Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

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

[Caroline Voaden]

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

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

Sewage

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

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

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

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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

[Tim Farron]

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

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Labour general election manifesto said:

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

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

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

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

We made the decision yesterday because we reached that point.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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

Rural Communities: Government Support

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for rural communities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Caroline Voaden]

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

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

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

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

[Caroline Voaden]

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

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

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

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

[Caroline Voaden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Caroline Voaden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

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

Climate and Nature Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

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

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

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

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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

[Andrew Bowie]

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

Foot and Mouth Disease

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

We are applying all the rules that we can to ensure that we exclude German products at the moment, but there is quite a complex set of supply chains within the European Union. The key priority is live animals. There is nothing fortuitous about bluetongue, but there have been restrictions on movements for some time, so we are probably better protected than we might have been. We cannot say for sure that nothing will move across the continent and come into the country, which is why it is very important that people are vigilant. Should foot and mouth disease cross the channel, speed will be of the essence to ensure that we shut it down. However, from talking to the chief vet and her officials and my conversations with German colleagues, I am confident that everything that can be done is being done. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I am sure that nobody in Devon will forget the horror of 2001, when half the farms in the county were affected by foot and mouth. Does the situation in Germany provide an impetus for the Minister to move forward with securing a veterinary deal with the European Union?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We do not need any extra impetus; the Government have committed to get a better deal. What I can say to the hon. Lady is that the relationship with our German colleagues is excellent at the moment, and they are giving us the full co-operation that we need.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I declare an interest as a founding co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution. As the Minister well knows, I have a deep and abiding interest in the theme of water pollution. I gently remind her that agricultural run-off is the primary source of water pollution in my constituency, and I welcome the constructive conversations we had on that topic last week. Today, I will talk about the broader topic of the Bill.

Water companies have extracted £85 billion of value from our water industry since privatisation—that is an extraordinary figure—and their flagrant abuse of our rivers, seas and lakes is a stain on our country, literally as well as figuratively. Some 30% of all water bills now go on debt servicing and dividends, and this is money that should be going towards maintaining and improving our water infrastructure and services. Thames Water, Southern Water and South East Water have all had their credit ratings downgraded, meaning that about a third of bill payers in England and Wales are now paying their bills to junk-rated companies, which again is extraordinary. As companies’ finances get worse, new debt gets more expensive to service, and where does the money come from? The money comes from bill payers.

It is clear for all to see that the interests of water company shareholders and the interests of the public are at odds. It is not possible to use our water as a vehicle for maximum short-term profit and at the same time to deliver safe, reliable, affordable drinking water and a clean environment. One comes at the expense of the other.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ellie Chowns]

I am really sorry, but I will not give way because I know so many Members want to come in.

In my view and that of my Green colleagues, the only way to run a water system in the interests of people and nature is to take away the profit motive entirely. It should never have been allowed near our water industry in the first place. Any steps to end this culture of impunity in the water industry are very welcome. Unfortunately, the measures in this Bill are, in my view, largely to look nice in headlines, and they are maybe a bit of an attempt to look busy. I say that gently, but I do think we need to go further. In fact, the majority of the British public agree with me: 82% of the British public believe that we should have water in public ownership. I challenge the Government to take up that mantle—that mandate—from the British public to do the right thing, and to take the profit motive out of water entirely.

I always believe in talking about areas of common ground, and I recognise that multiple elements of this Bill are positive steps. I will, with my colleagues, be supporting it. I welcome the extension of monitoring requirements for sewage overflows, and I welcome the requirement for more customer involvement in decision making, which I would like to see extended to worker representation as well. I welcome the encouragement for companies to consider much more use of nature-based solutions, and I would love to see this extended even further.

To be honest, however, what we have seen with the financial mess that the companies are in is the complete failure of the model of privatisation. We need to do more than just tinkering at the edges. The Government’s water commission will not even be allowed to consider the question of public ownership, so it will hunt high and low for solutions while continuing to kick the can down the road. Is it not time that the Minister faced the reality that profit in water has failed, and to do what the majority of the British public want, which is to bring our water and sewage utilities back into public ownership?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I thank the Government for introducing this Bill and the Minister for Water for meeting me last week.

This is a vital issue, not least for my constituents in Exmouth and Exeter East. Across my constituency, from Cranbrook to Exmouth, we have felt the full force of South West Water’s neglectful and harmful behaviours. This year across the county of Devon, we have experienced the full gamut of the damaging effects of a water company that is crying out to be reformed, be it by legal or regulatory tightening. From cryptosporidium parasite outbreaks in the Brixham area to the closure of beaches in Exmouth, our county has had enough. Our local wellbeing, health and economy have been significantly impacted, and our beautiful home is starting to gain a national reputation for all the wrong reasons.

We have a responsibility to ensure that the Bill is as effective and strong as it can possibly be, and that means listening carefully to voices from all parts of the House. Most Members will be familiar with the long history of this issue, so I will not relitigate arguments that have been made already, but it is important to reiterate that this is not a problem that has emerged overnight. We have collectively dropped the ball on this issue—from the last Labour Government under Blair and Brown to the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition and the last Governments, we are all in part complicit—[Interruption.] I think that is a very fair point. This has happened over many decades, and I would very much like to reiterate that point to Labour Members.

Although it is absolutely right that we strive to end the unacceptable practice of sewage discharges, we must confront the hard truth that we cannot transform these crumbling systems overnight without disastrous consequences, such as sewage backing up into people’s homes, on to our streets and into our communities. That is why we must commit ourselves to the long haul. This will require sustained investment, careful planning and clear accountability, not short-term fixes or political point scoring.

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member mentioned the cryptosporidium incident in May in Brixham in my constituency, where 17,000 houses were affected by contaminated water. A boil water notice was enforced for eight weeks, and many of my constituents are still suffering from that. I say to the Minister that, when the Drinking Water Inspectorate reports next year, I hope the water company will be forced to pay proper compensation, because it would appear that its negligence and not maintaining its facilities over the past decades was possibly one of the causes of the contamination.

[David Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for raising those points; this issue has affected our county, and I hope that members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee raise it as fast as possible, to ensure that South West Water is held accountable and placed in front of them to answer questions about how that outbreak happened. I reiterate that our constituents deserve a solution that is ambitious but achievable. It was under the previous Government that the scale of the issue was truly identified—a point that has been raised repeatedly this evening.

Family Farming in Devon

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for securing this important debate, and for his lyrical introduction to the subject. It is clear from all hon. Members who have contributed that much is at stake for our rural economy.

In Devon, family farms are an essential part of our community and the economy, as they are elsewhere—I refer to the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who talked of their areas. In Devon, farms cover 1.2 million acres of land and employ more than 20,000 people. Agriculture is the backbone of our local economy. From grazing livestock to growing crops, Devon’s farmers produce not just food but the character of our rural landscape.

The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock spoke of the preciousness of our farms and the decades of heritage, of which we are rightly proud. However, the Government’s changes to inheritance tax and agricultural property relief are concerning. The Government claim that 73% of farms will be unaffected by the changes, but as the NFU has pointed out, those figures are based on historical claims and fail to account for the current state of the agricultural sector. For example, 66% of farms in England have a net value of more than £1 million, and 42% of farms are larger than 50 acres, so many will now be above the £1 million threshold.

The burden that that will place on farmers cannot be overstated, especially given the other financial pressures that they have faced over the past few years. They are struggling with skyrocketing costs, since energy and feed prices have risen due to the invasion of Ukraine. Many are still reeling from the Conservatives’ botched trade deals, which have placed further stress on the farming community. The recent increase in national insurance contributions and the impending carbon tax on fertiliser further compounds the challenges. I will read some quotations from local farmers who we surveyed, 86% of whom say they will be hit by the tax, while 50% of those farms are not owned by a couple, so they already lose out on a chunk of the potential tax relief:

“We are now in process of winding down all investment and food production on this farm in response to the budget. Producing food is difficult and carries lots of financial risk—we will keep farming but at a much lower level and look to pass the farm on early as lifetime transfer. Doesn’t sound like ‘growth’ to me…Our farming income for the last 2 financial years has been a loss (mainly due to weather). It feels so hard. This policy just knocks the confidence out…The policy as it currently stands will halve food production in a generation…If this rule stays what is the point of investing in your farm to improve efficiency. All our input costs are going to increase through labour costs and taxes…Through previous governments, we’ve been encouraged to diversify in order to augment our farm income and stay afloat. Now we feel we’ll be penalised for this as we have added value to our farm which will now be liable for Inheritance tax…I feel completely let down and saddened. This will completely destroy the rural community.”

Farmers will be forced to sell land—the very tool by which they produce food and earn a living—that has been in their families for generations—[Interruption.] The Minister is shaking his head, but every single farmer I have spoken to says that that is the case. The idea that neighbouring or tenant farmers will just buy up the land is a fantasy. Most will not be able to afford it, and land may well end up being bought by non-farming companies with no interest in food production and used instead for carbon offsetting or potential development.

One family now face the prospect of having to sell at least a quarter of their assets, including tractors, sheep and land, just to pay the tax. They tell me that, rather than investing and growing their business, they are now having to wind down their farm with a view to reducing their future tax liabilities. That is a deeply worrying trend, as it could lead to a broad contraction of the sector, harming not just farmers but the entire agricultural industry. The Liberal Democrat position is clear: the tax will disproportionately harm the farming community, and we call for the Government to rethink it.

But it is not just farmers. The impact on rural businesses that rely on the farming economy, such as vets, agricultural merchants and machinery suppliers, will be severe. Local suppliers of agricultural machinery and heavy equipment already face a significant increase in costs due to national insurance changes. Those businesses are vital to the farming economy. Again, a contraction of the sector will have a ripple effect throughout the entire rural economy.

It is crucial to note that the DEFRA budget for day-to-day spending is set to drop by 1.9% over the next two years, and the pause on capital grants is yet another worry, particularly for farmers who are doing their best to comply with environmental measures such as safe slurry storage. If the grants are not available to do that work, that makes sustainable farming even harder to achieve.

The sustainable farming incentive, which should provide support to farmers, has proven unworkable for many, and the transition from basic payments to ELMs has been complicated and unnecessarily slow—an indication of the lack of foresight and planning by the previous Government to prepare for a potential withdrawal from the EU. Even though I am no fan of Brexit, what could have given a real boost to both British agriculture and the environment has instead been a bureaucratic mess and a clear sign of how rural communities are so often the lowest priority for Government.

Talking of environmental payments, I want to take a quick moment to underline how important it is for the Government to make the schemes work. Unless we restore the health of our soils and the biodiversity that has been decimated across the UK, our farmers will find it harder and harder to produce quality food. If we are to mitigate flooding, increase water quality and combat carbon emissions, we simply must do this work. As the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) have mentioned, that is really important on Dartmoor, a small part of which also falls in my constituency. This will mean a complex conversation about farming, stocking levels and sites of special scientific interest. I look forward to working with my colleagues to try to find solutions.

Environmental payments are fundamental to the future of good food production. Lower inputs are good for everyone—for nature and the farmer’s back pocket. It is not an either/or—farming or the environment. We simply have to make this work.

Finally, I share something deeply troubling, which I heard from farmers in my constituency when they came to Westminster last week. Some talked about the need to hide shotguns in order to prevent older owners of the family farm from taking their own lives before the inheritance tax changes come into force. They now feel that they are worth more dead than alive because of the burden those taxes would place on their families. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth also touched on that topic. We know that poor mental health is already rife in the farming community, and the sudden tax change has placed an added pressure, which could prove fatal. No farmer should ever feel that their legacy and livelihood are so threatened that it would drive them to such despair.

In response to those challenges, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a £1 billion increase in the farming budget, and for the Government to reverse their decision on agricultural property relief. We understand the importance of ensuring that family farms can continue to operate and thrive. Family farms are not only vital for our food security and the preservation of our rural environment, but central to the history and heritage of our country. The Liberal Democrats will continue to fight for the future of family farming, to ensure that our rural communities thrive, and to ensure that farmers’ voices are heard loud and clear in Westminster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

That will be debated further. On our side, the debate will be led by Treasury Ministers who are in a better position to answer those kinds of questions. However, the complexity and the different range of set-ups and structures that family businesses have makes it difficult to make that assessment. The hon. Gentleman will know that when it comes to legislation, there will be a full assessment and we can look into those details then. I stand by the figures that the Treasury has given us. We expect that the changes will affect only around 500 claims for agricultural property relief in 2026-27, so we believe it is a fair and balanced approach.

[Caroline Voaden]

I would like to ask the Minister whether the Treasury consulted DEFRA on the tax change before deciding to go ahead with it in the Budget.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Lady will know that we are one Government and we stand together. Going forward, we are picking up the mess that we inherited, and that is the problem we face. On each of these issues in turn, we have to answer the basic question: who will fix the economic mess? The answer is this Government.

Fishing Industry

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing today’s debate on the UK fishing industry. He has been a steadfast supporter of the UK’s fishing communities for many years. I echo his words and those of many others in the debate who have paid tribute to all those who have died at sea, and to the valuable work of the RNLI. Fishing is a subject of huge importance to us Liberal Democrats, not only because of the industry’s economic significance but because of its cultural heritage, its role in sustaining coastal communities and its relationship with the health of our seas.

We have heard today from communities from all around the UK’s coastline, and about many different sectors of this age-old industry. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) talked about resolving the visa issue for fishers, both within and outside the 12-mile zone, which many others referred to as well.

The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) spoke about the importance of fish as a low-carbon, high-protein food source of which we should be consuming more, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) spoke passionately about how we can promote fish and seafood throughout the food chain, and about her brilliant local food-processing industry up in Grimsby.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) referred beautifully to Cornwall’s proud fishing heritage, and particularly the Fal oysters. On that point, while I have him in the room, I ask the Minister again to reconsider his decision to classify Pacific oysters as an invasive species. They are heading our way anyway—they are going to be here whether we like it or not—so I do not believe that decision makes sense any longer. After all, sheep were once not a native species in the UK; things do change.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—did I get that right?

[Torcuil Crichton]

indicated assent.

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member talked about the importance of encouraging young people into the industry. That is important for us all, wherever we are.

It is clear for us all to see that our fishing communities were deeply let down by the previous Conservative Government, and that the promises made to them in the run-up to Brexit have been badly broken. Instead of the “sea of opportunity”—which the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) optimistically said he thought was possible—the industry has been cast adrift, struggling with increased bureaucracy, reduced market access and rising costs.

We believe fishing communities deserve better. As we enter this annual negotiation period and approach the end of the transition period in 2026, we must learn from the failures of the past and ensure that the mistakes of the terrible, botched Brexit deal are not repeated. As many Members have said, we need multi-annual decision making to give the industry more long-term stability.

Negotiations on fishing quotas must be conducted transparently and be based on the best science available, with fishing communities at the table helping to shape the decisions that will profoundly affect their livelihoods. The Liberal Democrats want a fair deal for fishers—one that sets realistic catch limits, cuts unnecessary bureaucracy, invests in infrastructure and creates opportunities for coastal communities to thrive both on and off the water.

First, we need to tackle the avalanche of red tape that has engulfed the industry for the last few years. The increased paperwork for customs declarations, export processes and landing requirements has created delays, raised costs and caused untold frustration, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) described. Driving from Cornwall to Dover with a piece of paper to comply with an export requirement is utter madness in 2024.

Having to get a qualified vet to personally sign 17 different pieces of paper for one export consignment is also ludicrous, yet that is the reality for Offshore Shellfish, a high-quality mussel farm off the Devon coast—I have written here, “which I had the pleasure of visiting on a very windy day in September”, but I am not sure that it was all pleasure, because it was quite choppy. Mussels cannot afford to be held up by red tape; speed is key when exporting shellfish. We have to cut down on the endless forms that companies are being forced to fill in.

[John Cooper]

I was involved with the seafood industry in the early days of Brexit as a special adviser with the Scotland Office, and we found that much of the problems with live export, particularly of shellfish and things like langoustines, actually lay on the far side of the channel, rather than our side. I do not know whether it is still the case, but at that time the UK Government had a digital-first presumption to try to take away the pieces of paper the hon. Lady talks about but, in fact, it was those in Europe who insisted on that. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is aware of that.

[Caroline Voaden]

I am aware that my predecessor used to say it was digital-first and that the paperwork did not exist, but I can tell Members that 17 pieces of paper have to be signed every time Offshore Shellfish wants to do an export consignment. It does not matter which side of the channel that comes from. The point is that it was a bad deal that was badly negotiated, and we should never have put our fish exporters in that position. The Liberal Democrats want a veterinary agreement with the EU to be signed as soon as possible, to simplify the processes.

Secondly, we must invest in the infrastructure needed to keep jobs and value in our coastal communities. By equipping coastal towns with modern processing facilities, we can retain more of the value generated by fishing within those communities, which will help to revitalise local economies, help coastal communities around the UK, and create high-quality employment opportunities, as was so well described by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes.

The future of fishing depends on the health of our seas, which is why sustainability is at the heart of the Liberal Democrat approach. We believe in a science-led system for managing fishing quotas, to ensure that decisions are based on all the available evidence about stock levels and marine biodiversity, not just the headline advice. We need to iron out the mismatches between data and the actual situation in the sea. Only when those two things match will we have the best data and be able to make the best decisions.

The last-minute decision by the previous Government to cut pollack quotas at a stroke showed the Conservatives’ lack of respect for our hard-working fishing communities. Like my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, I know one skipper who had to sell his boat straight after that decision. It was just the last straw. We must have more long-term decision making so that we do not put people in that situation at the drop of a hat.

We would also establish an innovation fund to support the development of new technologies and practices that reduce environmental harm, while increasing funding for marine conservation projects and expanding the network of marine protected areas—but in consultation with the fishing industry. Protecting our oceans is not just about safeguarding the environment, vital though that is; it is about securing the long-term viability of the fishing industry itself. Nothing is more important to an industry that provides sustainable, quality food, contributes to our nation’s food security and wants to carry on doing that for the long term.

In my constituency of South Devon, fishing is not just an industry but a way of life for many of my constituents. Brixham harbour, one of the busiest and most successful fishing ports in England, is a hub of activity sustaining hundreds of jobs and contributing millions to the local economy. I am grateful to the Minister for his visit in July, which was much appreciated by the fishing community. We see bluefin tuna jumping in our waters, as in the Western Isles.

The challenges facing fishers in South Devon are stark. I have met many skippers in Brixham who shared the immense pressures they are under, from rising fuel costs to navigating the labyrinth of post-Brexit bureaucracy. They are deeply proud of their work and their heritage, but they feel abandoned by successive Governments that have made promises they have failed to keep. We are also facing an acute skilled labour shortage, which many have spoken about. Despite efforts to recruit home-grown talent through apprenticeships and partnerships, we simply do not have enough skilled crews to operate vessels or enough workers for our processors.

As many Members have mentioned, the current visa routes for non-UK workers are wholly inadequate. The transit worker visa, which many smaller operators rely on, does not meet the needs of modern fishing, while the skilled worker visa is unaffordable and impracticable for the industry. Its language requirements alone simply do not recognise the reality of working at sea. I ask the Government to work with the Home Office to create a visa system that meets the needs of the industry and supports its sustainability.

As we review the trade and co-operation agreement, we must look at what has happened. Operating costs have skyrocketed due to Brexit and the pandemic, compounding the challenges for exporters, who are so reliant on EU markets. Administrative burdens and barriers to trade remain a thorn in the industry’s side, and those burdens must be eased and smoother trade with the EU must be prioritised. Better access must be negotiated to weight it more in favour of UK fishers. It would be good to hear from the Minister how his negotiators will prioritise that.

Marine spatial planning, to which many Members have referred, must also properly recognise the value of fishing alongside environmental objectives. The industry supports the goals of the Fisheries Act 2020, but the pace and scale of the changes can sometimes feel overwhelming. That highlights the need for careful consideration of the socioeconomic impacts on fishers and coastal communities. Although we in the Liberal Democrats support an urgent move to renewal energy, is it right that we lease out the UK seabed to develop an industry that will export energy abroad at the cost of the UK fishing industry? Fishing and power can share the sea, but fishers must be properly consulted about the siting of new offshore wind, and there must be a discussion about turbines being located in some of our most lucrative fishing waters.

Looking ahead, I hope the new Labour Government will develop a clear and coherent strategy for the industry that takes into account the interconnectedness of environmental and economic objectives. The 2025 renegotiation of the TCA is an opportunity to address the challenges, and I hope the Government will consider socioeconomic factors when shaping future policy. Fishing communities deserve far better that the neglect they have endured over the past decade.

The Liberal Democrats remain unwavering in our commitment to advocating for practical and meaningful solutions that address the immediate challenges faced by fishing communities. We will continue to push for reforms that not only secure the long-term future of the industry as a whole, both at sea and on land, but protect the environment on which it depends.