scottish Government? And do they agree with me that ultimately—
I echo the Leader of the House’s Burns night greetings for Sunday. Will he join me, in my position as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, in congratulating the Nuclear Industry Association and all those in the nuclear industry who ensured the success of the fifth Nuclear Week in Parliament this week, which has showcased all aspects of the industry, from new build and supply chain to decommissioning, and allowed numerous engagement opportunities for MPs? May we have a debate on the benefits that the nuclear industry brings to England and Wales in terms of jobs, economic growth and energy security, so that Scottish Members like myself can once again expose the shameful conduct of the Scottish Government in using their planning powers to block new nuclear development in Scotland to the detriment of my constituency and Scotland?
The Paymaster General has told the House this morning, on more than one occasion, just how wonderful his new EU deal will be for British food and drink manufacturers, so why is he refusing to appear in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to discuss the matter in more detail?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) mentioned PFI contracts earlier—a particularly pertinent subject as many of them come to an end. That is impacting a number of schools in my constituency, where work is suddenly not being done and costs are going up. One school has carried out a survey that says it will cost £3.5 million to bring the school back up to a safe standard, but it is concerned that the company that should be doing the work will declare itself bankrupt, leaving the school and the local authority with the bill. I suspect that that is not an isolated case and that Members across the House will be aware of similar issues. Can we have a debate in Government time on PFI contracts and their impact on public services?
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for applying for today’s very important debate. I would like to start by paying tribute to the fishermen and women of Bridlington and Hornsea in my constituency and to the RNLI and inshore rescue teams who keep our fishermen safe right across the UK. The House will be well aware that Bridlington is the lobster capital of Europe, landing over 300 tonnes every year, and the largest shellfish landing port in the UK. I hope that next time the Minister is back in Brid, she has the opportunity to sample some of our fine fresh seafood at Salt on the Harbour or the Old Lifeboat Station opposite the Spa. I welcome the fishing and coastal growth fund, but I caution that it is £360 million over 12 years, which is £30 million a year. In a harbour like Bridlington, the cost of a major upgrade, or in fact just normal maintenance to harbour walls, often runs into millions of pounds. I fear that we could quickly run out of money for major capital projects, but I hope that those capital projects can apply to this fund and that Bridlington will be able to benefit from it. I also hope that we will be able to address the skills issues, which are key for the fishing industry. We need to attract school leavers into the industry and ensure we have the next generation of people out there at sea; this is a real problem up and down the country at the moment. Another issue I would like to talk about is spatial squeeze. The Government are consulting on a land use framework, which is welcome, but we need something similar for the marine environment. We have heard from Members today about the challenges of juggling space for renewable energy, and there are very large offshore wind farms in Hornsea.
On that second point, we will have to agree to disagree, but my hon. Friend is right in terms of spatial squeeze. If it is not an issue, I do not understand why it takes up so much of the briefing from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations; they, I suspect, are the real experts in this area. I turn to the EU deal and the frustration that our fishing industry has been sold out for the next 12 years in return for an SPS deal that has yet to be negotiated. I fear that things have got worse since that announcement was made. In fact, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has contacted MPs to say: “In last year’s annual negotiations between the UK and the EU that concluded last December, something new happened that has deeply alarmed UK fishermen. As well as deciding fish quotas for 2026 as expected, the two sides also agreed new technical fisheries management rules for their respective national waters. We are told that the EU proposed these measures and that the UK negotiating team was blindsided by their inclusion in the talks. Nevertheless, they agreed to them. Rules that govern how British fishermen can work in British waters were changed, at short notice and without consultation, at the request of the EU. This is unprecedented.” It went on to say: “It was startling to learn… that the collaborative, evidence-based process that we all thought we were working within had been set aside in favour of a bargain struck between civil servants over a few days in London and Brussels. More troubling still, the rules will be more lenient in EU waters.” That says to me, “sell out again”, and it sets a direction of travel as we negotiate an SPS deal with the European Union. It is clear that we are negotiating from a very weak position, and are willing to do whatever the EU pleases to have a deal done by the end of this year. This Government could perhaps learn lessons from the previous one about setting false deadlines for trade negotiations. I am happy to admit that we made mistakes in the early days post Brexit, and I caution against doing the same now. It would be remiss of me not to touch on bottom-trawling. The issue has become a focus for anti-fishing groups, but if it were to be banned across our marine protected areas, that would destroy the industry overnight and decimate certain coastal communities. Much of the campaign against it misrepresents the industry; it is not as damaging as some organisations say it is. I hope that the Minister will take up the issue with the industry, and will ensure that bottom-trawling is properly represented in any negotiations about the use of that technique. In conclusion, I am proud to represent such a successful fishing industry. I know that Bridlington is close to the Minister’s heart, and I would love the opportunity to meet her, perhaps even in Bridlington, and local fishermen to discuss the future of the industry, so that we do what we can, together, to support the lobster capital of Europe.
I will start by setting the scene to explain why we import so much food and why we are not self-sufficient. We are never going to be self-sufficient in food—certainly not in bananas or avocados, but not in some meat sectors either. Although we produce very large quantities of lamb and beef, we are only 58% self-sufficient in pork; I think the figure is a little higher in poultry. If we were 100% self-sufficient in pork, we would have to export so much more to achieve a carcase balance and achieve value for the farmer from the pig that it would be quite a challenge. As a great nation of bacon butty lovers, we eat a lot of bacon, to the extent that we have to import a certain amount. We are therefore exporting other cuts of a pig, such as belly pork to Europe and fifth quarter to China. That all adds value and achieves a better price for our hard-working farmers. It is important to point out that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreements that we have been talking about do not cover some of the welfare issues that we have discussed, which are separate. The challenge of those agreements, as our trade negotiators are very aware, is that a country can fall foul of World Trade Organisation rules by telling another country what welfare standards it expects it to employ, so it can find itself in difficulties. In making any trade agreements with other countries, we need to be conscious that we should allow market access only where we are satisfied that welfare standards have been met. At the moment, when it comes to EU-UK import-export relations and livestock and meat, we are at a relatively similar welfare standard. I mean no criticism of the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling)—it is all quite technical—but sow stalls are not the same as farrowing crates. The sow stall ban in 1999 was a challenge because the EU did not implement it immediately, and that caused us a lot of problems. Farrowing crates are a topic of conversation at the moment. They are part of the animal welfare strategy that the Government have published, and the industry has been working very closely on them for a number of years. About 60,000 traditional farrowing crates are in place in the UK. To convert to a free farrowing system would require planning permission; the crates cannot just be pulled out and replaced. It will be a huge challenge. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the issue with the sow stall ban in 1999 was that there was not a sufficient transition period. I hesitate to say this, but I think she is experienced enough to have been here at the time. [Interruption.] Yes, she was here at the time. We lost 50% of the British pig industry. That did not mean that we ate 50% less pork; it meant that we imported a load more from abroad. Whatever happens and whatever measures are taken on pigs, poultry or anything else, it is really important that we do not reduce our domestic food production, lower our food security, reduce British jobs in farming and replace them with jobs abroad and meat produced abroad, often to standards that we would not like. That will be a key issue as the Government take forward their animal welfare strategy. They must ensure that we do not diverge from or move too far ahead of European Union producers, because we are reliant on a huge amount of meat from the European Union. If we put greater production costs on our farmers, we will disadvantage them and naturally they will be displaced. It is a really important issue. The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire was right to raise the US. The US still has sow stalls, which were banned in this country 27 years ago. The US does not have ambitious targets to reduce antibiotics, as we do. The UK pig industry has reduced antibiotics by 69% since 2015, so we have been making real progress without the intervention of Government, and there is a recognition that we need to use fewer antibiotics. The issue is that it adds costs and lowers production levels because producers are not able to use outdated methods, particularly sow stalls. That puts us at a disadvantage with some trading partners. In my previous life, before being elected to this place, I was closely involved with the negotiations on the Canada deal. That was a similar challenge: Canada has methods that we would not accept in certain areas. In the Australia deal, pigs were not included at all because we felt that the welfare standards were not sufficiently high enough for us to import them. The Minister is definitely aware of that. It is important that we all work together to ensure that in any moves we make on trade and food imports, we are always mindful of protecting the great British farmer.
The hon. Member highlights an important point about the challenges of potential welfare labelling. If imports are not labelled in the same way, as they probably would not be, British producers could be put at a disadvantage when it comes to what a consumer might think about how something has been produced. We must be conscious of that.
Before the Front-Bench speeches begin, may I extend a warm welcome to the Minister of Education in Ontario, who has been in the Chamber listening to hon. Members’ contributions? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. The hon. Lady will know that the debate is on the fishing industry, not on sewage pollution of rivers per se. Perhaps she would like to return to the subject of fishing.
Order. I will not make this point again. This is a debate on the fishing industry. The hon. Lady has made her point about pollution.
As you will know, Mr Speaker, reform occasionally moves very slowly in this House, so I thank the Leader of the House for confirming that the experiment on dealing with estimates day debates, which started in 2018, will now be confirmed going forward. I would be grateful if he could give us early warning of when the estimates day debates will take place this year, so that we can begin the process of allocating the debates. In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, there will be a Westminster Hall debate next Tuesday on UK bus manufacturing. On Thursday, there will be a debate on non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, followed by a debate on protecting and restoring river habitats. On Tuesday 3 February, there will be a Westminster Hall debate on town and city centre safety. On Thursday 5 February, there will be a debate on secondary breast cancer and a further debate, which we will announce next week. We now have a queue of debates for the Chamber, which will take us to the summer recess. We have a queue of Westminster Hall debates for Tuesdays, which will take us to the Whitsun recess, and we are processing those debates as fast as we can. We will fill any time that the Leader of the House can allocate to us. It has been drawn to my attention this week that a company called Al-Masirah has been operating a TV channel in this country for 10 years. It is owned by the Houthis, a proscribed organisation in the United States, and there is a risk that these people are using the opportunity to avoid our visa system, to launder money and to encourage terrorist activities in this country. This is obviously a serious concern for national security. I ask the Leader of the House to encourage the Security Minister to come and give us a statement on what action will be taken to make sure that the company is in compliance with our rules and regulations. If it is not, it should be removed from the UK so that our country is made safe.
Since the Paymaster General was last in the Commons, the Health Secretary has said that Britain should rejoin the customs union, the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested rejoining the customs union, 13 Labour MPs have gone against the Whip and voted with the Liberal Democrats in favour of a customs union, 80% of Labour voters at the last election have said they want to rejoin the customs union, and the Business and Trade Secretary has said that it would be “crazy” not to join the customs union. It would seem that the only people in Labour opposed to the customs union are the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that in this one regard, I do not think he is crazy at all—I think he is doing the right thing. Will he tell the House why he thinks all the other members of the Labour party are so wrong?