Oral Answers to Questions

John Milne Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. I was delighted to meet a number of water abstraction groups— who might not be the WAGs most people think of—to talk about some of the work they are doing as farmers to make farms more resilient. It is a hugely important issue, and just this week, the Minister for Housing and Planning has talked about how we are going to make the rules for farmers creating their own reservoirs simpler and more straightforward, so that we can build resilience. We know what a difficult time farmers have had, with a particularly wet winter and a very dry summer, and we want to do everything we can to help them become more resilient.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

T3.   Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker. In just its first year, biodiversity net gain has helped restore the equivalent of 7,300 football pitches of habitat, leveraged over £320 million of private investment and supported more than 4,400 jobs. However, the Government’s intention to exempt developments under 0.2 hectares risks killing off this new industry just as it is beginning to thrive. This is a major Government U-turn, and the consequences for environmental projects in my constituency will be severe. Will the Minister reconsider?

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

Absolutely not. This is a very new policy, and BNG remains a legal requirement. These changes are targeted and proportionate and have been consulted on, and what the hon. Gentleman omits to say is that we are introducing BNG into nationally significant infrastructure projects for the first time. On a net basis, we think the market will continue and thrive.

Water Scarcity

John Milne Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered water scarcity. 

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

“Water, water, everywhere

But not a drop to drink”

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

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

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

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

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

[John Milne]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to please bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Milne]

I thank the Minister for her response. I guess it is quite a challenge being a water Minister at a time when we seem to have endless droughts, but there we go—I will not blame her personally. This issue is a great big challenge for Government, because we are discussing changes that need to be made 20 or 30 years in advance. Let’s face it—Governments of all kinds have not been the best at that kind of long-term thinking. I very much appreciate her words today.

I also thank hon. Members for all their contributions today. If there is one thing that this debate has shown us, it is how diverse water stress is; it is creating different problems locally, everywhere. However, we need there to be national attention on it.

My simple message at the end of this debate would be that we have neglected this issue for far too long. We have taken water for granted and we simply cannot afford to keep doing so. I hope this debate will contribute to there being a greater focus on this very important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered water scarcity.

Land Use Change: Food Security

John Milne Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton]

As the hon. Gentleman said, there are some things that we agree on and others that we do not. However, I have long campaigned against building on the green belt—on our green fields. Even during our time in government, there were certain aspects of planning that I spoke out about—those who were here at the time of the last Government will probably remember that—and, believe me, I will continue to do so, because I feel so passionately about it.

Over on Chester Road in Streetly, another eight or nine hectares in my constituency—again, green belt and on the edge of the built-up area—are now being described as grey belt and suggested for the local plan. It raises the same concerns: what happens to our fields? What happens to local food production? What happens to roads, GP access and school places? What does it mean when this pattern is repeated across the country? Chipping away at the edges of green space means altering the balance between built land and productive land, and once that balance tips, it is very difficult to recover.

The green belt is not perfect, but it has achieved two essential things: it constrains sprawl around major urban areas, and it provides a degree of protection for farmland and green spaces. To many communities, the introduction of grey belt feels like an attempt to weaken those protections by stealth, because once land is marked as “grey” rather than “green”, the presumption shifts, and with it, the likelihood of development.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In relation to the intervention from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), the fundamental problem is that although successive Governments have said, “We favour brownfield,” there is not sufficient push behind it. In my constituency, we are legally driven to accept every application on its own merits. Applications are made almost exclusively for greenfield sites, rather than brownfield ones. We have to approve them, because we have no legal means by which to turn them down. That is the essential problem, and I do not think that it has been addressed in the new legislation. There is not enough push for local authorities to promote brownfield sites over greenfield ones.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We talk about a brownfield-first approach, and it can work. We saw examples of it in the west midlands under the leadership of the former mayor, Andy Street. Developments such as those on the Caparo and Harvestime sites show that it can be done, but it needs funding to help level the playing field, so that brownfield is as attractive to developers as greenfield sites. It can be done, but it requires the Government to put money into brownfield remediation and to properly focus it.

Local authorities feel huge pressure at the moment, but brownfield sites, some of them derelict for decades, remain untouched. It is crazy. No one is arguing that the green belt can never change, but there must be a high bar, genuine scrutiny and clear honesty about what is being sacrificed. Above all, we should start with a genuine, not rhetorical, commitment to brownfield first. Farmers also tell me that they face conflicting pressures from all sides. Tree-planting targets, rewetting proposals, biodiversity applications—none of those aims is wrong, but when piled on top of housing allocations and complicated tax changes, they steadily squeeze the land available for food production.

--- Later in debate ---

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate.

My constituency consists of many acres of high-quality farmland. I am proud to be a Labour MP representing such a vibrant rural community with farming at its core. I hope the Minister is aware of some of the specific challenges in my county. It is no surprise that it easy to get solar panels into the ground in Norfolk, which is very flat and sandy; we are likely to be near good grid connections as well. We are seeing more than our fair share of solar farm applications. Solar farms are eyeing up our prime farmland. For example, the High Grove application in my constituency, if approved, would see a third of that site on best and most versatile land and 20% on grade 2 and above. At 4,000 acres, it would be one of the largest solar farms in the UK. Anyone can do the maths about the amount of grade 2 agricultural land that would be lost.

[John Milne]

In my constituency of Horsham, the peaceful rural village of Cowfold has experienced a bewildering surge of applications for green energy projects. Locals could be forgiven for thinking that the industrial revolution has arrived a couple of hundred years late. Why is that happening? I think the point the hon. Member is making is that it is all about the scarcity of connections to the national grid. Does he agree that we need a coherent national strategy for land use that, crucially, carries weight in planning applications? Right now, we are victims in a wild west of market-driven developments.

[Terry Jermy]

I agree. That is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made earlier. That is a long overdue measure on a long list forgotten under the previous Government, but it is essential.

I am sure we will be reminded that, overall, only a very small proportion of solar is to take up agricultural land. I understand that and I fully accept it. What I am particularly concerned about is the use of grade 2 and above agricultural land. The official statistics will inevitably include the lowest quality agricultural land—we have plenty of that in Norfolk as well—but grade 2 and above is precious, and we need to do far more to protect it. We simply cannot improve energy security but accept worsening food security. There cannot be a trade-off: we need both.

There is three times more grade 5 agricultural land in the UK than grade 1 land, yet solar installations occupy a staggering 22 times more grade 1 than grade 5. That is of huge concern. We are already seeing longer and hotter summers, particularly in Norfolk, and there are challenges for farmers; irrigation is needed more frequently, adding to costs, and more land is becoming unviable for food production as a result of climate change.

Let me be clear: I am not against the use of solar panels, and I back the Government’s ambitious goals to achieve net zero by 2050. Absolutely nobody would thank the Government for not doing everything they can to ensure the power is there to keep the lights on. The complete lack of action by the last Conservative Government on energy security has left us dangerously exposed—but food security is also important. The UK already imports a staggering 46% of its food. We grow only 15% of our own fruit and 53% of our own vegetables, making us one of the world’s largest food importers. A recent Government Food Security report found that we are 63% self-sufficient, down from 95% just 50 years ago. I appreciate that there are certain types of food we cannot grow and we need to look abroad for them, but why are we importing 2 million metric tonnes of potatoes annually?

A recent report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, found that DEFRA has no effective system of oversight for border checks, with inadequate and sometimes even banned products passing into the UK. The president of the NFU also believes the UK is not prepared to feed itself in a crisis, with specific reference to the consequences of the current climate crisis.

I am always in danger, when talking about food security, of channelling my predecessor and saying, “That is a disgrace!” but we are importing so much food, I dare say she might have had a point. I hope the Minister appreciates the concerns in places such as Norfolk about too much high-quality farmland being used, and agrees that we cannot trade energy security for worsening food security.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Milne Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates for rural crime.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

9. What steps she is taking to help ensure the effective prosecution of rural crime.

[The Solicitor General]

Rural crime can destroy our landscapes, jeopardise businesses and, over time, break down communities. This Government are committed to cracking down on crime and disorder in rural areas, through tougher powers on antisocial behaviour, farm theft, and fly-tipping. The Crown Prosecution Service has appointed a national rural crime lead, and last month it brought together prosecutors from across the country to ensure a co-ordinated approach to prosecution.

[The Solicitor General]

I am sorry to hear about the terrible experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I recognise the significant impact that the theft of equipment has on farmers, both financially and on their wellbeing. The Government recently announced an £800,000 funding boost for the national rural crime unit and national wildlife crime unit. Those dedicated police units will increase collaboration across police forces, and harness the latest technology and data to target the serious organised crime groups that are involved in farm equipment theft.

[John Milne]

Earlier this year I carried out a survey among farmers in my constituency, who said that they did not bother to report over a third of rural crimes because they felt that not enough happened when they did so. I would not say that nothing has been done, because we now have a specialist rural crime unit across Sussex, but there is an issue with police call centres and staff who do not appear to understand rural issues. Will the Solicitor General look at improving training at call centres in my constituency and across the country?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. I will certainly pick up the issue of police response with Home Office colleagues. The Government are committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which aims to prevent the theft and resale of high-value equipment, particularly for use in an agricultural setting. The National Police Chiefs’ Council wildlife and rural crime strategy provides a framework through which policing and its partners can work together, to tackle the most prevalent threats and emerging issues that predominantly affect rural communities.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

John Milne Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I refer him to the food security report. There has been no change to the amount of money available. The £5 billion budget is there; this is a discussion about who gets it.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Will the Minister explain to farmers in Horsham why he did not feel any need to consult any farming stakeholders in advance of this announcement?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that I made earlier. If we started a consultation on a first come, first served scheme, everybody would apply that day and we would have to shut it at that point. That is a flaw in the way the scheme was designed.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Milne Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I would be delighted to work with my hon. Friend on this important issue. The Association of Drainage Authorities is on the flood resilience taskforce, and the statutory instrument will be laid as soon as parliamentary time allows.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

T2. A farmer in my constituency tells me that even in a good year he is lucky to see much beyond £20,000 in profit. With margins as wafer thin as that, regular farming barely qualifies as investable at all. The risk of losing a huge slice of that farm to inheritance tax at random intervals would not only go to putting this generation out of business, but go a long way towards ensuring that they can never be replaced. Does the Minister agree that this measure—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to get our act together. This is the shortest set of topical questions and I will not be able to get many Members in. We have to remember what topicals are always about. I hope you have got the gist of the question, Minister.

Future of Farming

John Milne Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. My constituency includes a mix of rural and urban areas, but this tax hurts both, and that is the key point that I want to make. Local farms do not exist in isolation; they are part of an ecosystem of businesses that depend on each other to thrive.

A local farmer, James, has told me about his farm, which has been in his family since all the way back in 1904. James supports his young family and elderly relatives. It is not just a full-time job, but three full-time jobs. That is because to operate the farm successfully, James now runs three businesses: a fallen stock collection business, a pet cremation business, and the farm itself. Without diversifying, he might have gone under a long time ago. Farming alone often is not enough for many farmers to keep their heads above water. Now James faces a national insurance hike, a sharp acceleration in the phasing out of direct payments under the basic payment scheme, and the removal of APR and business property relief. How many businesses do we think one farmer has to run before they simply break?

Yes, there is a problem with non-farmers investing in land to avoid tax, but this family farm tax is not the way to fix it. There is too much collateral damage. It is going to hit too many farmers like my constituent James with a family to support, a business to run on slim margins, and a community that relies on them. The tax comes on top of the pressures imposed by a botched Brexit and trade deals that threaten to bring down the high standards of British farms. The money raised by the tax will not go anywhere near plugging the Budget black hole.

We need to recognise that a strong farming community is our best ally in moving towards a sustainable food system and job-filled rural communities. I call on the Government to work with the farming community to build a national food strategy that benefits farmers in the fields and the shoppers in our supermarkets.