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.

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[George Freeman]

The hon. Member—I am tempted to say my great and hon. Friend, since we have spoken in this Hall together so many times—is absolutely right. My constituency has 130 villages and three towns. At the last boundary review, I lost Wymondham because the rest of my patch has had 10,000 new houses built in the last 10 to 15 years. Very few constituencies, apart from possibly that of the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), have had as many houses built as mine.

That is part of the issue, but another part of it is that developers are tending to build on the outskirts of villages and towns, because it is the easy place to dump commuter housing, but they are not upgrading the drains. Little villages that have happily existed and been able to drain themselves for years and cope with some growth, are now finding huge problems with the existing drainage infrastructure not being able to cope, which leads to the sewerage problem.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the point about new developments, does he agree with the Liberal Democrats that making the water companies statutory consultees in the planning process would mean that developers cannot build where the infrastructure cannot account for the new houses?

[George Freeman]

That is a very good point, and I do agree—in fact, I will go a lot further than that, if Members will allow me to get to the radical, central elements of my Bill. However, I do agree that that is absolutely something we need to do.

Across Mid Norfolk, the 23 villages—I will not list them all—go from Old Buckenham in the deep south east, through Wretham, Hockham, Rocklands, Thompson, Watton, Saham Toney, Cranworth, a cluster of co-adjacent villages, north Elmham, Billingford, Lyng, Elsing, Yaxham, Mattishall and right up to Weasenham in my north-west frontier, which should not be flooding. That tells us that this flooding is not just geomorphological. It is the result of housing and the lack of investment in the drainage infrastructure.

The truth is that the patient people in Mid Norfolk—they are pretty patient, given that they have had me as an MP for 14 years—are getting really impatient with this. There is a contract between the state and the citizen whereby if they pay their taxes and buy a house, while they do not expect that much these days, they do expect that their house will not flood because of systemic and structural failures of national infrastructure. When it does flood, and they call, hoping that someone will come and pump it out, they expect the water companies, to whom they are paying very high bills, to be there and to help. However, the service and the responsiveness has not been there—at least until they are able to sit on the answering machine and ring enough times that eventually a tanker arrives. People are fed up with that and with the fact that this has been coming for quite a long time, so they are very excited by the fact that the Minister is gripping this issue.

Let me spin through the problems, as I have experienced them in Norfolk. It is, of course, climate change; let us not undermine the importance of that. Last year we had the eight wettest months on record, one after another. That is not happening for any weird, strange, unexplained reason; it is happening because of climate change. The issue is also that in my part of the world we are building a lot of houses—but the country has to build them, so I do not think that not building houses is the answer. The devil is in the detail.

Another problem is that our agricultural practices have changed. In my part of the world, a proud farming county, we now have a lot of contract farming. The big landowners are often things like pension funds and are remote. The farming is not done by a local landowner, but by contract farmers on a very tight, low-margin contract, with huge bits of kit, roaring around trying to get the job done and scratch a living. In the old days, on the farm I grew up on, in a rainy month we would go and mend the fences and clear the ditches, but that work does not tend to be in the farming contracts. Our county councils have also seen their budgets hammered by the rising cost of social care and through some of austerity 1.0. There is a basic maintenance problem.

We also have a big planning problem. The point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) was a good one, but the real problem in my patch has been that because of the five-year land supply, good planners have said, “Well, we don’t want to build here, and we shouldn’t build there,” as well as holding statutory consultations. Many of the big developers have then land banked—they have taken their permissions where they know they are going to get them and have not built them out—and then invoked the five-year land supply.

The five-year land supply was a sensible coalition policy designed to ensure that a 20-year plan could not be ignored, but it has been used to blow the whistle and say, “You are not building out at your five-year land supply, so we will now invoke the freedom to dump where we want.” It is a win-win. They then dump 100 houses outside Yaxham and 200 outside Mattishall—they want to go near Norwich, dump on the outskirts of a village near a road, move on and not invest. That is what has driven a lot of the problem.

Statutory consultation is fine, but this is also a planning issue. Part of what my Bill addresses is that we must somehow ensure that when developers are building like that, it should not just be that they are statutorily consulted and go through the tick boxes. The only way to make them take this seriously is to say, “Look, if you build, and within five or 10 years of your building there is significant flooding that never used to happen in that area, you’re going to be on the hook for upgrading the drains. You’re going to be on the hook for doing the repair work.” We have to create a fiduciary financial liability that makes the directors of those companies say, “I think we’d better upgrade; we’d better do the investment up front, rather than relying on consultations.”

In the end, somebody has to pay. To be fair, the water companies have got to pay more, but we are also asking them to pay billions to improve pipes, build reservoirs and stop leaks. Somewhere in the system we have to find a bit more money to do the upgrade of the traditional drains and improve the infrastructure. It behoves us all to give the Minister some solutions. Where will the money come from? Nobody in Mid Norfolk wants to pay more council tax; it is already very high and it is going on social care. One answer is from the developers.

There is another problem, however. When someone in Mid Norfolk picks up the phone and asks who is in charge, there are 36 organisations in Norfolk with responsibility for flooding prevention. In Whitehall that probably seems like a low number, but in Norfolk people only want one. We do have one: it is called the local flood authority. It is great, but it has no money and no power.

The good news is that in addition to the LFA we have the internal drainage boards, which have been looking after flooding since about 1550; they really know their ditches and dykes. Colleagues with agricultural constituencies—I can see them nodding—will know that these are the very local experts who know about hydrology and water and how it all works. The problem is that their budgets have either been cut or not maintained to keep pace with demand.

There are quite a small number of areas—I think15 to 20 districts—particularly in the east of England, such as the fens, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and other areas, that have a very high incidence of flooding. The other problem is that where they are being hit, the IDBs have to be propped up by the district councils, which means the residents in those areas are then penalised as funding is—quite properly—diverted into flooding. That is funding that they are not getting into their public services. There is a huge problem with the allocation of funding.

Sewage

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

In West Dorset, we are proud of our natural environment, but that pride is undermined by the relentless dumping of raw sewage into our waterways. In 2024, there were 4,196 sewage spills in West Dorset. Across our rivers and coastlines, that added up to more than 48,000 hours of raw sewage discharge. In 2019, just four of the 36 monitored water bodies in West Dorset were rated as having a good ecological status. While that all happened, water company executives paid themselves £51 million in pay and bonuses, and it is our communities who pay the price.

West Dorset’s economy relies heavily on tourism. In 2022, tourism brought in more than £300 million to our local area, supporting more than 5,200 jobs.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Chichester harbour in my constituency is the largest recreational boating harbour in Europe, but the damage being done to its ecosystem is stark. A recent study by the Clean Harbours Partnership found 105 pharmaceuticals, pesticides and recreational drugs in the water, with the amounts going up 100 times directly after a sewage spill. Does my hon. Friend agree that tourism is incredibly important for areas such as his and mine, and that therefore we must have clean water?

[Edward Morello]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, those 5,200 jobs in West Dorset represent hundreds of families who depend on visitors choosing to come to Lyme Regis, West Bay, Burton Bradstock, Abbotsbury and any of the other numerous beautiful towns and villages that we have. How can those visitors do that with confidence when there is a real risk that they will arrive to find sewage warnings at the beach, and when residents and tourists alike have to check an app to see whether the water is safe to swim in?

In West Dorset, we are lucky to have some of the UK’s rare chalk streams. Some have been mentioned already, and we have the River Piddle, the River Frome, Wraxall brook and the West Compton stream. They are home to delicate ecosystems and species such as the Atlantic salmon, which is in worrying decline. As it stands, even when new homes are built near these rivers, water companies do not have to be formally consulted. Making water companies statutory consultees on new housing developments is basic common sense. It would mean proper planning, proper accountability and the chance to avoid even more pressure on an already failing network.

The Liberal Democrats have been clear: we want stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we want water companies to take responsibility and reinvest in the communities they have neglected. We are calling for the introduction of the blue flag status for rivers and chalk streams, just as we have it for our best beaches. That would mean clear standards of cleanliness, proper testing and consequences when companies fall short. It would also help the public to understand when a river is clean and safe, and not just when it has been tested. We also welcome the speeding ticket fines that the Government have introduced, with automatic penalties when water companies break the rules, but those fines need to be ringfenced to go straight back into the communities affected, such as in West Dorset, to fix the infrastructure, restore habitats and protect the public. We need action, we need proper regulation and we need a Government who will support rural communities.

Bathing Water Regulations

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this important debate.

As a former cabinet member for climate change and nature recovery on South Oxfordshire district council, I have been involved in two bathing water status applications. One was successful, one was not. We often learn more from failure than success, so while I am delighted by the bathing water status achieved at Wallingford Beach, I will speak mostly to the desire to establish bathing water status in Henley.

What I learned is that the current system is perverse. It requires swimmers to brave potentially dirty water before a site is cleaned up. This topsy-turvy thinking is all wrong. That is why I very much welcome the Government’s review of the status and have contributed to it. My contribution focused on the bonkers criteria that stopped Henley from being successful.

Despite widespread use of the river for canoeing, paddleboarding, pleasure boating and, of course, rowing, only spontaneous, immersed swimmers count as river users, but if someone has my balance, or indeed that of the leader of the Liberal Democrats when paddleboarding, they know that being a paddleboarder does not mean they will not end up in the water. Equally, rowers are constantly exposed to spray and contact with the water during their sport—a fact that leads every year to reports of domestic and international athletes falling ill at the Henley Royal Regatta after being exposed to our effluent. It is embarrassing to know that during the regatta, if I flush the toilet, it may well end up on the sides of one of the boats.

It is bonkers that organised swimming events have also been excluded from the criteria. While I understand that we do not want to see the system gamed with events organised solely for the purpose of meeting the criteria, Henley has enjoyed a vibrant, organised swimming culture for many years, with four annual swims organised by the brilliant Henley Swim. I urge the Government to replace the current bathing water state designation with a recreational water designation with teeth, taking into account the full range of river users.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We have talked a lot about the ecological and health benefits, but there is also an important economic impact, as shown by all the events in Henley that he outlined. For example, tourism contributes more than £700 million every year to the local economy in West Dorset. We have the Jurassic coast and the River Lim church cliff beach at Lyme Regis, which has just been designated as bathing water. It is important to recognise that clean water benefits our local communities not just in terms of health and nature, but in terms of our tourism industry.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every year, we welcome to Henley thousands of visitors who contribute to our local economy.

I urge the Government to row back—no pun intended—from the idea that cost and deliverability should be determining factors for investment in a site. When Henley welcomes the world to our wonderful section of the Thames each year, it would be simply unacceptable to say, “Sorry, we must expose you to our sewage, because the Government think it is too hard to treat.” I would therefore be grateful if the Minister commented on the intended change to the criteria for bathing water status and met me to discuss the situation in Henley.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Morello Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

This is an issue that has been widely discussed. Our advice is that it would be difficult to enforce in practice, but I fully recognise the distress and concern that it causes.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to help support growth in the agriculture sector.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Secretary of State set out our vision to boost farmers’ profitability and sustainability in our plan for change when he spoke to the 2025 Oxford farming conference. That includes a cast-iron commitment to food security, a £5 billion agricultural budget over the next two years, a boost to profitability by making the supply chain fairer and protecting farmers in trade deals.

[Edward Morello]

Farmers in West Dorset are struggling with rising costs, the regulatory burden, market instability and supermarkets paying unsustainably low prices for what they produce. This forces many farmers to diversify away from food production in order to survive. Given the vital role that farming plays in both our rural economy and in food security, what specific measures will the Government introduce to stop the need for diversification and ensure that farming remains a financially viable and attractive industry for the next generation of West Dorset farmers?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important set of points, but I point him to the speech that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made at Oxford, because he made the very strong point that farming needs to get a better return for the hard work that farmers do. Alongside that, diversification is important to allow people to get through the difficult times, which inevitably come up in a cyclical business such as farming.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Morello Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extraordinary, given all the sound and fury from the Opposition, that they did not even spend the money that was available. This Government will ensure that every penny we have gets to farmers, because we are on the side of British farmers, rather than whipping them up in the kind of irresponsible way that the Conservative party has been doing.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

T3. Family farms across West Dorset fear closure as a result of the Government’s planned changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, and I urge Ministers to rethink the policy. The Budget also included the announcement of a UK carbon border adjustment mechanism to be introduced on 1 January 2027. That will place a carbon price on goods imported to the UK, including fertiliser. A carbon tax on fertiliser will only increase the cost of production for farmers struggling to compete with cheap imports, and drive up costs for consumers. What assessment has been made of that?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The proposal for a carbon border adjustment mechanism was supported by the previous Government, and we have confirmed it. It is complicated in the way it will work, and it will not affect people before 2027-28. The Liberal Democrats have shown once again that when it comes to environmental issues, they cannot be trusted.

Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron]

First of all, I am merely, and happily, an honourable Member, although it is very kind of the hon. Lady to call me “right honourable”. Secondly, we welcome many proposals in the Bill. We have already tabled many amendments in the House of Lords because although we think that the Bill is a step in the right direction, a lot more could be done. I will make more of that in a moment.

It is worth saying, as we are talking about bonuses, that although there was a 54% increase in spills between 2022 and 2023, it did not rain 54% more in 2023 than in 2022; there was no justification for that increase— and yet, the bonuses happen. I have never worked in an industry where bonuses were the norm, but my understanding is that they are paid for success, not as a commiseration for statistically proven and repeated failures.

It is easy to be angry about all this—I am, and maybe it is essential to be so—but it is just as important to be constructive and seek solutions. The depth, seriousness and complexity of this crisis means that the only answers that will work need to be radical and ambitious. Today’s announcement of a water commission, which will consider these things, is welcome, but also a little frustrating. Do we really need to spend the best part of a year stroking our chins and pondering, when what is needed is radical action now? With respect, most of us pretty much predicted the likelihood of a Labour Government two years ago. Did the victory strike them as a surprise? Why were they not ready with a plan to deliver much sooner than this?

I have a similar view, as I have just suggested, about the Water (Special Measures) Bill. It contains many positives, including criminal liability for CEOs responsible for severe environmental failure, but it does not amount to the radical structural transformation that is so obviously needed. The British people rightly believe that they voted for a far more ambitious plan to be urgently delivered. Indeed, those who voted Liberal Democrat absolutely did vote for that, so we are determined to keep our word and fight for that action.

It seems obvious how regulation could be made better. Water industry regulation is fragmented, with environmental regulation done by the Environment Agency and business regulation done by Ofwat. That just does not work.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

To my hon. Friend’s point about the need for a regulator with teeth, West Dorset saw 45,000 hours of sewage released into our rivers and beaches last year. The River Lim last year was declared “ecologically dead”. Does my hon. Friend have a view on whether the regulator should be able to impose fines on the water companies that reflect the damage they are doing to our natural environment?

[Tim Farron]

I completely agree, and I will answer that point more fully in a moment.