Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

I would be delighted to pay tribute to Woodborough Flood Action Group for tirelessly working to protect the local community. My hon. Friend is a formidable champion of his area, and I commend him for raising this issue with me again. It is a very exciting project, and I hope to be able to visit it at some point.

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

A Government consultation on changes to the planning system closed on 10 March. It included consulting on weakening flood protection in planning guidance, which could lead to greater house building on land prone to flooding. To avoid the need for new insurance schemes such as Flood Re, which supports people after their homes have been flooded, the Government should seek to prevent house building in areas subject to flooding in the first place. When will the Government respond to the consultation that closed on 10 March?

[Emma Hardy]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a question for MHCLG, not DEFRA. However, we work closely with MHCLG to make sure that the homes that we desperately need in this country are built in areas that are not prone to flooding, and do not contribute to flooding elsewhere.

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the show. I was not able to attend, but it is good that he and other Members were there. We are addressing all those different issues. On the SPS deal, as I said to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), we are very aware of the concerns of the NFU and, indeed, the farmers’ union in Scotland. I engaged with them only last month. We cannot give a running commentary, but I do want to see a smooth transition so that farmers are ready for that change.

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

The Great South West pan-regional partnership produced an agrifood growth plan which I commend to the Secretary of State. It was launched by Baroness Batters back in February. The south-west region accounts for one third of England’s dairy farms and makes an outsized contribution to the UK food system. How will the Government’s farming road map affect farmers in the south-west in particular?

[Emma Reynolds]

The farming road map is a plan for the whole of England. Obviously, each different sector of farming faces different challenges. I was glad to visit a dairy farm in my own constituency on Open Farm day—Lacey’s farm. I thank Will Lacey for showing me and my two young boys around. The road map is about helping farmers across England, including in the south-west.

River Otter: Sewage Pollution

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of sewage pollution in the River Otter, a river that flows through many of the Devon communities that I represent.

I should say at the outset that, this morning, I declined an offer of hospitality from the new chief executive of South West Water and its parent company Pennon Group. They offered breakfast in Parliament, but I did not accept as I was here, in the Chamber, trying to catch Mr Speaker’s eye to talk about the Jurassic coast UNESCO world heritage site, and it is helpful that I will get to talk a little bit about that now. My office has written back to South West Water to request a separate meeting with the chief executive to talk through some of the issues that I will raise in the debate. In fairness, the debate is also about issues that apply across the water industry, not just with Pennon Group.

I pay tribute to the more than 75 water testers, campaigners and citizen scientists of the Otter River Catchment Action group—ORCA. The ORCA group developed out of the Otter Valley Association, and it has devoted almost as many hours to understanding and protecting the cherished River Otter as there have been hours of sewage spills into that river, which is saying something. The work of ORCA has provided much of the evidence in my contribution. The dedication of the ORCA volunteers represents the very best of self-organised civic community action and public service.

In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Bruce McGlashan, who passed away suddenly in April this year, just days after ORCA hosted a public meeting at The Institute in Ottery St Mary. Bruce brought to ORCA his experience of having been a manager at the Environment Agency for 30 years. He was also secretary of the River Otter Fisheries Association. Bruce was central to ORCA, and helped us to correspond with South West Water and the Environment Agency. It is hard to believe that he, Peter Williams and I stood on the shingle outside the Otter Inn at Honiton, after a meeting with the Environment Agency, just days before Bruce died. He should have lived to see the River Otter returned to full ecological health.

The Otter should be one of England’s ecological success stories. It runs through a beautiful valley in Devon that supports agriculture, tourism and recreation, and ought to be a rich and diverse habitat. Yet today, most sections of the Otter and its key tributary, the Wolf, are classified by the Environment Agency as having poor ecological status. That places the rivers within the 20% of water bodies with the poorest ecological status in the country. This issue does not just concern the local environment: it also concerns public health and infrastructure, and it is increasingly a question of public trust in the Government’s ability to regulate companies that provide utilities properly.

The facts on the ground are damning. Data obtained from South West Water through freedom of information and environmental information regulation requests reveal an alarming picture of bacterial contamination in the River Otter. Between November 2024 and May 2025, average daily levels of E. coli measured in the river were five times higher than the acceptable level for safe swimming. After periods of rainfall, those levels spiked up to 100 times the safe limit, remaining at increased levels for days or weeks at a time. During the period analysed, E. coli levels exceeded the safe swimming limit on more than 90% of days.

Budleigh Salterton, where the river meets the sea, lost its blue flag status this year because of a deterioration in water quality. Following the loss of that blue flag status, South West Water stated publicly that the E. coli levels at Budleigh’s beach

“could be caused by birdlife in the new Otter Nature Reserve”.

However, ORCA samples from the mouth of the River Otter show E. coli surges correlate with surges upstream of the nature reserve.

We should be honest about the scale of the sewage problem. This challenge is made more difficult by the fact that regular monitoring has been limited. Until recently, nobody was routinely measuring E. coli levels along the River Otter. ORCA volunteers are collecting samples every two weeks. They do so at three locations along the river, building a much-needed evidence base to understand pollution levels, rainfall impacts and likely sources of contamination.

In 2024, South West Water released untreated sewage into the River Otter for more than 9,500 hours. In terms of duration, that is three times more untreated sewage hours spilled into the River Otter than into Exmouth bay. In 2025, more than 8,000 hours of untreated sewage were discharged into the river and its tributaries, following hundreds of monitored sewage overflow events. Untreated sewage is entering the river on a routine basis, and at a scale that cannot be dismissed as a consequence of exceptional weather.

Phosphate pollution further damages the river’s ecology. High concentrations of phosphate cause algal bloom and eutrophication and reduce oxygen levels in the water, causing significant harm to aquatic plants, fish and wildlife. The evidence gathered by ORCA is striking; its monitoring suggests that the presence of a single sewage treatment works on the river can increase harmful phosphate concentrations in the river by around 80% during the summer months. Its testing indicates that around 70% of phosphate found in the middle and lower River Otter can be attributed not to agricultural pollution, but to treated sewage effluent.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this situation is the gap between the pledges we have received from South West Water and the delivery we have seen on them. In August and October 2025, South West Water’s then CEO, Susan Davy, publicly committed to three critical objectives for the River Otter by the end of 2029, which I will quote. The first objective is that

“any storm overflow that is persistently releasing more than 20 times a year will be tackled following investigation of the cause”.

The second objective is that

“where our assets are not performing as they should, or where they are causing environmental harm, we will act”.

The third objective states:

“As part of our 2025–2030 investment programme, we’re targeting improvements across the Otter catchment—including at Ottery St Mary—to reduce storm overflow use, and lower phosphate in our treated discharges”.

At the time, those commitments were welcome, but residents are entitled to ask what progress has been made in the last year. First, at the 11 worst discharge points along the river, there was still an average of 67 untreated discharges in 2025. That is not fewer than the 20 that we were pledged. Secondly, South West Water has published only a limited programme of what it describes as “tactical improvements”. That is hardly action.

Thirdly, despite repeated engagement from local campaigners and community groups, South West Water currently has no scheme to remove phosphate from treated effluent by 2030 and no published plan to meet the commitments made by the former chief exec. There was a time when South West Water talked about a phosphate reduction scheme for Honiton sewage treatment works, which would have removed 35% of all South West Water-sourced phosphate before 2030. According to South West Water more recently, the scheme

“had been removed from the 2025-2030 plan.”

Another consequence of sewage pollution is its impact on housing developments. East Devon district council commissioned a water cycle study as part of its local plan. Honiton sewage treatment works—the largest treatment works on the river—is already operating at 40% above capacity. That is projected to rise to 73% above capacity when future building plans are taken into account.

The council’s report identified many serious failings in South West Water’s sewage infrastructure in the River Otter catchment. That includes failings at three major sewage works that are already operating in excess of their capacity. Their excess untreated sewage is being discharged regularly into the River Otter. Effectively, South West Water has been using the River Otter as a conveyor—a free, open, half-pipe sewer—resulting in significant environmental harm. The council’s report was plain that new housing approvals will require that South West Water delivers suitable additional treatment capacity.

The costs of inaction are mounting: we have environmental degradation, risks to public health, constraints on housing, additional pressure being added by new housing, and growing public frustration.

Residents ask a simple question: why must local communities accept continuing environmental damage, rising bills, and insufficient investment in the infrastructure required to clean up this mess?

According to Ofwat’s most recent water company performance report from 2024-25, South West Water had 108 pollution incidents per 10,000 km of sewer, based on self-reported data—more than double the average for the sector. In fact, South West Water failed to meet its own performance targets for pollution incidents for each of the five years of the 2020-25 period. ORCA’s trained citizen scientists have logged over 2,800 individual tests and observations, whereas the Environment Agency carried out 24 location tests on the River Otter over that period. The public should not have to rely on volunteers to provide the evidence base for environmental protection. The volunteer action we have seen is invaluable, but safeguarding rivers must be the responsibility of water companies, regulators and, ultimately, the Government.

Are we going to have to wait years for the Otter to be coaxed back to health? What specific measures to address these local issues might we see in the Government’s upcoming clean water Bill? Residents of towns and villages across this corner of Devon would love to know. Over 50,000 people have signed a petition that was initiated in February by Marc Astley. Marc lives in Ottery St Mary, and he and his family put together a petition stating that

“if environmental standards aren’t being met, executives shouldn’t be receiving bonuses. The government has introduced new powers intended to block payouts when environmental performance fails…But loopholes remain—rewards can still be restructured as retention payments or routed through parent companies. To the public, that looks like bonuses by another name…The end goal is clear: close the loopholes and link executive rewards directly to measurable environmental outcomes—cleaner rivers, healthier seas and fewer sewage discharges.”

I know that the Minister also wants to see cleaner rivers and seas, and that she is committed to her brief. Can she confirm to the more than 50,000 people who signed that petition that those loopholes will be closed by new legislation?

The River Otter is not a cost-free extension of the sewerage infrastructure network that enables bill hikes and increased shareholder returns. It is supposed to offer a living ecosystem, a valued recreational resource, and an integral part of the lives of the people who live in east Devon. The people who live along the banks of the Otter are not asking for miracles; they are asking for honest monitoring, adequate infrastructure and accountability, with pledged commitments being met. The River Otter can recover—we have seen elsewhere that targeted investment in treatment infrastructure and phosphate removal can make a real difference—but recovery will require urgency, transparency, and a willingness to move beyond promises and towards delivery. Bruce McGlashan’s legacy will live on if the polluters, the regulators and we Members listen to, and act on, the citizen science carried out by the volunteers I represent today.

Water Safety

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey); I am grateful to him for taking the initiative to secure a debate on water safety. We have heard that, over the last six years, 196 children drowned in England. However, the hon. Gentleman went beyond the numbers and read, in a suitably sombre way, the list of young people who died in the heatwave last month. It really is a tragedy that we must reflect on.

Of course, people do not drown just in hot weather. Christmas day last year was a time when I, like many others, was wrapped up and getting as cosy as I could, but on the afternoon of December 25 we heard the news of a tragedy not far from us in Budleigh Salterton. Sometimes it is people with the greatest love of life who like to embrace the elements and enter the water, and that is what we heard about in Budleigh on Christmas day last year: two wild swimmers, Tom Johnson and Matthew Upham, who had entered the water on the coast of east Devon but did not return.

They were not novices or newcomers to the water; Tom, a father of two, was a physical education teacher, and Matthew, a local antiques dealer, was a regular sea swimmer; he is thought to have entered the water to help another person who was struggling. The Christmas day disaster helped us to realise that drowning is not something that simply happens somewhere else or to somebody else’s family. It can happen very close to home, and that really struck local communities hard. The sea is enormously powerful and must be treated with great respect.

I was very struck by the ask made by the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on enabling people to learn to swim, which I think is crucial. In the area that I represent, we have one town, Cullompton, that has been campaigning for decades for a swimming pool to enable young people to get those vital life lessons in swimming, and that Cullompton swimming pool campaign goes on and on. Those of us who have observed local authority swimming pools know that maintaining them is really hard going, as many are struggling financially. In Axminster, we have the Flamingo swimming pool, which is run not by the local authority, but by the local community. They established and run the swimming pool, but they often struggle with maintenance costs. Those people who support such local pools do us all a service by educating the next generation to learn the vital life skill of swimming.

Of course, the dangers associated with swimming in the wild are additional to those associated with the relative safety of swimming in a pool. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the particular danger associated with quarries, while the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) talked about the Save Lives for Sam campaign, recounting the tale of Sam Haycock, who drowned in a reservoir on his last day of school.

Those two stories really struck a chord with me, because my friends and I got away with it. We put on our wetsuits on the last day of school and went tombstoning at a local quarry. We jumped from a 40-foot cliff face into the water below, with no heed for whether there was machinery or supermarket trolleys to entangle us at the bottom. I think now about how stupid that was, the public services that would have needed to find us and the hurt that we could have caused our families if it had gone wrong. I am not advocating for people to take no risk at all around the water—as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) pointed out, there are mental health benefits associated with cold water swimming, but it needs to be done in an educated way, and we need to have proper conversations about what is a relatively safe use of the water.

The Minister knows that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have campaigned vehemently against sewage pollution in the rivers and seas, and one reason for that is to have cleaner waters in which to swim safely. We will maintain that campaign. We would love to see blue flag rivers—swimming spots where we can swim knowing that, of the dangers we can face while swimming, sewage pollution is not one. Nevertheless, we have to heed the dangers associated with cold water.

A yachtmaster wrote to me last week, reflecting on the deaths during the hot weather in May. It was one of those emails from a constituent that we like to receive—ones that do not just tell us about a problem, but offer a solution. He told me that he had done the Royal Yachting Association sea survival course. In a section entitled “What needs to happen”, he said that we need:

“A simpler scaled down version of the sea survival course, which explains the inherent risk of open water, inland water and open seas.”

He urged us to talk about cold water—we have already heard about cold water shock—and why we should avoid certain places at certain times of year. He wants education about tides and rip tides, and the dangers associated with wind and cold weather. Above all, he points out that those should be taught

“in a simple user friendly format and taught at school.”

From talking to the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Education, I know that we all have a particular ask that we want to foist on to the national curriculum, but for those of us who live in rural and coastal areas, the need to teach people about the dangers of the water is particularly acute.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen for securing this debate. I hope we can have a conversation about what can change around public education and the safe use of water.

Water Companies

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I could not have put it better myself. She is right to be cross about problems with water pressure. Instead, we seem to be deflecting the problem by saying, “We should not build the homes we need”. We absolutely should build the homes we need, and we should ensure that the water companies deliver the water for them.

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

In 2023, South West Water was fined little more than £2 million for seven pollution incidents dating back seven years at South West Water facilities, including at Kilmington. Now we learn that it has been fined less than £2 million for supplying drinking water in south Devon that left 140 people sick and four people hospitalised. This company had revenue of nearly three quarters of a billion pounds last year. How is the Minister upholding the polluter pays principle when the polluter only has to set aside loose change?

[Emma Hardy]

That was a record fine for not delivering safe and clean drinking water, but the hon. Gentleman is right that what happened there is a serious issue. Issuing fines is a matter for the independent regulators. On making the polluter pay, through our changes to the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 we can recoup the cost of investigation from the company, and we can carry out more investigations, so under this Government the polluter really does pay.

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.