Agriculture: Government Support

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Richard Foord will move the motion. I will then call the Minster to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for agriculture.

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Turner. It is good to have the Minister in her place. I hope she will forgive me if I take a direct tone. It was a direct tone that members of the National Farmers’ Union in my area of Honiton and Sidmouth took with me when we met last Friday in Devon.

Food security is fundamental to our national resilience. At a time of global instability, farming underpins the rural economy, although we tend to take the produce for granted.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

Farmers across Wiltshire, especially in my constituency of Chippenham, say that Government support is not working. They are disappointed that Labour is compounding the damage left by the Conservatives, with an underspend of millions in the farming budget. Shockingly, the Government’s own statistics say that in 2023-24, between 17% and 29% of farming families did not turn a profit.

[Sarah Gibson]

Absolutely. I just wanted to ensure that my colleague agreed with me that we would like the Minister to consider farming.

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend rightly mentioned farming profitability. Minette Batters, the former president of the NFU, conducted a review of farming profitability in December and came up with more than 50 recommendations. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister the Government’s reflections and progress on fulfilling some of those.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. On profitability, the Treasury has treated agriculture support as a discretionary expense. Does he agree that we need an increased, ringfenced, multi-annual farm support budget that is fully inflation-proof, taking into account the fact that otherwise we cannot expect our farmers to meet world-leading animal welfare standards?

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member is right to talk of inflation-proof, because we have seen costs skyrocket in recent months. Fuel and fertiliser costs have shot up, while the price of feed for livestock is set to follow. Farmers are facing volatile international markets, while being told constantly that support is under review or “being monitored”.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I agree with my hon. Friend about sustainability. We are in a cost of living crisis, but also a cost of producing food crisis. It took the Government seven weeks to respond to my written question about fertiliser costs. Does he agree that the Government need to be much more on the front foot on these issues?

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Farming is not just another sector; it is critical national infrastructure, just like power stations and data centres. Too often, it is an afterthought—under-supported, neglected and left exposed to global shocks.

I want to focus my remarks on international trade, tax and planning, drawing on the conversation I had with Devon farmers last Friday. At a time when uncertainty on the international stage continues, food and farming policy should be about resilience. Instead, the Government preside over continued dependence on imports, higher costs and a system of support that is unpredictable and bureaucratic. Farmers are being asked to bear the brunt of shocks at a time when many of them are struggling to make ends meet.

Let us begin by talking about trade. The UK is far from self-sufficient in food. We import about 40% of the food we eat, and an astonishing 78% of our fruit and veg. Food security is measured not only by the produce on supermarket shelves; it is also about the inputs that farmers require to grow the food.

As was mentioned earlier, fertiliser is increasing in price, such that some of the farmers I spoke with last week are seeing an additional £60,000 cost to their farming businesses this year in anticipation of next, with fertiliser prices having gone up that much. That is because of the products that fertiliser is made up of. It requires nitrogen, phosphorus and ammonia, some of which are sorely lacking in the UK. We are only 40% self-sufficient in fertiliser requirements.

Between a quarter and a third of the raw materials required for fertiliser would typically pass through the strait of Hormuz. We are heavily dependent on imported ammonia. Only 45% comes from places other than Algeria; we are heavily dependent on north Africa for ammonia. This is not resilience. This is vulnerability in an uncertain world.

Global instability over the last few years, from Ukraine to the middle east, has already pushed fertiliser prices significantly higher. Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers Union, has warned that farmers are having to shoulder increased costs of inputs. Too often, they are only made aware of the price that they might have to pay for them once they arrive at the farm gate, such is the volatility of the market right now.

Red diesel tells another concerning story. Prices of red diesel in recent months have doubled, rising from 69p a litre at the start of the middle east conflict, to well over £1.23 a litre on 7 April. Responding to questions on this in recent weeks, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have stated that the situation is “under review” or “being monitored” by the Competition and Markets Authority. For many farmers, fuel and fertiliser prices have soared simultaneously, hitting their finances incredibly hard across the board, so monitoring does not really help.

We Liberal Democrats are calling for an emergency fuel duty cut that would bring down the cost of red diesel used by UK farmers by around £5 million over the next three months, to remedy the rising cost.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. I am concerned about the mental health of farmers. There is about one suicide a week among UK farmers. Does he agree that we must do everything we can to support the mental health of our farmers?

[Richard Foord]

Absolutely. Farming can be a very lonely business, and that does not need to be compounded with the stress of farm profitability, or the lack thereof.

Looming over all this are the Government’s efforts to secure a comprehensive agreement with the European Union on exports. We encourage the Government to conclude an agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary standards, but they need to do so in a way that does result in a cliff edge. We heard recently from the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), that such a cliff edge would be very harmful for farmers if there is very little notice.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Rural crime, particularly equipment theft, continues to cost our farmers huge sums. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Government to do more?

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the plight of farmers facing crime. Some police forces do not consider this issue nearly enough. I am glad that in Devon and Cornwall we have a force that is quite alert to rural crime and has a particular focus on it, but I know that in other constituencies and other constabularies, sufficient attention is not paid to rural crime.

On trade, the Liberal Democrats believe that we need a comprehensive agreement with the European Union that guarantees enhanced access for UK food and animal products to the European single market, with minimal needs for checks or documentation.

The second area I want to focus on is the balance of tax and incentives for the farming industry. Government policy is undermining the viability of many of our family farms. Farmers are not seeking to get rich; they dedicate their lives to the intense labour required to manage their farms, and ask for some stability in return—predictable costs, fair taxes and support systems that reward their productivity.

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

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the 4,000 farmers in England who farm on common land, mostly in the uplands, are not able to get any funding at all because the Rural Payments Agency software prevents applications? Does he agree that the Government should change their approach so that farmers in the uplands on common land can make those claims?

[Richard Foord]

If I were an uplands farmer represented by my hon. Friend, I would know that I had a fervent advocate in him. He is right to raise the issue of commoners; I spoke with one last Friday who said that the sustainable farming incentive IT system has yet to be adapted for payments to people who farm on common land. I had the same experience with people who I represent in Luppitt on the Blackdown hills in Devon.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Many farmers are relying on SFI, but it closed to new applications in March and is yet to reopen, and there is no clarity about the future budget. Delays in payments to those who have agreements have caused significant concern to many of my constituents who have faced cash-flow issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that greater clarity must be provided to farmers on the future offer across various environmental schemes, as well as a commitment to improve the efficiency of payments?

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that issue. Last year, farmers were devastated by the overnight closure of the sustainable farming incentive, which came with no notice. I welcome the Secretary of State’s pledge at the Oxford farming conference in January that there would be no further unexpected closures of that scheme, but I did not get the sense in my conversation last week that confidence has been restored fully since that overnight closure of SFI.

Small producers are disproportionately disadvantaged under the new SFI scheme. Payment caps raise serious issues about long-term farm profitability. The system appears not to have been designed around farmers and what they want, but rather around bureaucracy and administrative convenience. The Liberal Democrats would invest in agriculture, including an additional £1 billion a year to support sustainable, domestic food production, improving our skills, resilience and supply, rather than leaving our farmers at the mercy of global markets.

Thirdly, I would like to talk about planning concerns. As I understand it, there are delays in the planning systems across local authorities that are preventing farmers from doing the right thing. Last week, I talked to one who had applied for a cover on a slurry store and was still waiting, eight months later, for a verdict on whether he could go ahead and make the modification.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I was speaking to farmers in Winchester just two weeks ago, and planning is a huge issue, whether they want to put in a new slurry lagoon or repurpose a barn, with a wait of more than 18 months. The process is very opaque and there is no set timeline. It is impossible to make business decisions if no timeline is given as to when they might even be told when they will have to supply information to get the planning permission.

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend is right. From what I understand, there is a national shortage of planning officers, and many of them are stretched across a number of things; they might be looking at applications for big housing developments. Sometimes, farm improvements that are geared towards improving environmental practices are quite low down the list for some of those planning officers. I question whether we might have dedicated planning officers who specifically look at some of the applications from farms. That would make a huge difference by improving the contribution of farmers to the environment.

To recap, we are calling on the Government to reduce exposure to volatile global inputs by supporting domestic fertiliser production. We are calling for a tax policy that recognises that family farms need stability, rather than the Government adding to global shocks with one or two of their own. We need farm support schemes that are predictable, accessible and fair, alongside systems for planning developments that work towards following clear timetables, rather than deadlines that continue to slip.

Farmers are doing their best in very trying circumstances. They are adapting and innovating, and trying to produce food for all of us while under immense economic pressure. They do not need warm words from the Government—they do not need “monitoring”. What they need now is a Government that are prepared to take action to match their rhetoric. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Independent Water Commission: Final Report

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello]

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

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

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

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

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

[Edward Morello]

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

Sustainable Drainage Systems

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sustainable drainage systems.

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Barker.

Flooding is a topical issue. In Devon, it feels like it has been raining for about a year; in fact, it probably has been since the beginning of the year. Every day we see more and more floods, and more and more problems with water. Most people will probably never have heard of sustainable drainage systems, or SuDS; when I began my career in local government, I had no idea what people who mentioned them were talking about. They first came to my attention when I was knocking on doors on a new estate in Newton Abbot called Hele Park. A chap said, “They’ve spent all this money building these fantastic flood prevention channels; there’s a nice set of attenuation ponds with steps down and all the rest. But it’s falling apart—trees are growing through it, as nobody’s doing the maintenance. Nobody’s looking after it. It falls into the grounds maintenance contracts so they send somebody out with a lawnmower to look after a complicated, engineered set of flood prevention measures.”

That does not happen only on that one estate of Hele Park; it is common across many estates. In my home town of Dawlish, in the Redrow estate the swale is currently filling up with trees. That issue is particularly important because the estate is in a critical drainage area, designated by the Environment Agency. All the water coming from the hills comes down into a single stream, which at high tide is tide-locked so there is nowhere for it to go. Consequently, it is really important that in this place the attenuation ponds do their job, which is to reduce the rate of water flowing off what used to be green fields.

Planning permission is always granted on the basis that water does not come off the hard surfaces any faster than it would off green fields, but it is not actually stated where that water has to go or what has to be done with it. For years, planners have highlighted the need for drainage systems, which take the form of bungs, ditches or all sorts of other things such as swales and attenuation ponds. Those have been put into planning applications for developers, who then spend a lot of time and money creating drainage systems.

In another development in my area, the developer is objecting because part of its site is being used to build the SuDS for an adjoining site. Normally, that would not be a problem but the original site is finished and maintenance fees are being paid for it, whereas the adjoining site is not yet finished and is building SuDS in a space that the original developer is paying to have maintained. The original developer is up in arms. But even then, the maintenance contract would not actually look after the SuDS; it would just involve cutting the grass on a bank used to access the SuDS.

The problem is: who maintains SuDS? I asked Redrow staff, “How are these SuDS going to be maintained on your site in Dawlish?” They said, “Ah, there’s a maintenance plan for all these.” They are right—there probably is, for the pumps, the tanks and the hard engineering. SuDS might be maintained by the maintenance company, but they might not be. Residents are often unaware of the need for the maintenance of SuDS and of what maintenance companies do. Again, I can see that this whole set-up could very quickly fall into disrepair. Who will be there to pick up the pieces? The developer will have gone a long time before then. The residents have already paid for maintenance, because its cost is absorbed into the cost of building the site and of buying their homes in the first place: they will be double-paying for the maintenance of the site. Then, when things go wrong, they will be the ones footing the bill to put things right again.

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

What my hon. Friend has identified in his Newton Abbot constituency is a situation that exists all over the country. In July 2025, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wrote a report called “National standards for sustainable drainage systems”, which talked about a national shortage of skilled professionals to maintain SuDS over their lifetime, as well as to design and inspect them. Does my hon. Friend share my view that we need more professionals skilled in this area working at local authority level?

[Martin Wrigley]

I absolutely agree and will go on to quote the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, New Civil Engineer and a body that I discovered only recently: the Association of SuDS Authorities. I did not even know that it existed, but there we go.

We have one more estate, in Kingsteignton, where I was recently called because people were complaining. There is a lovely circular area; there is a circle of houses at the end of a cul-de-sac. It is a nice place. It was built on an old clay mine, so there are problems because of the fact that it is on a fairly difficult site, but it is a lovely situation, except that this circular area, which has a children’s playground in the middle, is always completely and utterly sodden. It never dries out. The areas around it dry out, but this particular bit does not, and people have worked out that that is because the SuDS has not been built properly and the pipes have not been connected.

The local planning authority says it looks fine on the plans, and from what we have seen it is okay. The builders are doing an investigation for me, because I have been jumping up and down and shouting, but the MP should not have to get involved for areas to have proper draining. The area is critical in drainage. It is not far above sea level. We have massive floods in the roads outside; indeed, they are ongoing. The last thing we want is the water from this estate going in and making all that worse.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) says, this is not just a problem in my Newton Abbot constituency. It is not just a problem with one or two estates; it is endemic. We have seen articles in New Civil Engineer saying that we desperately need a statutory obligation to look after SuDS. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management says exactly the same. We need a solution to the problem of how SuDS are maintained, inspected and handed over—indeed, adopted—when the building site is finished, as the roads or drains would be. That is what residents want. It is what developers want, because they put a lot of time and effort into building these things and then see them going to rack and ruin. It is what the local authorities, the water companies and the Environment Agency want.

The existence of legislation that would automatically do what we need was brought to my attention when, as a county councillor, I served on the South West Regional Flood and Coastal Committee—yes, I get all the good jobs. It is about how we do flood defences in the south-west. As I come from Dawlish, that is particularly close to my heart—as people can imagine, given what happened with the railway line.

There absolutely needs to be a statutory obligation to put SuDS in, a statutory means of certifying that those SuDS have been built to a level that will work and a statutory responsibility to maintain them. Happily, there is legislation: the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, from 16 years ago, and it has a schedule 3 to it. The only flaw with the schedule is that no instigation date was specified; it is down to the Minister to say when that is to happen. Prior to the general election, the previous Government were in the process of having a plan to make it happen. There were big announcements and big expectations. Again, it is all written up in New Civil Engineer—a fascinating monthly read—about how great things were anticipated in 2024 and how we might see the implementation of schedule 3 in ’24 or ’25. Of course, we know what happened: the general election came along.

Last July the Government issued a new set of standards for sustainable drainage, which are a big improvement. This talks about seven principles. It talks about how to make sure that we are reusing water and there is a lot of good work in it. However, one thing is missing. The regulation says, “You could ask your local water company to adopt these drainage solutions”. People can, but there is absolutely no reason why any water company would want to do so, because there is no way that it fits into their business model. Most of these things run off natural rainwater into streams and rivers, and they are just not interested. They are finding it hard enough to maintain their existing structures for foul sewage processing. South West Water recently had three pumping stations break down in the middle of heavy rain in Kent and in Starcross in my constituency, and people were flooded with sewage. I would much rather it looked after that situation than SuDS.

We already have experts in flooding in district and county councils, and soon in the unitary councils that will replace them. Those experts have been involved in putting these schemes together, pushing for them to happen. They are responsible for managing flooding, and have a real interest in doing so. Let us go back to the solution, rather than what the Government’s guidance suggested last year. Let schedule 3 be enacted and let us get SuDS certified and adopted by local authorities.

I can see that the Government will say, “We cannot do that because it will cost money.” Yes, there will be an extra burden on local authorities that will need to be compensated. However, I put it to the Government that they are backing things like Flood Re, and this is actually a preventive measure. It costs a lot less to have the SuDS and drains built properly than for the Government to be asked for money to restore properties once they have been flooded.

In my constituency, the village of Kenton—just by Powderham castle, which itself is not in my constituency—flooded because a drain got blocked. That flood ripped through the local primary school and through half a dozen houses, which are still empty and still being restored, and that primary school is being replaced. Flood prevention is much cheaper than recovery from floods.

I urge the Minister to think about this as a necessary preventive measure. Too often over the last 60 years we have seen maintenance as the first thing people cut from budgets. Preventive maintenance is so important to keeping things working. If our drains were unblocked and small potholes fixed, and if our flooding systems worked, we would not be in some of the situations we are in now. This is a great opportunity for the Government to show a desire to increase early intervention, to make things better for residents.

[Richard Foord]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He talks about maintenance, but design is also crucial. Margaret Leppard, from Seaton, set up the Seaton Flood Working Group. She points out that developers sometimes use outdated datasets when designing drainage systems. She says that rainfall data from the 2026 dataset needs to be used rather than the 2013 dataset, which Baker Estates in Seaton has been using. Would he share that view?

[Martin Wrigley]

I would entirely. That is another reason why it is vital that local authorities, as the flood responsible authorities, are actually involved in certifying SuDS as they are built and take them on afterwards.

Let me quote from the Chartered Institution of Water Environmental Managers:

“Despite promises to enforce the mandatory adoption of sustainable drainage schemes (SuDS) by 2024 through Schedule 3, regulations remain stalled, raising concerns among environmental groups and industry stakeholders about the government’s commitment to sustainable water management.”

The time is now. The Minister has it within her power —even if it is not necessarily exactly her Department—to push forward, through statutory instrument or whatever is required, the enactment of schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I urge the Minister to take that on board as a real, positive thing, at a minuscule cost to the Government, that will make a massive difference to people’s lives.

River Habitats: Protection and Restoration

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of protecting and restoring river habitats.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the Making Space for Water campaigners, whose tireless work in championing our riverways is exactly why we are here today in Westminster Hall. It is a privilege to open today’s debate and see it so well attended, as we make the case for practical solutions that will protect our riverways, restore river habitats and boost water quality in all of our rivers and streams.

It is essential that I outline the significant challenge facing both nature and rivers up and down the country. Unfortunately, most of our rivers are in crisis, plagued by pollution from both agriculture and sewage. Subsequently, they are on the brink of ecological collapse. Only a third of UK rivers are in good health, making our rivers some of the most polluted in Europe. Looking closer, 85% of the UK’s rivers and streams have been heavily modified, which is stripping away habitats and accelerating a big fall in biodiversity. Yet we all know that our rivers are crucial for both nature and communities. Riverways are a vital source of fresh water. They support wildlife, boost biodiversity and help to regulate the climate locally.

Take my home county of Dorset. Our county is fortunate to play home to one of the world’s rarest habitats: chalk streams. The high mineral content and year-round moderate temperatures mean that local chalk streams such as the Stour and Frome are home to a broad array of wildlife and habitats. I am so proud that on the Isle of Purbeck, in my constituency, we hosted the first official wild beaver release in England, some five centuries after they were hunted to extinction.

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

I commend the hon. Member on securing this debate. On the point about beavers, this week we have had massive flooding in the west country, in Dorset and in Devon. I am hearing from farmers in my patch who agreed to have beavers released into rivers on their farmland that there are complications. Does he agree that cannot be a one-off action, but rather needs sustained engagement from the Government as well as financial support such as the sustainable farming incentive?

[Lloyd Hatton]

I agree that a co-ordinated approach that works with farmers, landowners and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is required. That extensive work took place in my constituency, and it meant that the release was broadly seen as a success story. We would certainly like to replicate that across the west country and the UK.

To continue the saga of the beaver, their release in Purbeck has been a success story, and I am so pleased that the beavers can call the expansive freshwater and dense woodland at Studland their new home. Of course, that is also a good news story for restoring nature and boosting water quality. Beavers are nature’s engineers. By creating wetland habitats, they can help to retain water during floods and release it during droughts. Finally, they also help to filter polluted water and improve its quality further downstream. They play a crucial role in aiding nature’s recovery. However, the mighty beaver cannot and must not act alone. Like many Members present, I am committed to help restore nature across all our riverways, creating the conditions for wildlife and habitats to flourish in our rivers once again.

Water White Paper

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and the opportunity to mention that we will be publishing a transition plan which, as I mentioned in my statement, will set out a road map from where we are now to having the opportunity to legislate. I want to make progress before that Bill is in the House, so that we can start to shift the dial, build on what we did last year in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, and move towards that supervisory system that will give the regulator more teeth. We need that new regulator and those new powers in legislation to bear down on incidents such as the one my hon. Friend is talking about.

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

I welcome the abolition of Ofwat, but I wish to let the Secretary of State know about one of my constituents. Marion from Axminster is aged 85. Her direct debit to South West Water this month is £45, but next month it will nearly treble to over £118. Residents who I represent are fed up with being ripped off by these profiteers. Will the Government look again at Liberal Democrat proposals for a new ownership model, whereby water companies such as South West Water are mutually owned by customers?

[Emma Reynolds]

As I said previously, I do not have a problem with mutual ownership—I think it is a good thing—but the question the Liberal Democrats have to answer is how they will get there.

Finally, may I say a big thank you to my officials? The water White Paper was a very heavy lift, and there is more detail to come in the transition plan and the water Bill. I also thank Members for the interest we have had across the House, other than from the Conservatives.

Animal Welfare Strategy

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is precisely what we are doing—we are protecting the high standards we have here in the UK in the trade deals that we are doing with other countries around the world.

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

The Australia and New Zealand trade deals signed by Boris Johnson’s Conservative Government undercut the standards that are demanded of British farmers, including on animal welfare. Will the Government seek to renegotiate the trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and will they ban the import of food produced with antibiotic growth promoters?

[Emma Reynolds]

I know that one of my Conservative predecessors, Michael Gove, has been very critical of the trade deals done by the last Government with Australia and New Zealand, but the hon. Member will appreciate that it is very difficult to unpick trade deals once they are in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank her for raising that important issue and for her work on it and her passion. She is right to point out as well that the Environment Agency budget was cut by half under the previous Government, which left it powerless to clamp down on polluting water companies. We have been clear that the amount of sewage discharged into our waters is unacceptable. That is why we have already banned unfair bonuses for water bosses, introduced tougher automatic penalties to clamp down on pollution and secured money to upgrade storm overflows across England.

But we are not stopping there, Mr Speaker; we don’t want to give you only that! We are going to give you more treats in the new year with our water White Paper, which will set out long term reforms to strengthen regulation, tackle pollution and accelerate the delivery of water infrastructure.

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

The River Otter in Devon is classified by the Environment Agency as “poor”, with twice the phosphate levels of other rivers in Devon. We hear from the Environment Agency that that is because of agricultural runoff. That is incorrect. Citizen scientists from the Otter Valley Association have proved that it is because of sewage discharges. Will she make sure that whatever succeeds the Environment Agency is a regulator with teeth?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right: of course we want a regulator with teeth, able to identify the exact source of pollution. As we have already said about our water White Paper, there will be a regional element it order to be able to in more detail at those particular catchments to identify the main source of pollution in each catchment and, therefore, the best actions to take to address it.

Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is right to be angry about the incidents that he is seeing in his constituency, and this is one of the reasons we have increased the Environment Agency funding for waste crime enforcement by 50%. Of course, we are always keen to work with all local authorities and to share best practice to ensure that all of them are going after these waste criminals.

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

Devon county council received almost 5,000 reports of fly-tipping last year. The police rural affairs team has supported East Devon district council and the Environment Agency in a fly-tipping engagement event, which saw examples of tyres and plastic wrap. Will the Minister please speak with her counterparts at the Home Office about bolstering rural affairs teams in police constabularies such as Devon and Cornwall?

[Emma Hardy]

As luck would have it, the Home Affairs team happens to be on the Front Bench just now, and they will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Fresh and Nutritious Food: Inequality of Access

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Today’s debate is about those who do not have practical access to any such choice, because there simply is nowhere for them to go and buy it. The national child measurement programme’s annual report demonstrated the consequences of the inequality of diet. For reception and year 6 children, obesity prevalence was more than double in the most deprived areas, compared with the least. These trends have been allowed to increase over the last 14 years, and there is now a positive correlation between obesity and poverty, which we must break. That is why it is so important that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South has brought forward this small but perfectly formed debate on a really serious issue.

How can we bring to bear really creative solutions to these problems, such as the food deserts that my hon. Friend talked about? The Government have done some things. We have a food strategy that talks about how we can improve food price affordability and access to highly nutritious food. We are committed to making the healthy choice the easier choice, which is certainly not the case in Castlemilk in his area.

We know that the cost of a nutritious diet is currently too high, and we know, for example, that we can do some work on that through the Healthy Start scheme, which supports people to buy fresh or frozen fruit, vegetables, pulses, milk and infant formula, if they have children under four. Healthy Start makes a valuable difference to families’ ability to purchase healthy foods for their young children. The nursery milk scheme provides reimbursement to childcare providers for giving a daily portion of milk to children and babies.

We are taking action in schools, including by trying to improve the nutritional aspects of free school meals. We are reviewing the school food standards to ensure that schools provide healthy food and drink options and restrict foods high in saturated fat, salt or sugar, to reflect the most recent Government dietary recommendations. We have extended free school meals to all children from households on universal credit, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty and putting £500 back into families’ pockets ahead of the child poverty strategy later this year. Some 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education now receive a free meal on the basis of low income and an additional 1.3 million infants enjoy a free lunch-time meal. Our new free breakfast clubs will help around 180,000 children in the first 750 schools, around 80,000 of whom are in deprived areas. A free, nutritious meal every school day helps our children and young people to access healthy food and supports their education and chances to succeed in work and life. That is soon to be extended to 2,000 schools, with 500,000 more pupils being involved.

On the questions about food redistribution, we are looking at that in the circular economy strategy to see how we can make the best use of surplus food. On the point about KitKat’s marketing budget, you learn something every day—it is a bit worrying to contemplate that. There is new mandatory healthy food sales reporting for large food businesses. That will start to encourage the recalibration of food and its contents, which I hope will begin to make a difference.

We are restricting volume price promotions on unhealthy food—buy one, get one free promotions—which encourage less nutritious food to be even more available. We expect that to make a difference. We have given local authorities stronger powers to block fast food outlets near schools, and I want such powers to be used proactively. We are also consulting on a ban on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children under 16, which tend to be bought by children who live in more deprived, low-income households and make it very difficult for them to concentrate. This is not just about policy generally but what we can do across the system to reduce food inequality and improve access to healthy, affordable food.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South talked about the really difficult choices that his constituents face. I am more than happy to meet him to talk about what might happen there. Many hon. Members have talked about the Alexandra Rose charity. There is an interesting thing going on across the river in Merseyside, in Liverpool, where a mobile greengrocer called the Queen of Greens takes food to places where there is no supermarket. It may be that in the interim, before he and his community in Castlemilk get the chance to have a new supermarket built, there are some creative solutions for taking nutritious choices to the community. That is why I agree so much with some of the points made about how local communities, community action and perhaps even co-ops might be able to make a difference in areas such as that. The more creative we can be in having faster solutions, the more we can ensure that the current generation get the nutritional support that they deserve, rather than having to wait perhaps years for a supermarket to be built.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South for raising this really important issue.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There is no time.

I am sure that together we can come up with some really creative solutions to assist in ensuring that we have a better future for those now suffering from a lack of access to free and nutritious food, and that we can finally start to address the terrible link between poverty and obesity, which has become such a feature of our society in recent years.

Question put and agreed to.

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.