Alistair Carmichael MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  That would have been perfect sense. It was certainly also regrettable that it was said that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation had asked for this, when they obviously had not. A good, mature working relationship between the two Governments is required, and unfortunately we are just not there at the moment. That may change after May—who knows? The irony of the fuss created by SNP Ministers about the allocation of the fishing and coastal growth fund was not lost on fishermen in Shetland. As The Shetland Times pointed out, Shetland received only 5% of the Scottish Government’s marine fund, despite the fact that we account for 20% of Scotland’s fishing product. We were assured by local SNP politicians that this was entirely different, as their scheme was “merit based”, which presumably means that we got our quota share only because we were not good enough to get the rest. The relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations is one thing; more important still is the relationship between all Governments and the industry as a whole. When any Government think they know better than the industry, we know that bad outcomes are just around the corner. Never has that been seen more clearly than when the SNP in Edinburgh, along with their coalition partners the Greens, sought to close down vast areas of fishing grounds by designating them as highly protected marine areas, which was stopped only by the most colossal campaign by industry and community organisations around the coast. It should never have been so difficult to make our own Government back down on measures that were so obviously an existential threat to coastal and island communities.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Well, what on earth did they expect? They asked for devolution. With devolution comes Barnettisation. Is the hon. Member going to stand there and tell us that the SNP Government did ask for the rebasing that we have seen previously? I have certainly never heard that suggested, and we have taken evidence on this in the Select Committee.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Well, I hope it will. It remains to be seen. As the hon. Lady knows from working with me as co-chair of the APPG on fisheries, along with our independent co-chair the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), to come up with a fisheries strategy for the whole country—it is that lack of strategy that needs to be addressed—the Government have a bit of a backlog on strategies, and the one she mentions has not even joined the queue yet. That is why we are doing this job: I think any initiative without a strategy is always going to struggle. I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to junk a couple of pages of my speech there. The House should be in no doubt that if the spatial squeeze on our fishing industry is allowed to continue, we shall soon risk losing its critical mass as a productive industry—that is true in all four parts of the United Kingdom. Once that critical mass is lost, we may never recover it. For the families and communities affected, that would be catastrophic. Fishing families are hard-working and economically productive people. Take away their ability to earn a living at sea, and they will not just sit idle; they will doubtless move with heavy hearts to do something else, somewhere else. That will forever change the nature and character of our coastal and island communities, and not in a good way. I hope that the Government will hear the warning and act before it is too late. Finally, I wish to raise a concern that is very specific to my constituency: Norwegian access to our local waters. There are, as I speak, big, powerful vessels appearing around Shetland that were not there in the past. We often speak about the North sea fishing area, but in reality, so much of the international fishing effort has become concentrated around Shetland. Shetland fishermen have called on the UK Government to reduce the reciprocal catch limits in the UK-Norway annual bilateral fisheries agreement, but that appeal has not been heard. This is effectively the one major fishing effort in our waters over which we can still have some annual control. The official preliminary figures show that the Norwegians caught over 22,000 tonnes of demersal fish in UK waters, while the UK caught just short of 9,500 tonnes in Norwegian waters. That is not a fair or balanced deal. We have long held the view that Norwegian access is a good thing for the Shetland fleet, not because there are many Shetland vessels going into Norwegian waters, but because several larger Scottish vessels go, which takes them and their catches away from our waters. That illustrates well the subtleties and complexity of managing effort in shared waters. A degree of Norwegian access is welcome, but the current agreement and catch limits clearly favour Norwegians at the cost of our fleet. The stats show that Norwegians’ saithe catches in UK waters doubled from 8,000 tonnes to 16,000 tonnes between 2024 and 2025. Saithe, let us not forget, is one of the stocks under pressure. Things are tough enough without a doubling of Norwegian effort on a key stock that is concentrated mainly around Shetland. By contrast, the highest UK demersal catch in Norwegian waters this year has been about 4,000 tonnes of haddock. That is a bit of a disparity, so can I can ask the Minister to give urgent attention to the lowering of the reciprocal cap from 30,000 tonnes a year to 20,000 tonnes a year? There is a commitment in the agreement to reviewing the cap throughout the year. That is something that fishing industry representatives in Shetland have called for, but now it needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency. In this, I am merely the interlocutor. If the Minister wishes to discuss this with the real experts, she will find them in Shetland. I hope that once the days lengthen a little bit, we may see her there.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Orkney and Shetland are home to some of the worst levels of fuel poverty in the United Kingdom, as well as some of the largest onshore wind farms in the country. Solar panels are of limited usefulness to us, because it is coldest in the winter and we might have as little as five hours of daylight in the depths of winter. What would make a difference to us is meaningful support for community benefit from or even for community ownership of some of the installed wind farms that we have in the isles, or an isles tariff for communities such as ours and the Western Isles. When will we hear something from the Secretary of State on those ideas?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Water White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome what is in the White Paper, and it should lead to more effective regulation, but I have just a couple of words of caution. First, the Drinking Water Inspectorate is the only part of the set-up that works well, so folding it into a new regulator should not involve it losing that ability. On agricultural pollution, can the Secretary of State work with the farmers to ensure that this does not just become another stick with which to beat them? She has referred to a whole-system failure, and she is right about that. She will have seen from her recent welcome engagement with South East Water, however, that what we have there is corporate failure, not just of management but of non-executive directors and shareholders. As the Select Committee said, this is an industry that has a real problem with its culture, and what we have in the White Paper, welcome as it is, is not going to shift that. When will we hear from the Government about what they are going to do to change the culture in the industry?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  I am interested to get the Minister’s view on this subject of the relationship between the Department and companies. She may be aware that the Department is currently appealing to the first-tier tribunal a decision of the Information Commissioner requiring them to disclose information to Democracy for Sale, an organisation run by investigative journalists. DEFRA’s defence is that they have to have a safe space when talking to water companies about these things. I am not expecting her to comment on live legal proceedings, but will she reflect on that, and interrogate her officials when she returns to the Department about whether it is appropriate for the Department to defend such cases where, in this case, the party receiving the obvious benefit is Thames Water?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  Thames Water first paid out bonuses it said it would not recoup, and has subsequently said only that the payment of bonuses is paused. My hon. Friend knows that I am a nasty, suspicious and cynical person, but I am pretty sure the senior management, the chief executive and the chair of that company are heading for the door one way or another at some stage. I suspect that one of their last acts before they leave the office will be to press “pay” on those bonuses. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that happens, we can agree that whatever the good intentions behind the Water (Special Measures) Act, they simply have not worked, and we need to build a consensus on how to regulate these things more effectively?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  All this talk of gangsters makes me think my hon. Friend must be styling himself as the Eliot Ness of the water industry. His point about the Drinking Water Inspectorate is particularly important today, as we hear about the changes proposed in the White Paper. The DWI does exceptionally high quality work. Does he agree that we must not lose that output when we fold it into the new super regulator?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Food Inflation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right in identifying the structure here. The market is one that is ripe for abuse. There are 15 behemoth retailers at the top and 210,000 primary producers at the bottom, leading to a situation where our constituents cannot afford to buy the food and the food producers cannot make a profit in producing it. Surely what we need to do is to look at that supply chain between the supermarket and the farm gate, build on the excellent work of Baroness Batters and her farming profitability review, and come forward with a revised food strategy, which we have been promised.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I am struggling to get too excited about the change from mandatory to voluntary, because we all know that a voluntary scheme is just a mandatory scheme for slow learners, which is possibly what commends it to the Government. The Minister has said that he cannot yet tell us the cost of the scheme because he has not done the design work, but it is a matter of record that the Government have had a write-round, asking Departments to offer up savings to pay for it. Would it not have made sense to do the design work, have a budget, and then ask for the savings?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Meat Exports to the EU · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right: an SPS agreement would be an enormous opportunity for communities like his and mine that export to the European Union. But there are already significant divergences between the United Kingdom and the European Union, so does he agree that, if that SPS agreement is to be negotiated, then it is essential that the Cabinet Office does so much more than it is doing at the moment to consult and to bring British agriculture along with it; otherwise, the agreement will be full of unintended consequences?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  The last time I saw this degree of agreement between Government and Opposition Front Benchers in relation to foreign policy was in the run-up to the war in Iraq, and we all know how that ended. But I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about being clear that the leadership of Venezuela must reflect the will of the Venezuelan people. So when she spoke to Secretary Rubio, did she condemn President Trump’s assertion that he should run Venezuela for the foreseeable future?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this announcement and I pay the warmest possible tribute to the farming unions and others whose tireless campaigning since the Budget of 2024 has made this happen. These changes make the policy better, but that is not the same as saying that they make it good. It is surely bizarre that in 2025, two farms could both be valued at £5 million but one of them would pass free of inheritance tax while the other had an inheritance tax bill of £500,000. Surely the Government now have to publish the impact assessment that they have presumably done so that we can all see the reasons for this change and have some confidence that they have got the figures right this time.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Animal Welfare Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I feel I should declare an interest, Mr Speaker, in that Mrs Carmichael will be one of those veterinary surgeons who will be on call on Christmas Day this year. It will be me in the kitchen, yet again. [ Interruption. ] That’s fine; it keeps the turkeys safe, at least. Just 10 days ago, Baroness Hayman told us that we would get the strategy before Christmas. Publishing it next week is, I suppose, strictly within the letter of that, but it is not quite within the spirit. The Department seems to be struggling a bit with its strategies at the moment. Our Select Committee had an excellent session with the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), but as soon as she was out the door, no fewer than four fisheries management strategies landed in my inbox. As a new year’s resolution, will the Secretary of State look at how these things are handled, so that this House can scrutinise future strategies?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Farming Profitability · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, one of the biggest challenges to farming profitability is the market fact that farmers are price takers. The farming campaigner Olly Harrison was this week highlighting that Lidl and Aldi are selling carrots at 8p per kilo, well below the cost of production. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that when supermarkets sell under the cost of production, that cost is borne by the supermarkets, not the farmers?

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to see the Paymaster General at the Dispatch Box, as always, but it would be even better if we could see him at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is taking a close interest in the food and drink agreement. May I remind him that Boris Johnson got it badly wrong with the trade and co-operation agreement, because he allowed the political imperative of getting a deal to trump the detail of that deal, and that was because he did not listen to the fishermen, farmers and other food producers? Will he keep them close as he negotiates, and will he come to talk to the Select Committee? We really will not bite him, I promise.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Exchequer Secretary give way?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Exchequer Secretary for giving way. On the point of growth, he should be aware that, since the Budget last year, 49% of farm businesses have paused or cancelled planned investment, 10% have already downsized operations, and 21% intend to do so before next April. What are the Government going to do to restore confidence in farming to invest? Without that, there is no growth in the rural community.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend may be a little over-generous in saying that there are unintended consequences. The anti-forestalling clause, which is intended to deny those over 65, or anyone who dies within seven years of making a transfer, the ability to manage their tax affairs in a sensible way, puts a massive burden on those who are over 75.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am indeed aware of the general point. The specific illustration is a new one on me, but I am pretty sure, knowing my hon. Friend, that it will be well founded. The reason this is so dangerous is rooted in the exceptionally poor return on capital investment that we get from agriculture. I have sat down with many farmers in my constituency. The average family farm in Orkney will be something in the region of 250 to 300 acres, running perhaps 100 suckler beef cattle and some sheep. The value of that property will be something in the region of £3 million, including stock, buildings and machinery, but it will return a net profit most years of something in the region of £25,000 to £30,000. Do the maths here—that is an inheritance tax liability of £400,000, which, even over the 10 years that is allowed, farmers simply will not be able to pay. As a consequence, farms are going to be sold off in whole or in part, and they will not be bought by those who want to produce food. That comes to the nub of it. The Prime Minister tells us that food security is national security, but the changes to APR will in fact diminish our ability to look after our own food needs. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said that this would only affect 375 estates per year. That figure may or may not be correct—I have heard nobody outside Treasury say it is a credible figure—but it honestly misses the point. Whether it is one estate or 1,000 estates, an injustice is an injustice, and that is why I was so disappointed by the Minister’s attitude today. Let us consider who will be paying this tax and whose estates will be affected. The Treasury’s own figures tell us that 75% of those estates will belong to those who are 75 or over. That is why the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is so pernicious and so obnoxious. The effect of the anti-forestalling clause is to trap especially those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s into the new rules unless they die before next April. I dislike the use of hyperbole, especially when we are talking about people and their lives, but the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is downright cruel. Those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s did it principally for two reasons. First, they were given good, sound professional advice that this was the best way to hold on to the farm and hand it on, and that was true until last October. We also have to understand—and again, this is rooted in the poor level of farm incomes—that many of them did it because they could not afford not to. In my own family, there are those who continued to farm into their 80s because if they did not, they would be left simply on the state pension and nothing else. That is why this Bill and these measures are wrong, they are dangerous, and they are a threat to our growth, our national security and our food security, and I, along with my colleagues, will be voting against them this evening.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In a second—this is my punchline: “You’d better understand that if you want to develop your relationship in the back of a double cab pick-up, then that is going to cost you as well.”

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to start with a comment that some may see as controversial—uncharacteristically so, I hope. I want this Government to succeed. I think it is in the national interest; everyone should want our Government to succeed. I worry that continued economic stagnation poses an increasing threat to social cohesion, and that is why I agree so strongly with their growth mission and why I think it is so important. If that growth is to be meaningful, though, it has to be available, felt and understood in every part of the United Kingdom. It should not just be growth in the cities and towns; it has to be felt and understood in rural communities, coastal communities and, of course, our island communities. It is for that reason that I feel so strongly about the dangers of what the Government are doing on the removal of agricultural property relief. We have already seen the effect that the prospect of that has had on agricultural businesses, and of course agricultural businesses underpin so much of what happens in rural communities. Forty-nine per cent of farm businesses have already paused or cancelled planned investment, 10% have downsized the scale of their operations and a further 21% intend to do so before next April. The truth of the matter is that these changes to APR have absolutely killed the sense of growth in the rural community. I welcome what the Minister said today about changes to the spousal transfer. I was inspired by the shadow Chancellor’s references to Shakespeare. I offer my own from A. A. Milne—maybe not quite so high-falutin’. As you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a bear of very little brain, but I am pretty sure that what we heard from the Dispatch Box is more or less what the Government were telling us last year was going to be the case any way. If that is a concession, it does not seem to be much of a concession to me. It may have escaped the attention of the Treasury Front Bench that not every farmer is married and, indeed, a lot of farmers—like everybody else these days —get married and some then get divorced. Is the message from the Government to the farming community really, “If you want to hold on to the farm for the next generation, then get on to Tinder now, because that is your best chance of holding on”?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Jimmy Lai Conviction · Hansard source

  More

  There is a legitimate and necessary debate to be had on our wider foreign policy towards China, but surely the most important thing today is that this House should speak with one voice in condemning this sham trial and demanding the immediate release of Jimmy Lai, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for doing that. I am told that the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, of which I am a member, is cited no fewer than 500 times in the judgment on Jimmy Lai. It has had no contact from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, despite having initiated a correspondence. When the Foreign Secretary returns to the Department, can she investigate that and ensure that it is given the proper level of engagement that it requires and deserves?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but are we not at risk of ignoring another threat: the Government themselves? It has not been that long since the Police Service of Northern Ireland published the data of every serving officer and member of staff, as a result of which people had to leave their homes. Once we allow the state to aggregate our data, is that sort of thing not inevitable?