Independent Water Commission: Final Report

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Independent Water Commission Final Report.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and my co-sponsors across the House and the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution, of which I am an officer, for their support in securing this important debate. West Dorset is home to the world-famous Jurassic coast, a UNESCO world heritage site, as well as three of Britain’s unique chalk streams. Few issues matter more to me or the people of West Dorset than the state of our water.

This debate was originally intended to take place before the publication of the Government’s water White Paper, so that Parliament could scrutinise the findings of the Independent Water Commission and assess what steps the Government intended to take in response. Instead, we find ourselves in a position where we are able to examine the commission’s final report and the White Paper together to see where they align, diverge and, most importantly, fall short of what the public expect, and to see the scale of the crisis that the response demands.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

If people in Torbay check the Surfers Against Sewage app today as I did, they will see that eight sites are monitored where there could be overflows of sewage. Six overflows have occurred so far this year at six of those sites, with two ongoing. We have also suffered a cryptosporidium outbreak in the past 18 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to stop tinkering with the system and have systemic reform to tackle such challenges?

[Edward Morello]

During my speech, I will outline some such recommendations. This is a good opportunity to thank Surfers Against Sewage for all its hard work. Like my hon. Friend, I use the app regularly before deciding whether to swim at my favourite beaches.

It is an understatement to say that the public’s confidence in the water sector has been damaged; it has been eroded by years of sewage pollution, repeated flooding, poor decision making, too little regulation, scattered legislation and a business model that has too often rewarded failure. This debate is more important than ever in the light of recent flooding, not just in West Dorset but across the south-west and the country as a whole.

Following Storm Chandra, communities again saw the devastating consequence of a system that has reached breaking point and that can react only after failure, rather than preventing it in the first place. Emergency services, whom I pay tribute to, have done an outstanding job, but residents were left dealing with sewage in their homes, damaged property and uncertainty about when it will happen again. In West Dorset alone, 84 homes in Yetminster experienced raw sewage flooding their properties. In Maiden Newton, one family has been flooded repeatedly since 2024, including just days after finally returning home following 15 months of repairs after the previous flood.

As the climate continues to change and extreme weather events become more frequent, that will only become a more common occurrence. Our infrastructure must become more resilient to deal with today’s problems and tomorrow’s.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am chair of the APPG for sustainable flood and drought management, and of the all-party parliamentary water group. On the White Paper, there is 25-year strategic planning, which is absolutely brilliant; regional knowledge and tactical interventions, which are absolutely brilliant; putting engineering capability at the heart of that strategic decision making; and a regulator that brings the economy and the environment together as one for the first time, which I think is important. Does he agree, however, that this is an opportunity to ensure that we do not miss out the maintenance of existing assets, as well as putting new ones in the ground with the extreme amount of investment that will go in over the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years? Does he also agree that we therefore need some sort of resilience standards to provide knowledge for the people applying such investment in the future?

[Edward Morello]

We as the Liberal Democrats always try to be a constructive Opposition, so I absolutely will identify where the White Paper makes steps in the right direction. I hope that the hon. Member will agree with some of our recommendations for where it can be improved.

The Independent Water Commission’s final report was a major and long-awaited milestone. It reflected unprecedented public engagement with more than 30,000 submissions from a public who are angry, frustrated and rightly demanding change. The report contains important proposals embedding public health into law, improving regional planning, strengthening monitoring, and replacing Ofwat with a new, integrated regulator. Those are steps in the right direction.

I want to put on record my thanks to the commissioners and the countless campaigners and volunteers, such as the River Lim Action group, Surfers Against Sewage and River Action, who have fought for cleaner rivers and seas for years. The report exists because of their continued pressure.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend mentions the River Lim Action group that works on the boundary between his West Dorset constituency and mine. The group has identified that the sewage treatment works at Uplyme cannot cope with the amount of sewage that occurs during high rainfall. Does he agree that South West Water needs to put in more storage for sewage during periods of heavy rain?

[Edward Morello]

My hon. Friend works tirelessly on River Lim issues. I agree there are essential works throughout the system that need to be done if we are to reduce sewage release, but we need to do them in a way that does not pass the cost on to residents and consumers.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He itemised those that do an excellent job, such as Surfers Against Sewage and others, and there is also Feargal Sharkey from my city of Londonderry who has campaigned on and championed these issues for many years. All these people are doing a magnificent job, but we need to see a strategic response from the Government to deliver what we all want to see.

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the work of Feargal Sharkey and the many campaigners around the UK who give up their free time to raise awareness of the issues in their local areas.

The central question for this House is whether the commission’s recommendations and the White Paper that followed go far enough to meet the scale of the challenge we face.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for his perseverance and dedication to the subject matter. I also pay tribute to his party’s members who always turn up and do their bit. The Independent Water Commission’s final report refers to a “fundamental reset” to address failing regulations that have negatively affected customers and the environment. Does the hon. Member agree that Government, and particularly the Minister, must be prepared to take the helm to ensure that the reset actually takes place and is not simply a change in name?

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I shall come on to some of the recommendations that we believe are necessary to make it more than just a reset in name only.

Let me start with the reality in my constituency. In 2024, West Dorset recorded 4,200 sewage spills and the discharging of raw sewage for nearly 49,000 hours from 90 storm overflows. I have no doubt that other Members can cite similar, if not worse, statistics for their constituency. Only 11% of our monitored river sites reach “good” ecological status. The River Lim is categorised as ecologically dead. Rare chalk streams such as the River Frome, Wraxall brook and West Compton stream are under severe pressure, as are Atlantic salmon populations.

Tourism in West Dorset, worth over £322 million a year and supporting more than 5,000 jobs, is threatened by our poor water quality. My constituents, their children, the visitors who support our communities, and families, including my own, love our beautiful world-famous waterways, but no one should have to check an app on their phone to see whether it is safe to swim that day. The final report continually underlines the lack of public trust. To change this, reforms must be visible, transparent and public facing. If people are to believe that things are changing, they need to see progress, understand the standards and know that failure has consequences.

We need blue flag-style standards for rivers and chalk streams. Clear standards, mandatory testing and visible ratings would help rebuild trust. Where standards are met, confidence grows. Where they are not, communities can hold companies and regulators to account. Recommendation 3 of the report proposes a comprehensive systems planning framework, with regional water authorities responsible for integrated planning, funding, setting objectives, monitoring and convening stakeholders. That approach recognises that water does not respect administrative boundaries and neither should planning. Housing growth, agriculture, flood risk, river health and water supply must be considered together across Government Departments. The bodies must be statutory, democratically accountable and empowered to make binding decisions. Without that authority, we would risk repeating the mistakes of the past: endless consultation without delivery.

When I have previously argued that water companies should be made statutory consultees in the planning system, the Government have resisted that change. The water White Paper now states that Ministers

“will also consider the role of water and sewerage companies in relation to planning applications”

as part of the reforms to statutory consultees. That is a welcome change, but simply considering it is no longer enough. Making water companies and national landscapes statutory consultees for major developments would be a preventive, low-cost reform that aligns planning decisions with environmental reality, reducing flood risk.

The commission is also right to highlight the importance of pre-pipe solutions. Recommendation 10 calls for legislative changes to expand pre-pipe solutions, so that we can stop pollutants and rainwater entering the system in the first place. In too many places, combined sewers are overwhelmed by rainfall that mixes with raw sewage and triggers spills. That is not sustainable in a changing climate.

We need a long-term national rainwater management strategy, with sustainable drainage systems being mandatory in all new developments, and a serious programme of retrofitting in existing communities. Rainwater harvesting should become the norm. We must bring ourselves in line with modern housing standards and our European neighbours, just as minimum solar requirements are being made mandatory, thanks to the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). Those are low-carbon, cost-effective and resilient solutions. They would reduce pressure on sewers, lower flood risk and protect rivers, but the White Paper only gestures vaguely in that direction. Without clear, consistent standards and funding, progress will remain slow.

On regulation, the commission calls to replace Ofwat with a new integrated regulator, which is welcome and overdue. The Liberal Democrats have called for exactly that since 2022. Ofwat’s primary duty to ensure reasonable returns has shaped a culture that has tolerated pollution, debt loading and under-investment. A regulator with explicit duties to protect public health and the environment is a step forward.

I am glad that the White Paper has stated that the Government will commit to a new regulator by abolishing Ofwat and bringing together the relevant water system functions from existing regulators—Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency and Natural England—into one new body. But again, that alone is not enough. That body must have teeth: it must be properly resourced, independent and willing to enforce the law.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

The Public Accounts Committee recently had a hearing on environmental regulation with the Environment Agency and Natural England. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the transition to a new regulator is a huge undertaking and that there is a risk while it is being set up? We must not take our eyes off the enforcement and regulation of water companies to ensure that we reduce the amount of their pollution in the meantime.

[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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy, for your excellent chairing of this debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today—too many to name in the time that I have. It is clear that everybody is echoing the same thoughts: the public anger at the dividends and bonuses, anger at the lack of investment and anger at the high water bills. Everybody has raised the ownership structure, which needs reform, and additional support for farmers. I thank the Minister for her response and for going straight from here to Somerset. I again extend an offer for her to visit West Dorset at her earliest convenience.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Independent Water Commission Final Report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Morello Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on that disgraceful site. The Environment Agency has served a notice requiring the operator to reduce the risk of smells, and the deadline is 9 February. We expect the operator to comply. If it does not, all options, including suspension and closure, remain on the table.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Following Storm Chandra, vast swathes of West Dorset are under water. An amber warning is in place, and we are expecting more flooding. Whole villages have become islands. Eighty-four houses in Yetminster have sewage in them. One family in Maiden Newton had only just moved back into their house following 15 months of repairs after the previous flooding, only to get flooded again within three days. Will the Minister please visit West Dorset and explain to residents how she will get the water companies and the Environment Agency to focus on flood-prone areas?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I can hear the hon. Gentleman’s passion and how upset he is about the devastating impact that repeated flooding has had on his community. We are putting a record amount of money into flood defences and will continue to do so. We are also looking at how we can work more effectively with other agencies in the area. I share his concern that, over the next weeks, it will continue to be quite wet. I give thanks to the emergency services and everybody involved.

Animal Welfare Strategy for England

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to all the speakers, including those who have come here with much to say but have not managed to get in in this debate. I feel for them— I have been there. I offer a massive thank you to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) who led the debate with real distinction and great passion. She made an important series of points, many of them followed up with her own examples.

How we treat animals is an indicator of whether we can even call ourselves a civilised or humane society. Overall in the UK I think we treat animals relatively well. We are a nation of animal lovers. That is what we call ourselves and mostly that is true. Some 84% of us, for example, consider animal welfare when we act as consumers and buy food. Animals are sentient, but they do not have agency, although I can neither confirm nor deny that the size of our majority in Westmorland is down to the fact that we extended the franchise to certain woolly residents. Herdwicks are, after all, rugged individualists and are thus part of the core Liberal vote.

But animals do not get to decide how humane we are. That is for us to choose. We can choose to protect the culture and practices of how we care for wildlife, pets and livestock and not, for example, undermine those practices by undercutting our ethical British farmers with products from overseas produced in less than humane conditions.

The Government are doing some things right—it is important to acknowledge that. They are choosing to ban cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs by 2032, but the strategy fails to adequately consider domestic food security and competitiveness, which are crucial to maintaining and extending our strong animal welfare culture in the UK.

If the Government propose raising domestic animal welfare standards further, which they rightly do, they must also take steps to ensure consumers are protected from imported food products that can be produced to lower standards. British farmers should not be asked to compete with imports produced at those lower standards, which would be illegal if they were produced here in the UK, and yet they are being asked to do so.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

We have seen reports about the US suspending the technology prosperity deal with the UK in an effort to force the Government to accept lower-standard imports in order to secure a trade deal with the US. Does my hon. Friend agree that these bully-boy tactics by the Trump Administration should not be kowtowed to, and we should not accept lower standards in return for a trade deal with the US?

Water White Paper

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We must look at the pre-pipe solutions that she talks about, and the water White Paper emphasises the need to ensure that we reduce the volume of rainwater and pollutants entering the sewerage system in the first place.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The White Paper says that, along with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, DEFRA will implement a new “plan-making system”—a term I have frankly never heard before. I do not know what it means, but it says that water companies will be designated a consultation body for this new plan-making system. Separately, it says that the Government will only consider making water companies statutory consultees in planning applications. Meanwhile, the White Paper says that the Government will ensure that the “right to connect” supports their house building targets. Does the Secretary of State understand that if water companies are not statutory consultees, and we keep building more housing and connecting it to the system, we will simply get more sewage?

[Emma Reynolds]

The Water Minister chairs a water delivery taskforce, and she is getting a grip on the investment in water assets and infrastructure that water companies have promised. That will ensure that there are fewer leaks and that there is less pressure on the system. We believe there is a way to ensure that we boost water capacity and build more homes in our country.

Water Scarcity

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered water scarcity. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. In a country where we always complain about the rain, we have somehow contrived to have a water shortage. I am reminded of the words of the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge:

“Water, water, everywhere

But not a drop to drink”

But the honest truth is that it really does not rain like it used to. This year, the UK experienced the hottest and driest spring on record. Farmers endured a devastatingly poor harvest and lost £800 million to drought. Over the long term, the prediction is for ever greater weather volatility. In October—yes, October—my home county of Sussex was placed under drought measures, as Ardingly reservoir fell below 30% capacity, compared with the seasonal average of 76%, and there are greater challenges to come.

By 2050, the UK population is forecast to rise by 10 million. Further demand from data centres, renewable energy infrastructure and new industry is also rising quickly, but is yet to be factored in to demand. The National Infrastructure Commission projects a national supply-demand deficit approaching 5 billion litres a day by 2050 unless action is taken. That is a gap equivalent to the daily water use of more than 30 million people, and that does not even include commercial demands, such as farming, manufacturing, horticulture or business activity.

For something that has become so precious, we are remarkably careless about it. Fully one fifth of the water that enters the system is lost before it reaches even a single property because of leaky pipes. River abstraction now accounts for 61% of all environmental water abstraction, up from around 40% in the early 2000s. This is clearly contributing to severe pressure on our waterways, especially chalk streams, one of Britain’s most unique ecosystems.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about water abstraction and using water in the right places. The Independent Water Commission’s recommendation 10 suggested using pre-pipe solutions. Does he agree that mandatory rainwater harvesting on new homes and major renovations would allow us to capture water and use it at source, reducing pressure on reservoirs and the need for river abstraction?

[John Milne]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I very much agree. We need to look at every measure to utilise water that is already there, in addition to reservoirs, which take up lots of space.

When it comes to our groundwater bodies, 40% are already classed as over-extracted, and only 16% of England’s surface waters are judged to be in good ecological status. The National Audit Office warns that, as of today, 12 million people already live in water-stressed areas. Seven water company regions are expected to hit critical status by 2030, and the number rises to 12 by 2040. Meanwhile, average water use per person is surprisingly rising, completely contrary to policy. It is now at around 140 to 150 litres a day, despite a Government target of just 110 litres by 2050.

Water underpins everything—our environment, our economy, our wellbeing and, of course, our national food supply—and right now the evidence is clear: we are not on a path that will guarantee water security for future generations. The situation is not helped by poor management performance and under-investment from many of our privatised water companies, which has additionally resulted in a crisis of water quality as well as scarcity.

That is the national picture, but there are two sectors where the consequences are being felt most acutely: housing and the rural economy. The Government have set a target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament, but it is not going to happen without solving the water crisis. In Cambridgeshire, water stress has already delayed 9,000 homes and 300,000 square metres of commercial development. Over the course of this Parliament alone, more than 60,000 homes could become undeliverable due to water constraints, with more than £25 billion in lost value. Research suggests that in some areas nearly 40% of the Government’s new housing target cannot be delivered under current water supply conditions. Developers cannot invest when they cannot guarantee water. Local businesses cannot expand without commercial space. Communities cannot grow when basic infrastructure cannot be secured. Therefore, water scarcity is fast becoming a major handbrake on economic ambition, and in some of the UK’s highest growth potential regions.

In my constituency of Horsham, West Sussex, we have been fighting our own version of water wars for the past four years. That is a result of a unique requirement, known as water neutrality, by which no new houses could be built if they increased demand on water supply by as much as a single litre. That was ordered by Natural England to protect a rare river habitat in the Arun valley, threatened with over-abstraction. It was a daft rule imposed overnight and now it has been removed—again, overnight. Both decisions are wrong.

Those wild policy U-turns at a national level have left Horsham without a five-year land supply, turning Horsham district council into a wild west for speculative developers. Creating water headroom for new housing requires the Government to create new supplies, not simply fiddle with the figures. Looking at how Horsham has been treated, it is hard to have confidence in the Government’s bona fides on the environment.

The second area I want to turn to is the rural economy. Farmers, vineyards, garden centres and nurseries rely heavily on access to water. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, I hear regularly from farmers who have faced ruinous losses during drought periods. In 2025 alone, arable farmers have lost £800 million to drought. Increased water capture and storage is the obvious solution, but farmers face obstacles everywhere: historical abstraction limits no longer fit for purpose, complex planning rules and grant schemes not open to smaller enterprises. The Government have recently confirmed that they intend to reform permitted development rights for farm reservoirs. If the Minister could confirm a timetable for that to happen, I am sure hon. Members would be grateful.

The horticulture industry employs more than 770,000 people, contributes nearly £40 billion to the economy and more than £8 billion in tax revenue. This year, the driest spring since 1983, followed by among the hottest summers, has pushed many growers to the limits. Although hosepipe bans have become routine these days, the impact on business profits is anything but. One nursery reported to the Horticultural Trades Association that footfall fell by 20%, and it lost £300,000 the last time drought measures were imposed in their region.

An abstraction threshold of 20 cubic metres per day forces many growers to fall back on using treated drinking water, which is costly, inefficient and environmentally absurd. In Horsham, local growers tell me that water scarcity is now one of the biggest constraints on their investment. Ben from Tates of Sussex garden centres says:

“A few days without irrigation can mean tens of thousands of pounds of plant losses…and rising water costs are becoming a limiting factor on our entire business.”

The rural economy has the potential to contribute an additional £19 billion a year to the UK, but only if it has access to the water infrastructure it needs. What should we do? For housing, we need to be more water-smart. That means construction guidelines for new homes and usage standards for white goods. What it should not mean is overly restrictive rules enforcing hyper-low-pressure devices. Push too far in that direction and people simply respond by taking longer showers and double-flushing the toilet. Instead, we need practical, efficient, enforceable standards. We need retrofit incentives for existing housing stock, because old homes are where the real efficiency lies, and there are many more of them.

For the rural economy, we should introduce new permitted development rights for small and medium reservoirs. The current rules effectively block most farms or nurseries from qualifying. We should create more flexible abstraction rules for winter refill. It is not fair to ask farmers to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds building reservoirs, without the certainty that their licences will be renewed. We should support nature-friendly farming and soil health. Healthy soil can hold up to 350,000 litres of water per hectare, which reduces the risk of both drought and flood. We should recognise essential food infrastructure as nationally important, while also recognising the role that water storage plays in food infrastructure.

At the national level, we urgently need joined-up oversight. Britain remains without a single national strategy for water security. Responsibilities are spread across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency, Ofwat, local authorities and water companies. The National Audit Office has warned repeatedly that this confused accountability leads to strategic inertia. Funding decisions are fragmented, planning cycles are misaligned and essential investment—nearly £20 billion in resilience infrastructure identified by the National Infrastructure Commission—remains unfunded.

We should bring water resource management plans, drainage strategies and price reviews into a single co-ordinated process. We should launch a national water literacy campaign to put water efficiency on the same footing as net zero, and we should give one agency clear responsibility for delivering long-term water resilience, ensuring that all future demands are met. If we get this right, the benefits are enormous: a resilient rural economy that can grow and innovate; ecosystems that are healthier, more diverse and no longer pushed to collapse by over-abstraction; chalk streams that remain a part of our national heritage; secure food production; reliable water for homes, industry, data and energy; and a housing sector that can actually deliver the homes we need.

It is a simple choice: action now or crisis later. Water is not an optional extra; it is the foundation of a functioning country. I hope that we can agree that what Britain needs is not just investment and regulation, but a national plan under coherent leadership. We need a commitment that water security will not be an afterthought, but will continue to be the backbone of our infrastructure system.

Land Use Change: Food Security

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of land use change on food security.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the chance to raise this issue, which goes to the heart of our national interest. When I submitted my bid for the debate, little did I know that it would take place on a day on which there were members of the farming community out on Parliament Square with their tractors, with what we called a muck spreader where I was brought up, on a farm, but others might call a slurry tanker, and even with livestock. That is testament to the determination of the farming community to make sure their voice continues to be heard in this place.

In simple terms, this debate is about what we choose to do with the land beneath our feet. If we keep tarmacking and concreting over our fields, we should not be surprised if one day we find ourselves asking a basic question: “Where is our food going to come from?” We must not become a country that produces some of the finest produce in the world, to the highest standard, and yet becomes dependent on imports of lower grade, substandard produce. Domestic food security is national security, and it must be protected.

It is one of the principal duties of any Government to ensure that their people have access to sufficient safe, affordable and nutritious food. As Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, has said, food security is national security. If we cannot feed ourselves, we are vulnerable—economically, strategically and in the choices available to us as a country.

I sought this debate because of what is happening in my constituency, which I believe is a small version of what is happening right across the country. We face proposals for major development on open green spaces and on our farms—land that local people quite reasonably understand to be green belt, farmland and open countryside. These are not blank spaces on a map; they are working fields, grazing land and green buffers between communities. They prevent urban sprawl and prevent areas such as mine from simply being swallowed up into a suburb of a greater Birmingham. I want to look at three things: the effect on domestic food production; the environmental consequences, especially flooding; and the Government’s policy direction, which is pushing us down the wrong path, through the treatment of the green belt, the invention of so-called grey belt, and tax proposals that will make it harder for family farms to survive.

In recent years, households across Britain have seen food prices spiral. We see it every time we go into the supermarket; we seem to put less in the trolley but pay more at the checkout. Of course, that is driven by global shocks, the war in Ukraine and supply chain pressures. At its peak, food inflation reached 20%, and people saw it in the basic cost of goods. Global instability, import prices, exchange rates, skyrocketing input costs and continued pressure from the war in Ukraine meant that between January 2021 and April 2025, UK food prices increased by 36%, over three times more than in the previous decade.

At the same time, the UK’s capacity to produce its own food has steadily declined. We now produce roughly 60% of the food we consume by calories; in the 1980s, we were close to 78%. That is a huge shift in one working lifetime, and it is a worrying downward trend. The picture by sector is even starker. We grow just over half the vegetables that we eat and only around 15% of the tomatoes that we consume, and fresh fruit production stands at just around 16%. Those numbers should start to ring alarm bells if they are not doing so already.

While that has been happening, we have lost hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland to development and long-term environmental land use change. These are not temporary changes. Once productive farmland is built on or turned over to schemes that cannot be reversed, it rarely comes back; when it’s gone, it’s gone. We all accept that homes are needed, but it should worry us that so many have been placed on productive land when large brownfield areas remain underused. There is enough previously developed land in England to take well over 1 million homes, yet the easier, cheaper option of edge-of-town, green-belt development continues to be both developers’ and the Government’s preference. This is where food security starts being undermined not by global events, but by our own planning choices.

Against that backdrop, the last thing we should be doing is making it harder for farming families to stay on their land, yet that is exactly what this Government’s changes to agricultural inheritance—now widely referred to as the family farm tax—would do. Most farms in this country are family businesses. They are part of the local economy, of the landscape and of the food supply chain. The Government’s proposals would pull most of them into new inheritance tax rules. That is not a small technical tweak; it creates a financial hit at the very moment a family is trying to pass the farm on. If a family has to sell land, or even the whole farm, simply to cover a tax bill under the new rules, there is no safeguard that the land will remain agricultural. More often than not, it is snapped up by developers, meaning that previously productive farms become speculative housing sites.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate. The issue about the number of farms above the £1.5 million mark is that 30% of British farms made no money last year. West Dorset farmers are responsible for maintaining 70% of the land. That number will only decrease as they are forced to carve up their assets to pay these bills.

[Wendy Morton]

That is exactly the point. Many farming families—often the hill farmers, in particular, but the arable farmers too—struggle. The last couple of years have been really difficult for many farmers. If they have one bad year, it is very hard for them to recover the next year. They are working against so many factors over which they have no control, weather being one of them. It is really important that, in all our deliberations, we recognise that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I do. The hon. Gentleman talks a lot of sense. There are so many areas where we should be putting solar panels. I despair when I drive down the M40 around the west midlands and see field after field full of solar panels. I can understand why a farmer may want to go down the diversification route—because it helps to balance the books—but there are surely better sites such as rooftops and garage tops. Why are we not being a little more creative in what we are doing?

[Edward Morello]

I will happily answer the question, drawing on my experience in solar: it is because the amount of money for the export does not make rooftop solar viable on a commercial scale. To provide the simplest numbers: it costs 50p per unit to put it on ground mount, about £1 per unit to put it on rooftop and £1.50 to put it on carports. Unless we increase the export value to 12p to 15p per unit, it will never stack up. That is why.

[Wendy Morton]

I appreciate a bit of knowledge in Westminster Hall, but the point remains that we still need to be more creative in where we put our solar panels. Maybe they could be put on larger rooftop spaces, and we often talk about brownfield and urban sites; to go straight for productive green fields is just total madness. There are real concerns about proposals that would give Natural England sweeping compulsory purchase powers that could see productive farmland acquired for environmental offsetting. If that goes ahead, the loss of farmland could become permanent and unchallengeable. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at those proposals.

Flooding is another consequence that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs cannot and must not ignore. Fields at Stonnall Road in my constituency and elsewhere do not only grow crops or support livestock; they also absorb water. They drain slowly and hold back surface run-off. If we replace them with bricks, concrete, tarmac and driveways there will be nowhere for the water to go. We saw this recently with the heavy rain this weekend causing flooding more quickly because the natural buffers have been reduced. Every time it happens, local people ask the same question: why were those fields built on?

Natural flood management relies on soil, hedgerows, woodlands and wetlands, yet that is rarely at the forefront of planning decisions. If we are serious about preventing flooding, we must consider the cumulative impact of losing those natural soakaways. How is DEFRA working with the Environment Agency and local planning authorities to ensure that the flood risk from losing open land is properly accounted for before permissions are given?

I do not wish to challenge your timings, Dr Murrison, so I will start to draw this all together. First, food production must be treated as a strategic priority. Departments should not be signing off major land use decisions without asking the basic question: what does this mean for our ability to grow food and feed our nation? The NFU is absolutely right to call for food security impact assessments on all relevant policies. We have impact tests for almost everything else, and it is extraordinary that food security is not one of them.

Secondly, we need a firm and practical brownfield first approach. That may require investment to remediate sites, improve infrastructure or bring land back into productive use, but the alternative is the steady, irreversible erosion of farmland. Thirdly, the Government should revisit the family farm tax that introduces a new burden and risks forcing families to break up their farms and sell them to developers, which is surely directly at odds with any credible food security strategy.

Fourthly, Ministers must halt the weakening of green-belt protections, including through the grey belt. Our communities need confidence that national policy is not quietly tilting the scales against them. In view of today’s ministerial written statement, my communities want to feel they and our councils still have a voice in planning decisions.

Finally, we need a coherent national land use framework that recognises how housing, farming, environment, energy and flood management overlap. We cannot allow one Department to encourage woodland creation on productive fields, while another encourages development on the next field. Joined-up thinking is not a slogan; it is a necessity.

To return to where I began, land use is about choices. In Aldridge-Brownhills, those choices can be seen from our front doors. We know that when farmland disappears, it does not return. We know that if we keep building over productive land, we will become more reliant on food imports and more exposed to global shocks. Food security is not an abstract concept; it is about whether this country can feed itself at a price that people can afford. If we care about that—and we should—we must take seriously the land that makes that possible.

I hope the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling in my constituency and many others. Protecting farmland, resisting unnecessary encroachment on the green belt and supporting farming families are not about nostalgia—far from it; they are practical steps towards a secure and resilient food system. If we get those choices and decisions right, we can deliver the homes we need and safeguard our ability to produce food. If we get them wrong, the consequences will be felt for generations. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Morello Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I share the public’s frustration with what has happened in recent years, but I reassure her that we will take decisive action. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act, but we will also be issuing a White Paper later this year and will legislate to ensure that we have better regulation, a better regulator and a better water system for her constituents and those around the country.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

In West Dorset, overloaded sewers and outdated infrastructure cause repeated sewage spills. Rainwater enters combined systems, overwhelming capacity and causing them to overflow. The Independent Water Commission recommended pre-pipe solutions to reduce storm overflows. Will the Secretary of State introduce a national rainwater management strategy and require rainwater harvesting on all new homes and renovations?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I look forward to working with him on this issue. We will look at pre-pipe solutions in the forthcoming White Paper, which I look forward to discussing with him when we publish it.

Fresh and Nutritious Food: Inequality of Access

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Coleman]

That is a very important point. The availability of fast food right outside schools needs to be looked at and curtailed. The food is cheap, but it is incredibly low quality, and it is not doing our children any good. And school food standards are not properly enforced. There is a lot of cheap school food, but in some of the schools I visit, it is just orange—it is not healthy. The Government need to do a lot more to provide resources to local authorities so that they can properly enforce food standards.

We also need to do other things. We need to extend the sugar tax and the soft drinks levy, and have a general levy on unhealthy foods. At the same time, healthy food must not go up in price. As we make unhealthy food more expensive, we should bring the price of healthy food down. That is a huge challenge for any Government. We have lots of creative people in supermarkets, who come up with wonderful ideas for pumping our food full of unnutritious substances, but I would love to see them take the same effort to bringing healthy food to the population at a price that can be afforded.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I wonder whether the root of the solution is for local authorities and schools to have mandatory minimum purchases from local producers, thereby giving local farmers a supply chain into the local area and providing fresh food for children.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Can the hon. Member respond and also conclude, so that the Minister may respond to the numerous points that have been made in the debate?

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron]

I did not give my hon. Friend any warning whatsoever, so I thank him for his eloquence and for immediate springing to his feet on this issue, which he cares about deeply, as do I. Is it not ludicrous to outlaw the culling of badgers for scientific purposes—to try to reduce the spread of a dangerous disease—yet permit it if developers want it? That seems outrageous and is certainly lacking any kind of scientific underpinning.

Farmers, rural communities and all of us who care about animal welfare, wherever we live, deserve a clear, evidence-based plan from DEFRA that sets out how England will achieve TB-free status by 2038, with milestones, accountability and fair support, including very fair compensation for those on the frontline. The lack of direction since the Godfray review in 2018—under both the Government in power now and the Conservative one that preceded it—has increased and created uncertainty and frustration right across the industry. As Liberal Democrats, we are calling on Government to publish a transparent, science-led evaluation of all disease control measures, including cost-benefit analyses, vaccination data and surveillance outcomes, to ensure that every action taken is effective, humane and sustainable.

I echo some of the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). We believe very much that the way forward must be safe, effective and firmly rooted in evidence. Running the risk of attempting to be reasonable on all this—a Liberal Democrat trait—the evidence on the science really is mixed.

To show my own long standing, I remember some time ago the last-but-one Labour DEFRA Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—who is a good and decent man, I ought to say—at the NFU conference back in 2009. When he was pressed by farmers on why he would not support even a limited form of badger cull, his answer was, “Well, we would, but public opinion would not let us.” It is really important that we make evidence-based decisions. That was maybe very honest of the right hon. Gentleman, but it underpinned what is often the problem with democratic Governments: sometimes we make the wrong decisions because we do not think we will get away with the right ones.

The current DEFRA review, published in August, found that culling may reduce infection quickly in some high-density and high-risk populations. There is a big “but” coming, and it is this: badger vaccination delivers a more consistent reduction in TB prevalence across both the core and surrounding buffer zones, if delivered properly. That is a massive “if”, is it not?

Farmers lack trust in the vaccination plan because they lack trust in this Government and in their posture towards farmers and farming in general. Clearly, vaccination would be the way forward, but we can surely understand why farmers lack trust in a Government that have damaged them through inheritance tax changes—the family farm tax—and botched the roll-out of the sustainable farming incentive, and opened and shut windows for the likes of stewardship schemes and what have you.

This is not a Government that farmers currently trust, and the difficulty of rolling out a vaccination programme against that lack of trust is massively scaled up.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising one of the most important points that is often lost in this debate: the enormous toll that this process takes on our farming community. That toll may be the constant culling or, more accurately, the constant cycle of testing, which is hugely expensive for farmers. Many of the those who signed the petition in West Dorset said, “I would forgo the ability to sell my livestock if it meant I no longer had to keep going through the cost of repeated cycles of testing.” We need to find a solution, whether it be through vaccination or anything else, that preserves the rights of farmers to make a living.

[Tim Farron]

One of the reasons for that suspicion is that farmers know that vaccination is not simple. It might be the most effective way of dealing with the disease if it is rolled out properly, but it is logistically challenging and resource intensive. That is why the Liberal Democrats are urging the Government to invest heavily in improving delivery, to fund more research into how vaccination can be scaled, and to work with conservationists and farmers to make it viable on the ground. It has to go hand in hand with the Government keeping their promises on investment, particularly in the Weybridge HQ of the Animal and Plant Health Agency.

We face threats not just from bovine tuberculosis, but from bluetongue and avian influenza, not to mention, as all those who experienced it at the time will feel, the constant threat of a return of foot and mouth. The failure of this Government and their predecessor to invest properly in the APHA leaves us open and at risk—and again, it leaves farmers deeply suspicious about the Government’s way forward. We also need better surveillance. The DEFRA review that I mentioned a moment ago recommended more systematic monitoring, including the routine testing of found dead badgers, so that we can map TB hotspots accurately and target control measures effectively.

We have talked about non-lethal ways of dealing with the disease. Again, I reiterate that 21,586 cattle were slaughtered last year because of bovine TB. That is not a non-lethal way of dealing with the disease. There was a decline in new cases of around 42% over the previous seven years, but recent data suggests that that welcome reduction may now be plateauing. It is vital that we renew our efforts with a strategy that is both effective and humane.

I am moved by the animal welfare cost of this terrible threat that we have faced for many years, but I am also moved by the human cost, which has been mentioned by others. The farmers who deal with this issue—not just those whose herds get infected, but those who live with the constant threat—are not just financially impacted; they are deeply emotionally impacted, and at the worst possible time. The backdrop to this situation is the anxiety among our farming community—again, because of the threat of the family farm tax, which is coming in on 1 April next year and is driving many to the depths of despair. At the same time, for the first time since 1945, we no longer have a readily available farm payment scheme, which is an absolute outrage. That is a result of the last Government’s botched introduction of the new scheme, but this Government have ramped it up and made things worse.

What do I mean by that? The sustainable farming incentive closed overnight earlier this year in March, and is not likely to be reopened again until maybe this time next year—if they can get the computer system to work properly. We have mid-tier stewardship schemes ending in just a few weeks’ time. The new stewardship schemes open and then shut, and grant schemes open and then shut. Who gets into those schemes? The big guys who have the resources to be there, with a finger on the mouse, ready to bid when that moment arises. The small family farmers—the ones who are best at animal welfare, by the way—are the ones locked out.

Therefore, as we talk about the threat to family farming, to animal welfare and to the mental health of our farmers, we cannot look at bovine tuberculosis on its own. It is against the backdrop of a systematic—whether intended or accidental—annihilation of family farming in this country.

I hear politicians of all political colours saying that British farming is the best in the world; they are right, but rarely do they know why they are right. They are right because of the culture of family farming in this country. Family farming means close attention to detail, to husbandry, to animal welfare, to environmental standards and to food standards. That is why, in tackling bovine tuberculosis, this Government need a plan that wins the trust of farmers and of those who care about animals, but also underpins the future of small family farms, which are essential to our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Morello Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She has been a resolute and steadfast champion for the Hillsborough families, and indeed for the justice she referred to. As she knows, the Government, including the Prime Minister, have been working closely with the families, and I can confirm that the draft Bill will include a statutory duty of candour for public servants, with criminal sanctions for those who do not comply, and measures to decisively tackle the disparity between the state and bereaved families at inquests. As to timing, I know that everyone is working extremely hard to get the legislation right. The Government hope to be in a position to introduce a Bill to Parliament very soon.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

12. What steps she is taking to help ensure that the UK upholds international law.

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member will appreciate that as a Law Officer I cannot talk about the specifics of legal advice to Government. However, he will be aware of paragraph 1.6 of the ministerial code that acknowledges the overarching duty on all Ministers to comply with the law. That obligation is inherent in all the advice that the Law Officers give to Government.

[Edward Morello]

By the end of September, more than 640,000 Gazans are projected to face catastrophic food insecurity, while the integrated food security phase classification predicts that a further 43,000 Palestinian children will be at severe risk of death from malnutrition by next year. The Government will have received legal advice regarding the famine in Gaza and Israel’s role in it. Will the Solicitor General commit to publishing any advice that the Government have received on whether breaches of international law have occurred in the conflict in Gaza?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot comment on any legal advice that may or may not have been given or, indeed, whether it has been sought. What I can confirm to him is twofold. First, the Government take their legal obligations extremely seriously. Secondly, the Government are very clear in our position that the horrors taking place in Gaza need to be brought to an end.