Richard Foord MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2025 · Animal Welfare Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Waterways · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Community Audiology · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for choosing this as a subject for debate. It was fascinating to hear from the Father of the House about his time in the Honourable Artillery Company, listening to the guns and then perhaps regretting it in later years. It reminds us of our responsibility in this House to try to prevent problems that may emerge later. Last weekend, I was reading about a former colleague of mine, Lieutenant Colonel Rob Page, who has suffered 20% hearing loss off the back of his time testing the Ajax vehicle. Plainly, that is something we have to watch out for. This debate is about community audiology. In my Devon constituency, I represent people who care a great deal about hearing health. Honiton and Sidmouth has the sixth oldest constituents in the country by demographics. Local health data shows that 7.3% of residents in the Devon ICB area report hearing loss or deafness. That compares with an average in England of 5.8%. In an ageing population, this is about the older age profile of all of our communities. In my constituency the median age is 57, so hearing loss is very common and hearing care is essential. Johns Hopkins University found that people with moderate hearing impairment are more than twice as likely to experience a fall as those without hearing loss. Falls in older people often lead to hospital admissions and then to a significant loss of independence. The Health Secretary has characterised the plans for NHS reform as being partly about a shift from sickness to prevention and from hospital to communities. Plainly, community audiology will have to sit at the heart of this. In Devon, community audiology has been complicated by some major changes in provider arrangements. Until March this year, Chime Social Enterprise delivered NHS audiology services and routine community audiology. Chime had its challenges, but it had a local presence, including in a lot of towns that I represent. It had drop-in clinics for people who needed urgent repairs or had urgent issues. However, from 1 April 2025, NHS Devon integrated care board commissioned several new providers in place of Chime for routine and specialist audiology, and that changeover has caused a lot of problems. One elderly constituent, who has relied on hearing aids for more than 25 years, told me that she had to wait from June until September before she was able to see her usual audiologist. When she finally got to her appointment in Sidmouth, she discovered that the new provider had no access to her medical records, and she was told that she would have to come back in November to have new hearing aids fitted and supplied. Something that should not have taken very long at all took a total of five months. That was not just five months of inconvenience waiting for an appointment; it was five months of struggling to communicate with the rest of the world. I wrote to NHS Devon after being inundated by similar reports, and I received a reply to my letter of 16 June saying that the changeover was happening as fast as NHS Devon could make it happen. Although waiting times appear to be improving, this disruption is not unique to Devon and it reflects wider pressures across the community. Across NHS community audiology in England, 38% of people were waiting six weeks or more for audiology appointments. That is set against the fact that the national hearing loss charity the RNID reports that about 70% of people who go private receive hearing aids or support within two weeks. Plainly, we are seeing that when community audiology breaks down, patients wait longer for appointments, continuity of care is lost, and those who cannot afford to go private get left behind. That is not supporting the transition—from hospital to community, and from treatment to prevention—that the Government want. If the NHS is truly to prevent hearing loss in the community, community audiology must work for patients every time, and that includes in rural and coastal areas such as the one I represent.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome what the Minister said about introducing a maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas; I was a little less welcoming of what he said about it being phased in over the next year. It was reported this week that UK-insured ships have transported almost half the Russian diesel exports since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Those exports are thought to have been worth more than £24 billion pounds, and UK-owned or UK-insured vessels are reported to have enabled the export of £45 billion-worth of Russian gas. Why can the Government not get on with the UK maritime services ban today?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  A recent Ofsted inspection of children’s services in Devon found that they “share a determination to improve services to care leavers”. How will the new strategy to end violence against women and girls pay particular attention to preventing harms to care leavers and care-experienced people? How will it build on the improving practice that we see in local authorities, such as in Devon?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Mr Twigg. We all recognise the need for genuinely affordable housing, but progress cannot be measured in house numbers alone if it leaves communities worse off. Wing Commander Ian Derbyshire from Payhembury recently contacted me after his wife, who is in her mid-70s, received a letter from her GP surgery in Cullompton to inform her that she had been removed from registration. She had been registered as a patient at Payhembury for over 20 years. Wing Commander Ian and Mrs Derbyshire had written twice to the Cullompton practice to find an explanation for why they had been removed from the surgery’s list, and they were advised to register with a practice that would perhaps be more distant from them. The reason they had to move was simply that new housing had been built between them and the GP surgery to which they were registered. This is not a unique case. Another resident of Payhembury, aged 89, received an identical letter. It was only after my office made contact with the GP practice that the surgery explained the reason for these residents being reallocated. Mrs Derbyshire has significant memory problems. She finds comfort and reassurance in familiarity, and the prospect of moving GP surgeries, having to retell her medical history, navigating new systems and building trust from scratch fills her with dread. Indeed, this is where joined-up government has to come in, because the NHS knows it is good practice in primary care for patients to see the same doctor over time. Wing Commander Derbyshire served as an RAF officer for decades. He and his wife moved around the world for 34 years, repeatedly being uprooted by service to our country. Now in later life, when they look for some stability, they are being displaced once more, not by a posting or indeed war, but by a lack of anticipation. When houses are approved, built and occupied, GP provision lags behind. When surgeries reach breaking point, their current patients pay the price. That cannot be right, particularly in places that have been identified for significant additional housing, as in Cullompton, where we anticipate that over 5,000 new homes will be built as part of Culm garden village in the decades to come. Under the current planning system, house builders are not automatically required to meet the capital costs associated with additional GP capacity. Local authorities can negotiate section 106 planning obligations with developers to secure financial contributions, but that is not built in. Indeed, these obligations are not obligations; they are discretionary and must meet strict legal tests of relevance, necessity and proportionality. In practice, that means housing growth outpaces the delivery of new or expanded GP facilities in places such as Cullompton. We must not allow new housing to undermine the provision of healthcare, nor can we allow it to undermine the natural spaces that play a role in keeping people healthy and easing pressure on the health service. A report in The Guardian in October put the UK down as the fifth worst country in Europe for access to green space, because of the loss of it due to development. New housing must not come at the expense of nature or of protected landscapes, and any attempt by the Government to dilute these safeguards will be met with firm and determined opposition. We can and must build new homes for this country, but not by forcing the elderly from their GPs, by eroding our green spaces or by displacing the very communities those homes are meant to serve.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I suppose some in the farming community will not be taking up my right hon. Friend’s dating tips, but is he aware that 46% of farms are owned by single farmers and that a single farmer with 200 acres of land would have to pay 136% of their yearly profits to cover this tax bill?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is slightly unfair to those 80 or 90 Labour MPs who represent rural areas, and it is worth paying tribute to the speeches by the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), and for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). They have spoken out against this mean, callous agricultural property relief measure, and they have done a brave thing by doing so. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People · Hansard source

  More

  On the hon. Gentleman’s point about elite athletes being screened, in September I went to Sidmouth college, which was hosting the very elite Exeter Chiefs rugby team. They were being screened alongside pupils from Sidmouth college because of the great work of Marion Hayman, whose son died aged 27 from a sudden cardiac arrest that came out of absolutely nowhere. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that screening young people can save many, many lives, and that setting up memorial funds in the way Marion did for her son Jonathan can enable us to save more of those lives?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Sudan: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  When the House debated the conflict in Sudan on 4 November, we heard that some British arms and equipment had been found on battlefields in Sudan, and it was alleged that the RSF has been provided with arms by the UAE, which in turn is supplied by the UK. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), said: “The UK has one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world.” —[ Official Report , 4 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 888.] We have heard exactly the same line repeated today. Rather than repeating these lines, will the Minister tell the House what discussions have taken place with the UAE since 4 November about UK arms exports to the UAE?

• 15 Dec 2025 · NATO: European Security · Hansard source

  More

  There is a mismatch between the rhetoric that we are hearing and the funding for defence in this Parliament. The NATO Secretary-General talks about preparing for war on the scale that our grandparents endured, while the US national security strategy states that it is a “core interest” of the United States to “re-establish strategic stability” with Russia. In that context, will the Government urge a lowering of the temperature of statements by the likes of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the First Sea Lord, or will they increase defence spending closer to 3.5% of GDP in this Parliament?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  When the last ID card scheme was cancelled by the Liberal Democrats in coalition in 2010, it had already cost £4.6 billion. Does the hon. Member share my view that the £1.8 billion cost associated with digital IDs could be much better spent?

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, given your insight on matters of national security. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing the debate today. This summer, a constituent joined me in my surgery at Honiton and explained that she was the widow of one of the victims who had been killed in a helicopter crash in 1994. Her husband was one of the 29 security personnel who were killed when Chinook Zulu Delta 576, in which they were travelling, crashed over the Mull of Kintyre. In my speech, I want to focus on what has happened since: the years of uncertainty, the fragmented investigations, the unanswered questions and the decision to seal key documents away until 2094. My constituent is now a member of the Chinook Justice Campaign, led by 24 of the 29 families who are seeking answers about the crash itself, but also accountability for way that it was handled in the aftermath. They have set out a long list of unanswered questions—a stark reminder of how much remains unresolved for the families—including: “Why were our loved ones placed on an aircraft that even the Ministry of Defence and its most experienced test pilots were prohibited from flying?” and “Were the passengers on board told that the proper authority in the Ministry of Defence had determined that the aircraft was not to be relied on in any way whatsoever?” After three decades, those are modest and entirely reasonable requests. The withholding of information has denied families the answers that could have brought some closure to their grief. Across 31 years, six separate investigations have examined the Chinook crash, yet none has provided a full or coherent account of what happened. The original RAF board of inquiry in 1995 blamed the pilots without ever resolving the serious airworthiness concerns known about at the time. Later reviews, culminating in the 2011 Lord Philip review, overturned the negligence verdict but still did not address why the aircraft was allowed to fly despite being declared unairworthy by the MOD’s own testing centre in 1993. Even subsequent parliamentary scrutiny and internal MOD examinations, including through the 2000s and the 2010s, left major questions unanswered. Those include how the false declaration of airworthiness was made, why crucial information was withheld from the pilots, and what is contained in the documents now sealed until 2094.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I understand that so many high-value, senior and experienced personnel would not be put on the same flight today. If we reflect on that collision in 1994, we have to ask why six inquiries have not brought clarity. Instead, families are left with a patchwork of findings, and gaps where the truth should be. The Chinook Justice Campaign poses a crucial question: how can future tragedies be prevented through changes to oversight and accountability? That brings me to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which passed its Second Reading this month. Its central idea is that public servants should have a duty of candour—a legal requirement to act truthfully, to co-operate and to avoid the kind of defensive practices that have deepened the suffering of victims’ families in the past. The Bill contains a significant exemption under clause 6: the duty of candour does not apply to the intelligence agencies or others who handle material falling within the definition of “security and intelligence” in section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. I entirely understand why some agencies and the broader intelligence community might need to be exempt, but if certain institutions are to be exempt from a statutory duty of candour, Parliament must at least strengthen the independent mechanisms that can review and oversee sensitive decisions behind closed doors. At present, that mechanism is the Intelligence and Security Committee, but its remit no longer reflects how all national security work is carried out across Government. In its 2022-23 annual report, the ISC warned that the “failure to update its Memorandum of Understanding” has allowed key intelligence-related functions to shift into policy Departments outside its oversight, creating what it called an “erosion of Parliamentary oversight”. Families want to see the full truth and have urged MPs who represent them to call for relevant documents to be released where possible. Liberal Democrats support the families and are calling for the release of those sealed Chinook documents that can be released, and a judge-led public inquiry in due course with access to all relevant material, so that the unresolved questions about airworthiness and accountability can be answered. We are also urging the Government to follow through with a duty of candour on public bodies, which should of course include the Ministry of Defence, in which the Minister and I and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), all served. We need to ensure that bereaved families are never again forced to fight for decades to have basic transparency. Where documents relating to the Chinook crash can be released, they should be, so that families can finally understand the full truth of what happened and why. If there are elements relating to national security that genuinely cannot be made public, the Government must put in place trusted, independent parliamentary oversight with the authority to examine that material. For the sake of my constituent, and for every Chinook Zulu Delta 576 family still waiting for answers, we must not let this injustice endure for another generation.

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister welcomed the inclusion in the 28-point peace plan of security guarantees. Point 10 of the proposed plan says that if Russia invades Ukraine, it would lead to “a decisive coordinated military response”. Who would co-ordinate that response, and what does the Prime Minister anticipate would be the UK’s part in it?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Critical Minerals Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentioned that Devon is home to the world’s largest deposits of tungsten. Tungsten is used in medical devices, robotics and defence applications, yet 80% of global demand for tungsten is being met by China. Will any of the £250 million that the Government have announced in their defence growth deal go towards tungsten mining in Devon?

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  During the debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Minister for Housing and Planning said that the Government would use the devolution Bill to strengthen the status of assets of community value. Will the Minister confirm that this Bill will indeed strengthen that status, so that we do not see such assets being demolished in pursuit of new housing?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Unpaid Carers: Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  Can I ask the Minister what definition of neighbourhood he is using, and does it recognise communities such as market towns?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Unpaid Carers: Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. The Office for National Statistics estimates that around 130,000 people in Devon provide unpaid care. That is roughly one in six Devon residents. To understand what that means in real life, I want to share the story of Emma Donovan from Sidmouth. Emma cares for both her parents: her mum who lives with Parkinson’s and dementia, and her father who is a veteran whose injuries have worsened with age. At the same time, she runs a non-profit, she works two part-time jobs, she volunteers as a Rotarian and she still tries to live a life of her own. Through her start-up, In a Pickle Services, Emma provides hygiene and wellness packs to people experiencing homelessness, but because statutory support has fallen away, her organisation is having to restart an unpaid carers’ support group, inspired by the excellent Honiton Carers Support Group. The new group in Sidmouth will launch in January and will help unpaid carers to manage the day-to-day reality of caring. The average age of Sidmouth residents is 59, which means that it has one of the highest proportions of carers of anywhere in the country. Emma’s experience mirrors that of countless carers across Sidmouth, Seaton, Axminster and Cullompton: constant pressure, limited respite and a system that too often leaves people to cope on their own. A recent report by Healthwatch in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay found that a third of unpaid carers provide more than 20 hours of care a week. That is sustainable only with proper support. The report highlighted poor communication, long waits for help and carers not being identified early enough. Many carers said that their mental and physical health is deteriorating because caring leaves them no time. Even when people do apply for help, carer’s allowance is paid only to those who prove that they provide at least 35 hours of care a week, and because it is an allowance and not a wage, it does not increase should the carer do more hours in a week than the minimum 35, which leaves some effectively receiving less than £2 an hour. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), was a major step forward, giving working carers up to five days of unpaid leave per year. But that is still not enough. We Liberal Democrats are calling for paid carer’s leave and guaranteed respite, so that people are not forced to choose between their jobs and those they love. Our wider package of reforms would raise carer’s allowance by £20 a week and widen eligibility, recognising that too many carers miss out. People like Emma give so much to their families, their communities and to our country. They should not be left to struggle on their own. I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing both this debate and the presence of the Minister. We look forward to hearing from him the latest on the Government’s plans to support carers.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Gaza and Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary announced additional funding for Sudan, including £2 million for survivors of rape and sexual violence. However, yesterday, this House debated ending spending £2 billion on asylum hotels in the UK—that is what they cost the UK taxpayer. When might we get back to spending less official development assistance in the UK, and more of it in the region, where it would help more people in desperate need, and keep them from fleeing to Europe?

• 18 Nov 2025 · China Espionage: Government Security Response · Hansard source

  More

  According to media reports, administrators at Sheffield Hallam University told a professor of Chinese studies that she would have to abandon her research. That followed a separate defamation lawsuit against Sheffield Hallam University, as was reported by the BBC. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics of that case, but will the Government do more to support universities in resisting so-called SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Parkinson’s Disease · Hansard source

  More

  On early diagnosis, this is not just about GPs’ ability to diagnose, but about patients getting neurology appointments. Does the hon. Member agree that more people would be able to get the clinical care and support they need if they were able to get such an appointment within the first 18 weeks?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Illegal Waste: Organised Crime · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Carbon Budget Delivery Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The Climate Change Committee’s top recommendation was that the Government’s climate plan ought to remove policy costs from electricity bills. Does the hon. Lady think that the Government could seek to address that in the Budget?