Fishing Industry: Government Support

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing the debate and making a strong case on behalf of his region in Scotland. He focused on the fishing and coastal growth fund, which is £360 million over 12 years, as he understands, so it is spread over a very long period. When one looks at it across the whole UK on an annual basis, it is spread very thinly.

Coastal communities in particular have been left behind following Brexit, as the hon. Member mentioned. In Cornwall, for example, we were entitled to objective 1 aid from the EU. Following Brexit, we were promised equivalent funds from the Treasury to make up for the loss of EU aid; it was equivalent to £100 million a year coming into Cornwall, which is one of the most deprived regions not just in the UK, but in Europe. It is now 2026 and there are no funds at all: over the years, that replacement has simply not happened.

A paltry amount is available through the fisheries and coastal growth fund, but it is being spread around the country and, as the hon. Member rightly says, it is a relatively small fund. It is welcome, of course—one should not decry the Government for making the offer—and I entirely understand that the purpose of the fund is to modernise the fishing industry and the seafood sector, build resilience and support coastal communities. However, I hope that the Minister will ensure that the funds go to those areas that need it most, rather than simply allocating it on a flatline basis across the country, based on the size of the existing fishing industry. Not all communities are doing as well as one another.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on adding to what must be a world record for Westminster Hall debate contributions. I thank him for emphasising the social and cultural as well as economic consequences of the fishing industry in his part of Northern Ireland. I also congratulate the new hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird), who is already proving hyperactive: this is her second debate in Westminster Hall today. She made a very telling contribution that illustrated brilliantly the impact of changes in recent years, the demise of the haddock fishery and its consequences on the community.

On the future of the fishing industry, we must recognise and acknowledge that the best type of fishing policy is one in which politicians do not need to get involved. It is one in which scientists, fishermen and marine conservationists work together in a framework created by politicians in which they can come to an agreement on the future management of stocks. In my early days in Parliament, I was a member of what was then the Agriculture Committee. We visited a number of countries, including Spain and Iceland, where it was quite evident that the relationship between scientists and fishermen was much better established than in this country, where—at that stage, at least—scientists were seen in the industry as some kind of enemy. The presumption, wrongly, was that they were working to shut the commercial fisheries down.

Now those relationships have significantly improved. Recently, in April this year, on the initiative of the fishing industry itself, the Cornwall fisheries science board was established. We need to see a great deal more of those kinds of positive initiatives. We have just had the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum, so it is appropriate that we take a moment to reflect on that, as it has been mentioned on a number of occasions.

As someone who campaigned to remain, I had to acknowledge in the debates we had at the time that the one sector in which one could easily identify potential to thrive and improve in Brexit circumstances was the fishing industry, if there were an opportunity to regain control out to the 12-mile limit.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew George]

Briefly, as I do not want to test Sir Alec’s patience.

[Ben Maguire]

I will be brief. My local fishermen in North Cornwall have been waiting three years for the inshore fisheries and conservation authority and DEFRA to implement a byelaw to restrict vessels above 12 metres in the inshore Cornish waters within 6 nautical miles. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is urgently needed and would do exactly what he has been calling for by restricting those larger vessels and helping to manage the stocks that he is talking about?

Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion]

I think it is infinitely more than disappointing, but I will follow the hon. Member’s parliamentary language: it is hugely frustrating. Colleagues here are raising the real, human costs of that. Something needs to change, and I do not want that change to be us losing our hospitality and renewable packaging industries.

Hospitality businesses have faced similarly unfathomable logic from DEFRA. EPR fees are meant to offset the cost to local authorities of handling and recycling waste. Hospitality businesses’ waste is not collected through public collections, but through commercial waste removal contracts. Yet perversely, the annual burden to British pubs for EPR fees has been estimated by the British Beer and Pub Association to be £50 million. Hospitality businesses are, in effect, being told to pay for the same thing twice. DEFRA has long been aware of this anomaly—I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for his debate on it—but nothing has been done to address it.

Packaging EPR fees will disproportionately affect generic medicines, where high-volume, low-margin products risk becoming commercially unviable, increasing the likelihood of supply disruption, medicine withdrawal from the UK and higher costs to the NHS. Medicines manufacturers have minimal flexibility to redesign packaging, because primary packaging is tightly regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

The Government’s one-size-fits-all approach is revealed again when we consider social enterprises. The Minister will no doubt be familiar with Belu, which supplies water for parliamentary catering—indeed, Belu water bottles are in front of us on the Table right now. Belu donates 100% of its net profits to WaterAid, which supports clean water, sanitation and hygiene programmes around the world. However, while charities are rightly exempt from EPR fees, no such exemption exists for social enterprises, which are treated exactly the same as for-profit companies. The result for Belu is £1.1 million of EPR costs over the next two years—money that would otherwise be donated to WaterAid.

The EPR system adds complexity and uncertainty for businesses. Baseline fees were not finalised until very shortly before liability for EPR was due to begin. Fee modulation remains unclear, and the system allows for retrospective fee calculation, potentially creating exposure to unplanned costs late in the financial cycle.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I wanted to pick up on the hon. Lady’s point about the complexity of the scheme, on top of the additional costs for small businesses. I have a fantastic vineyard in my constituency called Camel Valley, which has talked about spreadsheets being almost matrix-like—branded, non-branded and so on. It is so complicated for businesses to understand. Does the hon. Lady agree that as well as the punitive costs on our fantastic local breweries, vineyards and other businesses that she has described, it is the complexity of the scheme that is really holding back so many amazing businesses?

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree with the hon. Member’s points, because I agree with the polluter pays principle—I believe that is at the heart of this issue—but the people who are paying are our workers, our hospitality businesses and the poorest people in the world who would have been getting £1 million. They are the people paying, not the polluters, because this policy is perversely driving businesses to using plastic, which surely is the exact opposite of what it should be trying to do.

With all of that in mind, it is hard to escape the conclusion that this is a poorly designed and implemented policy which is having a severe negative impact on British businesses. Despite these concerns, DEFRA has argued that the EPR will in fact create jobs, but that claim simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The figures are not based on official calculations and, critically, the jobs referenced are not comparable to those being lost. They are more likely to be lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in waste management, often at entirely different locations. These mythical jobs will not deliver the same economic value, will not support exports, and will not provide the same level of regional resilience. I must be very clear: we cannot replace high-skilled manufacturing jobs with lower-value roles and then claim an economic net gain. That is not growth; that is managed decline.

The EPR is also adding significant inflationary pressures that will be reflected in consumer prices. Producers expect to pass on the vast majority of EPR costs, often over 95%, to the end user. The upshot is that the EPR will not represent a boon to the public purse. On the contrary, this failed policy will cost the UK economy and that cost will be substantial.

I have raised these issues time and again, as have other Members. I have had meetings with Secretaries of State, Ministers and civil servants, and I have written, led debates and asked questions, all to no avail. This situation demands urgent action now, not a review in a year’s time. It requires not minor adjustments but immediate intervention to sort out this deeply flawed policy.

The glass industry has been clear in its ask: a targeted, time-limited reduction in the glass EPR fees of at least 75%. This is not about abandoning the policy or doing a U-turn; it is about fixing it. The Minister has the opportunity today to stabilise demand, prevent further switching away from glass, protect jobs and investment, and buy time to assess properly the real-world impacts of her policy. Crucially, it would allow the Government to realign the policy with their own original environmental and economic objectives. More broadly, the Government must make sure that the EPR protects UK jobs and investment, that incentives towards less sustainable products are removed, that fees reflect real-world costs, and that businesses have the clarity they need to plan and invest for the future.

Across the many sectors that have raised concerns about the EPR, support for its core principle has been universal. Businesses want to play their part in a circular economy, but the current system is not working; it is driving the wrong behaviours, undermining UK businesses, and putting jobs, investment and regional growth at risk. If we continue to get this wrong, the consequences will not be measured in tonnes or targets; they will be measured in job losses, lost industries and lost opportunities for the communities, like mine, that need them most.

I urge the Minister today at the Dispatch Box to put this scheme back on track.

Animal Abusers

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for introducing this hugely important debate; the petitioners and Bea Elton for getting so many signatures, which is why we are discussing this issue; and Holly’s family, who are turning an absolute tragedy into something that could have a positive legacy. That is very courageous.

In my many years of working in veterinary practice, one observation always stuck with me: how people treat animals is often a reflection of how they treat the people closest to them. People who treat animals with unfailing kindness tend to be some of the kindest people you will ever meet. If people deliberately inflict suffering on a defenceless animal, it is often a warning sign that that violence will extend beyond the animal and into the home. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a fantastic animal champion; he has done fantastic work on puppy smuggling. Does he agree not only that there should be stronger sentencing powers, but that those with a proven track record of serious animal abuse and harm should face complete ownership bans?

[Dr Chambers]

I totally agree. We should be clear that, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there is a very big difference between someone who causes suffering to an animal for a variety of reasons, such as mental health issues or ignorance, or through neglect, and someone who deliberately causes harm to an animal because they have a sadistic personality or want to feel powerful. In this debate, it is important to consider the motivation behind causing the suffering: if someone causes deliberate suffering, it indicates that they may well cause harm to other people around them.

As a vet, it is always unsettling to treat a dog with a broken rib that could have resulted from a kick when the owner says that it fell down the stairs, for example. That is a very unusual thing for a dog to do, and it would be very unusual to break a rib as a result. My concern in those situations, beyond treating the animal in front of me, extends to the people living in closest proximity to the person who has brought in the dog. We know that people sometimes even coerce their partner to stay with them instead of leaving by threatening to harm their pet. On that note, I pay tribute to organisations such as Trinity in Winchester, which has a refuge for people fleeing domestic abuse that allows them to take their pets with them, because that is a barrier to people escaping that situation. Cats Protection and Dogs Trust have very similar schemes, and they are hugely important.

As vets, we are trained to recognise the early signs of diseases so that we can treat them before they become irreversible, and I believe we should take the same approach to violence. Animal abuse is not always an isolated act of cruelty; sometimes it is the first symptom of something much more dangerous. That is why I take every opportunity to discuss the important work of the Links Group, which highlights the evidence linking animal abuse with domestic abuse and other forms of violence.

I ask the Minister to consider three measures. First, when someone has been convicted of abusing an animal, that information should be disclosed under the domestic violence disclosure scheme, commonly known as Clare’s law, where it is relevant to protecting someone at risk. If animal abuse predicts domestic violence, that information must be available to all those who need it. The issue at the moment is that the abuse of an animal is often prosecuted under animal welfare laws and does not show up when people look for historical allegations of or convictions for domestic violence.

Secondly, anyone convicted of sexually abusing an animal should be automatically placed on the sex offenders register. At present, such convictions under animal welfare legislation carry no referral to public protection mechanisms. That means that if someone has sexually abused an animal, they are prosecuted under animal welfare laws and there is no way of tracking them, although they have a higher likelihood of committing sexual violence against other people as well. That cannot be right; it is an anomaly that this House should fix. Thirdly, anyone convicted of deliberately abusing an animal should be prohibited from owning animals in the future. The courts should have the powers to impose long-term or, where appropriate, lifetime disqualification orders.

Holly’s killer had abused animals since the age of eight. He had admitted it and the RSPCA knew about it, but the legal and justice systems that are in place did not allow anyone to join those dots. We cannot allow that to happen again. By clamping down hard on deliberate animal abuse, we can protect women, spouses, children and animals from future harm.

Water Companies

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

Again, my hon. Friend is a formidable campaigner on this issue; she has raised it with me on many occasions both in public and in private, and she is absolutely right to do so. Yes, the rules apply to everybody. The previous Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and made that commitment, and I will make it again. Rules apply to everybody, and that has never changed and will never change under this Government. We are prepared and ready for every eventuality if that is needed.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

South West Water has pleaded guilty to illegal sewage dumping across my constituency, including at Bodmin and Harlyn. It will likely get yet another fine and a slap on the wrist—a cost of doing business. The Water Minister kindly met me recently, but she has confirmed in writing that vital sewerage upgrades will not take place until 2030. If the Government will not push South West Water to speed up its investment plan, will the Minister support my efforts to hold it to account through a group action legal claim?

[Emma Hardy]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman feels frustrated about this issue. Each company will set out through the price review exactly what it will deliver and when, and make priorities. As I have already mentioned in the House, we are prioritising bathing waters, chalk streams and various other areas at the moment, but he is well within his rights as a Member of Parliament to campaign for his area to be moved up and be given greater priority.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Recent CPS data shows a welcome reduction in victim attrition in domestic abuse cases where the defendant was charged. However, the same CPS dataset shows little evidence of corresponding improvements in charging rates, timeliness or wider prosecution performance. By what metrics will the Solicitor General measure the success of the recent £5 million investment in CPS pre-trial support for victims of domestic abuse across pilot regions, alongside the CPS’s “Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy 2025-2030”? What specific outcomes do the Government expect to see in order to determine whether they are delivering meaningful improvements for victims and the wider criminal justice system?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question—I know that he is a huge champion on these issues. I was really pleased to secure that £5 million investment to enable victims of domestic abuse in the Crown court to be offered meetings with the prosecution team before a case gets to trial and to have the benefit of dedicated victim liaison officer.

We know that attrition rates in these cases are still too high. That is why we are doing everything we can to bring them down. In Wales, for example, a domestic abuse charging pilot is going on, which enables the police to charge in some domestic abuse cases. We are seeing that significantly shorten the amount of time it takes to get a case into court, and we know that the quicker a case gets to court, the lower the attrition rate is likely to be. We are doing everything we can to tackle this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

First, can I ask the Solicitor General to please follow up on her kind offer to chase the Justice Minister responsible for legal aid, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), about meeting me to discuss support for domestic abuse victims?

The 2024 domestic abuse joint justice plan aims to improve early co-ordination between police and the CPS. I am aware that a review was conducted as part of the plan, highlighting concerns about the quality and timeliness of police referrals and CPS decision making. However, based on recent cases I have heard about from my North Cornwall constituents and from other Members, I am rather concerned that the plan’s focus on high-risk victims does not ensure accurate identification of those genuinely at high risk. Professionals could misinterpret or overlook risk factors, meaning that some of those high-risk cases might be wrongly assessed and their severity underestimated. Does the Solicitor General agree that while the plan has improved investigations and prosecutions, a needs-based approach is absolutely essential, especially to show victims that coming forward is worthwhile and the justice system will not fail them?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question—I know he is a strong champion on these issues. He talked about timeliness; the domestic abuse charging authority pilot, which I visited recently in Wales, is showing huge improvements in getting domestic abuse cases to court, which in turn helps with victim attrition. Turning to his point about Cornwall, I am pleased to inform him that from July 2024 to March 2026, the CPS charged over 2,800 offenders with domestic abuse, and over 2,300 were convicted. That includes over 900 convictions in Devon and Cornwall. I will continue to work with the CPS to ensure we are prosecuting VAWG offenders, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I am also happy to take away his request that I chase up the meeting with the Justice Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I am slightly put off by the hon. Gentleman’s reference to my brewery—although I thank him for putting on the record that I did indeed succeed in getting Rebellion brewery on tap in the Strangers Bar. I did enjoy pulling that pint, as he witnessed with his own eyes! The Water Minister or I would be glad to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the more substantive, serious issue that he raised.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

During Prime Minister’s questions on 17 December, the Prime Minister promised me a meeting with the Water Minister to discuss the scourge of constant sewage dumping in my constituency and the Lowermoor water poisoning scandal. I have followed up repeatedly, including a visit to No. 10 just last week to speak with the PM’s team, who assured me that they would chase up that meeting as soon as possible—I appreciate that they may be somewhat busy at the moment—and agreed that the delay was unacceptable. The Water Minister is still yet to respond to me, so can I ask the Secretary of State when this vital meeting will take place?

[Emma Reynolds]

As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Water Minister was on bereavement leave for some time in January. She has received briefings about the situation, and would be happy to meet him to discuss this serious issue in his constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Jury trials are not a peculiar way to run a public service; they are a fundamental pillar of our justice system, being eroded under this Government’s proposed court reforms. Serious reforms should focus on reducing inefficiencies that waste sitting days, increasing court capacity and making use of vacant courtrooms, not scrapping the right to trial by jury. If the proposals are intended to reduce the Crown court backlog, should this House not be given clear evidence before core constitutional protections are weakened? Will the Solicitor General please tell us whether the Government will publish an estimate of what proportion of current Crown court backlog would be sent to judge-only trials as a result of the reforms? Also, given that it is Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week, what assessments have been made of how the judge-only proposals will affect vulnerable victims of domestic abuse?

[The Solicitor General]

The proposed changes would apply to less than 2% of all criminal trial cases. Under the reforms, almost three quarters of trial cases coming to the Crown court would still be heard by a jury, and that includes offences such as rape. There are transparency measures built in to safeguard justice, with judges setting out reasons for their verdicts and introducing recording in the magistrates courts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I also wish you and your excellent team, and everyone across the House, a very merry Christmas.

Following on from my question on the legal aid means test for domestic abuse victims, I want to highlight the danger that scrapping jury trials for sentences under three years poses for domestic abuse cases. It is highly questionable that this will bring the backlog down, as has been claimed. A Cornish legal aid clinic got in touch with me to detail a judge’s deeply troubling conduct towards a woman seeking justice against her abuser; the judge reportedly described her as “difficult” and effectively blamed her for the abuse she endured.

The complex nature of domestic abuse cases requires the breadth of perspective and understanding that jury trials provide. What assessment will the Solicitor General make of the impact that reducing jury trials will have specifically on domestic abuse cases heard in the Crown court?

[The Solicitor General]

The Government are committed to supporting survivors of domestic abuse and ensuring that they have access to justice. I recently visited the brilliant specialist domestic abuse court based at Westminster magistrates court, and saw at first hand the work it is doing to support survivors and help cases get through the courts as quickly as possible. When survivors of domestic abuse bravely come forward and report crimes, it is important that they receive help. Alongside the reforms, we are introducing a package of support for victims. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government’s cross-party strategy to tackle violence against women and girls will be published today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I welcome the Solicitor General to her place. Domestic abuse survivors face serious barriers to accessing legal aid in the family courts. The current legal aid means test takes the abuser’s income into account when assessing a victim’s eligibility, unless the survivor can prove economic abuse, which is extremely difficult, or prove that they no longer live with the abuser. Abusers typically control finances and can withhold documentation, disqualifying victims from receiving the support that they need. Will the Solicitor General consider the recommendation of the Bar Council and make an exemption for domestic abuse survivors from the means test?

[The Solicitor General]

I know the hon. Gentleman is a big champion on this issue. Victims of economic abuse face real challenges in getting justice, and he is right to draw attention to that issue. Legal aid is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I will commit to speaking with my ministerial colleagues on this issue and providing the hon. Gentleman with a full written response.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Ben Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats of course welcome any further investment in our fishing communities, but coastal towns must have a proper say in how the money will be spent. The allocation of the funding must reflect the significance of the fishing industries across our isles. The proud fishermen in my North Cornwall constituency have been wrapped up in so much red tape, and face extra costs because of the Tories’ botched Brexit deal. They now want proper management of fish stocks, and a new byelaw to limit larger vessels inside the six-mile line. What steps are the Government taking to reverse that damage and provide our fishermen with greater access to their largest and closest market? How will the Government use this fund to give greater powers and resources to coastal communities, to allow them to invest properly in their local areas? Finally, can the Minister assure us that the fund will improve water quality, to protect our fishing industry in the future?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, clearly improving water quality is another policy area. The coastal growth fund is not about improving water quality; it is about building resilience, helping to modernise the fishing industry through high tech, access to training and entry to the industry. We must not mix up Government support for different issues, and try to shove everything into one policy.

The hon. Gentleman also asks about the reset for export purposes. If we can do it properly, the reset with the EU will enable the export of fish and catch with much less red tape than we have ended up with, post Brexit. There are big gains to be made from that. Likewise, if we can get the free trade agreement to work properly, it will increase the prospect of fishing industry exports to other parts of the world.