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.

Gene Editing

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. By embracing innovation in the technology, we can lead and, by leading, show the benefits to farming and nature that the EU may wish to follow. The EU regulation is cumbersome. It brings gene editing within the fold of gene modification. The pace of change is slow and its scope more limited. It is better to move ahead and show the benefits, rather than wait for the back-marker to see if they eventually come to the table and make the changes, many years after elsewhere in the world has moved on. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the pace of regulatory change and the sluggish nature of the EU.

The opportunity of this technology is not far away. I mentioned a moment ago the grants that we had awarded for research into virus yellows disease. Researchers hope to have plants by the end of this decade that, if successful, will do away with the need for the harmful treatments and the dilemma that Ministers face as to whether to grant emergency authorisation. That would protect British sugar beet farmers from potentially catastrophic losses, while also increasing crop productivity and resilience, and at the same time increase sustainability and bring direct benefits to nature. I have long believed that there is an opportunity to see farming and nature not as opposites, but as complementary, and we can boost farming in ways that also are beneficial to nature.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) talked about the public response, and he is right to do so. I am pleased to note that the public at large support gene editing because of its environmental and economic benefits. A recent study found support among the public at 70% across the population as a whole. Interestingly, that rose to 80% among generation Z, so there is widespread support among the public. But if we are to realise the benefits and capitalise on that public support, we need to get the regulation right.

That brings me, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned a moment ago, to European regulation. Back in 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that gene-edited crops are subject to the same 2001 legislation as gene-modified organisms. Yet, as we touched on, the two techniques are very different and should not be confused. Gene editing speeds up changes that could occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding; it is unlike gene modification, which is where DNA from different species has been introduced to another, creating new types of plants and animals that could not have come about through natural methods. As a result, gene editing is a much lower and different risk, and should be treated in regulation differently from gene modification, but that is not the position of the European Union.

Even the European Commission has realised that its regulatory approach is not fit for purpose, but progress is remarkably slow in changing it. While it is working on its own legislation, it will come years later and be more limited in scope than what we have done in the United Kingdom. After Brexit, the UK was able to diverge, which is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which removed precision-bred plants and animals from the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system. The Act created a new framework for their oversight and provided the Secretary of State with powers of secondary legislation.

I commend the Government and the Minister on pressing ahead with the required secondary legislation to bring this new system in for plants, which is due to come into force in November. So why the need for this debate? This debate is needed because I fear that the current optimism is a high point in this journey and that we are about to see the UK surrender the advantage that will help our farmers and our nature, and that has been gained with the primary and secondary legislation in place. To prevent that, I am seeking assurances from the Minister in three key areas: implementation, further expansion, and funding.

First, on implementation, the Prime Minister’s EU reset at the UK-EU summit included plans for sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. To achieve that, the EU has suggested that dynamic alignment will be required of the UK, meaning that all relevant EU rules will apply to UK goods. As a result, some experts have suggested that there would need to be a pause on the UK’s progress in taking forward more effective regulation of gene editing, and that we would need to then wait while the EU spends potentially years putting in place its own more limited reforms.

Waiting would hold back centres such as the John Innes Centre, UK science and development, and give up our hard-won commercial competitive advantage in terms of the sector and the jobs it employs. I mentioned how important gene editing crops will be to areas such as my constituency, and to leading businesses such as British Sugar, which works with over 3,500 growers and is concerned about alignment on this matter. It would urge the Government not to sacrifice the UK bioscience sector’s progress on gene editing in the UK-EU trade negotiations and to recognise that delaying the use of the technology in the UK would put us at risk of falling behind other countries using it. I wholeheartedly agree with that analysis and assessment. Will the Minister confirm that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 will come into force in November this year, and that there will be no delay?

Secondly, on further expansion, I note that only regulations on gene editing plants have been brought forward. It was always the intention that plants would be first, and that regulations relating to animals would come second. This will provide another opportunity compared with the European Union. Discussions at an EU level suggest that animals will be excluded from its regulations, whenever they eventually emerge. It is vital that we capitalise on that opportunity, too. Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to bring forward the required secondary legislation under the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2023 to remove precision-bred animals for the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system?

Finally, on funding, I know the challenge that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers will be facing when it comes to negotiations with the Treasury, having been within both DEFRA and the Treasury, and given that farming is seemingly not a priority for the Labour Government, with £100 million of cuts to farming and countryside programmes announced in the spending review. Given that spending backdrop, one might have thought the Minister would want to maximise opportunities to boost farming and nature, which do not come at a cost to the Treasury.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The right hon. Member raises a very important point: the Government may be cutting funding for farming, but they are very much pursuing climate change goals. Farming is facing periods of extreme weather—we have just had some of the driest and wettest months on record. One of the great successes of gene editing was dwarf wheat, which was drought resistant and allowed places such as Mexico and India to become net exporters of food. Would pursuing gene editing for British farmers not offer them protection against climate change and therefore protection against cuts to the farming budget?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that builds on the earlier intervention on public support. One of the sweet spots of this area of policy is that it is beneficial to farming—because it cuts costs on things like pesticides and increases yield—but it is also hugely beneficial to nature, in terms of climate change. It is also beneficial for the public purse, because gene editing is a way of using science, in essence, to drive productivity and nature-beneficial schemes, rather than simply spending public money.

For context, I am sure the Minister will have seen the farming figures this morning. The Government borrowed £20.7 billion in June alone—the highest figure since records began, with the exception of June 2020, during peak covid. That is not an isolated figure. If we look at the previous month, the Government borrowed £17.7 billion in May. That was also the highest on record for May—again, with the exception of May 2020. So the Government are borrowing record sums, and the Department’s budget is under pressure—all the more reason not to sacrifice genuine scientific opportunities, particularly those that, as we have explored, have widespread public support.

Will the Minister recognise that gene editing jointly serves the goals of food production and protecting nature, and ensure that we do not give away our competitive advantage? Specifically, will he confirm that the £12.5 million from the recent farming futures research and development fund for the precision breeding competition—aimed at mid-stage precision breeding projects—will be paid in full? Will he also confirm that funding will be made available directly to farmers to take part in field trials, so that the science actually progresses?

In conclusion, gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity. It can boost economic growth, support food production, help protect our environment, and give us a competitive advantage over other countries. To sacrifice that as part of some UK-EU reset negotiations would be a serious mistake. It would be another example in a long list of decisions where the Department has been overridden by the Treasury.

There is still time. The legislation is in place; the regulations are there. Can the Minister confirm today that gene editing will continue to be a priority, and that the UK Government will secure the advantages that it offers?

Driven Grouse Shooting

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith]

The evidence is very clear that populations are up. I think all those who oppose grouse shooting, and who wish to see this petition as the gold standard, really should look at the evidence of the overall numbers in this country, which are up.

To return to the point about raptor persecution, this crime is not systemic; it is the work of a lawbreaking minority, and shooting organisations have rightly adopted a zero-tolerance approach. Anyone convicted should face the full force of the law.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman has red kites in his constituency, but we have sea eagles on the south coast. They have recently been reintroduced but sadly there have been cases of them being poisoned. Given its rural nature, I was somewhat surprised that my constituency of West Dorset had one of the highest numbers of signatories to the petition. I know the point has already been made about the need for legislation to protect the environment, but if people had more confidence in rural police prosecuting criminals who attack sea eagles, red kites or other wildlife, might not the PR battle for grouse shooting be a little easier to win?

[Greg Smith]

There are different pictures in different parts of the country when it comes to prosecution. I am very lucky in Buckinghamshire to have Thames Valley police, which takes this incredibly seriously—particularly its rural crime taskforce, which does a lot of good work in this area. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the picture across the country is mixed, as in any walk of life, and that some forces need to do much better.

To ban grouse shooting would be to impoverish our uplands environmentally, economically and socially. This debate is not simply about sport, but about the stewardship of some of the most iconic landscapes in Britain. Grouse shooting is not the problem. It is a key part of the solution. As this debate has shown this afternoon, with voices not just from the official Opposition, but from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the DUP quite clearly setting out the case for grouse shooting on all of those fronts, I think it is pretty clear where we stand.

English Wine Production

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Katie Lam]

I will discuss later in my speech what support I think would be appropriate, so my hon. Friend will hear my thoughts on that in due course.

I am incredibly proud that the Weald of Kent boasts some of the best vineyards and wineries in the country. Across the nation, 4,200 hectares of land are under vine—more than double the area just a decade ago. It is no coincidence that even French producers are quickly buying up land in southern England. They recognise the opportunity here, and so should we.

Our English vineyards are not centuries-old family estates, handed down through the generations, like on the continent. They are new businesses, built on entrepreneurial risk, with eyewatering start-up costs, and land that is among the most expensive in Europe. The vineyards springing up in Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and beyond are often founded by families who have risked everything: buying land at a premium, planting vines in an uncertain climate—that we all experience—and investing in years of training, equipment and marketing before even a single bottle is sold. Many vineyards are warning that rising national insurance contributions, and the recent increase to minimum wage payments, have left them unable to reinvest in their businesses.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate during English Wine Week. I could not allow her to list the places where we produce wine without mentioning beautiful West Dorset, which has 11 small wine producers, many of whom have been in touch with me about what this Parliament can do to help small producers in England. Dorset Downs Vineyard suggested that draught relief and small producer relief could be raised from 8.5% to 14% because most English wine sits between the 11% to 14% marks. Currently, beer and cider produced locally get all the benefit, but English wine producers do not. Does she agree with that suggestion?

[Katie Lam]

That is a similar point to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). It is not uncommon for vineyards and wineries to produce both types of drinks, and so have to operate under two different duty systems, which is also additional bureaucracy. I think that change would make a substantial difference.

Our producers represent the future of winemaking. They certainly should not be hindered by rising costs. We need long-term policies that will support their continued growth. WineGB estimates that there are 16 million potential visitors to the UK wine tourism sector: a huge untapped market. In my constituency, the excellent Chapel Down welcomes over 60,000 visitors a year for winery tours. It continues to be a major contributor to our local economy, and that is just the beginning. Producers such as Gusbourne, Westwell, Biddenden, Balfour, Dingleden, Ham Street, Warehorne, Woodchurch, and Domaine Evremond all play a part. We are so fortunate in the Weald that I could not even attempt to name them all in the time I have in this debate. It is, of course, a tremendous chore to visit them all, but my commitment to public service remains unwavering.

Many vineyards now make up to 50% of their sales directly to consumers, in so-called “cellar door sales”. That is often the only way for small producers to avoid the razor-thin margins created by intermediaries, excise duties and distributor fees. The potential is enormous. Wine tourism helps to create skilled jobs in rural constituencies like mine. It supports regional identity and allows producers to build a direct relationship with their customers. A targeted duty relief on direct-to-consumer or tourist cellar door sales would help wine producers, in the way that beer and cider receive help from draught relief and small producer relief, as we have heard from hon. Members in this debate.

Will the Government consider implementing a wine tourism relief, to recognise this youthful industry’s potential and give small producers the boost they need to truly thrive? More broadly, visits to UK vineyards and wineries were up more than half in just two years. That is extraordinary growth by any measure. What plans does the Minister have to support one of the few industries in the UK that is demonstrably expanding, creating rural jobs, driving tourism and building our export potential from the ground up?

If we are serious about backing British agriculture and business, this is exactly the kind of sector that deserves targeted support. Yet, as is too often the case in the UK today, the more businesses grow, the more they seem to be penalised by heavy-handed regulation. Take the extended producer responsibility—EPR—scheme, which affects businesses, including winemakers with a turnover of £1 million or more—a threshold that many of our leading vineyards are proudly surpassing. That success comes at a cost. EPR imposes disproportionately high fees on glass packaging, but glass is the only viable material for sparkling wine. On top of all that, winemakers now face hours of additional paperwork collecting data on the type and weight of materials used, simply to remain compliant with opaque packaging rules.

That is not the only example of over-regulation choking the industry. The previously flat wine duty has now been replaced by 30 different rates based on tiny, 0.1% increments of alcohol content. In the context of wine, that makes no practical sense. As has already been pointed out in the House by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), ABV varies naturally by vintage and by vat. It is hugely difficult to predict and the system causes confusion, not clarity. Although I accept that the Minister did not create that system, will he take the opportunity to outline what steps the Government might take to ensure that our wine producers can spend more of their time tending their vines, rather than filling out forms?

While the previous Government may have implemented some regulations that caused challenges to wine producers, they recognised the need for active investment in the UK wine industry. I was pleased to see them establish the future winemakers’ scheme, with £1.5 million set aside for training opportunities for the next generation of viticulturists. Will the Minister recommit to the scheme today, ensuring that the UK wine industry secures the future talent it needs to reach its full potential?

Though welcome, deregulation and training schemes alone are not enough. If we allow the definition of English wine to be blurred or co-opted, the industry risks dying on the vine. There is serious concern among winemakers that third-country producers could ship foreign-made still wine in bulk to the UK, carbonate or transform the product here, and market it in a way that implies it was locally made. That would be misleading to consumers, would undermine the integrity of the English wine label, and would make a mockery of the investment our producers have made in their land, climate and local communities.

I want to press the Minister on a simple point: will he commit to ensuring, particularly as the Government restart their third round of post-Brexit wine industry reforms, that wines sold as British or English must be made exclusively from British-grown grapes? He knows as well as I do that the majority of UK wine is sparkling. I am sure he would agree that English wine deserves the same protected designation of origin—PDO status—that champagne and prosecco receive in their respective markets.

There are few products that bring together so many public goods: rural jobs, tourism, export potential, environmental stewardship and national pride. English wine is not a nostalgia project or a romantic curiosity; it is a viable, growing industry—one that sits at the intersection of agriculture, manufacturing, hospitality and culture. To support this fantastic product is to invest in our countryside and our brand as a country. We have the chance, as English Wine Week says, to “Create new traditions.” I ask the Minister to seize that opportunity: let us support wine tourism and, above all, ensure that the label “English wine” means what it says—wine made from English grapes on English soil.

Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on leading this important debate.

The Labour Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to introduce the most comprehensive animal welfare programme in a generation; I am pleased that we are already making significant headway on that. It was animal welfare that first politicised me as a child. One of the reasons why I joined the Labour party was the previous Labour Government’s partial ban on fox hunting. I look forward to finishing the job in this Parliament.

My colleagues and I take the welfare of animals very seriously. The United Kingdom currently has some of the highest food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards for food production in the world, but we can and must go further. I am sure all Members present share similar concerns for animals trapped in cages. Sentient animals such as cows, sheep, pigs and chickens all have the capacity to feel emotion, ranging from happiness and joy to fear, pain and distress. It is stress inducing for animals not to engage in natural behaviours or to be unable to benefit from the landscapes across the country to which they are accustomed. Being trapped in cages that restrict animals’ movement and freedom prevents them from engaging in their natural behaviour. Not only are cramped cages emotionally distressing, but they cause clear physical discomfort and a greater likelihood of illness, disease and reduced lifespan.

The United Kingdom was the first country in the world to introduce an animal protection law—the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822—and has subsequently stated that animals are sentient beings that deserve the highest standards of animal welfare protection. However, the previous Administration did not do enough on the issue. Instead, they broke promises regarding animal welfare, made U-turns and signed trade deals that allowed in lower-quality products that did not meet health and welfare standards by omitting any mention of imports having to uphold this country’s welfare standards for animal products. They quietly dropped the consultation on hen and pig cages and abandoned plans for mandatory welfare labelling.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman raises the incredibly important issue of imports. Every pig or chicken farmer I speak to in West Dorset fully supports a transition, but they all raise the prospect of how we avoid driving up production costs and so increasing the cost to consumers and making imports look more attractive.

[Joe Morris]

We need proper, targeted support that involves genuine conversations, and listening and engaging respectfully with those communities, as well as a trade policy that stands up to those imports. I was delighted that the Business and Trade Secretary announced trade deals that genuinely protect the interests of the agricultural sector. I do not believe that would have happened under the previous Government, when farmers were far too often put on the chopping block. I went out to farms throughout the general election campaign and have been out to them since; particularly in the sheep farming sector in my part of the world, farmers are sick of being sold down the river.

So far, we have encouraged a move away from colony hen cages to free-range production through grants to laying hen and pullet farmers in England. Colony cages are already being replaced with non-cage systems that directly prioritise the welfare of hens. The Government are supporting major supermarkets in their pledge to stop selling eggs from chickens kept in colony cages by the end of 2025. While the previous Administration saw eggs from caged production reach 44% of the market in 2018, this Government saw that proportion reduce to 20% at the end of last year.

In addition, 50% of the national sow-breeding herd are giving birth in outdoor units—we have heard some of the arguments in favour of indoor production. While the move to more outdoor units is a step in the right direction, it is imperative that we constantly investigate how to improve animal welfare standards. As the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) said, that must be part of a genuine conversation between industry, campaigning groups and the Government. The work to promote animal welfare is never fully complete; we will hopefully have the debate in the years to come, and it will never fully be laid to rest.

I pay tribute to the farmers in my constituency, who strive for the highest animal welfare standards and look after their environment. They need our support in terms of both international trade and respectful, positive engagement with the Government.

I am a Member of Parliament for a constituency that borders Scotland, so it will be unsurprising that I mention the Scottish Government’s recent consultation on ending the use of animal cages. I am glad to see that all steps are being taken to reduce the confinement of farm animals, and the consultation will make significant headway in fulfilling the animal welfare agenda.

I am pleased that the Government are carefully considering the use of cages and crates, and I thank all Members for engaging in this debate and sharing a commitment to protecting the welfare of animals. This is an opportunity for us to truly lead the way in protecting the welfare of animals and supporting humane farming methods. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to achieving the most ambitious animal welfare programme in a generation; I urge further consideration of the use of animal cages for farmed animals.

Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend makes a sound point, which I will reinforce.

Let me go through some—I emphasise “some”—of the organisations that have been in touch with me about this issue. They include Vinarchy, one of the world’s largest wine companies; the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates; the Campaign for Real Ale, CAMRA; the British Beer and Pub Association; the Wine and Spirit Trade Association; UKHospitality; the Foodservice Packaging Association; the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association; the Scotch Whisky Association; the Irish Whiskey Association; the English Whisky Guild; the Brewing, Food and Beverage Industry Suppliers’ Association; the National Association of Cider Makers; and WineGB. All these organisations have spoken out against EPR and their criticisms of the approach being taken by the Government have been surprisingly—indeed, strikingly—similar. Minister, they cannot all be wrong.

Other assessments of EPR plans have been similarly damning. The Office for Budget Responsibility has concluded that EPR is a tax. It will not improve recycling rates and it will damage businesses. The Bank of England and the British Retail Consortium have recently stated that the impact of this policy on businesses will be similar to that of the increased national insurance costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said, all this is coming at a time of rising economic uncertainty, which is the result of the Trump tariffs. Pubs face an estimated £8 million hike in their costs, which will equate to an extra £2,000 per year for a large pub.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Like her, I have heard from the British Beer and Pub Association, and I have also heard from several of the pubs in my constituency of West Dorset. The British Beer and Pub Association has said that the increase per bottle on beer and cider will be between 5p and 7p. That comes on the back of increases in business rates—one of my local pubs, The George in West Bay, saw their business rates rise from £8,000 a year to £27,000 a year, with increased national insurance contributions on top. If we want to keep village pubs, we need to support them and not keep taxing them.

[Sarah Champion]

I agree 100%. These consequences —one hopes that they are unintended consequences—are the stark evidence that has been put to the Minister, but seemingly it is not making any difference.

I go back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay made. EPR is intended to apply to household waste only. As pubs and similar businesses already pay for their packaging waste collection via commercial contracts, they are being charged double.