Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

That sounds like a case in the area I represent, where Rachel and Andrew Webber had TB found. They then introduced an additional 11 cows, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said they would be compensated for only 50% of the cost of those cows, given that they were introduced after an ongoing TB outbreak had been found. Does my hon. Friend think that DEFRA should pay 100% compensation for those losses?

[Sarah Dyke]

I wholeheartedly agree. The financial burden, and also the emotional burden, on farmers is devastating. We know the pressures our farmers are under already. With inheritance tax, the recent withdrawal of the sustainable farming incentive and the countryside stewardship scheme coming to an end this year, many farmers are on the brink. As we know, TB leads many to close their farm gates for the very last time, so proper compensation is crucial.

The current testing system is failing animals and failing our farmers. Too many infected animals slip through undetected, and many farmers lose clean stock completely unnecessarily. All the while, the taxpayer spends nearly £30 million per year on compensation alone to UK farmers. In total, the cost of TB is estimated to be well over £100 million per year to the public purse.

I recently visited Gatcombe farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), where the TB eradication project is being led by the farmer, Robert Reed, and his vet, Dick Sibley. The research carried out there over the last 10 years raises important questions for the Minister about how we should solve this problem. That work has shown that undetected infection in cattle is the main driver of transmission and that the current skin-testing method has serious flaws. Some cows pass the test 30 times over, but they fail more advanced blood or faeces tests. Enhanced testing is currently illegal in officially tuberculosis-free herds, despite the fact that the failure to detect TB and the lack of trust in the system are causing so many of the issues.

National Trails

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of services along these well-loved routes. He is also right to highlight that national trails are accessible from urban areas, which makes them particularly special compared with national parks and landscapes.

Walkers are currently forced to deviate from the Thames Path at both Benson and Henley. While the weir project is progressing in Benson, the Marsh Lock horse bridge between Henley and Shiplake has been closed for over three years. The current diversion requires crossing the dangerous A4155 twice and takes the walker well away from the water.

Since coming into office, I have been campaigning to reopen Marsh Lock bridge. With the help of an 11-year-old Brownie, Claudia, and her petition, access to a pot of £500,000 has been secured to begin plans for repairs. I continue to have conversations with the Environment Agency to ensure that repairs move forward. I am grateful to the Minister for Water for her engagement on that issue, but there is a long way to go, including to find the estimated £2.5 million needed to actually implement the repair.

Further north in my constituency, the Ridgeway national trail carves an impressive path from the iconic Goring Gap, through the village of Nuffield and the idyllic town of Watlington, before crossing the border into Buckinghamshire just after Chinnor. The Ridgeway is known as Britain’s oldest road. It is believed to have been in use over 5,000 years ago as a trading route. We know how important connection to our history and cultural heritage is. It is amazing to think that when we walk the Ridgeway, we are striking our feet on the same earth as our ancestors all those years ago.

The Ridgeway is also well known for the internationally renowned Uffington white horse, carved into chalk, but such chalk is vulnerable to damage and parts of the Ridgeway are classified as byway, meaning they are legally open to motorised traffic. The Ridgeway therefore suffers damage from recreational vehicles and off-road motorcycles. Local authorities and National Trails UK find it difficult to justify the regular repairs needed to maintain the trail to the correct standard. Ian, the project’s trail officer, is fighting to prohibit recreational motorised vehicles from the trail so that road users are limited to Trampers, off-road wheelchairs and road-legal pedal electric bicycles.

From just those two examples in my constituency, we begin to get an idea of how important protected national trails are for nature and our history. After speaking with representatives from National Trails UK, the Thames Path and the Ridgeway, I know that stark action is needed.

There are three main problems preventing the maintenance of national trails: legal status, underfunding and bureaucracy. National trails were originally designated by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The main goal was to provide public access to the countryside and establish protected landscapes. Trails, parks and landscapes were considered under that legislation. It gave powers to Natural England to survey, plan and propose long-distance routes that would subsequently be maintained.

Since that legislation, however, the legal status and protections of those routes have deteriorated. Although national parks and national landscapes have what is known as a statutory purpose, national trails do not. They are therefore not sufficiently protected by or referenced in key legislation alongside parks and landscapes, giving them a lower status. That lower level of protection puts people’s access to the outdoors at risk.

Furthermore, the current designation of national trails is mostly limited to the width of the path, which is particularly worrying given that they neighbour vast biodiversity. The Thames Path, in my constituency, runs along the edge of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust’s Hartslock nature reserve, which is one of the two remaining UK sites to have the monkey orchid. The Ridgeway passes through the Chinnor Hill and Oakley Hill nature reserves. Failure to recognise the paths’ interconnectedness with other nature means that BBOWT has reported damage to the surrounding nature due to ill-thought-through diversions or people straying from the paths, but without recognition of the surrounding nature, there is no allocation for renewal and maintenance.

The second main problem is funding. Considering how many economic benefits national trails bring, they have not received a meaningful funding increase since 2013.

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

My hon. Friend talks about the economic benefits of national trails. In my constituency, we have the South West Coast Path, which attracts 9 million visitors every year and is reckoned to support them spending about £500 million. Does my hon. Friend recognise that a south-west inland path would maintain more hospitality jobs in Devon? Does he recognise the value for the hospitality sector in his constituency too?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend’s intervention speaks exactly to my point around the closed Marsh Lock horse bridge, which has resulted in a direct loss of hospitality revenue in the local economy because of people avoiding the path due to the long diversion.

As I said, there are many economic benefits to national trails, but they have not received a meaningful increase in funding since 2013. That is despite the fact that the national trail network has increased in size over the last decade, and will double in size by the end of 2025 with the addition of the King Charles III England Coast Path and the Coast to Coast Path. Increasing the workload while stagnating the funding is a recipe for decline; the Ridgeway’s funding now stands at just £1 per mile to cover all revenue, staffing costs and maintenance.

National trails are facing a range of new challenges that funding is not keeping up with. When speaking with Wendy and Ian, representatives from the two trails in my constituency, they both noted the changing weather patterns as a barrier to the trails’ protection. In Oxfordshire, rainfall was 300% above average in September 2024, but dry weather in the summer has worn away the grass on the riverbank in popular areas of the Thames Path, leaving bare soil exposed. The combination of bare soil and high rainfall means that there is an increased likelihood of erosion, with banks washing into the river. In Goring, part of the river path had to be closed last year precisely because of that issue.

Flooding presents an additional challenge. In anticipation, national trails are preparing to identify winter routes and diversions to avoid flooding, but without the funding, groups are worried that that they will find it difficult to tackle these new challenges.

Staff work day and night to support national trails. Hannah, who takes care of the Thames Path in Oxfordshire, says that they have consistently doubled any match funding that they receive. Despite their hard work year on year, a lack of funding coupled with inflation pressures has caused them to make some difficult decisions, cutting funding for improvement projects, engagement activities, information provision and volunteer programmes to stay afloat. With rising costs, there may soon be nothing left to cut.

A third issue facing national trails is bureaucracy. For work to be carried out adjacent to the River Thames, there is a need for a flood risk activity permit, but there is currently a four-month delay from the EA in issuing these. In addition, for some of the year, such as in winter when the river is flowing fast or in flood, work cannot be carried out, but funding is still given year by year. That leaves an extremely short window for work to be done, if there is any opportunity at all, and funds often cannot be used in time.

Although I have painted a bleak picture so far, some simple changes could improve the future of national trails. I make three recommendations to Government. First, they should support a statutory purpose for national trails, including them in the group with national parks and national landscapes. With a statutory purpose would come the duty to protect and enhance people’s access to the outdoor and to experience the national trails. It would give national trails a proper place in the planning system, and would help to stop the loss of trails to development, as has already happened to the new King Charles III trail. Changes to the national planning policy framework, such as making it clear that changes to national trails require the consent of the Secretary of State, would further protect their status. Automatically, with small cost-free changes, we can better protect national trails for future generations.

Secondly, the Government should invest in national trails properly, or at least restore their funding in line with inflation from the 2013 benchmark. Further, those funding settlements should be made three years long. Thirdly, the Government should communicate with agencies, such as the EA, that have responsibilities that interact with national trails to ensure that they produce assessments in a timely manner and are given the resources that they need to maintain assets, such as the Marsh Lock horse bridge and Benson weir. Without that, national trails are in danger of falling below the quality standard. In 2023, the Disabled Ramblers’ condition monitoring report revealed that nearly 80% of the 50 miles surveyed along the Ridgeway did not meet the established standards.

The Government have previously recognised the vital role that national trails play in rural tourism, promoting the cultural assets of England and the health of the population. With proper funding and support, we can ensure internationally high standards and deliver more for people and nature.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing this debate on an important issue. I recognise his long-standing interest in the Thames Path, which runs through his constituency, and his assiduous representation of his constituents through the long series of parliamentary questions he has tabled since entering this House.

The Government are committed to protecting, enhancing and expanding access to national trails. Let us think of other countries. The Camino de Santiago starts in France and goes through Spain. A friend is currently following one of the long-distance paths in Portugal on a bike, finding out about the hills not shown on the map; the map is two dimensional but there are three dimensions out there. The grand routes in France—such as the GR20, or Grand Route Vingt, which that bisects Corsica—are epic, long-distance, mythical trails that connect us to thousands of years of human history.

Every town and constituency in this country has a Green Lane that was literally a green lane. It is important to protect them, not just for inclusive access for local people and the benefits to tourism, but because they say something important and cultural about the human condition, heritage and history.

We have 16 national trails across England and Wales. As the former MP for Wakefield, I know and dearly love the Pennine Way. We always had a new year’s day walk; we would drag the children out, complaining, and then they would find an animal skull and spend the rest of the walk asking what it was and whether they could put it in their pocket. We showed them the Ladybower reservoir where the Dambusters practised for their assault on Germany. Those are iconic, special places that have a heritage in the hearts of local people whose forefathers and foremothers did the Kinder trespass, coming up from Sheffield and Manchester to assert their right to access those beautiful landscapes.

Before the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) leaves, I want to say that in Northern Ireland the national trails are mainly supported by Northern Ireland Government bodies and not the UK national trail funding pot. I like the sound of the Ulster Way and I will look it up next time I am in Magherafelt visiting my uncle.

The Pennine trail up and down the backbone of England offers incredible views over the Peak district and the Yorkshire dales. The South Downs Way runs between Winchester and Beachy Head for more than 100 miles. Those trails are vital public assets that promote wellbeing, health and tourism. It was the previous Labour Government that started work on the vision of an England coastal path, which will be completed under this Government. The King Charles III England Coast Path will be completed next year, an incredible infrastructure achievement.

[Richard Foord]

The King Charles III coastal path will be an impressive achievement, if we can make it happen. Would the Minister commend the section between Lyme Regis and Sidmouth in my constituency? Would she also pay tribute to the National Trust, which does great work in maintaining our coastal paths?

[Mary Creagh]

I pay tribute to that section. I have not been to that part of the path but I opened a section of the coastal path in 2011 or 2012, when, sadly, no Minister from the coalition Government could be found to make the journey to Dorset. I was asked as the shadow Secretary of State, and was happy to walk up and down—a lot of up and down—with a pint of foaming ale at the end, which made the visit worthwhile. Achieving these paths requires lots of partners, and the hon. Member rightly mentions the National Trust, which does incredible work in maintaining and protecting the paths through its huge membership support. I was down in Dorset with the National Trust in March, releasing the first wild beaver on the Isle of Purbeck. The National Trust plays an important role in the life of this nation.

When the coastal path is finished, we will have an extraordinary national corridor of access: a 4,750 mile path around England. I have walked certain sections of the Appalachian trail in America, and have heard stories about who goes on these long-distance paths and why. We also have seen the story of “The Salt Path”, which is now subject to some controversy. The Appalachian trail was used by lots of Vietnam veterans as a way of healing; they walked from Georgia to Maine as a way of processing and dealing with the trauma that they had suffered as people who had served their country. Imagine walking 5,000 miles around England! It is lifetime’s work; I do not know whether I will have time to do all of it, but I will certainly have to mark off the bits I have done already.

Since 2009, successive Governments have invested £25.6 million in the planning and establishment of the coastal trail. Successive Governments have recognised the value it will have in connecting communities, landscapes and coastlines, and boosting rural economies. It will be a really important part of rural economic growth. This has never been done before. I remember that, when the Welsh completed their coastal path ahead of us—which was obviously galling—there were articles in The New York Times about it. The path became a tourism destination, with the breathtaking sweep of the Atlantic coast down there. Obviously we have some drier bits, certainly down the east coast, which I know and love dearly—particularly sections around Bridlington and Filey. Coast paths generate a huge amount for local economies. Research has shown that more than £300 million has been spent in local economies by people walking on England coast paths, directly supporting almost 6,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

This Government have backed their commitment to access with action. Since 2022, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has invested £2.5 million into the protected landscapes partnership, which brings together the National Landscapes Association, National Parks England, National Trails UK and Natural England. The partnership focuses on enhancing access and ensuring that our trails have a real impact on people, nature and climate.

One of the most innovative projects under the partnership is the coastal wildbelt project, which is being led by National Trails UK. It focuses on the coastal margin adjacent to the England coast path, which amounts to an area the size of Dorset. Our pilots will identify innovative ways to connect the public with this coastal area around the country. They will also identify ways to better drive nature recovery in these places, because once the path is created, access is created, so we will be able protect and restore nature in some hard-to-reach places.

We have also provided around £5.5 million in support to National Trails UK to enable it to continue its vital work of protecting and restoring the trail network. Trail maintenance funding is provided through Natural England, which is responsible for managing those relationships and ensuring that the trails are well cared for.

Global Plastics Treaty

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The world produces over 460 million tonnes of plastic each year. On our current trajectory, plastic pollution is set to triple by 2040, and every year 11 million tonnes of plastic goes into our oceans.

In Devon, this picture is very obvious. According to the Marine Conservation Society’s data, an average of 103 litter items were found per 100 metres of beach in Devon. The vast majority are single-use plastics and packaging, and anyone taking the very wise decision to have a holiday in Devon this year will see from it themselves. I have seen it for myself. When I wander along the beaches of Sidmouth, Seaton and Beer, I see bottles and wrappers washing up with the tide, wedged between pebbles and entangled in seaweed. We are very fortunate to have some fantastic volunteers, with groups such as the Sidmouth Plastic Warriors, who give freely of their time to clean our beaches. On its most recent outing last month, 30 people picked up an incredible 70 bags of litter. Their work is extraordinary, but there should not be 70 bags of plastic litter on the beaches of Sidmouth.

Of course, the problem does not start on the beach. It starts in how we produce and consume plastic in the first place, but there are serious shortcomings in the UK’s recycling. We were sold a myth that if we just spent a little bit of time each week sorting our rubbish, the problem would take care of itself. However, in 2024 CleanHub reported that the UK exported 600,000 tonnes of plastic waste to countries around the world to be recycled, and these places do not have the infrastructure to recycle properly. Much of this is burned or dumped, and we have seen evidence that it is polluting other countries’ ecosystems, while we tick a box and say it has been recycled.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

On this important point about the capacity of different countries to hit certain standards, the hon. Gentleman may have reprocessors—companies that take plastic waste and repurpose it—in his constituency. An important part of this debate has to be about packaging recovery notes and packaging export recovery notes, which provide an equivalence, but waste is often taken to countries such as Turkey that have much lower standards than in this country, which is bad not only for British businesses, but for the global environment. I think the Government are working on that, and I would love to hear a bit more about that from the Minister, but what does the hon. Gentleman have to say about it?

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. The business of our standards being very different is one we should look at first. These notes plainly need to be looked at, and we will have to go about some international negotiations to try to improve standards elsewhere. The UK has high recycling standards internationally, but it is not acceptable to simply offshore the problem, which does not serve any of us well.

Not only is plastic waste a hazard to people, but it is killing seabirds, as well as hundreds of thousands of sea mammals, turtles and fish, and it is having a devastating impact on our environment more broadly.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s banning of disposable plastic vapes is another way we can help reduce this plastic waste?

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. I voted in favour of that initiative when it came before us, and the banning of disposable plastic vapes was very welcome.

Too much waste still ends up in incinerators. Sometimes, what we think will be repurposed or recycled is in fact burned. The number of incinerators in the UK has risen from 38 to 52 in the last five years. This is the dirtiest form of energy production, releasing more greenhouse gases than any other method.

While my constituents may have been enjoying their ice creams at Seaton or walking the south-west coast path during the recent heatwave, these hotter summers are a stark reminder of our collective failure to tackle climate change. If we can increase the amount of plastic we reuse and create the circular economy that my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, we can use less disposable plastic and less single-use plastic, and therefore reduce carbon emissions.

Germany is the leading recycler of municipal waste in the European Union, which is partly down to its deposit refund scheme. Recycling rates on plastic bottles have reached an outstanding 98% in Germany. I have to acknowledge that it is thanks to the measures the Government introduced in January that a deposit return scheme for plastic and metal containers will go live in the UK in 2027. This scheme, which will offer a small refund for returning bottles and cans in the UK, is a practical step towards reusing plastic.

Although national action is welcome, we need to match our own UK action with international action, and the UK can be a real leader in this space. We can press for our ambition to be matched by other countries in the global plastics treaty negotiations. We must push for legally binding targets to reduce plastic production elsewhere, not just voluntary pledges. We offshore a lot of our production—including to China, which accounts for 40% of the world’s plastic production. We know that the carbon emissions produced as a result are staggering, and we must do something about them. If the Government are serious about deepening ties with Beijing, they must also be serious about holding it to account, and that starts with applying pressure at the global plastics treaty negotiations next month.

As we know, the US President has never been a great advocate for tackling climate change or reducing plastic waste. He made that abundantly clear in his attention-seeking stunt in February, when he proudly brought back plastic straws. At the heads of delegation meeting earlier this month, the US backtracked on its previous position. It walked away from earlier commitments on control measures and financing, and came out firmly against plastic production caps. The Prime Minister has explicitly cited family values as a foundation of his strong relationship with the US President. Could the Minister urge the Prime Minister to leverage that personal connection, and ask the President to consider not just global leadership, but the world that his own family will inherit? We have to consider young people in this picture, and for that we will need serious and concrete commitments at the global plastics treaty negotiations.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, much of which I agree with. I am sure that he, like me, visits many schools. Does he agree that when he visits them and speaks to young people, they are very, very concerned about the environment, and in particular plastic pollution? In many ways, our great hope is that their laser focus on this issue will be reflected in the policy of future generations and that plastic production is reduced.

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Gentleman is dead right. Children from Sidmouth primary school wrote to me earlier in the year, urging me to advocate for reduced plastic use and for cutting down our plastic use. I quoted them in a debate and the Minister for Nature, who is no longer in her place, summed up the debate with their words.

Let us be honest: voluntary efforts have failed. The World Wildlife Fund reports that in the past five years plastic pollution has increased by 50%, despite a 60% rise in national and voluntary initiatives. The treaty must therefore tackle the source of the problem—the production of plastic—and confront the power of the fossil fuel lobby, which is desperately trying to water down the talks. At last year’s round of negotiations, 220 fossil fuel lobbyists were present in Busan. Their goal was to protect their own profit, not the planet. We cannot allow short-term commercial interests to derail the long-term health of our oceans and communities. Plastic production is forecast to triple by 2040. If we do not act, no recycling scheme will be enough.

I will hand my last paragraph to the children at Sidmouth primary school. They want to see “deeds, not words”.

Sewage

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to bring the House’s attention to my constituents’ concern about the continuing discharge of raw sewage into our local seas and other bodies of water. In my constituency, we saw 529 such discharges in 2024 from just 14 storm overflow points. These incidents continued for a combined duration of over 6,200 hours. That is simply not acceptable. It poses a serious threat not only to public health and the environment but to our local tourism and marine economy, on which so many of my constituents depend. We must act decisively to improve our ageing water infrastructure, enforce stricter regulations and demand transparency from our water companies, from Ofwat and from the Environment Agency.

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

The hon. Lady has mentioned Ofwat. Last August, it recommended penalties for four water companies amounting to £168 million, but so far it has not collected one penny. Does she agree that Ofwat needs to be scrapped?

[Alison Griffiths]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s diagnosis, but I do agree that the fines need to be collected and distributed.

The other issues that have been identified in my constituency—I imagine that they are wider issues, too—are illegal misconnections and cowboy builders, which we must crack down on. Without addressing those issues, we will not get the results that we need, and constituents need to know what is being done to stop them.

Since being elected, I have had constructive engagement with Southern Water and the Environment Agency’s local team and head office. Having visited Ford wastewater treatment works and done a shift with the misconnections team in Bognor Regis, I know that work is being done to upgrade the network, but this issue requires a strategic, cross-agency approach—one that considers the serious impact of the Government’s continued pursuit of house building on our floodplains on flood resilience and sewage discharges. When schools in my constituency are taking children to the beach and being told that they cannot swim in the sea, it is not just disappointing; it is disgraceful. It is not the legacy that we want to leave for the next generation—we owe them better.

Environmental Protection

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Growing up, it was second nature for us to rinse out our milk bottles and put them out for the milkman to collect the next day. It was a very simple system, and it worked. Then came the rise of single-use plastics, and for a while we convinced ourselves that recycling was enough. We felt that as long as we put our plastic bottles in the right bin, they would be dealt with responsibly, but that view completely changed when we discovered what was really happening to some of our exported waste. Britain was the largest exporter of waste to Turkey last year; in 2023, it exported more than 140,000 tonnes. We have also learned that so-called energy from waste plants are producing harmful emissions, much of them from burning plastic waste that could have been reused. I have seen in my east Devon constituency the effect of plastic not making it into the recycling bins at all.

The UK goes through an estimated 14 billion plastic bottles every year. They wash up on beautiful beaches in Sidmouth, Seaton and Beer. In 2019, volunteers collecting waste along Devon’s beaches found 12,000 pieces of plastic in one day. Groups such as Sidmouth Plastic Warriors do fantastic work as volunteers to clean up, but they should not have to. Last year, children from Sidmouth primary school created a message-in-a-bottle exhibit, which highlighted the problem of plastic waste in Devon’s seas. Their messages were eye-opening. One child wrote:

“I want to swim in the sea with fish, not rubbish.”

Another specifically directed her message to MPs, saying:

“Whatever you’re doing it’s not enough.”

Another simply wrote, “Deeds, not words”. Their words were a powerful reminder, for me at least, that although we must lead, we can also follow the example of other countries. While serving in Germany with the British Army, we found that returning empties to the supermarket was just part of the weekly shop. It became a habit, like taking a reusable bag to the supermarket. When I came back to the UK, I was struck by the difference. In Germany, one rarely sees plastic bottles on the ground. Here, they are in our verges, in our hedgerows and in our waterways.

A deposit return scheme will help. By charging a small deposit when a bottle or can is bought and refunding it when the bottle is returned, we are creating an incentive to reuse. However, the decision to exclude glass bottles means that we could miss an opportunity. Glass is one of the most polluting forms of litter. It is dangerous to livestock in the countryside, and to wildlife. In Wales and Scotland, different schemes are being considered, but having varying regulatory regimes in our four nations could bring additional costs and challenges. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) asked whether producers might shift from plastic to glass if that meant not incurring costs associated with the introduction of the deposit return scheme, which was an excellent question. If there was that unintended consequence, we could see heavier goods being transported around the country, and increased carbon emissions.

Overall, we need a deposit return scheme. Devon’s landscape and coastline need it. This time for half measures is over. We need real action, including on glass, across the whole country.

Financial Inclusion: Rural Areas

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Anna Sabine]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

In my constituency, cash deposits are valued at £2.1 million each month, which shows how reliant small businesses and charities are on having access to banking facilities that allow them to withdraw and deposit money.

I would also like to talk about digital inclusion. In a world that is increasingly moving online, many elderly and vulnerable people are being left behind. Older people are not necessarily comfortable using online or even phone banking. They are being forced on to those services, which reduces their financial inclusion and puts them at greater risk of financial fraud. Rural communities can find themselves doubly excluded as more banking services move online, with a lack of access to cash facilities locally and poor digital connectivity.

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

Residents have told me that they really valued paper statements. Some 6,000 bank branches have closed in the past nine years. Two of the new banking hubs are in the area that I represent, in Axminster and Sidmouth, but people cannot get hold of printed statements. Does my hon. Friend agree that they ought to be able to get them at banking hubs?

[Anna Sabine]

That is a great question from my hon. Friend. I believe people should. As I understand it, there is a challenge relating to banking hubs and printers because there is a data or GDPR issue with the different banks sharing the printer. That definitely needs to be looked into for banking hubs.

To return to poor digital connectivity, just this week I had an email from a couple in their 70s who run a small artisan business in Pilton. They are getting speeds of only around 1.5 to 3 megabits if they use a normal router, but when they asked to be connected to the nearby Glastonbury exchange they were told it would cost them £290,000, including VAT. I have heard about similar issues from farmers in my constituency who cannot get broadband past the boundary of their farm, which can be several miles from the actual property.

Financial and digital inclusion are critically linked. For those on low incomes, access to online banking can be costly, requiring a computer or mobile phone data. For people in rural areas, it is tricky to manage finances online with limited access to broadband.

Family Farming in Devon

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark.

I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) who, I feel, could probably have spoken on this subject for another half an hour, with plenty more to add. He is a landowner himself, so we note his experience.

I will highlight the plight of people in mid and east Devon whom I represent and who are feeling a great deal of uncertainty about the future. I will do so by giving a couple of examples. The first example is of a family farm near Cullompton. I will read directly from the letter that family sent me, because their words are quite touching:

“We have been farming within a 5-mile radius of here for over 400 years. Unfortunately the family had to sell the farm…in the 1860s at the start of the Great Agricultural Depression. It has taken us 150 years to regain ownership of a farm and now the inheritance tax issue threatens us with the risk of losing it again.”

That illustrates that we are not talking here about some short-term business enterprise that starts up and fades, as if it were some sort of digital business. This is a farm that has provided a livelihood for generations of people. It is not about capital or assets; it is about the hard graft of the people who do it.

The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock referred to the legacy of the previous Government and that legacy is worth examining. The cuts to the basic payment were one aspect of that. Another aspect was the Australia and New Zealand trade deal, which the Government’s own figures found had cost British farming £94 million. The proposed change to inheritance tax is but one more thing on top of all the other things that have given farmers a really torrid time in recent years.

I appeal to the Minister when he responds to the debate to take a look at this. We are talking about a Treasury benefit of perhaps £500 million in a Budget of £40 billion of new taxes. The sum involved is a small sum for the Treasury in Whitehall, but it will have an enormous impact in the countryside.

I will give another example: the Derryman family, including Peter, his brother, and now his son. In many ways, they are emblematic of the sort of people from mid and east Devon whom I represent. They represent thousands of farming families who work really hard, grafting day and night, contributing to the local society and local economy in Stockland. However, they are very concerned. They only own 120 acres, so people might suppose that they would not be subject to a tax that is proposed on only the first £1 million of combined farm and business assets. However, when we look at the value of the farmhouse, the machinery, the land and livestock, it all adds up to a potential inheritance tax liability.

The Government claim that 73% of farms will not be affected, yet the NFU claims that seven in 10 farms will be; those figures cannot both be right. On 19 November, I was lobbied by people I represent, who asked me to say to the Minister that we should seek to discriminate between the genuine farmers and the hobby farmers. We know that there has been a tendency to use land as an inheritance tax dodge, but the genuine farmers who spent the day in London—it is very unusual for them to put down their tools and come here—said that there has to be a way to discriminate between those who have bought a few cows as a tax dodge and those who earn their living from the land.

The reality is that these people are working unsociable hours, they are physically exhausted, and some have been plagued by mental health issues. Constituents have told me that this tax is cruel, because there are only 17 months until it is introduced in 2026; people are reflecting on what they might have to do to dodge or avoid that tax before it is introduced.

We are not allowed to use props in this debate, but I have a photo that was given to me by Peter Derryman. It is of his young granddaughter with a prized lamb at a show in Devon. I would say to the Minister: whatever the technicalities, this is a matter of the heart.

Sewage Discharges: South West

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire]

I absolutely agree on both of those points and I shall address them in slightly more detail in a moment.

In 2023 alone, many of the blue flag beaches in North Cornwall experienced more than 2,700 hours of sewage discharges across 148 separate incidents. This pollution, as my hon. Friend has just mentioned, is often linked to combined sewer overflows, which are activated during heavy rainfall to prevent urban flooding, severely compromising water quality and endangering swimmers and marine life.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He talks about storm overflows. The data recorded from storm overflows by South Water West is sometimes different to that which appears on the Water UK app. Does he agree that we need just one single reliable source for sewage outflow data?

[Ben Maguire]

I agree that we need one reliable source of data, and I will come on to address that slightly later in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I commend her for coming and raising that point. I completely support her.

[Richard Foord]

I am aware of the new storm overflow hub that the Minister talks about. My point is that sometimes the data that the new hub reveals is different to the data that the water companies are revealing on their apps, such as the South West Water WaterFit app. That was discovered by a constituent of mine in relation to Sidmouth last weekend.

[Emma Hardy]

I am more than happy to look into any anomalies, so if Members want to send through details of where there seems to be a discrepancy in the data, I can pick that up.

South West Water has 156 bathing waters, and I am hoping that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will be pleased not only with our bathing water announcements on removing strict automatic de-designation, and removing fixed dates, but also that we are redefining the term “bathing” perhaps to include people who go surfing—I heard that he is interested in surfing. That will enable more people to enjoy the water environment. At the moment the term “bather” refers to people who swim, but we know that so many more people enjoy our beautiful water.

On 12 November DEFRA, jointly with the Welsh Government, announced a consultation on a package of potential reforms to bathing water regulations, and those changes will modernise the system to meet the needs of the public. The Government have been clear that there is no excuse for poor performance, and we will not look the other way while companies routinely fail to meet agreed standards. Water companies must take seriously their role in meeting public expectations and regulatory requirements, holding them to account when they fail.

Let me recap our three-stage approach to fixing the water industry. In the first week of the new Labour Government, the Secretary of State and I met water companies to secure agreement to amend their articles of association. Funding for vital infrastructure investment is ringfenced so that that money cannot go on bonuses—we saw evidence of that just last week. That money is for infrastructure improvement. There are new customers on the panels of water companies, as we are looking at changing the culture and giving customers a voice, and we are also strengthening protection and compensation for households.

The most significant increase in enforcement powers for regulators in a decade has come from the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will arrive in the House for Second Reading before Christmas—I am sure I will see many faces in that debate. Those powers include providing Ofwat with powers to ban bonuses, enabling regulators to issue automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing, and there is also a duty on Ofwat to fulfil its environmental duties and legal requirements. The Bill will strengthen cost recovery powers to ensure that water companies bear the cost of enforcement activities.

The independent commission has been mentioned a few times, and it is needed to reform the whole water system. As we know, the system has developed incrementally since privatisation—I do not think anybody here thinks it is a system that we would wish to design in the way it has evolved. The call for public evidence will come in January, and as I have done before, I urge every Member across the House to get involved in that and find some evidence.

Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Aphra Brandreth]

Absolutely; we know that mental health issues have an impact on people across the community. It is not just the individual who is directly affected, but those around that person.

The RABI survey found that women aged 24 to 35 had the worst mental health scores across the sample, so I ask the Minister to think about how policy can address that and how we can raise awareness of the mental health challenges facing all those in farming and rural communities.

I stress that there are some wonderful organisations, locally and nationally, that work hard to support our rural and agricultural communities and to provide support for mental wellbeing. I mention again the RABI and the role it plays in supporting farmers, and others such as the Farming Community Network and the Yellow Wellies’ “Mind Your Head” project, which help farmers when they need it most.

Those organisations, as good as they are, are not the long-term solution, nor can they find and prevent every tragic occurrence and consequence of suicide in the rural community. Any good doctor would say that prevention is better than cure. The cause of a significant amount of stress for farmers, particularly recently, has been Government policy.

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

I have just got off the telephone to a constituent from Yarcombe in Devon, who is a tenant farmer and is particularly anxious about agricultural property relief and the Government’s proposed inheritance tax changes. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is an appalling proposition?

[Aphra Brandreth]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing that. The impact of APR will be felt across the community. Unfortunately, in a community that is struggling with mental health, it is an extra blow.

Later, I will offer some thoughts on how we might better prevent mental health problems, but I will briefly mention a few other reasons why mental health issues are disproportionately higher in rural areas. First, there is the issue of isolation, which is multifaceted. It can be attributed to literal isolation, because farmers live in sparsely populated areas far from the nearest village; digital isolation, as they are without broadband or mobile coverage; and physical isolation from a lack of transport links. That issue keenly felt in my constituency, where many rural areas have little or no public transport connections.

A mixture of those forms of isolation means that people in rural areas, such as farmers, often suffer from loneliness. It is not easy for people to go to the local pub or café to talk to friends and neighbours when they live in the countryside. It is harder to get to those places, and harder to make time to socialise due to the demands of farming.

There is also the issue of rural reticence. There has historically been a stigma surrounding mental health; sadly, although we have made good progress in breaking down barriers and encouraging people to talk, there remains a reticence in rural and agricultural communities to talk about problems or feelings. It is not because of hubris or arrogance. Rather, the “I’ll manage myself” culture comes from a desire not to burden neighbours and friends who are also in the community, and will no doubt be facing the same challenges. I am confident that we can do more as a society to break down this barrier and encourage farmers to talk honestly and openly with one another.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Gentleman says decades. I think it was in 1991 or 1992 when the current rules were introduced. I can absolutely assure him that we are now on track for a stable future. That will allow farmers in his constituency and across England to flourish.

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

Family farms are very often cash poor. Each time the average farm is passed from a parent to a child, the family may have to generate an extra half a million pounds. They may deal with that by trying to make each acre produce an additional £40 of profit. That could send into reverse the agricultural transition to a more nature-friendly farming approach, if they revert to more agrichemicals and intensive methods. As I asked the Minister in an Adjournment debate last week, what did he do ahead of the Budget to combat this appalling measure?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Member asks what we did. What we did was look at the farming budget and ensure that we protected it, to allow his constituents and constituents across the country to take part in the schemes that will support them in that important transition.