Andrew George MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  I strongly support the points the hon. Gentleman is making in advancing his case. I am slightly worried about the expression “in the region”. We need to get medical workers into Gaza to make sure they can safely deploy their skills in the area. We are long past the time when the Israeli regime could justify its actions in terms of self-defence. The best way to achieve safe passage for medical aid workers in the area is to get the IDF out and get international peacekeepers in.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Gaza Healthcare System · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Minor injuries units are being phased out as are urgent treatment centres such as the brilliant one at West Cornwall hospital in my constituency—its hours were cut under the Conservatives, and have not been restored. Those units clearly help to take the pressure off ambulance and emergency services, so what will Ministers do to ensure that those services are reinforced rather than reduced?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a very strong point about evidence-based policymaking. She will be aware of the truism of what we do in this place: that we need to draw lines in legislation between freedoms and responsibilities, and in this case between rights and public protection. She acknowledges that the Government should certainly keep the matter under review and that they have come forward with a set of proposals; but, like many other speakers, she seems to be opposed to this particular proposal. Does she agree that the Government should have the opportunity to at least review the policies? Is she effectively saying that the Government need to go back to the drawing board and look at the matter again?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Ministers know full well that a planning application submitted today for affordable homes will not contribute to the Government’s welcome intention to meet affordable housing need by the end of this Parliament—

• 23 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is shaking his head, but it simply is not possible through the pre-development process. Although I have met the Secretary of State to discuss how we can move forward shovel-ready projects that are held back at the moment, will Ministers meet Members of Parliament who are concerned about the thousands of homes that could be delivered and start on site right now, so that we can get Britain building and meet the desperate need for affordable homes?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has referred to a local transport grant that is of course not available to the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, because it is not deemed to be a local transport authority. Attending medical appointments for my constituents from off-islands on a day like today would cost them £120 return. The Secretary of State has said that she is meeting fellow Members from Cornwall. Will she ensure that that meeting is on a cross-party basis, so that I can raise the serious transport problems on the Isles of Scilly?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As an Oliver Cromwell enthusiast, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the purpose and function of the other place? I am sure that he will have studied very closely the wording of early-day motion 2709, which addresses the role of the House of Lords. [That this House believes that the use of filibuster tactics in the House of Lords to frustrate the majority will of the democratically elected House of Commons is unacceptable, including where the elected Commons has given its majority support to a Private Members’ Bill; further believes that the case for the outright abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement would be strengthened if such tactics were used; acknowledges that, although the House of Lords often provides a helpful role through scrutinising and suggesting constructive revisions to bills, it should not have the power to block them, nor to use its procedures to the same effect; and calls on the Government to take legislative steps to ensure that Private Members' Bills backed by a majority in the elected House can never be defeated by undemocratic means in the House of Lords.] The Leader of the House will be aware that some Members of the other place have abused the privilege and procedures of that House in order to frustrate and block a private Member’s Bill that has the strong support of this House, thereby advancing the case for their abolition and replacement. Will he ensure that the House of Lords is there purely to scrutinise and revise legislation, and not to block and frustrate this House, which is the primary and democratic Chamber?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) on bringing this issue to the House. I was worried that we would concentrate primarily on the jurisprudence—on the merits of the arguments over whether the threshold in the definition has been reached. We are politicians and do not have—I certainly do not have—the skillset to make such an analysis. I find that arguments are advanced, as they were by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley)—very eloquently, of course—that engage in the political sophistry of the issue itself, and that worries me. The bottom line is that what has been happening in the middle east is appalling, and the level of death and destruction has shocked the world. Of course, the horrors of 7 October 2023 were absolutely appalling, but we all need to reflect on the overwhelming response of the Netanyahu regime, which has taken such advantage of the opportunity for retribution. This is not just about the mass murder in Gaza itself but, as Members have said, about the murder of our aid workers, including Cornish aid worker Jim Henderson. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said that the strikes have been careful, but they have not been careful; the strikes have been indiscriminate and certainly amount to clear murder. I just hope that the Government will stop doing the minimum they can get away with—stop the trading, stop the excusing, stop the support of the Israeli regime—because it is in the interests of the international world order, of the Palestinians and Palestine, and of Israel itself to get this sorted.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 22 Jan 2026 · Emergencies: Rural and Coastal Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister for coming to Cornwall last week and visiting my constituency, which was noted and very much appreciated. He will know that west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly took the brunt of Storm Goretti, and we have many lessons to learn, not least the point made by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) about our—I think, evangelical—faith in modern systems and technologies, which have made us more dependent and less resilient. When we are learning such lessons, will the Minister make sure that it is not simply left to local authorities to do so, but that they are learned across the UK?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister for coming to Newlyn, which is in my constituency, and for listening to the industry. The Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation proposes a dedicated fund of £10 million, and wants to ensure that it works with the Government to agree on a strategy to develop the industry over the next decade, including through the recruitment of new, younger fishermen.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Fishing Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), a Cornish colleague who is a very strong advocate for Looe and the fishing communities around her constituency’s coast. I want to emphasise a point that she made about the fishing and coastal growth fund. As the Minister will be aware, the fishing industry is seeking not only engagement and consultation from the Government prior to the announcement, which we expect in April or May—perhaps she will tell us—but full consultation on the proposals. She knows that Cornish colleagues have endorsed and reinforced the case that the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation has made for a delegated fund of £10 million for small projects. We believe that that is a very good way of ensuring that funding gets to the places it might not reach if it were simply held and managed centrally. I have been to quite a few debates like this one, including during my previous life in the House. I have been reflecting, particularly as the Government have published the animal welfare strategy, on my early days in the fishing industry. My family had a boat down in Mullion harbour. In the summer months, we used crab and lobster pots and did a bit of mackerel handlining to supplement the farm income. I remember that on the few occasions on which we were able to keep a lobster for ourselves rather than having to sell it, my parents debated the best way of killing it. Should we use the shock of putting it straight into boiling water—we are talking about the ’60s and ’70s, when we did not have the science behind us—or was it more humane to warm the water gently? I was only a child at the time, but I am sure that with the acute hearing of a child I sensed the lobsters screaming. At least we now have the science to tell us that lobsters are sentient beings. I am pleased that the animal welfare strategy acknowledges that we need to move things forward. I welcome its commitment to publish guidance clarifying whether live boiling is an acceptable killing method and whether any legislative arrangements or amendments are needed in respect of the supply chain review. That is relevant to the industry, as an adjunct to this debate: it would be helpful to inform fishermen about how the supply chain will work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to the negotiations. At the end of last year, we were somewhat shocked that the Government accepted rules from the EU that will govern how British fishermen can work in British waters, and that it seems they were changed at short notice and without any consultation. These were technical measures that will affect British fishermen in their own waters. Surely that runs contrary to everything that we were assured Brexit would give the UK—the sunlit uplands in which we would be able to decide for ourselves how we manage our stocks and manage our industry. Will the Minister explain how that happened? Why was the industry not consulted about those changes? Why did they happen at such short notice? Is it because we are outside the pre-negotiations that happen within the EU, during which proposals can be fine-tuned? Were we simply caught out at the last minute? The hon. Member for South East Cornwall referred to the difficulties within the 6 to 12-mile zone and the fact that, in spite of everything, the Government have acceded by permitting foreign vessels with historical entitlement to continue fishing within the zone for another 12 years. She will know that the industry is arguing strongly, certainly in Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly. Why we do not apply to those waters the same 221 kW engine power limit that applies within the 6-mile limit? Why was that not proposed as a countermeasure to what was thrown on the table by the EU at the last minute? Doing so would have given the British Government a bargaining chip at that stage. As we missed that opportunity, will the Minister assure us that she agrees that that would be a sensible method of going forward? After all, it protects the inshore fishing grounds; it safeguards, or helps to safeguard, the marine environment; it supports a viable inshore fishing industry; it reduces the impacts from larger vessels coming into the 6 to 12-mile zone; and it provides an enforceable management tool, because it is already established. If she or the Government failed to take the opportunity of introducing it then, does she now accept that it would be a good management tool? Will she ensure that she presses for it? On the so-called benefits of the EU-UK trade negotiations, we were assured that the export of fish from this country would be made smoother, more transparent and easier, and that the administrative regulations applying to it would be less burdensome. When I have spoken in recent weeks to exporters in my constituency, they have told me the opposite: it has now become more burdensome. In the interests of time, I will write to the Minister rather than going through the technical detail now, but it is important that the sanitary and phytosanitary changes that have been brought in be properly understood. They seem to have created new impediments rather than resolving things. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall referred to the importance of the next generation of fishermen. I have been a strong supporter of the Young Fishermen Network, which is based in Cornwall, since it was established. Matilda Phillips from my constituency has been pressing its case very strongly. I hope that the Minister will look at its manifesto. There is a degree of absurdity here: we are recruiting new fishermen into the industry, but they are not allowed to go to sea under the age of 16. In the past, that was one way in which they could experience fishing. It can be done safely: one can regulate and put in the safeguards to ensure that it is done safely. I certainly went to sea well before I was 16. I did not go into the fishing industry, but I know many others who did. It encouraged them and provided them with a strong base. It also gave them ways to buy into the industry by getting in at the smaller, artisanal stage. Many of them, certainly from my area and my generation, became well-established members of the fishing community, from a very small base. I hope that that opportunity will still arise. Finally, I hope that the Minister will consider how ultra low-impact fishing can be further incentivised and supported. I know one fisherman on St Agnes, one of the Isles of Scilly, who uses a sail—no engine and no plastic. He is doing his best to tick all the boxes and use a low-impact fishing method. Because he fishes for lobster, he has had a really difficult year as a result of the octopus bloom. He tells me that in spite of trying to do what society is encouraging fishermen to do, going the extra mile and being as sustainable as possible, he finds that he is over-regulated and that there are no incentives for him. I hope the Minister will be prepared to look at the case of Jof Hicks and others who are trying to do the right thing.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Horse and Rider Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend knows, I strongly support his proposed legislation; indeed, I am a sponsor of it. Does he agree that, in order to advance new regulations, the Government need to review whether there is sufficient bridleway capacity across the countryside to avoid the necessity of using roads? It is clear that there are insufficient bridleways across much of the countryside, which is why riders end up having to use the roads to traverse.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Storm Goretti · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his reply. He has described the impact that the storm has had on our communities. As he rightly says, west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly took the brunt of the storm, but it nevertheless had a devastating effect throughout Cornwall, south-west England and beyond. Nursing home patients were evacuated with haste, homes were without power for many days, and thousands of vulnerable people were isolated—indeed, they still are. Many residents in my constituency have observed that if this same level of destruction, service outage and loss of life had happened in London and the home counties, the national media would have given it headline billing for days and the Government would have declared a national emergency. Frontline workers have been amazing and communities have come together incredibly well, but in spite of the Minister’s optimism, I have discovered that utility company reports of figures for reconnected homes are unreliable. I have also discovered that our society is more reliant on these utilities and services, and less resilient. Many places affected by these outages have not been able to communicate because all power, broadband and mobile signal had been cut. Higher authorities decided to turn off the analogue signal some time ago, and that has meant that people in vulnerable positions have not been able to communicate their vulnerability. That is a serious matter, particularly for people who are traumatised and isolated. Service providers have told people to phone or follow advice on their website or just click the app. How can they do that if they are completely cut off? I must therefore ask the Minister: why have the Government not considered or viewed this as a national emergency? What additional support will the Government provide beyond the compensation that utility providers are obliged to provide? Will the Government review the Bellwin funding formula, which seems designed not to help neither very small authorities, such as the Isles of Scilly, nor very large ones, such as Cornwall? Finally, will the Government agree to review the resilience of systems that provide a means of communicating in such circumstances?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Storm Goretti · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question ) : To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement following Storm Goretti.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Fuel Duty Relief · Hansard source

  More

  On the question of geographical coverage, and given the Minister’s comment that he has not received representations about further areas for inclusion, I urge the Government to review the scheme and to take an objective measure themselves of where else it might extend to, rather than inviting us to form an orderly queue in pleading for our own areas, which could result in a system based not on need, but on political advantage.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Fuel Duty Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way one more time?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Fuel Duty Relief · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister raised the issue of the administrative burden. I was referring to an occasion when an operator of the scheme was late in his submission to HMRC, in which case he was refused the rebate, which he had been taking. In such circumstances, he had to appeal. I was simply demonstrating the rigidity and lack of humour, as it were, in the system. We are talking about extremely small businesses that find the additional administrative burden quite onerous.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Fuel Duty Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) on securing this debate and making a very strong case, of which I hope the Minister will take heed. I will return to some of the prehistory, because I have campaigned on this issue for so long. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), for reinforcing the very strong points advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon in his opening remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) made an interesting intervention about useful pump comparison apps and sites. One of the places that was originally designated to receive rural fuel duty relief was the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, and I campaigned for it at the time. When the relief was announced in March 2012, it was very welcome. However, I am afraid that having comparison apps on the Isles of Scilly is pretty meaningless because there is only one pump and no competition. I do not think it can be argued that the monopoly supplier is taking advantage of that monopoly, because it is very much keyed into the community and has been running it as a public service. When the relief scheme was originally established, I asked the supplier, Ian Sibley of Sibley’s, which provides fuel for road use as well as for marine use on the Isles of Scilly, how he obtained his fuel. He basically takes tanks over to the supermarket in Penzance and has them ferried back, so he is buying fuel at retail prices and selling it on. We can see that it is and has been impossible for him and his business to be in any way competitive in those circumstances, and he has had to transfer the fuel to local people on the islands without taking much of a cut to cover the costs of freight and providing the service. We can see how difficult it is to provide this service in such locations. It is also worth reflecting on the justification for the relief, because it is all about equity and fairness. I know that some people will say, “Hang on, are you not campaigning to combat climate change?” Indeed I am, as are others present here today. Those same people may ask if it does not contradict everything we are campaigning for when we say that we want to reduce fuel costs. It is not. This is about geographic equity across the country. It is about wanting to make sure that in addressing the cost of living crisis, which has been going on for many years, we also address the geographic inequity in the prices that end up being charged in such remote and rural locations. It is not relevant to undermine the case in any way by comparing it with the vital campaign to combat climate change. To go into the prehistory of it, on 8 January 2002 and 15 January 2003, I brought debates to the Westminster Hall Chamber on the issue of rural and island transport. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and Alan Reid from the Scottish islands made a very strong case for the importance of seeking equity in this regard, not only in terms of fuel duty but in relation to private car users and to community bus users and projects. After that campaigning, I was pleased that the coalition Government agreed with the Liberal Democrat policy of investigating, as they put it, measures to help with fuel costs in remote rural areas, starting with pilot schemes. Indeed, in October 2010, they announced a 5p fuel duty discount for Scottish islands and the Isles of Scilly. In those days, that of course required EU approval—even post Brexit, any kind of parafiscal support or state-aid issue still requires some consideration and regulation, because it needs to meet competition rules. Obviously, the case for the discount was made—the unfairness was acknowledged—and in March 2012, it was brought in. The pilot schemes were established, including on the Isles of Scilly as I mentioned. In October 2013, the project was, as promised, reviewed and it was identified to be working well, so the Government announced that they were going to expand the schemes to 17 additional rural areas in May 2015. I raised a petition to make west Cornwall one of those areas. It got 2,500 signatures, and I presented it to Parliament in December 2013, but unfortunately the Government did not agree to do that in August 2014, which was a pity. I do hope the Government will look at an extension. There is still a cost difference between the Isles of Scilly and the mainland in excess of 30p per litre. It is a very difficult administrative scheme to follow through. It does create some administrative pressures on the small businesses that operate it, but I hope the Minister will accept the request to review both the amount of the discount and the geography on the basis of evidence of need.