New Medium Helicopter Programme

Debate between Adam Dance and Edward Morello

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adam Dance]

I agree that we need action. We need to ensure that we arm our forces with the correct equipment now. By contrast, not awarding the contract is lose, lose, lose, particularly for my constituency.

The future of the new medium helicopter is the future of Yeovil. Leonardo has been clear that if the programme does not go ahead, it will need to seriously consider the future of the Yeovil site. That puts more than 3,000 skilled jobs at the Yeovil site directly at risk, alongside 12,000 in the regional supply chain and the £320 million contribution to local GDP. It would also lead to a huge loss of investment in my community—starting with £1.2 million to Yeovil college, which does fantastic work training the skilled people we need in our defence sector—and the loss of the Westlands entertainment centre, and would leave a new solar farm unfinished, and so much more. It will be the death of my town. Local businesses have told me that they will shut overnight if Leonardo goes. House prices will fall and young people trained in Yeovil will leave.

Not awarding the new medium helicopter also has a knock-on effect for our country’s defence. That point gets a little lost in jargon of sovereign capability. If the site in Yeovil closes, we risk losing our country’s ability to build our own helicopters from start to finish, at the exact time that the world is becoming unstable and insecure. Put like that, as people back home tell me, it sounds insane not to get on with the programme and secure the future of the Yeovil site.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. He will know that many people who work at the Leonardo site live in West Dorset and commute. The company is responsible for providing training and apprentice opportunities for thousands of my constituents. I feel like every strategic defence review about the urgent need to speed up procurement—that is repeated ad nauseam. Even the most recent one recognises that the uncertainty around procurement undermines national security. My hon. Friend has rightly identified that there was a sole bidder, and that the programme is vital for the UK’s sovereign capability. Does he agree that unless the Government start to show that they are serious about speeding up procurement in the defence sector, we will lose vital industries, such as those that secure our ability to make helicopters, as well as thousands of businesses in the supply chain that support them?

[Adam Dance]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This issue affects not just our constituencies but many constituencies in the south-west. Leonardo is the backbone of our area, and we must secure the contract, but the effect on our area is not the only knock-on effect. The site in Yeovil is making fantastic progress on the Proteus uncrewed helicopter, which was recently successfully tested. Even though we are one of the few nations leading on such technology, if Leonardo cannot sustain its current workforce, skills and funding, we will lose those skills and could potentially lose Proteus. Once those skills are gone, they are really hard to get back, so not awarding the contract will undermine the Government’s drive for greater autonomy in our armed forces.

Given all that, why the delay? As far back as June last year I was told to “listen out”. I have heard so little since that I was worried that I might have lost my hearing—but don’t worry: I had my ears checked and they are working just fine. It seems that the problem is getting the defence investment plan to work. We were told that the DIP would answer all. It would set out the Government’s plan for spending on our defence and armed forces, including on the new medium helicopter, but at this point we might as well call it the delayed investment plan.

Independent Water Commission: Final Report

Debate between Adam Dance and Edward Morello

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello]

I 100% share the hon. Lady’s concerns that water companies will exploit this moment in time. The public are calling out for firmer action, so the speed of the transition is vital.

Existing legislation already requires sewage to be treated effectively, and allows storm overflows only in exceptional circumstances, but the Government have admitted that overflows are being used far beyond their original purpose. Investigations have shown illegal discharge even on dry days. The Office for Environmental Protection has concluded that regulators have failed to comply with existing environmental law. The first task of the new regulator must be to enforce what is already on the statute book and to review permits across the system.

The commission also highlights the need for stronger customer protection. Recommendation 41 proposes strengthening the C-MeX—customer measure of experience—incentive and moving to a supervisory approach. That reflects the reality that customer experience has not improved, despite financial incentives. People paying their bills expect reliable service, timely responses and basic competence—not call centres that do not answer and complaints that disappear into the void.

That brings me to the question of accountability and ownership. The White Paper recognises the unsustainable debt levels created by the current model, and talks about attracting long-term, low-risk investors. It also introduces new performance improvement regimes. But there is a real risk of tinkering around the edges while leaving a fundamentally broken model intact. As long as water companies exist primarily to generate profit, decisions will be shaped by that motive alone.

Alternative models across Europe deliver lower bills, higher investment relative to debt, and fewer discharges. Both the commission and the White Paper fail to engage seriously with those models. In West Dorset, we are served by Wessex Water and in a small part by South West Water. My constituents see a pattern of rewarding failure across the water system that is impossible to justify during a cost of living crisis.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Last year, bosses of Wessex Water received £50,000 in extra pay—more than many people in Yeovil earn in a year—from the parent company, while constituents in Ilminster report that they cannot swim in their rivers without risking getting sick. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must now ensure that sewage dumping at bathing sites ends by 2030 and that water bosses get no extra pay until sewage spills stop?

[Edward Morello]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the issues in his constituency. At a time when people are paying higher and higher water bills, there is understandably a sense of frustration with the outlandish bonuses being paid to executive bosses overseeing this failure.

Between 2020 and 2021, water company executives paid themselves £51 million in remuneration, including £30.6 million in bonuses. I am glad that the Government have started to take action on this behaviour in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but it is not enough. In 2022 alone, water and sewage companies paid out £1.4 billion in dividends, nearly three times as much as the year before, while household bills rose and families were forced to make difficult decisions. All the time, sewage continued to be pumped into our rivers and beaches.

We need a proactive, evidence-based assessment of alternative ownership models before the water reform Bill is finalised. Water companies should be redesigned with public benefit and environmental protection as their core purpose. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a new ownership model, with water companies mutually owned by customers and professionally managed. The special administration regime exists to protect customers and the environment when companies fail. Thames Water is the clearest example of a company that has failed financially, operationally and environmentally. We need transparent criteria for when the SAR will be triggered and a clear plan for using it to transition companies to public benefit models where necessary.

Affordability must also be central to reform. It was not mentioned enough in the final commission report. Families are already under intense pressure from the cost of living crisis. Environmental improvement cannot be paid for on the backs of those least able to afford it. It must be paid for by those who caused the problem. Bills must be fair, and investment must be efficient, long-term and low-risk. Financial penalties must be ringfenced for infrastructure upgrades and nature-based solutions, not absorbed as a cost of doing business.

The commission’s call to end operator self-monitoring is welcome, as is the move towards open monitoring and near-real-time data. The speeding ticket-style fines previously introduced by this Government should also be welcomed. However, credibility depends on independent testing, frequent inspections and proper funding for regulators. Data must be accessible, understandable and trusted by the public.

We cannot clean up our rivers by focusing on sewage alone. Agriculture accounts for pollution in about 40% of water bodies. Farmers are essential partners, but are struggling in our current system of underfunding. The system must support prevention at source by supporting our farmers and helping them to tackle water pollution through better funding and guidance.

This is a huge opportunity for cross-party consensus, legislative reform and long-term thinking and change. The support across the House for it is a testament to the scale of the problem, but also to people’s willingness to collaborate on the future. The Independent Water Commission has laid important foundations, and the White Paper moves the conversation forward, but neither goes far enough on its own. Change must be public-facing, rooted in public benefit and focused on prevention rather than clean-up. It must restore trust—trust that politics can deliver change, that regulators will enforce the law, that legislation passed in this House will make a difference and can change the sector, and that water companies will finally put people and the environment before profit.

Communities such as mine in West Dorset cannot afford another decade of half-measures. Our rivers, our coastlines, our communities, our health and our homes are at risk. I hope we can seize this moment to deliver the transformational reform that the public rightly want.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Debate between Adam Dance and Edward Morello

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I wish to speak in favour of amendments 12, 13 and 17, and Liberal Democrat new clauses 2, 3, 6 and 7.

The Bill has been an absolute shambles from the start; there was no consultation with disabled people, and there has been last-minute chopping and changing. The Timms review and the removal of the PIP elements of the Bill are welcome, but the process that got us there has left disabled people in Yeovil fearful, and with little confidence in the Government. For example, my constituent Noel has unfortunately been unable to work due to a degenerative condition. He receives universal credit and has been left deeply distressed by the proposed changes; he visits my office almost daily for support. He is not alone. So many people in Yeovil have made it clear that the proposals are just unfair.

The whole point of the Bill, as far as I can tell, was to get people back into meaningful work and lower the welfare bill—things that I think we all want—but at no stage has the Bill done what is needed to help get people back into meaningful work: address the crisis in our NHS and social care system, and our growing chronic health issues. I have constituents who would have ended up homeless as a result of the original proposals, and now, without a full impact assessment, we do not really know what effect the Bill will have on our constituents. I am really concerned that people with Parkinson’s and conditions like MS will effectively be excluded, as a result of the criteria, from the higher rate of the health element of universal credit. At the very least, I urge colleagues to support amendment 17 to address that.

The original Bill was supposed to save around £5.5 billion, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that the amended version will deliver basically no savings over the next four years, as over that period, the forecast savings from reducing the universal credit health element for new claimants will be offset or exceeded by the cost of increasing the UC standard allowance. What is the actual point of this Bill?

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

My hon. Friend and neighbour’s constituency, like mine, is extremely rural; he will know that the cost of delivering services in rural areas is four to five times higher than it is in urban areas. PIP allows people to live independently. Both my hon. Friend and I see integrated care boards that are under extreme financial pressure. We will end up paying one way or another—we might as well give people the independence to live freely while we do it.

[Adam Dance]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. We will see a huge impact from ICBs having to make a 50% cut. We are already seeing the impact in Yeovil, as hon. Members will have heard me say. The maternity unit has had its funding cut, and is being shut for six months.

The Bill was not produced with disabled people; lots of its content is being removed; there is no impact assessment; and the Bill is not likely to make any real savings. This tells me that the Government should go back to the drawing board, and either withdraw the Bill, or adopt the Lib Dem amendments and new clauses that require proper consultation and impact assessments. Either way, the Government must stop making decisions about disabled people without them.

I thank some Labour Back Benchers for having a backbone and voting against their Government in support of disabled people. I hope they do so again today.

Disabled People in Poverty

Debate between Adam Dance and Edward Morello

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

One of the most common reasons why people claim PIP in Yeovil is poor mental health. Does my hon. Friend agree that to support vulnerable people’s mental wellbeing, the Government must urgently change course on the proposed cuts to PIP and introduce proper staff and accessible mental health hubs in every rural community?

[Edward Morello]

I absolutely agree. The costs for disabled people who live in rural areas include more expensive journeys to access healthcare, unreliable and sparse public transport, and higher energy bills for heating homes that are often older and less efficient.

Hundreds of my constituents have expressed their concerns to me over the last few months, and I have retold some of their stories in this Chamber. Each one represents a wider failure. The Government’s own analysis shows that the proposed changes to PIP will push 300,000 people into poverty. About 150,000 carers stand to lose carers allowance due to the knock-on effect of losing PIP eligibility, harming those who care for the most vulnerable. I urge the Government to change course.