Andrew George
MP for St Ives · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“After all, the current situation regarding coercion and safeguarding is certainly not satisfactory. The Bill provides safeguards where presently there are none.”
“I am sorry to be stirring up Members at this stage of the debate, particularly as time is very short. Another theme is that people somehow believe that there is a binary choice available to us on palliative care: that we should either have 100% palliative care, or can go down the route of backing the Bill—or rather, that we should not sup…”
“It is an honour to be called to speak in this debate. Indeed, it is the first time that I have. I am a sponsor of the Bill and a member of the Health and Social Care Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) on how she introduced this debate, and the hon.”
“Defeating the Bill would also reward the worst of the reprehensible behaviour of those in the other place who blocked this legislation last time.”
“I am sorry, but because of time, I will not. If the hon. Member wants, he can send me a postcard with the answer to my question: when have we ever had a perfect piece of legislation?”
“I cannot give way, because of the time constraints. All Bills are necessarily a compromise. That does not mean that we simply have to make do with bad legislation, but the Bill that was sent down to the other place was in fact an excellent compromise that actually achieved all of the matters—”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Andrew George, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“The planning system is fuelled by greed rather than need, and as long as we have weaknesses like that in the system, we cannot meet housing need.”
“That has been productive in a number of areas, especially in Cornwall, where it has for many years been the primary source for the delivery of affordable homes within the duchy. The problem is that because of the way in which the framework has been brought in and because local authorities can no longer demonstrate that they can meet their five-year land supply, all areas that previously could be designated as rural exception sites to meet affordable housing needs can no longer be designated as such. A lot of them have been converted to open-market housing developments. I think that impact was unintended by the Minister, but it is entirely counterproductive, because in many rural areas, the primary means by which affordable housing could be delivered is now not being used.”
“It certainly reinforces the weakness of the whole system, because it is based on a delusion that private developers will collude with the Government in driving down the price of their finished product. During my nine-year sabbatical from this place, I was chief executive of a registered social landlord—a community land trust—and tried to deliver in those circumstances, so I am certainly aware of the difficulties in trying to meet the need for affordable homes. My primary point is that the national planning policy framework has fundamentally weakened the rural exception policy, which was introduced in the early ’90s under planning policy guidance 3. That was the first time that planning had switched in principle from “planning use” to “user”, and took the user into account so it was meeting local housing need.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing the debate, and all other Members for their excellent contributions, which I strongly endorse. I particularly wish to highlight the contribution of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which I hope was a bid to catapult him into becoming Secretary of State under the new regime—I would certainly strongly support the approach he is taking. A lot of people have referred to the inequity and inappropriateness of the way in which the Government have introduced national targets and the manner in which they have imposed them, through the national planning policy framework.”
“As my hon. Friend is aware, I am very fortunate to have secured a place in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, and my Bill will be on affordable homes. The details have not been written, so there is an opportunity to work on that with him, and indeed with the Secretary of State. I am very keen to do so and to adapt a number of those policies so that it provides a framework within which the Government can work with Parliament to improve and adjust planning policy to achieve the desirable aims.”
“The Minister says that the purpose of the policy is, among other things, to drive the desperate need for affordable homes. Does he accept that, in rural areas, he is also driving affordable homes off rural exception sites and making them unaffordable? The setting of targets means that local plans are no longer viable and appropriate, and therefore developers can come in and simply insist that their developments should be permitted because they are delivering the housing numbers.”
“The fact that so many colleagues have raised these questions again today is a clear indication of how serious the issue of low and slow prosecution rates is. If the primary purpose of custodial sentences is public protection, does the Minister understand why victims in my constituency clearly feel discouraged, having witnessed violent offenders being given very short custodial sentences, or being granted early parole in spite of the danger that they represent to society?”
“Like my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), I welcome the broad direction of the review. I acknowledge that this is happening in the context of some people attempting to create a hostile environment—I hope Count Binface will deal with one source of that hostile environment in the weeks to come—but there is also the issue of language, as I think the Minister acknowledges. We should use less of the language of “welfare benefits” and “dependency”, and more of the language of “investment in people”, particularly investment in mental health services. Will he work with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that people are supported before they need benefits, and that we invest in people so that their talents can be enjoyed in the workplace?”
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I did give her advance notice that because of the rescheduling of the debate, I would seek to intervene on her. As she knows, I visited the area a year ago, and the whole situation is unacceptable; in fact, the Foreign Secretary has already referred to the current circumstances as “settlement terrorism”. Does she agree that taking action on this is about not just cast-iron sanctions on trade but financial services and visas, including visas of British citizens who serve in the Israel Defence Forces?”
“As the Minister knows, my west Cornwall and Isles of Scilly constituency has almost 150 miles of coastline. In an earlier answer, he said that the model has to change, but it does not need to be trashed. He referred to the fact that the remuneration arrangements for CROs are bespoke, but so are the arrangements provided to special constables and retained firefighters. Surely the Minister and his colleagues can find a model that meets the legal obligations and remains a bespoke remuneration system for CROs?”
“The Government’s plans for drones have been referred to a number of times already today, and I welcome the important emphasis on uncrewed systems. As the Minister is aware, the air station at Predannack —or Pradnick, as we call it locally—in west Cornwall is one of a number of important locations for research and development. In this case, it is the location of the national drone hub, and it has many advantages, including relatively clear airspace. If Ministers intend to take advantage of existing assets to scale up UK autonomous capabilities, will they ensure that this happens at pace and that they take advantage of the opportunities in places such as Predannack?”
“As welcome as that is, and I am not crying wolf, the hospitality sector faces a very high risk of substantial business failure in the next 12 months as a result of the tax burdens that it has to face simply for attempting to survive, rather than a tax burden to help it succeed—in other words, shifting from VAT and business rates to corporation tax. Will the Minister look again at this issue before real catastrophe comes to the sector? Will she talk to Treasury Ministers and find a way out of this extremely serious situation?”
“I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), not only on securing the debate and making a first-class case, but on managing to contain his deep irritation at the way this matter has been handled.”
“I do know my right hon. Friend too well. I also warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) on an excellent first contribution to a Westminster Hall debate. The coastguard service is clearly critical to a constituency like mine, with more than 150 miles of coastline across west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. There is a lot of heritage. The National Coastwatch Institution was established in 1994, following the tragic deaths of two local fishermen whose boat sank off the coast of the Lizard peninsula, within sight of the recently closed coastguard station at Bass Point. Although the National Coastwatch Institution provides a vital volunteer service, it does not in any way replace the coastguard.”
“What contingency plans exist if volunteer numbers fall below expected levels? In terms of viability, how has HM Coastguard satisfied itself on public safety? What impact assessment has been undertaken of the resilience of the future of coastguard rescue teams as a category one emergency call-out?”
“Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke about using the model of retained firefighters, who are recompensed through a combination of an annual retainer, hourly rates for training and call-outs, and specific disturbance fees. That is a good model for the MCA to look at seriously. I gave the Minister advance notice of a large number of questions, so I will summarise some of them. What level of consultation was undertaken with CROs prior to this announcement? What alternative options, including models such as the fire service and the RNLI, have been considered? What workforce modelling has been conducted to assess the likely impact on retention and availability? What operational safety assessment has been completed regarding the potential loss of experience, skills and leadership capability?”
“My hon. Friend is right, and I will come to that in a second. I want to share quotes from some of many CROs who have been in contact we me. One said, “Many CROs…make considerable personal financial sacrifices in order to respond to incidents. Whilst nobody joins the coastguard for financial gain, the current remuneration helps offset the real costs associated with responding, including loss of earnings, disruption to employment, interrupted family life, loss of sleep and the wider impacts that emergency responses can have.” Needless to say, many of the CROs in my area are self-employed. Others say that on this occasion the bosses have “made us all redundant and re-employed us as volunteers.” The right hon.”
“All the Minister’s points apply to retained firefighters. He cannot say that we cannot appropriately transpose that framework agreement between the MCA and CROs simply because they have to be called out within five to seven minutes. Those kinds of details can be altered simply by using the framework. If it is possible in the case of retained firefighters, there is no reason why it cannot be transposed to the CROs.”
“As someone who campaigned to remain, I had to acknowledge in the debates we had at the time that the one sector in which one could easily identify potential to thrive and improve in Brexit circumstances was the fishing industry, if there were an opportunity to regain control out to the 12-mile limit.”
“We visited a number of countries, including Spain and Iceland, where it was quite evident that the relationship between scientists and fishermen was much better established than in this country, where—at that stage, at least—scientists were seen in the industry as some kind of enemy. The presumption, wrongly, was that they were working to shut the commercial fisheries down. Now those relationships have significantly improved. Recently, in April this year, on the initiative of the fishing industry itself, the Cornwall fisheries science board was established. We need to see a great deal more of those kinds of positive initiatives. We have just had the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum, so it is appropriate that we take a moment to reflect on that, as it has been mentioned on a number of occasions.”
“She made a very telling contribution that illustrated brilliantly the impact of changes in recent years, the demise of the haddock fishery and its consequences on the community. On the future of the fishing industry, we must recognise and acknowledge that the best type of fishing policy is one in which politicians do not need to get involved. It is one in which scientists, fishermen and marine conservationists work together in a framework created by politicians in which they can come to an agreement on the future management of stocks. In my early days in Parliament, I was a member of what was then the Agriculture Committee.”
“However, I hope that the Minister will ensure that the funds go to those areas that need it most, rather than simply allocating it on a flatline basis across the country, based on the size of the existing fishing industry. Not all communities are doing as well as one another. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on adding to what must be a world record for Westminster Hall debate contributions. I thank him for emphasising the social and cultural as well as economic consequences of the fishing industry in his part of Northern Ireland. I also congratulate the new hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird), who is already proving hyperactive: this is her second debate in Westminster Hall today.”
“Following Brexit, we were promised equivalent funds from the Treasury to make up for the loss of EU aid; it was equivalent to £100 million a year coming into Cornwall, which is one of the most deprived regions not just in the UK, but in Europe. It is now 2026 and there are no funds at all: over the years, that replacement has simply not happened. A paltry amount is available through the fisheries and coastal growth fund, but it is being spread around the country and, as the hon. Member rightly says, it is a relatively small fund. It is welcome, of course—one should not decry the Government for making the offer—and I entirely understand that the purpose of the fund is to modernise the fishing industry and the seafood sector, build resilience and support coastal communities.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing the debate and making a strong case on behalf of his region in Scotland. He focused on the fishing and coastal growth fund, which is £360 million over 12 years, as he understands, so it is spread over a very long period. When one looks at it across the whole UK on an annual basis, it is spread very thinly. Coastal communities in particular have been left behind following Brexit, as the hon. Member mentioned. In Cornwall, for example, we were entitled to objective 1 aid from the EU.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Had we secured control between the 6-mile and 12-mile limits, as was promised at the time but has not been delivered, one could see circumstances in which local IFCAs, local management and indeed the Government would agree that there would be an opportunity to achieve that within the 6-mile limit. It is telling that, after the flotillas up the Thames and certain campaigners using the fishing industry as the poster boy of the Brexit campaign, on occasions like this debate, when they should come along to explain what happened as a result of the promises they made, they are conspicuous by their absence. They are not here to answer for themselves and for the claims they made at the time. Where are they? They should be here to explain why the industry is still struggling post-Brexit.”
“Like others, I welcome this report. The Secretary of State referred to Dr Bill Kirkup, who resigned from the Amos review as an adviser because he felt that it was skirting around certain birthing ideologies and caesarean targets. The Secretary of State said that “staff shortages can have a dangerous impact”, and indeed they can. Although he and Baroness Amos refer to culture, a lot of that culture is to do with budgetary and other pressures that result in members of staff on the frontline being belittled and discouraged from blowing the whistle about unsafe staffing levels. Will the Secretary of State look again at the report, and consider for the first time introducing mandatory safe frontline staffing levels for these services?”
“I hope that the Committee, and indeed the Minister, will be prepared to work constructively with me in the coming months to look at ways in which we can strengthen and advance the cause, because it is quite clear that the Government are going to struggle to deliver what we all agree needs to be delivered to address the desperate need for more affordable homes in this country.”
“In relation to that, there is a concern that the planning system is still weak. The provision for affordable homes is often used as a Trojan horse by wily private developers, whose intention is to provide not affordable but unaffordable homes. That Trojan horse is often exploited. There is also a need for stronger ingredients to ensure that we can genuinely deliver affordable homes, particularly for the in-perpetuity community benefit, and a range of measures could be taken to advance that aim. I repeat that the Second Reading of the Bill will be on 13 November. It is in gestation at the moment.”
“It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend. I declare an interest as the former chief executive of a registered provider, the Cornwall Community Land Trust. I am now a volunteer on its board. I have therefore worked in the sector for some time. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Committee on an excellent report, and I hope the Government will take heed of it. Secondly, I was very fortunate, as you were, Sir Alec, to come high in the private Members’ Bill stakes, and I have opted to advance an affordable housing Bill on Friday 13 November. There is an opportunity over the next five months to draw together a range of options and clauses, which I hope will help the Government to deliver the laudable objectives that they have established to address housing need. I think they need further tools to do so.”
“Nearly six months ago, my west Cornwall and Isles of Scilly constituency bore the brunt of Storm Goretti, which caused death and destruction across the area. Will Ministers work with local MPs in Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly to review resilience plans to improve co-ordination on the resilience of nationally regulated utilities and telecom providers, including by reviewing the current timetable for the January 2027 digital switchover?”
“I have given Ministers advance notice of this question. Will they do more to better co-ordinate support across Government for women and child victims? The abuser of my constituent Caroline Eshghi was granted a lenient sentence because the abuse occurred before 2005, and my constituent Tina Nash, who was beaten, assaulted and blinded, feels insufficiently protected and supported by either the Parole Board or the victim contact scheme. Will Ministers please do more to support them?”
“There is an opportunity for another victory for the United Kingdom if we can find a way of co-operating. Clinging on to half of the Parthenon sculptures while assuring ourselves that we own them, when they were obtained in, at best, highly dubious circumstances two centuries ago, is not a great look for this country. Does the Minister agree that the imminent restoration of the British Museum provides the museum and the Government with a golden opportunity to engage in what would be a better look for this country—a gracious act, reflecting a partnership and a shared love of classical history, but also natural justice—and to see all the sculptures displayed in Athens, where they belong?”
“The Secretary of State says she is looking at options and that she wishes to work in partnership in the international sphere. She must accept that the UK has significant history and responsibility in this region. Does she not listen to the words of her Back Benchers? It is incumbent on her to take action now—not simply to look at things and to seek partnership—to have real effect on this appalling, continuing outrage.”
“Apart from the Netanyahu fan club on the Tory Front Bench, most right hon. and hon. Members condemn the appalling and murderous actions of his far-right regime. However, the Foreign Secretary surely recognises that Netanyahu is laughing behind his hands as Israel easily bypasses the flimsy trade and arms sanctions that the UK Government have introduced. She talks about building an international consensus, but is it not time to take stronger action and, in building that consensus, to propose the introduction of international peacekeepers into Gaza to ensure the peace, stop the bloodshed and get the humanitarian aid in?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. He will be aware of early-day motion 2709, which I tabled in January. It is about the role of the House of Lords in scrutinising legislation, and the importance of ensuring that they are there purely to scrutinise and provide sober second thought on legislation. It had strong cross-party support. On 12 February, the Leader of the House responded to a question to say that if there were delays, “I will find time to see how we can progress it. This is a timely warning to their lordships”. —[ Official Report , 12 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 957.] This was a fundamental attempt—a successful attempt—to block the Bill; it was nothing other than that.”
“Their lordships on many occasions in a rather condescending way told the democratically elected Chamber of the House of Commons that the Bill it passed on Third Reading was not fit for purpose. The fact is that if we all designed a private Member’s Bill, there would be 650 different versions. The concept of a perfect Bill can no doubt be debated by everyone that looks at it, and they would say, “I would prefer it to be amended in this manner” or “in that manner”. The fact is that the way in which the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) proceeded, accepting very sensible amendments, meant that we ended up with a stronger and very effective Bill.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on the way in which he introduced the debate and the strong case he made about not only the Bill and its treatment, but the recommendations for reform of the House of Lords. As he said, we do not want to rehash the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults Bill, but as we have seen, people on both sides of the debate were disgusted by the way in which a small minority of their lordships were able to abuse the powers available to them, not to scrutinise but to block the Bill. Indeed, a strong opponent of the Bill, Rod Liddle, described his side winning “by cheating”, which is exactly what happened.”
“It has certainly precipitated a justification for that from the House of Commons and the Government, and I hope the Leader of the House will follow that accelerated reform through in the light of what has happened, which I think is quite disgraceful.”
“The hon. Member makes a very strong point. There were more than 100 hours of debate and scrutiny in Committee and in the Chamber. I am sure that we all in this Chamber engaged in thousands of hours of discussion with specialist bodies and had private meetings and investigations on the matter. I am on the Health and Social Care Committee and therefore take these issues very seriously. I have mentioned the early-day motion that I tabled at the end of January, which castigated the House of Lords and proposed that if it continued with its filibuster, we needed to accelerate reform of the House of Lords.”
“I look forward to the concluding remarks from the Leader of the House, and I hope that he will think hard about his words to me and will find us time to take this Bill through.”
“If the will of the House has been decided, the Government need to find time to use the Parliament Acts to ensure that democratic principles are upheld. If we are looking at reforming the House of Lords, we need to start by asking what we want a second Chamber for and, indeed, if we want a second Chamber. We need scrutiny and a sober second thought. Others might mention a democratic deficit. In my view, the best thing is to abolish the place. I would rather see it replaced with a citizens’ assembly and an appointments commission bringing the brightest and best from all walks of life into the Chamber. What we do not want is a second Chamber in competition with the House of Commons.”
“My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I was No. 4 this time round. Having been No. 1 in 2014, I know what it is like to go through the process. On that point, I find it unacceptable that I am under significant pressure to take this Bill through again, which denies me the opportunity to take through the many other options that I should be entitled to take forward. I leave the House awaiting my announcement on the 17th. As I mentioned earlier, the Leader of the House said in his answer to me on 12 February that “I will find time to see how we can progress it. This is a timely warning to their lordships”. —[ Official Report , 12 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 957.] It should not now be down to a private Member to take the matter through. It should be down to the Government.”
“The Leader of the House said earlier that he felt that a private Member’s Bill was not necessarily the most suitable vehicle for legislation of this nature and gravity; as someone who has come out fairly high in this year’s ballot, I am interested in his remarks in that regard. Leaving that aside, does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that, even if a private Member’s Bill is not the most suitable vehicle, it is now incumbent on the Government to find the time and the means through which the legislation can now be delivered, given that the Bill has the overwhelming support of the House of Commons?”
“Of course, it is not only Labour Members who are concerned about this issue, so I hope the Minister would be prepared to meet a cross-party group of MPs. The problem we face in this country is not just the use of the Union Jack; there is a high risk that we are sucking in imports that do not meet the animal welfare standards we have in this country, which even now we are rightly seeking to improve.”
“The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point and an excellent speech. In west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in my constituency, the situation is just as troubling. Indeed, it is an existential crisis. Does he agree that unless we address the current rate of VAT and/or the business rates that burden our hospitality businesses, many of them, including in my constituency, will not see the end of this year?”
“That shifts both the clinical and the financial burden on to independent contractors. Regrettably, that has begun to force difficult decisions across the sector as more medicines fall off tariff. In addition, the continued closure of pharmacies is placing further strain on other parts of the NHS. It is putting further pressure on emergency departments and GP services, which is the exact opposite of the direction in which services should be going.”
“As a result, independent pharmacies such as Hall’s are increasingly being forced to subsidise NHS dispensing from their own funds just to maintain patient care. That is simply not sustainable. The situation is further complicated by ongoing medicine shortages. There are growing concerns that elements of the current reimbursement system are actively impacting timely patient access to medicines. Pharmacies are left simultaneously managing supply chain disruptions and financial risks, with limited systemic support. We are also witnessing troubling behaviour in the sector. Some large corporate pharmacy chains are redirecting patients to independent pharmacies for medicines that are above tariff, incorrectly stating that those medicines are unavailable when in reality they are unwilling to supply them because of the financial loss involved.”
“As others have said, a key issue is the growing number of medicines that are being priced above the drug tariff. Essential medications, such as—I will get the pronunciation wrong—ramipril, bisoprolol and Creon are frequently being supplied at a loss. Price concessions are sometimes introduced, but they are often delayed, inconsistent and insufficient to reflect real-time market prices. That creates a situation in which pharmacies must either dispense at a financial loss or deny supply. They use a system called e-CASS, which tracks real-time drug pricing. On any given day, there are between 16 and 40 lines that cannot be ordered through standard systems because the purchase price exceeds the reimbursement tariff. That number has increased significantly over recent years, indicating a worsening trend.”
“We are well aware that pharmacies should be at the frontline of one of the most important of the Government’s three shifts: the shift from hospital to community. Building up and strengthening the resilience of our community pharmacies is essential for the Government to deliver that shift. One of the many brilliant community pharmacies in my constituency is Hall’s in Helston, in the south of the constituency. The pharmacy dispenses between 9,000 and 12,000 prescriptions per month, representing about 70% of the dispensing activity in the hinterland of the Helston area. Despite that critical role in primary care delivery, it is under increasingly severe financial pressure. It does not believe that yesterday’s announcement will relieve that pressure, because of how medicines are reimbursed.”
“Although it softens the blow, it will not remove the threat or the peril hanging over many pharmacies around the country. As for my constituency, there are 15 pharmacies in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which seems to be about average compared with other constituencies that have been mentioned, and Pharmacy First saves approximately 2,500 GP appointments per annum. That initiative is certainly delivering but, as previous speakers have said, it could deliver a great deal more. It is telling of the times we live in that one of the tragically many pharmacies that have closed—I will not say where—has been replaced with an apothecary. I hope that that is not a sign of a continuing trend, but perhaps it says something symbolic about the way things are going.”