Westminster Hall

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 4 December 2024

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

Biosecurity

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered biosecurity.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, for my first time leading a Westminster Hall debate.

Hon. Members may wonder why I have secured a debate on such a wide-ranging issue as biosecurity. Our changing climate means that new diseases can thrive here in the UK, and more interconnected supply chains put unprecedented pressure on our borders. Stability is vital for food security and economic growth, but biohazards can undermine our vital horticulture and agriculture sectors. These risks are not abstract concepts but tangible realties for the communities we represent. I thank hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Minister, for their support since being elected, because I have faced such biosecurity threats in the South Norfolk constituency.

I bring this matter to the House today because South Norfolk has been directly affected. Many will recall the bluetongue outbreak first identified in Haddiscoe on 26 August this year and the chaos wrought by the largest avian influenza outbreak in 2022-23. I will press the Minister on a number of points, including the need to strengthen our border controls, reappraise the insurance industry’s practices, improve the preparedness of the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and collaborate closer with trade bodies. I commend the Government on the much-needed investment of £208 million to transform our biosecurity at the Weybridge site, which is an essential step forward.

Hon. Members will remember the recent bluetongue outbreak, which began in my constituency. It was first identified in the small village of Haddiscoe, and a 20 km temporary control zone was swiftly established, but the situation sadly escalated. By 30 August, Norfolk and Suffolk were placed under restriction zones, and on 2 September they were extended to Essex. By mid-November, control zones stretched from Lowestoft to Southampton, and from Brighton to Scarborough. Some infected animals may experience productivity issues, including a reduced milk yield. In the most severe cases, the disease will cause abortions, malformations and fatalities. However, it is important to note that bluetongue does not affect people, and the meat and milk from infected animals remains safe.

Farmers in South Norfolk and across affected counties have been resilient and conscientious in the face of this outbreak and the restrictions placed upon them, but those living within the restriction zone have been hit by a double whammy, as some abattoirs have implemented price deductions. Some sites looking to cover the additional costs associated with the disease have imposed price cuts of up to 50p per kilo. That impact is being handed down to farmers, despite their having selflessly gone above and beyond to protect their livestock and that of their neighbours. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that farmers are not subjected to more price deductions, and to discuss the long-term measures we can take to prevent future outbreaks?

The 2022-23 avian influenza outbreak was devastating. There were mass sea bird die-offs, and widespread highly pathogenic avian influenza protection zones were put in place across the majority of the country, but particularly in Norfolk. Recent cases of H5N5 in Yorkshire and H5N1 in Cornwall highlight the continuing threat that avian influenza poses to our poultry market.

In addition to biosecurity, there are pressing financial issues. South Norfolk farmers have told me that they find it near impossible to get insurance cover for avian influenza outbreaks, creating the risk that producers will be forced to leave the industry. I would love it if the Minister could say that he will investigate the possibility of picking up where the insurance providers are dropping the ball and failing to provide support. Will he consider a state-backed scheme to help affected farmers to re-enter the poultry industry following an outbreak?

Currently, compensation for AI is paid out to the owners of birds, but many farms operate on a contract basis and so miss out on that compensation. Again, I would love it if the Minister could tell us that he will consider steps to ensure that contractors receive their fair share of compensation from insurers. Of course, there will always be a perpetual worry about border security. Farmers in South Norfolk tell me that they are really concerned about the controls on meat and livestock entering the UK market. Will the Minister consider reassessing the level of controls on those imported goods to give our farmers peace of mind?

African swine fever is a huge issue for Norfolk. We are one of the biggest pork markets—which was obviously a huge deal for the former, rather than the current, Member for South West Norfolk. The UK pig industry is worth £8 billion annually, and faces a potential crisis if African swine fever breaches our borders. The disease is present in multiple European countries, and the consequences of an outbreak could cost between £10 million to £100 million, according to the National Farmers Union.

I welcome the Government’s September 2024 ban on personal imports of pork from high-risk areas, and DEFRA’s £3.1 million investment into the Dover Port Health Authority, which was a much-needed step forward. Given the critical importance of the pork industry to Norfolk, I urge the Minister to outline the further steps he will take to prevent an African swine fever outbreak in the UK.

It is not just livestock, but crops that are a concern for biosecurity. Virus yellows are key for East Anglia because they cause sugar beet diseases. The sugar beet industry is a cornerstone of the British agricultural economy, supporting around 9,500 jobs. It is anchored by four British Sugar factories, all located in the east of England. The sector faces a significant threat from virus yellows, a devastating group of diseases caused by three different viruses.

Those viruses are transmitted by aphids, which feed on the sugar beet crops. Unlike growers on the continent, UK farmers are particularly vulnerable to the virus, due to our maritime climate. Typically, cold winters suppress the aphid population, reducing the risk of transmission. Milder winters, driven by climate change, allow aphids to survive for longer and thrive. If the aphids carry over the disease from the previous year to the new year, they can infest crops as early as spring, compounding the threat to the British sugar beet yields.

The year 2020 serves as a stark warning. A mild winter, combined with early aphid migration, created a perfect storm, leading to a catastrophic loss for many growers. Without interventions, those conditions are likely to become more frequent. NFU Sugar has predicted that the UK sugar beet crop area could shrink by up to 25%, if a sustainable solution is not found for virus yellows.

Genetic engineering offers a promising path forward, and I welcome the Government’s proactive steps in that area, especially as the Norwich Research Park in my constituency hugely benefits from precision breeding legislation. However, as NFU Sugar rightly points out, that is no silver bullet. A truly effective response must form part of a broader integrated strategy, in order to address the challenges posed by viruses.

Will the Minister provide an update on the actions being taken to support the British sugar industry? Specifically, what is being done to accelerate precision breeding efforts, improve aphid management and ensure sustainable yields for farmers in the face of mounting climate-related challenges?

I do not want to focus solely on agriculture. Horticulture is another vital industry for the UK where biosecurity is a critical concern. If plant diseases breach our defences, the consequences could be devastating, not just for growers but for the environment and the wider economy. One of the most pressing threats is Xylella, a bacterial disease hosted by a wide range of plants, including trees such as the British oak. The risk of introduction to the UK via infected host plants is a growing concern.

To tackle that and other biosecurity challenges, the Horticultural Trades Association has laid out several critical recommendations, which I pose to the Minister: first, an urgent summit on border policy; secondly, a review of commodity risk categorisation; thirdly, enhanced pest and disease testing capabilities; and finally, active international engagement to reassure the global horticultural market and the fresh produce supply chains that the UK is open for trade in a safe and secure manner.

Biosecurity is not merely about safeguarding industries; it is about protecting the livelihoods of farmers and the food security of the nation. In South Norfolk, from poultry and sugar beet to livestock, our communities are working tirelessly to meet those challenges. I know that they have the full support of the House in the actions they are taking to protect us all.

I call on the Minister to act decisively to strengthen our borders, work with insurers, and provide the resources and partnerships needed to maintain for the UK’s biosecurity resilience the world-class status it deserves. Let us meet these challenges head-on, ensuring that our agricultural and horticultural industries remain robust for generations to come.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that should they wish to contribute to the debate they should bob.

09:40

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and to see you in your place once again. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for leading the debate on this important issue. I also see the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), in his place, and I look forward to his contribution. It used to be the eggs, pigs and poultry APPG, and then it was elevated to biodiversity, which I hope was a positive move in the right direction—I always thought eggs, pigs and poultry were more exciting, but that is by the way.

The remit for biosecurity is shared across Government, and the Cabinet Office leads on cross-cutting strategy and preparation. However, some policies on biosecurity are devolved and fall under the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back home in Northern Ireland, so it is important that we discuss these things here in their totality.

I commend the Minister—I am glad to see him in his place—because one of the first things he did when Labour got into power was go to all of the regions of the United Kingdom. I admire him for that, because it showed a Minister who clearly wanted to discuss matters with all the regions in an integrated way. When I make a contribution about Northern Ireland, I know that the Minister will respond positively with the answers, which we look forward to getting. It is also nice to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), in his place; I wish him well in his new role. I am also pleased to see the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), in her new role on the Front Bench. The hon. Lady usually sits here with the Back Benchers but, for today at least, she has been elevated. I look forward to her contribution as well.

I represent a largely costal and rural constituency and have a fantastic relationship—I believe, anyway—with many local fishermen and farmers. I live on a farm on the Ards peninsula—I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union—and, coming from that background, I understand the importance of our biodiversity policies and the methods that must be used to protect against disease.

I want to mention the examples of what has happened back home with avian influenza and tuberculosis to show why biodiversity is so important. There are several notable diseases of concern within the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. These include avian influenzas, bluetongue, African swine fever and TB. I was grateful to meet with Paul Stewart some time ago, the centre manager of Castle Espie, a wetland centre just outside Comber in my constituency. The centre, which is run by the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, is absolutely incredible. It is fantastic for observing and discovering wildlife, and it hosts incredible events for people of all ages. It is very much a must-see venue.

Unfortunately, the centre had to temporarily close due to the confirmed presence of avian influenza. The discovery of a suspect case led to a 1.9 mile—3 km—temporary disease control zone being erected around the wetland reserve. That was absolutely tragic, but they are now out the other side. The avian influenza has been controlled and is no longer there. I am pleased to say the centre has now reopened with a disease prevention strategy in place. I believe that is incredibly important for the protection of the birds, staff and visitors, and everyone in and around the area.

Only days ago, DAERA commenced a review of Northern Ireland’s approach to tackling bovine TB back home. It is a deadly disease that farmers are always at their wits’ end worrying about. Around 10% of herds across Northern Ireland are affected by the disease, which cost the public purse some £55.7 million in 2023-24. My neighbours had a case of TB—they are dairy people and milk more than 170 cattle, and also have beef livestock and calves. They had an outbreak of TB. It affected some 40 of their cattle—not all of them, thank goodness, but it still had an incredible effect on the farmer.

It is always had to quantify this, but I know farmers, and I know my neighbour, and I know how hard he works. To see those 40 calves going away in the lorry to be destroyed—I could see the ache in his heart, which cannot be quantified. Farmers do not just raise their livestock and do all the things they do on their farm to necessarily make money; they have a love of their livestock, as my neighbour clearly has. Furthermore, £36.5 million, almost two thirds of that total of £55.7 million, was paid in compensation to farmers for the removal of animals. It is good that that happens, but it underlines how deadly that disease can be.

The Ulster Farmers’ Union has said that the review that has now been undertaken contains “no meaningful action” to address the bovine TB crisis in Northern Ireland. On Saturday morning, the Ulster Farmers’ Union expressed concerns in Farmers Weekly on behalf of its members: the farmers. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Minister back home on bovine TB and how it can be eradicated? I am ever mindful that farming is a devolved matter, and therefore the Minister here will have no say in what happens. However, the hon. Member for South Norfolk tells me that he has had constructive discussions with the Department back home, so it would be interesting to hear what is happening on that.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is best to liaise across the regions of the UK to replicate best practice? For example, where something to combat the bovine TB issue he talks about is working well, it should be replicated elsewhere. The Minister can hopefully play a part, in consultation with colleagues, to ensure that best practice is repeated across the UK.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that. On best practice, the Minister, other hon. Members, and you, Dame Siobhain, will know that I always think it important to share ideas across this United Kingdom. Where things are working, whether at county level, regional level or whatever it may be, those examples should be taken and given to others.

The TB outbreak just happened in the last two to three months. I understand the pain that my neighbour felt and the impact that it had on him. Bovine TB is a fatal disease that needs a proper prevention and control strategy. On DAERA’s review, the Ulster Farmers’ Union deputy president has stated:

“There’s extremely limited focus on the most critical issue – the need for an effective eradication programme that addresses all sources of infection. While it references biosecurity measures including post-movement testing and restrictions, it’s not enough to only have biosecurity measures.”

I would be grateful if DEFRA committed to discussions with the Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Andrew Muir, to assess what DAERA’s review is missing and see what more the UK Government can do to support the eradication of bovine TB and support our farmers further.

We have seen in the last month the dangers and potential risks to our biosecurity. A case of bluetongue was found in Wales, for example, and panic—I use that word purposefully, because it was probably at that level—ensued across the United Kingdom about bluetongue and its implications. The hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to bluetongue in his introduction; and I thank him for that. As he clearly outlined, farmers want to protect their herds, their flocks, their business and their farms, and such dangers can have an absolutely critical effect. An outbreak of avian influenza has been confirmed in poultry in England. It affected one of the largest poultry flocks on the mainland.

There is still more to be done to tackle and eradicate all these diseases. They have such an impact on livestock and on farmers. I believe that, to tackle these diseases properly, we must work together to ensure that our strategies are regionally aligned and sustainable. I look forward to engaging further on this matter, and I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk for bringing this topic to the Chamber. I very much look forward to other contributions and to a constructive and helpful response from the Minister.

09:49

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on securing today’s debate on biosecurity. It is great that he is continuing the fine tradition of Members for South Norfolk advocating for pork markets. I am proud to chair the APPG on UK food security—I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his warm words about that. As colleagues will be getting to know, I am a proud Yorkshireman who will always promote at every turn our region, and the rural communities I represent. However, nothing is more critical than biosecurity, because, as Members have said, biosecurity is national security.

Let me take you on a journey this morning, Dame Siobhain, from DEFRA laboratories and the port of Dover to farms in York Outer. Along that journey, I have heard about everything, including the threat posed by certain midges around bluetongue, illegal raw meat creating the risk of African swine fever, and poultry in ports creating a risk of avian influenza. We have seen that two of those diseases are present in the UK. Thankfully, bluetongue controls are working, and there has been only one very isolated case of an avian influenza outbreak in East Yorkshire.

However, I digress, so let me return to the biosecurity journey I have been on in the past few months. I recently visited the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge and saw its critical work to safeguard animal and plant health for the benefit of people, the environment and the economy. I saw laboratories undertaking thousands of genomic sequencings, the infrastructure to ensure surveillance of new emerging disease, how outbreaks are modelled, and the agency’s work as an international reference laboratory for many animal diseases. But for all its kit, it was the people who stood out, under the steadfast leadership of Jenny Stewart, the APHA interim chief executive. The people who do that work to keep the UK safe and ultimately protect trade and our food production do it out of vocation, so I thank them.

I hugely welcome the Government’s £200 million investment to support the transformation of APHA’s facilities at Weybridge. That will enhance its ability to respond to the threat that disease outbreaks pose to health, farming, food security, trade and the economy. However, in my typical Yorkshire style, may I be direct? We must continually keep APHA’s resources under review. From what I saw on the ground. if there were a black swan event, or multiple complex disease outbreaks simultaneously, APHA may need additional support. I suppose it is not that dissimilar to what we experienced during the pandemic.

I recently had a meeting with the Dover Port Health Authority. I commend Bev Edmonson, the port health and public protection manager, whose dedication and commitment to public health really stood out. The amount of meat seized by Border Force officials has doubled in a year. The APPG was briefed on cases of illegal meat entering the UK—a risk to human and public health because of Trichinella, for example. There is also a significant biosecurity risk of African swine fever coming into the UK via that point of entry and entering into commercial pig production. To underline the point, I am not one for scaremongering, but the National Audit Office estimated that the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak cost the UK economy £8 billion, which is equivalent to almost double that amount today.

As such, I urge Ministers to consider granting the DPHA a multi-year funding settlement, much like our approach to local government, to support its work on an ongoing basis. As I heard from the DPHA, the intensity, complexity and volume of its work is increasing, and a multi-year settlement, rather than the current periodic rolling arrangement, would give it the opportunity to plan for the future. DEFRA should provide an update on the medium-term implementation and status of the border target operating model. Ensuring that the system is effective is critical to trade and health. I am sure we could have an even more specific and niche Westminster Hall debate on that topic, but I will leave BTOM there and invite the Government to provide further updates in due course.

Finally, I will take us back to the meetings I have had with farmers in my constituency of York Outer—be they the Hobsons or the Wilsons. They depend on a biosecure economy to trade—it is their livelihood. They depend on us getting biosecurity right. From my meetings with APHA, DPHA, the APPG and the NFU, and producer groups such as the BPC and the NPA—the British Poultry Council and the National Pig Association—we have quite the alphabet soup. However, I warmly offer Ministers the opportunity to talk about what I have set out in much more detail. I look forward to meeting Baroness Hayman, the Lords Minister responsible for biosecurity, soon. The recent announcement of funding to the Weybridge lab shows that the Government take biosecurity extremely seriously. I look forward to supporting the Government in that critical work. A good biosecurity system is a bit like a well-built Yorkshire dry stone wall: solid, reliable and it keeps the wrong things out.

09:54

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing this timely debate. I commend him on the work that he has done since being elected to this House on key matters in this area. It is a timely debate for my constituency as there is a proposal for a mega-farm at Methwold in South West Norfolk. I and residents are concerned about a number of aspects, not least that intensive farming is contributing to biodiversity loss, as well to as climate change and air and water pollution. Very often such farming practices adversely affect people living nearby, especially because of the health hazard posed by ammonia pollution.

I note with great concern a report commissioned by Compassion in World Farming, which found that the risk of swine and bird flu pandemics could be increased by intensive pig and poultry farming. The farms concentrate significant numbers of confined animals. In the Methwold proposal we are talking about almost a million chickens and 14,000 pigs on one site, increasing biosecurity risks.

That is not the only concern that we face. In 2022-23, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk observed, Norfolk was badly affected by avian influenza. In the past few years we have seen an unprecedented outbreak, and more than a fifth of all bird flu cases in England have occurred in Norfolk. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a Member for the eastern region, knows that our region has 20% of all the UK’s poultry flock, and that such outbreaks can break farms. Government figures show that the average cost to the Government could be between £2 million and £4 million per outbreak. The Government need to prepare for that, and I welcome the measures announced so far. Prevention, as is so often the case, costs less in the long run, whether in public health, for the farming community or at supermarket checkouts.

I am proud to say that the British Trust for Ornithology headquarters is located in Thetford in my South West Norfolk constituency, and its scientific research and dedication are more important than ever before given the biodiversity loss, climate crisis and biosecurity challenges that we face as a country. That research is critical for our understanding.

In Britain I like to think that we are a global leader when it comes to scientific study; that should be championed. I vividly remember walking around the BTO nature reserve in Thetford, and along our river corridors and forests, and seeing scores of dead birds—wild birds primarily. It was absolutely devastating. One could not miss the sheer number of dead birds, which were evident. Avian influenza significantly impacted our wild bird populations across Norfolk and further afield. Given all the other environmental challenges that we face, that was one that we could have done without.

I congratulate the Minister and the whole Government on the work that they are doing to put Britain back on the map when it comes to leading on environmental policy. I know that the Minister is passionate about farming and biosecurity. He is very well respected by farmers in my constituency. He cares passionately about these issues and all farming-related matters. I hope that in summing up he will provide further reassurance for my residents on the points that have been raised.

09:58

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing this really important debate. We have heard about a range of biosecurity threats. Each of them has real potential to undermine our national security by disrupting our access to food, making our workforce sick, or crippling our export market. What concerns me most, however, is not any single one of those diseases or pests; it is what would happen if the UK were to be hit with two or more outbreaks concurrently.

The likelihood of that happening is greater than ever. We must recognise that threats such as bluetongue, avian influenza and virus yellows, alongside bovine TB, are part of the new normal and that our biosecurity defences need to have enough capacity to deal with them, as well as future threats such as African swine fever, simultaneously. That means ensuring that the Pirbright Institute and the APHA site at Weybridge are fit for purpose, that we are recruiting and retaining enough vets and border control staff, that there is sufficient rendering capacity to dispose of culled animal carcases, and that we have a proper border control strategy. I was alarmed when Dr Christine Middlemiss, the UK’s chief veterinary officer, warned the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee earlier this year that parts of the Weybridge APHA facility were at risk of being taken out of service. I welcome the additional funding that the Government have promised for the facility, and I seriously hope that the £208 million is enough not only to fund a much-needed refurbishment but to transform Weybridge into a facility that will protect the UK from the biological threats of tomorrow.

Our nation’s biosecurity defences must consist not just of buildings but of people. Despite the important role that vets and allied professionals, such as meat hygiene inspectors, play in protecting us from disease, and despite the clear evidence that there is a shortage of them in agricultural supply chains, the Government’s workforce data is poor. Unlike the United States and Australasia, which are facing similar shortages, we do not even know the scale of the problem, let alone how best to solve it. What we do know is that 45% of vets leaving the industry have less than four years’ experience, that the attrition rate in abattoirs is rising by 11% each year and that many of our veterinary schools are struggling to get two qualified applicants for clinical teaching roles.

Workforce shortages are a key challenge facing the veterinary profession, and these problems are particularly pronounced in rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton. Solutions such as creating new vet schools and increasing the number of university places will take at least five years to shift the dial on our vet workforce. That is why it is critical that the Government transfer work visa policymaking from the Home Office to other Departments such as DEFRA.

Improving our biosecurity will ensure that we can continue to prevent major infectious disease outbreaks, which are expensive and harm our international reputation, but it will create opportunities too. The two most widely discussed problems in agriculture are business viability and climate change, and what is often forgotten in these conversations is that vaccinations can play a part in supporting both. As we have heard in this debate, diseases such as bluetongue, Schmallenberg virus and avian influenza can lead to stunted growth in livestock. They fail to reproduce, they abort and they are more likely to die. I spoke to a farmer in Barton St David recently, and they told me that that just means more inputs for lower outputs, and for consumers it means more expensive food. He also said that it means more damage to the environment as well.

Research from my alma mater, Harper Adams University, shows that controlling avian influenza reduces greenhouse gas emissions by almost 16% per kilogram of meat without the need for culling. Following several successful campaigns from industry bodies, most livestock farmers now accept the benefits of regular vaccinations and parasite control. However, our inconsistent domestic vaccine capacity is preventing them from doing so. For example, this summer, sheep farmers saw yet another shortage of enzootic abortion vaccinations and continued shortages of orf vaccinations.

Covid-19 demonstrated that the UK is a vaccination superpower that can develop and procure the best proactive defences against new threats. It also showed us how vulnerable we are if we do not have access to vaccines. I urge the Government to bolster our vaccination production capacity by introducing a research and innovation fund to support new and emerging technologies. Innovation must also be fostered within Departments and Government bodies.

It is worrying that imports of illegal meats have doubled to almost 70,000 kg this year, which leaves us particularly vulnerable to African swine fever and foot and mouth disease. Although this must be tackled first and foremost by developing a joint strategy with Europol and Eurojust, the Government could also slash the demand for these illegal imports by allowing food producers to provide cuts and products favoured by different communities safely. For example, if skin-on lamb was produced in the UK, the incentive to import it illegally would fall to near zero.

Safeguarding the public must be one of the Government’s top priorities following 14 years of Conservative failure. Farmers’ confidence levels have slumped to a record low, and part of their restoration must be to provide biosecurity measures that will protect the UK from both existing threats and the threats of tomorrow.

10:05

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, and to have the opportunity to contribute to this vital debate on biosecurity. I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on bringing the topic to the Chamber. Of the B-words that I have mentioned in this place over the last five years, biosecurity is right at the top. It is something that I am absolutely passionate about. I declare a strong professional and personal interest in the topic as a veterinary surgeon.

There have been great speeches today on this important topic. The hon. Member for South Norfolk touched on the important issues of blue tongue, avian influenza, African swine fever, and the vital importance of the Animal and Plant Health Agency. He also touched on virus yellows and the significance of the topic for animal, plant and tree health across the United Kingdom. It is so important, so I thank the hon. Member again for introducing this debate.

I am gutted that I did not get a chance to intervene on my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He talked about the importance of biosecurity and joined-up thinking right across our precious United Kingdom. He made a powerful intervention on the impact of bovine TB on farmers, speaking of how distressing and devastating it is when there is a positive reactor. I am going to touch on the mental-health impacts of biosecurity breakdowns.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who is the chair of the UK food security APPG, again talked about the importance of the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and the people within that great institution working on the frontline to keep the United Kingdom safe. He stressed the importance of more support for the APHA, which I will touch on firmly and robustly with the Minister in due course. The hon. Member highlighted, as Members across the Chamber have done, the distressing and alarming situation of illegal meat imports coming into the country and the risks that African swine fever and foot and mouth disease may bring to our agricultural sectors.

The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) has personal experience of being on the frontline in his constituency. He spoke of the pivotal risks to both the poultry and pig sectors if those diseases come in. Some of the diseases, such as avian influenza, are here, as we have heard, but heaven forbid we get African swine fever. It would be devastating and catastrophic for this country.

I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for championing the veterinary sector. She cited the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, on which I served during the last Parliament. I chaired the emergency session on veterinary medicine when we heard powerful evidence from the chief veterinary officer, Christine Middlemiss. I take the opportunity—shamelessly—to give a big shout- out to people like Christine Middlemiss, as well as the chief vets right across our precious United Kingdom. The joined-up thinking of those veterinary experts working together to keep our nation safe is important, and we must champion and support them.

I want to state firmly that biosecurity is national security. What we are here to discuss today is not a niche concern but something that is vital for human public health, food security, protecting our precious environment, and upholding animal health and welfare. The priority for the Government must be to shore up the nation’s biosecurity or risk the grim consequences of an animal disease outbreak, which could ravage wild and kept animal or bird populations, and doing untold damage to our economy and international trade standing.

My journey to Parliament, as the first veterinary surgeon elected to the House of Commons since 1884, started in 2001, when I spent a period as a veterinary inspector on the frontline of the foot and mouth outbreak. I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime. The mass culls that devastated our rural communities showed the horrific reality of what can happen when Government gets biosecurity policy wrong. I gently but robustly say to the Minister that that remains an ever-present warning to Ministers of any political party. We must never forget, we must be vigilant and we must stand prepared.

In 2001, previously bustling farms and fields were left empty, and even the hardiest of stoic farmers could not contain their grief. One memory I cannot shake off came after we worked through the night, with logistical support from the Army, to cull an entire herd of cattle, including the calves. In the morning, the farmer and his wife invited my veterinary colleague and me into their home for breakfast. He said to me, “Do you know, Neil, this is the first time of a morning that the only thing I can hear on my farm is complete silence.”

Beyond the personal tragedies and the 6 million animals culled, the outbreak was estimated to have directly cost the public sector more than £5 billion and the private sector £8.7 billion in today’s prices when adjusted for inflation. Tragically, we saw lives, livelihoods and community mental health impacted.

Fast-forward 20 years, and the UK now faces a significant threat from diseases, as we have heard today, such as bluetongue virus, avian influenza and—heaven forbid, if it crosses from the continent—African swine fever. As we have heard today, we still have the chronic presence of bovine tuberculosis. This year, we have seen cases of bluetongue across the UK, stretching from Cornwall to North Yorkshire, and Anglesey to East Anglia. In recent weeks, we have seen new outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza strains, including in Cornwall and Yorkshire. We also have the ever-present threat of African swine fever, which is advancing across Europe and now present in many countries, including Germany, Italy and Poland, to name just a few of the countries that are facing that virus. As we have heard, we have seen alarming levels of illegal meat imports being detected.

During the 2022-23 avian influenza outbreak, 5.4 million birds died or were culled, and were then disposed of for disease-control purposes. Distressingly, huge numbers of wild birds also died. That is worrying not purely for birdlife but for other species, including humans. Avian influenza has been reported in the US in dairy cattle, and in South America in marine mammals. We all know the dangers of diseases that cross the species barriers, including zoonotic diseases, which move from animals to people.

I return to the subject of bluetongue, which is spread by midges. Between November 2023 and May 2024, there were 126 identified cases of bluetongue virus serotype 3—BTV 3—in England. As of 25 November this year, 168 cases have been identified. The Minister has previously confirmed that bluetongue is

“challenging to control without vaccination”,

so will he assure the House that the Government are increasing work on vaccine manufacturing and procurement, for ultimate delivery and roll-out?

The European Commission has published figures detailing cases of African swine fever in more than 20 nations across the continent this calendar year. Although we remain incredibly fortunate to have avoided cases in the UK, we must remain vigilant; otherwise, there is a risk that that highly infectious disease will cause catastrophe for our pig sector. The need for vigilance was underlined by a recent freedom of information request by the BBC, which showed that Border Force seized 70,000 kg of illegal, and therefore unregulated, meat in the 2023-24 financial year, up from 35,000 kg the year before.

The Minister has updated us about the border target operating model. Will he update us on its capacity to keep us safe from diseases such as African swine fever and foot and mouth disease? We know that checks will be starting at Sevington, 22 miles inland from Dover. Will the Minister reassure us that we will still be able to carry out random spot checks within the port of Dover itself? It is important that the unscrupulous and immoral people who are trying to smuggle in foodstuffs that could potentially devastate our farming and food sectors know they can be targeted with checks.

Live animal imports to this country can also pose a risk to animal and human health. There have been reports of Brucella canis, a disease in dogs that we have not heard about today, which sadly has limited treatment options and which in many cases ends up with the dog being euthanised. There were no cases in 2019 but 187 in 2023. It is a zoonotic disease, which means that it can transfer from animals to people, and there have been reports of dog-to-human transmission in the UK. It is therefore vital that the Government look at pre-import health testing of animals such as dogs coming in from countries in which diseases such as Brucella canis are endemic. On Friday, I was on the Front Bench supporting the puppy-smuggling Bill—the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill—which is now going into Committee. I urge the Government to look closely at the possibility of introducing pre-import checks to keep animals that are coming in safe, and to protect human and animal health in this country.

I hope the dangers of the infectious agents that I and others have talked about today are taken seriously. We cannot afford to be complacent about the risks that threaten not just animal but human health, as well as our economy, our trading links and standards, and the wider agricultural sector. To put it simply, if a major outbreak were to occur and we were not fully prepared to deal with it, the consequences would be catastrophic.

The Government, of whatever colour, must protect our nation’s biosecurity. To do that, they must fully back the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is in urgent need of support, as we have heard. I pay tribute to the veterinary professionals, animal officers, scientists and officials at the APHA, who do so much to keep our country biosecure. The APHA’s Weybridge site in Surrey is the UK’s primary capability for animal health science. In the previous Parliament, I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and we strongly called for the redevelopment of the APHA’s Weybridge facilities. A 2022 report by the National Audit Office outlined that the APHA’s HQ needed a complete redevelopment, and I guested on the Public Accounts Committee when we looked at that report.

The site needs an estimated £2.8 billion redevelopment; otherwise, we risk being left unprotected against a major animal disease outbreak or, as we have heard today, if we face simultaneous outbreaks of different diseases. The APHA is hanging on by its fingertips, and if it is challenged with multiple cases, we could have a catastrophe. It is therefore vital that the Government—and I look again at the Minister—invest fully in the APHA to ensure that it maintains state-of-the-art facilities that can identify, respond to and manage emerging risks.

The previous Conservative Government rightly initiated plans, with a £1.2 billion commitment in 2020, so that work could begin, but that must now be followed up by necessary further capital investment as a matter of urgency. I note that in the Budget the new Government have committed £208 million to support Weybridge’s transformation—I am sure the Minister will cite that today. But they need to go much, much further, because that does not touch the sides. I therefore urge the Minister to make the case to Treasury colleagues for the site to be funded in full, and for the remaining £1.4 billion to be committed. I repeat: biosecurity is national security. Without the full funding, the APHA’s ability to respond to simultaneous infectious disease outbreaks will be severely limited, and we may have a national security disaster.

I ask the Minister to please relay this message to his counterparts at the Treasury: investing in the redevelopment of the APHA headquarters is an investment in our nation’s biosecurity, our national security, our economy and the lives and livelihoods of generations to come. Before the general election, many Labour Members, including the Minister himself, called for this funding and for the full redevelopment. I now urge Ministers to put their money where their mouth is and urgently safeguard our biosecurity. If the Treasury will not deliver it through the DEFRA budget, I would urge it to consider delivering it through the Contingencies Fund. I repeat: biosecurity is national security—it needs to be paid for.

I want to come back to farming. We need to support our farming communities when adversity strikes, such as acute disease outbreaks or extreme weather events. Where something is more chronic, as the hon. Member for Strangford said—such as when farms get a positive result during regular bovine TB testing—we need to make sure that the mental health of farmers, vets and everyone else is supported. I again cite the EFRA Committee, which in the last Parliament produced a report on rural mental health that looked at these issues very closely.

The pressures on our farmers’ mental health are increasing day by day, with extreme weather events, animal disease outbreaks and financial pressures. The issue is now more important than ever, with the increased pressures that this Labour Government are unnecessarily putting on farming communities with—I have to say it—their incredibly ill-judged and heartless family farm tax. I look to the Minister and say, “Please reconsider.” Today we are holding a debate in the main Chamber on this heartless tax, and I hope that every Member in this Chamber, including Labour Members, and their colleagues, will vote for their farmers and their rural communities. That will send a strong message to the Government that they have got this wrong, and that they need to reverse this heartless, awful family farm tax.

We have talked about mental health today, and I am keen for the Minister to reiterate what support the Government will give to the mental health of farmers and others in rural communities, who face infectious disease outbreaks when biosecurity breaks down, as well as extreme weather events, and financial stress and pressure. On that point, I want to mention the tremendous work of charities up and down the land in support of the mental health of our farming communities. They include YANA—Opposition Members will know it well, and I met it recently to discuss its outreach coming over into Essex from Suffolk and Norfolk—as well as RABI, Farmerados, the Farming Community Network, Yellow Wellies, Vetlife and many others. I say a deep and sincere thank you to them.

In conclusion—I am being repetitive, but I think it is worth it—biosecurity is national security. Compromised biosecurity affects everything from animal health and public health to the price of food, trade, our position on the world stage and our precious environment. The covid pandemic sent us a clear message that some infectious diseases do not respect borders or species barriers. We ignore that at our peril. I urge the Government from the bottom of my heart to fully fund the APHA HQ redevelopment, to make sure that the burning pyres of slaughtered animals, and the economic and mental health devastation of foot and mouth, remain resolutely confined to the history books.

10:26

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), not just for securing this important debate—and for winning South Norfolk, which is very precious to me—but for his continued commitment to championing our agriculture sector. East Anglia is a crucial part of the UK’s livestock and, in particular, arable sectors and provides quality produce that underpins our nation’s food security and is in demand across Europe and beyond.

We have had a thoughtful and sensible discussion this morning. Let me start by reiterating the Government’s total commitment to all those who work in the agriculture and horticulture sectors, and all those beyond. They are on the frontline, not only producing our food but protecting our national biosecurity. I was struck by the passionate interventions by all speakers this morning. I listened closely to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talking about the impact that bovine TB has on people. I was struck by the account that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) gave of walking through Thetford and seeing the dead birds after the avian influenza outbreak. Of course, I could not help but be struck by the way my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) summed up biosecurity as being like a Yorkshire wall—solid, well-built and designed to keep out things we do not want here. I paraphrase, but he gave a very good account of what we are trying to achieve.

I also listened closely to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson). I do not think anyone could have failed to be moved by his powerful personal account of the foot and mouth outbreak, and I echo his warm words for those in our Government Departments, such as the chief vet, Christine Middlemiss, for the work they do. I think there is actually a lot of agreement in the Chamber this morning about the importance of the issue and our support for those working on it.

Biosecurity is vital. It underpins safe food, protects animal and plant health, and supports a prosperous economy and trade. It is a joint endeavour: Government, animal keepers, horticulturists and the public must do everything we can collectively to keep disease out. As we have heard from Members this morning, the costs are significant. Plant diseases alone are estimated to cost the global economy over $220 billion annually, and up to 40% of global crop production is lost to pests each year. Those are huge numbers, and are sadly unlikely to reduce as climate change drives the geographic expansion and the host range of pests and diseases. Healthy plants and animals are not just an important tool in the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss, but contribute directly to many of the UN’s sustainable development goals—in particular, ending hunger, achieving food security, improving nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture.

Pests and diseases know no borders. New and emerging threats are often the result of trade and globalisation, and are then further exacerbated by climate change. Safe trade is essential to food security in a thriving economy. We want healthy trade to support food security and the economy, but at the same time we need to protect ourselves from risks. That is why DEFRA is a key delivery Department of the UK biological security strategy, which takes a UK-wide approach that strengthens deterrence and resilience, projects global leadership and exploits opportunities for UK prosperity. In parallel, the environmental improvement plan sets out how we will improve our environment at home and abroad, including through enhancing biosecurity. I can assure the House that we have in place robust measures to maintain and improve our ability to understand, detect, prevent, respond and recover from outbreaks that affect animals and that affect plants.

One of our first defences is to understand the threats and monitor the risks, which we do through established expert groups, the veterinary risk group, the human animal infections and risk surveillance group, and the plant health risk group. Our programmes of research support the expert groups. For example, for plant health, DEFRA has invested more than £8 million into ash dieback research, including the world’s largest screening trials for resistant trees, the Living Ash Project, while for animal health, DEFRA and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council are funding £6.5 million of research projects to better forecast, understand, mitigate and avoid vector-borne diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks.

Our second line of defence is detection through strong surveillance systems. Our network of official laboratories, veterinary investigators, border inspectors and bee, fish, and plant inspectors all contribute to the early warning detections for signs of disease or antimicrobial resistance.

Thirdly, prevention is key. As the saying goes, prevention is better than cure, so this Government will take action to prevent pests and diseases from arriving in the first place. Preventing an outbreak of African swine fever in the UK, for example, remains one of our key biosecurity priorities. Although, as has rightly been said, we have not had an outbreak of ASF in the UK, the overall risk of an incursion is currently assessed to be medium. We continue to prepare for a possible outbreak.

To help prevent ASF incursions in the UK, robust safeguards are in place, prohibiting live pigs, wild boar, or pork products from affected European Union areas from entering Great Britain. Enforcement is carried out by Border Force and Port Health Authority officers at seaports and airports. Under the enhanced safeguard measures introduced in the autumn—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer for referencing them—travellers are no longer allowed to bring pork products into Great Britain unless they are produced and packaged to the EU’s commercial standards and weigh no more than 2 kg. DEFRA and its agencies continuously review the spread of ASF and other diseases, and are ready to introduce further biosecurity restrictions, should they be deemed necessary, in response to new scientific and risk data.

Our fourth line of defence is our response capability. Our disease contingency plans and underpinning legislation are regularly reviewed to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, and that we have the necessary capacity and capability to respond. We exercise our plans regularly and work closely with stakeholders on their own preparedness.

[Dr Hudson]

The Minister is turning to the contingency plans, so let me take us back to African swine fever, as he has not really touched on my question in that regard. Will there be the capability to have random spot checks within the port of Dover itself? We know that the inland centre will be up and running, but it is so important that unscrupulous people coming in know that they could be targeted within the port, so that these illegal meat imports can be snapped out.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We are working closely with the Port Health Authority to make sure that everything that needs to be done can be done.

As I was saying, we exercise our plans regularly and work closely with stakeholders on their preparedness. The ongoing response to bluetongue and highly pathogenic avian influenza are cases in point. Officials from across the UK are working closely with sector representatives on the implementation of control measures.

Early identification was crucial in enabling a rapid response to the bluetongue outbreak. DEFRA provided free pre-movement testing to animal keepers in counties at the highest risk of incursion from infected biting midges originating from the continent. A restriction zone covering the counties affected by bluetongue has been established. That measure has been carefully considered to protect the free area from disease spread while allowing the free movement of animals in the zone, keeping business disruption to a minimum. On the question asked by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, permitted use of the BTV-3 vaccine is available, and I am told that just over 14,500 animals have been vaccinated so far.

To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, I am aware of reports that some meat processors may have taken unfair advantage of the bluetongue outbreak to reduce prices. That is dreadful; I do not condone that behaviour at all, not least since bluetongue does not affect the meat. My understanding is that it is not a widespread issue, and that prices paid to farmers for beef and sheep continue to be stable and at five-year highs. That is a good example of why this Government consider fairness in the supply chain to be critical for farmers across all sectors. I also reassure hon. Members that the bluetongue virus is not a public health threat and does not affect people or food safety. While no sick animal should enter the food chain, meat and milk from infected animals is safe to eat and drink.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of virus yellows. A lot of work is going on with British Sugar, particularly at the John Innes Centre, which is just outside Norwich; I understand that there is a project involving the biotech company Tropic. I have stood in fields and looked at sugar beet suffering to varying degrees from yellows. Our proposals on genetic engineering may provide a solution in future, but in the shorter term some new innovations are being looked at. Those should give us better ways of tackling this disease, which is serious, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said—particularly for our region in the east of England.

On plant health in general, joint working with the horticultural sector takes place with the Royal Horticultural Society and the Horticultural Trades Association through the plant health accord, the tree health policy group and plant health advisory forum, and the Plant Health Alliance, which leads the plant healthy certification scheme.

As I have said, biosecurity has to be a shared endeavour. The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom, and we are working with the European Union to identify areas where we can strengthen co-operation for mutual benefit. We have been clear that a veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could boost trade and deliver significant benefits to the European Union and the United Kingdom, but delivering new agreements will take time. It is important that we get the right agreement, meet our international obligations, and protect the UK’s biosecurity and public health throughout the process.

Furthermore, maintaining our high standards requires constant investment. The hon. Member for Epping Forest made a powerful case about the Animal and Plant Health Agency at Weybridge. This Government are not in the business of making unfunded commitments, but we have announced £208 million for the next phase of the redevelopment of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s Weybridge laboratory. I echo the powerful praise from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer for Jenny Stewart and her staff—we should thank all those, right across the piece, who work on our behalf.

We believe that the £208 million investment will help to safeguard and enhance the UK’s capability to respond to the threat from animal and plant diseases, help to protect public health, and underpin the UK’s trade capability with animal export products, which are worth £16 billion per year to the UK economy. The APHA is also looking to grow its external income streams over the coming years to support the delivery of key services, recognising the efficiencies that we all need to deliver in these challenging times.

I have talked about bluetongue, so let me turn to the threat to our poultry sector.

[Dr Hudson]

I have a lot of respect for the Minister and I like him a lot as a person, too. I will ask a question about the APHA before he moves on from it. I acknowledge that the Government have put forward £208 million. The previous Government committed £1.2 billion. The APHA still needs £1.4 billion. I know that he cannot make Treasury commitments on behalf of the Chancellor, but please can he give assurances that DEFRA will keep making representations to the Treasury that the refurbishment we have discussed needs to be undertaken in full? The £208 million is a start to help with the transformation, but more money needs to be committed for national security. Please will he and his DEFRA colleagues make that case to Treasury? If the money cannot come from the DEFRA budget, it can come from the Contingencies Fund.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear and respect the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I gently point out to him that the country is in an economic mess and we can only spend the money that we have. That point will be reiterated in debate after debate. Every part of our rural economy, indeed every part of our country, needs a sound economic basis upon which to proceed. The previous Government did not take that view, but we will.

In response to the detection of two new cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry in England this autumn, DEFRA and the APHA have stood up the well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade and assist the recovery of local communities.

We are in a better place than in previous years, but there is absolutely no complacency. Hon. Members regardless of party have referred to the situation that we are in. It is too early to predict the outlook for future seasons, and risk levels may increase further this winter; obviously, we hope that they do not. However, this situation is associated with the migratory pattern of wild waterfowl and the environmental conditions becoming more favourable, sadly, for virus survival. As I have said, I was very taken by the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk about the impact on the wild bird population as well as on our kept birds.

So, we continue to monitor closely the avian influenza outbreak and any effects it might have on bird keepers, poultry producers and processors, in addition to those wild bird populations that have been mentioned, particularly those of conservation concern. We urge all bird keepers, whether they have pet birds, commercial flocks or just a few birds in a backyard flock, to maintain stringent biosecurity in order to protect the health and welfare of their birds.

Slaughtering of turkeys and other birds for the Christmas market has already begun and we do not currently anticipate avian influenza to have any impact on supplies. Further information on the latest situation and guidance on how keepers can protect their birds from avian influenza can be found online from Government sources.

[Ben Goldsborough]

I gently ask a question about the insurance issue that I raised in my speech. Insurance is a huge part of the sectoral fragilities that we see in relation to this issue. Would the Department be able to look into insurance companies that refuse to give avian influenza insurance payments?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Insurance is a complicated issue, but my officials are in discussions about what we might be able to do. Let me conclude—

[Jim Shannon]

First, I thank the Minister for his responses to us. I know that he will do this, but just to have it on the record in Hansard I ask him this question: will he have some discussions with the Minister back home, Andrew Muir, in relation to bovine TB? We have had some of the biggest outbreaks in all of the United Kingdom. Is it possible to work better and more closely together to try to address this issue? I understand that Minister Muir would love to hear from him and get his thoughts.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I very much enjoyed meeting Minister Muir a few months before the election, when I was the shadow Minister. Interestingly, it was bovine TB that was being discussed in the Assembly that very day. I absolutely take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am keen to visit. When we are not having weekly debates on other issues, maybe there will be the opportunity to go to talk to friends in the devolved Administrations.

The Government do not underestimate the biosecurity threats we face or the challenges that the agricultural and horticultural sectors are facing. We will continue to test our capabilities regularly to ensure resilience and respond to those threats through exercises and horizon scanning. We will learn lessons when outbreaks do occur and make the necessary improvements. We will continue to work closely with sector groups on preparedness and response, and we remain ever grateful for their insight and commitment.

I thank all hon. Members for a well-informed and thoughtful discussion. I genuinely believe there are many opportunities ahead for the agricultural and horticultural sectors. We are absolutely committed to making the most of them, and to ensuring that the industry can best contribute to our country’s food security and economic growth.

10:45

[Ben Goldsborough]

What was great about this debate was the unanimity of voice in the personal stories that we heard from across the United Kingdom about the impact of biosecurity fragility, not only on the individuals who farm our land but on those who work to protect our farmers and horticulturists. What has shone through in the debate is our ability to pull together in our national interest. We know that party politics does not determine that—that we need to work together to find a route to protect the agricultural and horticultural sectors, as well as our human health.

As has been noted by hon. Members regardless of party, pathogens can cross from animals to humans; we saw it with covid-19 and with other diseases worldwide, so we must be vigilant. I thank my hon. Friends for attending and raising issues from across my good county of Norfolk, such as the mega-farm issue in South West Norfolk. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) also brought his expertise. This debate will go on, and I know we will have many more discussions about this.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered biosecurity.

10:46

Sitting suspended.

Hospitality Sector: Eastleigh

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I will call Liz Jarvis to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. I call Liz Jarvis to move the motion.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the hospitality sector in Eastleigh.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to have the opportunity today to discuss the urgent challenges facing the hospitality sector in my constituency of Eastleigh and across the UK.

Hospitality is not only a significant economic driver, but the beating heart of our high streets and communities. From the pubs that act as social hubs to the restaurants and cafés that bring people together, the sector is central to our economy and way of life. My constituent, Lorraine, is the landlady of the Master Builder in West End in my constituency. Her heating costs are around £3,000 a week, placing an unsustainable strain on her business. Although December bookings provide some hope, she worries that the quieter months of January and February could push her pub to the brink. Despite the pressures, Lorraine’s commitment to her community is unwavering. Her pub hosts local care home residents for darts and meals and welcomes charities, including Southampton Sight, for Christmas dinners and Sunday carveries. As she says,

“it’s not just for coming in on a weekend and letting off some steam, it’s about friendship, kindness and community.”

Yet with rising costs Lorraine is questioning how much longer she can keep her doors open while working over 90 hours a week to make her business work.

In Eastleigh the hospitality industry contributes £114 million annually. It employs 1,805 people and encompasses 84 venues, including some fantastic cafés such as the Coffee Cabin, which recently celebrated its third birthday, many superb restaurants and 32 local pubs. Eastleigh is also home to Steam Town Brew Co., an independent brewery, and The Steel Tank Alehouse, an independent micropub in Chandler’s Ford, both of which embody the entrepreneurial spirit that drives our local hospitality sector. Our football club and world-class cricket ground attract visitors from across the UK and beyond, many of whom stay in our local hotels and enjoy local hospitality.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand and we share a similar concern in relation to national insurance contributions. The pressure on hospitality businesses is leaving the industry at breaking point. If the Government and the Minister do not provide some form of relief, we will face a lot of empty cafés and restaurants in the coming year. Does the hon. Lady share my concerns?

[Liz Jarvis]

Yes, I do share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Despite the remarkable community contribution that our hospitality generates, the sector is under immense pressure. Nationally, hospitality employs 3.5 million people. It generates £140 billion in economic activity and pays £54 billion in taxation. The Government’s Budget, however, introduced £3.4 billion of cost increases, including rises in employer national insurance contributions. Those measures disproportionately impact lower-paid and part-time workers, who form the backbone of the industry. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that next year 60% of the employer national insurance contribution’s increase will be paid for by staff in reduced real wages.

According to UKHospitality, employer national insurance contributions for a part-time worker on 15 hours will increase by 73%. Combined with reductions in business rates relief from 75% to 40%, these policies are creating unsustainable pressures on businesses already operating on razor-thin margins.

The Steam Town Brew Co. is a local success story. David from Steam Town raised the issues of residual inflation in food and drink, the prices of raw ingredients for brewing and high interest rates. He wants to grow the business, but the current economic conditions and existing market restrictions, such as the lack of access to tied pubs for smaller breweries, have made it challenging. The situation is made worse by the surging costs of energy. Hospitality businesses are among the most energy-intensive sectors, with pubs and restaurants relying heavily on refrigeration, heating and cooking equipment. High energy costs have led to dramatic increases in operating expenses that are becoming too hard to bear.

For smaller businesses the increases are not sustainable and many businesses are at risk of closure. Will the Minister share the steps the Government are taking to help hospitality businesses to manage their energy costs in the coming months? Post-covid recovery remains a significant challenge for hospitality businesses. Many are grappling with debt, reduced footfall and the shift of consumers to online food shopping. Last year alone, 2,704 hospitality businesses went into insolvency, highlighting the fragility of the sector and the urgency for Government support.

The cost of living crisis has created a perfect storm for the hospitality sector, as households across the UK tighten their belts, reducing discretionary spending on dining out, hotel stays and social experiences. That squeeze on disposable income directly impacts the vibrancy of our high streets. Individual prosperity and high street prosperity are intrinsically linked. When families feel they cannot afford to participate in social activities, it is not just their individual wellbeing, but the fabric of our communities that suffers.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate. The high streets in both Harrogate and Knaresborough are struggling. Does she agree that the Government need to do more to reform business rates properly? That is the key that underpins the vibrancy of our local high streets. Reforming business rates would give an injection of cash and the ability to do what they do best.

[Liz Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I will say more on that shortly. When the previous Conservative Government presided over an historic drop in living standards—the first time British households ended a Parliament worse off than when it began—it is no wonder that the hospitality sector has struggled in recent years. A sector thrives when people have confidence in their financial futures. That confidence has been eroded by years of poor economic management. High streets should be centres of activity, creativity and connection. The Government’s current policies risk turning them into boarded-up remnants of what once was. Hon. Members know that all too well, as we witness the slow erosion of our high streets with each closed pub, restaurant or café.

What reassurances can the Minister provide that the Government are committed to preventing further closures and fostering growth in our high streets? This weekend sees Small Business Saturday, an opportunity to celebrate and support our small businesses. Instead of stifling those businesses with increased taxes, the Government should lift burdens to allow the hospitality sector to thrive. A strong hospitality sector brings busy pubs, bustling hotels, vibrant nightlife and a renewed sense of community spirit. That is what our towns and cities need to recover from years of economic stagnation.

The Government should create economic conditions so that entrepreneurs are clamouring to open new restaurants, cafés, bars and pubs, finally putting a stop to the steady erosion of the sector in our communities. Every closed hospitality venue is not just a lost business but a lost opportunity for social connection and local employment. The Government must step up and deliver policies that support hospitality and ensure a brighter future for our high streets and the communities they serve.

I would like to know the specific steps the Government are taking to support this vital sector and restore hope to our high streets. If we want to see thriving high streets filled with energy and purpose, the Government must act decisively. At the heart of these challenges lies a deeply flawed business rate system. Business rates actively harm productivity by taxing structures and equipment instead of profits or land value. That outdated system discourages investment, stifling innovation and growth. Liberal Democrats have long called for its replacement with a commercial landowner levy, which would tax only the land value of commercial sites. That reform would encourage investment in buildings and infrastructure, reduce taxes in 92% of local authorities, particularly in deprived areas, and shift the administrative burden from businesses to landlords.

For high streets such as those in Eastleigh, that could provide a much-needed lifeline. It would allow businesses to focus on growth and innovation, while alleviating the crisis faced by small enterprises and hospitality venues. Although the Government have announced plans to introduce lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, those changes are far too delayed. By the time those reforms take effect, many businesses will already have shut their doors. Moreover, reducing relief for small businesses from 75% to 40% is a devastating blow to thousands of enterprises trying to recover from years of economic strain.

In particular, pubs are bearing an unjust share of the burden. According to the British Beer and Pub Association, despite accounting for just 0.5% of total business turnover, they pay 2.8% of the business rates bill, an overpayment of around £500 million each year. I ask the Minister what plans the Government have to review that inequity.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Apologies for being late. I ask the Minister if the Government have considered the impact on the hospitality industry in Scotland from the national insurance changes? The reason I ask is that we do not have business rates relief in Scotland, and I believe the impact of the changes is going to be massively bad for the hospitality industry.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I thank the Member for his intervention and I am sure that the Minister will take it up in his contribution. However, at the moment the Member in charge has the floor.

[Liz Jarvis]

The hospitality sector is about not just numbers, but people, culture and community. In Eastleigh, hospitality businesses provide jobs for students, opportunities for young people entering the workforce, and spaces where people come together. They are integral to our social fabric and our economy. They deserve meaningful support from this Government.

Without decisive action we risk losing not only businesses, but the vibrant communities they sustain. I urge the Government to reform business rates to support productive investment, reverse the increase to employer national insurance contributions and provide targeted relief to the hospitality sector. Let us not allow short-term measures to undermine the long-term health of our economy and communities. In the spirit of hospitality, I conclude by inviting the Minister to visit Eastleigh to meet representatives from the hospitality industry and enjoy the very best that the constituency has to offer.

11:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

I appreciate the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and in the usual way I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this important debate. I thank her for her invitation to visit Eastleigh; I do not know specifically when I will have the opportunity to do so, but I will certainly consider it when I am in the Southampton area. Her constituency sounds like a particularly attractive part of the UK—if she will forgive me for saying so, almost as attractive as Harrow West, where we also have some great hospitality businesses.

The hon. Member rightly alluded to the significance of Small Business Saturday this week, which provides a great opportunity to celebrate the small hospitality businesses that bring such joy and life to the communities of all our constituencies. I will say more about Small Business Saturday in due course.

This debate matters because the hospitality sector is hugely important to the UK economy, employing around 3.5 million people and generating around £140 billion of economic activity. It contributes around £54 billion in revenue per annum. The sector is important to local economies because it helps to create vibrant places that people want to visit, work in and live around. It is important in supporting wider social objectives, providing accessible jobs, community cohesion and welcoming spaces for people to enjoy. The hon. Member referenced the work of the landlady, Lorraine, as just one example of the difference that hospitality makes in so many of our communities. In short, hospitality is the backbone of our high streets and the lifeblood of many of our communities.

I meet regularly with hospitality businesses, and only yesterday hosted a meeting of the Hospitality Sector Council, so I hear first-hand the pressures facing hospitality businesses. A hospitality business, like any other business, can only prosper and grow on the firm foundation of economic stability. Unfortunately, economic stability is certainly not what we inherited when we came into power in July. At the end of October, at the Budget, the Chancellor made decisions that she did not want to have to make, but however painful those decisions may have been in the short term, they were the right decisions and were necessary to fix the foundations of what most in the House recognise was a broken economy.

The Budget also reflected the need to protect smaller businesses—for example, by more than doubling the national insurance contribution employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. It will provide relief for about 1 million small businesses. It also set out the steps that we will take to address the iniquities of an antiquated system of business rates that is particularly unfair for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. The hon. Member for Eastleigh rightly referred to that in her contribution. Not only is the current system of business rates unfair, but it disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets.

The Budget delivers on our manifesto commitment to make hospitality pay a fairer share of business rates, with a permanently lower multiplier from 2026. Until then, we have extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief at 40%. In addition, the business rates multiplier will be frozen at 49.9p for small businesses, and we intend to introduce permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27. The hon. Member for Eastleigh will also be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor published a discussion paper on business rates reform in order to create a wider debate with the business community about business rates and possible additional ways to reform the system. The proposed business rates reform has been supported by UKHospitality, and the Treasury widely consulted the sector before making those proposals.

Securing access to finance can be a big issue for many businesses, including those in hospitality, and to that end, the Government have provided more than £1 billion in 2024-25 and 2025-26 for the British Business Bank, aiming to improve access to finance for small businesses, including more than £250 million each year for small business loans programmes.

The British Business Bank also supports community development finance institutions—community banks. Recently, I was lucky enough to visit Dhillon’s Brewery Spire Bar in Coventry. After the owner initially struggled to access mainstream sources of finance, he approached the Coventry and Warwickshire Reinvestment Trust, a community development finance institution, which stepped up and provided the funds needed for the brewery and bar to survive and prosper. That is just one example of the way in which we are taking action to improve access to finance, helping to grow the economy so that we can deliver a fairer, more prosperous and healthier society, and help the hospitality sector, in particular, to grow. Growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, and our new industrial strategy and small business strategy are both central to that.

The small business strategy Command Paper, which the Chancellor announced we will publish next year, will set out our plan to boost scale-ups, grow the co-operative economy, create thriving high streets, make it easier to access finance, help break into overseas and domestic markets, build business capabilities and provide a stronger business environment.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned the need to do more to support high streets, and I am sure she will be delighted to know about the high street rental auctions policy, which colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have brought into effect. It allows local councils to require landlords to open up high street facilities that have been closed down so that hospitality or other businesses can take advantage of those spaces and bring renewed life to our high streets. In the coming months, we will be setting out further measures linked to the need to invest in our high streets and support small businesses more generally.

We also consulted on an industrial strategy Green Paper, which we published in October, setting out our vision for a modern industrial strategy. With our growth mission, those two strategy papers will ensure we create the conditions for all businesses to invest and grow, and for consumers to be able to spend with confidence. They will help to break down barriers to growth regionally and nationally.

Jobs backed by employment rights fit for a modern economy are at the heart of our plans. In October, we published the Employment Rights Bill, and we will consult to ensure we strike the right balance between the needs of businesses and fairness for workers.

Local growth plans will be a cornerstone of our place-based approach. Locally owned 10-year strategies will set out how mayoral combined authorities will use their devolved powers and funding to drive growth in their regions. That will help to deliver the investment and growth at a local level that our country needs.

Hospitality businesses are not only important to supporting growth in our towns, villages and cities; they are also an integral part of our rural communities. They provide accessible jobs and places for people and communities to come together. In fact, the social value of hospitality is arguably at its greatest in rural and more remote areas. In all areas, hospitality provides opportunities for people to develop important life skills, as well as opportunities for those wanting a fresh start. To enhance those opportunities, we have established Skills England, a new partnership with employers at its heart. It will transform the existing apprenticeship levy into a more flexible growth and skills levy, which will be better suited to support businesses and boost opportunities.

As I mentioned earlier, yesterday I hosted a meeting of the Hospitality Sector Council, which exists to co-create solutions that will help deliver resilience and growth in the hospitality sector. It has done some great work in improving the longer-term resilience of hospitality businesses. I will of course continue to work closely with it as we deliver on our priorities for wider investment and growth, and for reinvigorating our high streets in villages, towns and cities across the UK.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) referred to the lack of business rates relief in Scotland. That is clearly a matter for the Scottish Government, but we will continue to have conversations with all the regions and nations about what else we can do to deliver growth in our country.

A couple of other issues have been brought to our attention. Hospitality businesses on our high streets often face challenges with antisocial behaviour and crime. We are increasing the number of police officers on our streets and in our town centres to bring down antisocial behaviour and crime, and make it easier for people to enjoy the many benefits that the hospitality sector brings.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh raised energy costs. We are setting up Great British Energy not only to accelerate the transition to renewable and net zero forms of energy, but to bring down bills, because we recognise that energy costs have risen in recent years. Great British Energy will certainly help us to bring those costs down in due course.

We all know that hospitality businesses are important. As MPs we recognise that they matter to our constituents, and as individuals we know that they matter to us, our friends and our families. Our high streets are going through a period of transition, from traditional shopping centres to a mix of retail, hospitality and leisure. I assure the House that we recognise the role of hospitality in creating places that people will want to visit, and study, work, live and invest in. As the Minister responsible for hospitality, I will continue to represent the interests of that vital sector, not only in my Department but across Government.

Question put and agreed to.

11:25

Sitting suspended.

Children of Prisoners

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

11:04

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that, this being a half-hour debate, there will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for and identification of the children of prisoners.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am delighted to have secured this Westminster Hall debate. First, I want to thank the Government for their manifesto commitment, which states:

“The children of those who are imprisoned are at far greater risk of being drawn into crime than their peers. We will ensure that…young people are identified and offered support to break the cycle.”

That is an important commitment that I know the Minister feels strongly about. Some important work backs that up. Around half of prisoners are parents of children aged 17 or younger, according to a report by the London School of Economics. Often, they and their care givers will both be in need of assistance and support, to provide a stable and nurturing environment, when a partner or former partner is in prison. In some cases, both parents might be in prison and relying on grandparents, and that support is also often required when a mother is in prison.

Children with an imprisoned parent are 25% more likely to suffer from mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, insomnia and eating disorders. Negative school experiences can also come from that—they are common. Many children and families impacted by parental imprisonment also face severe economic hardship—something that can also be worsened by parental imprisonment. Recent data from Oxfordshire county council found that, at the point of a parent’s first imprisonment, half of identified children were receiving free school meals. Following parental imprisonment, that figure rose by at least 20%, if not more. Alarmingly, those children are also more likely to engage in criminal behaviour, with an estimated 65% of young boys of imprisoned parents—two thirds—eventually going on to offend themselves.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I always do quick research on these matters. Does he not agree that we must also consider the vulnerable adult children of prisoners and the difficulties they can face in trying to understand the massive shift that can take place in their life? Support is not always readily available for that vulnerable group, and changes need to be made.

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He touches on the important point behind a lot of this. When parents are imprisoned, caring responsibilities are often the last thing that the state or anybody else thinks about. We are at the crux of what I am trying to get to today.

I would like to thank Sarah Burrows and everyone at Children Heard and Seen, including my friend Ed, who drew me towards the research in this area. I thank them for what they have raised, because this is all about ensuring a child-focused approach. Too often, the children of prisoners are mentioned only in the context of maintaining relationships with the person imprisoned and ensuring that the person imprisoned has a good opportunity—this is a worthwhile thing to do—to reduce their reoffending and recidivism. One thing that has been lost to some degree in this debate is the support required for those children and young people. As the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, in some cases vulnerable adult children might also need support. That is what I am trying to highlight in this debate today: it is the children affected who are at the centre of this.

Sixty seven per cent of children do not visit a parent in prison, while 37% go further and have no contact with their parent at all. We need to focus on what is best for the child, taking into account the often incredibly difficult family relationships and the issues caused by crimes such as domestic violence—which the Minister is working on at the moment—sexual abuse, in some tragic cases, and parental homicide.

The current system is leaving some children living on their own—I will move on to some case studies in a moment, but that is one of the things that has really hit me about this issue. Children Heard and Seen has heard of multiple cases where a child has been discovered living on their own, and not in just one part of the country. If I may turn to the steps we are pressing the Government to take, that is one of the reasons it is so important that those children are individually identified, to ensure that support is there. If we do not have a national register or a system to ensure that the data is fed in, we will not understand the depth of the issues involved.

I want to pick up on a couple of case studies brought forward by Children Heard and Seen. In one case, a man went to prison for sexual offences, and it was only after the house was targeted by vigilantes that a victim support caseworker found his 15-year-old daughter living there on her own. In another case, a criminologist conducting research in a women’s prison was told by a prisoner that her two daughters were living on their own without any money for food. In another, a 16-year-old boy arrested at the same time as his parents was released shortly afterwards and became the sole carer of his eight-year-old brother. In another, an employer requested a welfare check after a woman had not shown up to work for some time. The employer reached out even though they may well have thought that she had decided to no longer be in employment. When the police went to her address, they found a 15-year-old boy living in his own with no gas or electricity. He had been getting up and going to school every day without anyone knowing that his mum was in prison.

Those are just a few of the cases that have been brought forward. They are particularly important because often in these families the children themselves will have had a difficult relationship with the state over many years. Sometimes, especially if those children are into their teenage years, they may feel able to in some way look after themselves. They could have been in and out of state care or support in some ways over many years, and might not have positive relationships—they might not have positive relationships with wider family, either. That is one reason it is so important that we get this right.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I praise the right hon. Gentleman for securing this Westminster Hall debate and raising this issue so powerfully. He is right about the focus on young people, which has to be part of the commitment, but this is also about the whole family and making sure that contact between parents, children, the wider family and prisons works for the children as well. Does he agree that that will help everyone and also help to tackle reoffending?

[Mr Holden]

I cannot agree more with the hon. Member. He raises an important point—yes, in many circumstances, help for families and children of prisoners can help the prisoners—but he is also right to say that that would be a side benefit. As a country, we should be concentrating on helping the children of prisoners wherever possible—we also want wider family support and networks to be involved where possible. As in the case studies I have spoken about, there may be situations, particularly if people are somewhat estranged, where the extended family do not know that their child has gone to prison and that their grandchild is therefore trying to care for themselves at home. Some of those family relationships may have broken down. That is another area where the hon. Member makes an important point about what more we can do.

The Government recently brought forward the first published estimate of the number of children of prisoners, which is definitely a welcome step. However, what we really need is a system to identify the children involved, not just an estimate of how many there are. An estimate is useful for helping to determine some of the broader policy changes that may be required, and possibly to help the Government to calculate some of the costs involved and where measures need to be targeted. But what we are interested in—on both sides of the House, I think—is identifying the individuals who need support and ensuring that support is provided, because an estimate does not do anything to identify those most in need.

As I have said, a commitment to identify and support children with a parent in prison was included in Labour’s manifesto, and Lord Timpson has stated that it is one of his top priorities as the Minister with responsibility for prisons.

The Ministry of Justice was recently asked what steps it is taking

“to ensure that the children of those imprisoned are (a) identified and (b) offered support”.

The response was that it is

“working closely with the Department for Education to determine how to effectively identify these children and provide support”.

I really hope that, as the MOJ does that, there is no need for a lengthy consultation, because there are children out there today who need such support. It has been suggested that half of prisoners have children under the age of 18. If that is correct, we are talking about tens of thousands of young people, of whom perhaps hundreds or even thousands might not be receiving any proper support.

I say to the Government that there does not need to be a lengthy consultation. Children Heard and Seen has a readymade solution. In collaboration with Thames Valley police, it has created, in Operation Paramount, the first mechanism ever to identify and support children with a parent in prison. Operation Paramount cross-references data from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service with existing police data to identify children who have been left behind, right from the point that an individual enters the prison system. Data that previously had been used only to track a prisoner’s movements through prison to their eventual release can now be used to identify vulnerable family members who were left behind when an individual was imprisoned.

If this system was rolled out nationally and schools were involved, it could essentially act as the national identification system that I hope hon. Members from across the House want to see. There would be two parts. The system would be used first of all to identify these children and young people, and secondly to provide support for them.

When an adult is sentenced or remanded in custody, a combination of the existing data from the Prison Service, the police and the relevant local authority should be used to identify the home address of a child linked to that offender. I do not think that is too much to ask for, because all that data already exists.

Secondly, a designated safeguarding lead at the child’s school should be notified before the start of the next working day. Registered nurseries, pre-school settings and childminders could also be informed. I am also particularly interested in the point that the hon. Member for Strangford made about considering other cases, too, perhaps where there is a special need. Within the education setting, the DSL should then be able to liaise with other members of staff and external agencies, if necessary, to deliver the appropriate support for the child in question.

Thirdly, I would ask the Government to consider whether children with a parent in prison should be made eligible for pupil premium funding, as we do in other circumstances. That might be worth considering given reoffending rates, because if we can get some of them down, that would be a very good long-term investment. Although I am obviously speaking as a Back Bencher today, this is something that might receive cross-party support in the future.

Fourthly, we need to ensure that children with a parent in prison are not left to live on their own. If we could identify them and provide the necessary support at the earliest stage, we could help to mitigate some of the impacts I talked about in my opening remarks—children living in absolute poverty, going on to become offenders themselves or being left vulnerable to crime in their homes and communities. We could ensure that, at the earliest possible stage, they are supported to mitigate the impact of their parents’ imprisonment and wrongdoing. In this day and age, we should not punish children for the crimes of their fathers or mothers.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I thank my friend, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), for securing this important debate. He eloquently outlined why we cannot overestimate the impact of parental imprisonment on children and their families. He reeled off a lot of stats and figures, but then powerfully backed them up with the children’s stories. Behind every one of those numbers is a child.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

On that point, I could not help but notice that the impacts felt by the children of prisoners, listed by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), strikingly resembled the impacts felt by the children of deployed armed forces personnel. Does the Minister agree?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that intervention. As I will explain, it is difficult for any child when a parent is taken away and is unable to be with them. As a parent, I find it really difficult to have to be away from my child for four days a week. I am sure that the hon. Member understands that the impact is in some regard immeasurable. We do not know the impact on those children but, as a Government or as a parent, we try to give them as much support as we can. When one parent is in prison, that is not always possible. This is about what we can do to provide them with that support.

Growing up with a parent in prison is incredibly tough for many children. As the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay outlined, it is widely recognised as an adverse childhood experience that affects not just a child’s day-to-day life, but their longer-term opportunities and outcomes. We owe it to every child with a parent in prison to ensure that that disadvantage does not become ingrained from generation to generation.

I am grateful to the organisations that have brought this important issue to the Government’s attention, including the Prison Advice and Care Trust, North Eastern Prison After Care Society and Children Heard and Seen. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and the noble Lord Farmer.

These children may have parents in prison, but they too are locked in an invisible cell—one of separation, loss and disruption. The situation is particularly acute for children whose mothers go to jail: around three quarters leave the family home while their mam is locked up, losing not only their parent, but their school and home all at once. Many of the children are passed between family members, but some end up in care.

More broadly, research shows a range of immediate and longer-term effects on children who have parents in prison, including on their physical and mental health, and engagement at school. They are also at risk of following the same path into the criminal justice system. We have to ensure that we reach such families and get them the support they need, and in our manifesto we committed to doing just that.

[Mr Holden]

I thank the Minister for recognising the work of charities across the country, and I thank Members of both Houses for pushing the issue. Does she also welcome the work of BBC Radio 4’s “Woman’s Hour” a couple of weeks ago? It devoted an entire week to the subject, and had the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) and myself on to talk about it. In doing so, it brought to life some of the stories that we are debating today.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I wholly concur with the right hon. Member’s comments. It is important that we talk about the issue more and try to remove some of the stigma, draw back the curtain and show it to the public. It is welcome that we are having this debate to do just that.

In July, the Ministry of Justice produced the first official statistics on the children of prisoners. The Department estimates that over the course of a year, around 193,000 children in England and Wales may be affected by a parent’s being in or going to prison. Identifying and supporting children with a parent in prison is a complex area, and it is crucial that we take a sensitive approach that puts the child’s needs at the centre. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), has responsibility for children and families, and our officials are working together closely to deliver this commitment as soon as possible.

We are taking a wide approach, with a focus on providing whole-family support that will improve the overall life chances of children and families. Where appropriate and in the best interests of the child, that will include supporting the parent in prison to maintain, build and improve their relationship with their children, which has been shown to smooth reintegration into family and community on release from prison, in turn reducing the risk that the individual will reoffend and improving outcomes for the whole family. However, when contact with the parent in prison is not in the best interests of the child, we have robust safeguarding measures in place to prevent that; the safety of the children will always be the paramount consideration.

Our aims are threefold: first, to reach a higher proportion of these children and build our understanding of their specific needs and circumstances; secondly, to put in place high-quality support to improve outcomes for children of prisoners and their families; and thirdly, to help maintain and improve relationships between children and parents in prison, where that is appropriate and in the interests of the child. I will take each of those in turn.

First, we are exploring new ways of reaching affected children and families to ensure that they are offered the right support. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service already has robust safeguarding processes to identify and protect these children where necessary. The Government will also remove parental rights from those who pose a danger to children, to ensure that children are protected from harm. These processes are crucial and we will seek to strengthen them further.

A more bespoke approach is needed to reach a larger number of children and families. There are those who may benefit from support even if there are no safeguarding concerns—especially, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), vulnerable adults with parents in prison. We are exploring a range of options, including for how HMPPS can help to encourage more prisoners to voluntarily disclose their parental responsibility, and for how we can better share data between Departments and organisations across criminal justice and family services. There are many great examples of local best practice. The right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay outlined Operation Paramount in the Thames Valley violence reduction unit. We are continuing to learn from that to determine the best way forward to achieve our aims.

As I said, children who have experienced parental imprisonment are at increased risk of mental illness, poor educational outcomes and unemployment. We want those children and their families to receive the support they need to thrive. Support for children of prisoners will be properly integrated with existing support as part of our ambition to rebalance children’s social care towards earlier intervention while we reform the care system. We want to create an end-to-end system for support—from universal services, including family hubs, through to care—that is more responsive to different needs and how they might change over time.

From April next year, £500 million will be available to local authorities to roll out family help and child protection as a first step towards transforming the system, nearly doubling direct investment in preventive services in 2025-26. Families will have access to family help, which will co-ordinate multi-agency support and with which they can build a trusted relationship and develop a plan based on the child’s individual needs. However, we need to better understand the impact of parental imprisonment on children’s outcomes and general opportunities. The Department for Education is undertaking rapid research—the right hon. Member will appreciate that—and has already brought together dozens of organisations to discuss this. It is identifying what support is already in place, where the gaps lie, and what extra support children of prisoners may need.

Supporting the parent in prison to build and improve their relationship with their children, when appropriate, can help to reduce some of the negative effects of this adverse experience. Family support interventions improve relationships, wellbeing and communication, benefiting the whole family. HMPPS has commissioned rehabilitative services to further this work and provide support on release. That helps strengthen family relationships and supports the transition from prison back into the community.

Prisons across England and Wales already offer a range of services to maintain family relationships, including social visits, family days and collaborations with organisations, and I have been pleased to see some of that at first hand—as an example, I highlight the award-winning charity-led initiative Storybook Mums and Dads, which enables parents in prison to record bedtime stories for their children. We have also invested £10 million to fund partnerships with third sector specialist family support providers who are working in custody. Those partnerships allow establishments to deliver a range of services to maintain and nurture family ties.

I am delighted that, with my colleagues at the Department for Education, we are pressing ahead with work to address this important issue. We are fortunate to be able to draw on a significant amount of knowledge and experience on the issue among our own frontline staff and partners within the voluntary, charity and social enterprise sector, as well as among our renowned academics. Their expertise will be invaluable in ensuring that we get this right.

Officials from the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education have already met with many of those partners, and I am keen to involve them actively in the development of our work. My colleague, Lord Timpson, has met with the Children’s Commissioner for England to discuss the issue and together with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, they will host a roundtable in the new year to further capture the views of experts.

The Government recognise the significant impact of imprisonment on women with dependent children. With only 12 women’s prisons scattered across the country—and none in Wales—mothers are often held far from their homes and families. Pregnancy, mother and baby liaison officers work in women’s prisons to identify and signpost support for women who are pregnant and/or have been separated from young children. We are also testing new roles to help women to maintain family ties, including prison-based social workers and resettlement family engagement workers.

We are establishing a women’s justice board to provide strategic vision and direction on reforming women’s justice, with the ultimate goal of reducing the number of women in custody. Among other areas of work, the board will focus on issues specific to pregnant women and mothers in the system with young children. More fundamentally, the wider measures aimed at driving down the imprisonment rate that we inherited from the last Government, such as our review of sentencing and focus on reducing reoffending, will help reduce the numbers being affected by the issue, and hopefully keep families together.

The Government want every child to flourish, which means ensuring that those affected by parental imprisonment are properly supported and afforded the same opportunities as their peers. I thank again the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay for giving me the opportunity to speak on the matter. I hope that I have assured the House of the importance that we place on the issue and that I have laid out the work that we are undertaking to address it head on.

Question put and agreed to.

16:26

Sitting suspended.

Future of Farming

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of farming.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to bring this timely and important debate to the Floor of the Chamber. I did not think that it would be being debated at the same time in the other place. However, we will progress.

Farming has long been the backbone of our nation, underpinning food security, providing jobs and delivering significant environmental benefits. The agrifood sector across the United Kingdom contributes £148 billion to the economy and employs over 4 million people, including 462,000 directly in agriculture. It is an industry worth protecting and speaking out for.

Today, I speak not just as a politician, but as someone with farming in my blood—the daughter of a farmer, the wife of a farmer, and the mum of a little boy who dreams of becoming a farmer. The future of farming is deeply personal to me, as it is to many of the 209,000 farm owners across the UK, including 26,000 in Northern Ireland. These people work 17 million hectares of land to feed the nation, and care for the countryside. Their average farm size is 82 hectares, and their contribution to the UK economy amounts to £13.7 billion annually. Yet, they now face an existential threat from the proposed changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is talking about the direct impact on farmers, but in her opening comments she mentioned the broader agricultural, business and food sectors across the UK economy. Does she share my concern that, whether it is the tractor manufacturers or those who work in the farm shops in my constituency, the knock-on consequences will be huge if the Government’s proposed tax changes get through? They will impact not just the individual family farms themselves, which are the backbone of our economy, but all aspects of our rural and urban economy.

[Carla Lockhart]

I could not agree more: the knock-on impact will be immense.

The Budget’s decision to cap full inheritance tax relief at £1 million, with a 20% charge above that, will devastate family farms. These changes know no boundaries and will affect countless small and modest family farm businesses. Independent analysis shows that up to 75,000 farming taxpayers will be impacted over a generation—five times the Government’s initial estimate. In Northern Ireland alone, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs predicts that one third of farms and 75% of dairy farms will be hit the hardest. These figures are not plucked from the sky; these are real, evidenced figures from DAERA. Farmers face the grim prospect of selling off prime agricultural land, probably to big businesses that certainly do not want to use it for food production. This death tax will erode our food security and end future generational farming.

Three weeks ago, at the Eikon centre in Lisburn, I stood in front of 6,000 farmers who had braved Storm Bert to voice their concerns. Their message was clear: stop the family farm tax grab. The Government must listen. If they proceed with this policy, it will not only destroy an industry that feeds the nation, but tarnish their legacy, with the destruction of rural communities and livelihoods. When we are asked about this Government’s legacy thus far, sadly farmers and pensioners come to mind.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend not find it really angering that the Government justify this policy by saying that a few big landowners buy up land as a way of escaping inheritance tax? Yet, the impact is not on the big landowners; it is on ordinary landowners, such as those she has described. The impact on the countryside will be enormous.

[Carla Lockhart]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right: big businesses will be the ones buying over the land, and they are not interested in farming it.

I respectfully ask the Minister to heed the voices of farmers, backed by detailed analysis from the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers and others. Farmers know their industry best. This policy must be revisited to ensure the sustainability of farming for generations to come. Let us act now to protect the custodians of our land, the economic drivers of our rural areas and the hand that feeds our nation.

Our farmers face relentless challenges, and the abolition of agricultural property relief is just the latest in a long list of blatant attacks. For too long farmers have been denigrated and subjected to some of the most draconian environmental restrictions. They are blamed for polluting waterways, while raw sewage goes unaddressed. Across all four nations, farmers are held back by planning restrictions over ammonia, making it nearly impossible to replace or upgrade sheds, despite these improvements benefiting the environment. Farmers face real threats from disease, including bluetongue, tuberculosis and bird flu, with little effective support. In Northern Ireland—this is a devolved issue, but the point is still important—herds of cattle are being slaughtered because of a lack of decisive action on TB, leaving farming families devastated and unsupported.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

On the bovine TB agenda, does the hon. Member agree that what the recent Minister in Northern Ireland brought forward was a disappointment? There were no concrete proposals as to how to address the issue.

[Carla Lockhart]

I do not want to get into a devolved issue, but I will say that farmers are absolutely reeling from the lack of action by the Minister in Northern Ireland.

Farmers are increasingly being forced to adopt measures under the guise of supporting environmental goals, but many of these come with significant concerns and costs. One topical example is Bovaer, an additive aimed at reducing methane emissions from livestock. It is promoted as a solution to agriculture’s environmental impact, but it has raised serious questions in the minds of consumers about the long-term effects on animal health and consumer safety. Consumers are understandably concerned about the food chain, and farmers are left shouldering the burden of implementing often costly solutions, with little clarity on their benefits or consequences.

If we genuinely want to support sustainable farming, the Government must ensure that these measures are properly researched and justified and are accompanied by meaningful support for farmers in adopting them. Instead, what do farmers see from this Government? A raft of policies that show nothing but contempt for British farming. In the past month alone we have seen plans to abolish APR and a new tax on double cab pick-ups—the lifeline vehicle for many farmers—which will come into effect in 2025.

We have also seen the galling revelation that foreign farmers are receiving £536 million from the UK aid budget while our own farmers are left to struggle. British taxpayers’ money is being used to fund low-carbon agriculture in countries such as Brazil—the 11th richest nation in the world—and Kenya, as well as in Asia, while our own farmers face insurmountable challenges to their food security and sustainability. What good is environmental progress if we import more food from abroad, produced to lower standards and with a far greater carbon footprint than what we can grow here at home?

Our food security matters. Our British farmers matter. Yes, to this Government, it seems that they do not. I implore the Minister to reverse course. He should listen to the voice of farmers and prioritise the future of UK agriculture before it is too late. Let us support the custodians of our land, the drivers of our rural economy and the people who feed our nation.

Labour shortages are adding further pressure on an already stretched industry. Farmers are struggling to secure seasonal workers to pick and process crops. Whether it is heavy goods vehicle drivers, poultry workers, vets, butchers or abattoir staff—the workforce simply is not there. If we want a farming sector capable of meeting our needs and demands, the Government must overhaul their schemes and work directly with those who know the industry best to address these critical shortages.

At the National Farmers Union conference in 2023, the now Prime Minister said:

“losing a farm is not like losing any other business—it can’t come back...You deserve better”.

Before the election, he wanted a “genuine partnership” and said:

“We can’t have farmers struggling”.

He said they deserve “a government that listens” and “stability” and “certainty”. He wanted to roll up his sleeves and support our British farmers. Well, I call on his party, which is now in the driving seat, to pull back from this cliff edge and start to introduce policies that support our active farmers.

I want to finish where I started. When we think of the future of farming, we must think of those little welly boots at the back door of farm dwellings. We need to support our young farmers, and I call on the Government to do more, particularly on education. The very youngest in our society need to know where our food comes from. Sadly, all too often the answer is, “The supermarkets.” I therefore call on the Minister to address this issue with his counterpart in the Department for Education. We need a syllabus and an education system that teach our young people about the importance of our farmers.

As we stand on the cusp of a vote in the main Chamber, it is important to note that a recent poll demonstrated that more than half of those surveyed supported a farmers’ strike, on the basis that farmers are among the groups worst treated by the Government. I believe that those protests are coming, because farmers are at breaking point. Farmers in Northern Ireland increasingly need mental health support from Rural Support. There are reports of things getting too much for some to cope with, with people subsequently taking matters into their own hands. Farmers need our support; they need to know that their work and efforts—night and day—are appreciated, and that they are an integral part of our everyday life.

In conclusion, at the event in the Eikon centre hosted by the Ulster Farmers Union, I had the pleasure of meeting next-generation farmer and young mum, Lorraine Killen. Lorraine was inspirational as she addressed the crowd. She said that uncertainty, disappointment, apprehension, dread and heartbreak are just some of the raw emotions she felt as she reflected on the reality of an industry under immense pressure and a way of life increasingly under threat.

Let us redouble our efforts in this place and fight with every sinew to support our farmers—no farmers, no food.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. We have 13 Members wishing to participate and about 24 minutes. I will put on an immediate time limit of two minutes. If you do the maths, you will find that that does not work. There will be a Division at around 5 o’clock, and injury time will be added on. We will see how many Members come back after the Division, and I will reassess the situation, but for the moment, there is a two-minute time limit.

16:43

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I grew up in a rural community as well, and I know how hard farmers work. I know how long it takes for generations to pass on the expertise involved in managing and cultivating the land. It is not like any normal apprenticeship or training programme; children learn over decades how to get the most out of the land, how to get the best yield and how to manage the ever-unpredictable set of circumstances that any year on a farm may bring.

However, I suggest that the last thing farmers need right now is the scaremongering that has been undertaken by the Opposition parties; they are protecting the vested interests of wealthy landowners. It is not just a minority of these people who are buying up the land; 50% of our farmland is being bought up by them, and they are on record saying that they are seeking it to avoid inheritance tax. That is the issue we are taking on. The average farmer in my constituency in Hyndburn has nothing to fear. When we look at the numbers in detail—unfortunately, I do not have the time to offer them—they show that those farmers are protected from the tax. The average farmer, even when we look at arable land values and some of the higher-value land, will not be impacted by the tax.

We have to acknowledge the challenges that some farmers face and the rural poverty in this country—we talk about it a lot and it is very real. But that is not the fault of the current policy; it is the result of decades of failure, and particularly of what happened in recent years under the previous Government, who failed to grasp how to support farmers to be more productive, so that they can earn the money they ought to be earning.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The hon. Lady says that 50% of those affected are people who invest in land not for farming; is not the answer to put 40% inheritance tax on them and 0% on the real farmers?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I should have said—I did not, but I will now—that if any Member chooses to intervene, which they are quite entitled to do, I shall treat that as a speech, so they will not get called later in the debate.

[Sarah Smith]

A farming survey shows that the farmers we are speaking about make an average profit of £96,000 per year, which means that even those who are impacted will not be subject to the same level of inheritance tax as many people on similar incomes. They face half the rate of inheritance tax, and through gifting they can avoid that if they undertake the necessary planning. They can of course still protect their farmhouse—that concern is sometimes raised—through the way the system operates. We have to keep coming back to the point that at least 75% of farmers will not be impacted by the measure.

Our Government have an ambitious plan for our farmers. They will invest £2.4 billion in farming next year to focus on sustainable food production and protecting nature. They are getting £60 million out the door through the farming recovery fund and have committed to providing a further £208 million to prevent the collapse of our defences against disease threats—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

16:46

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Well done to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate.

I should be able to set out a vision of optimism and resilience for the future of farming in Northern Ireland today, but sadly that is not the case. It appears that, with the proposed inheritance tax, the Government know neither the price that farming families will have to pay nor the value of their industry. Our UK agricultural heritage is a cornerstone of our economy, culture and communities, and it is critical for our future. The 26,000 farmers and their families in Northern Ireland deserve better. When we take into account the food and drinks processing sector, the proposed measure will affect 70,000 jobs in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland’s fertile lands and valuable climate have long supported diverse farming activities, ranging from dairy and beef to crops such as our world-famous potatoes. As we look to the future, the potential for growth and innovation in our agricultural sector is immense. We should be looking at enhancing cutting-edge technologies, such as precision agriculture, drones and sensors, to increase productivity and ensure environmental sustainability. Our hard-working farming community wants to enhance efficiency in order to protect our natural resources for future generations. Our farmers are the true guardians of the countryside, and sustainability is central to their vision. They are dedicated stewards of the land, committed to adopting eco-friendly practices such as crop rotation and organic farming. They are also committed to sustainability.

Farmers’ efforts not only safeguard our environment but open new markets for our produce, meeting the growing global demand for environmentally responsible products. Farming is more than an economic activity: it is the backbone of our communities. The proposed tax will place an undue burden on families, making it difficult for them to pass down their farms to the next generations—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

16:48

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

British farmers play a significant role in keeping the nation fed, and they are the custodians of our beautiful countryside. In recognition of their vital role, the Budget is steadfast in its commitment to supporting them. More than £5 billion will be allocated to the farming budget over the next two years to bolster sustainable food production and promote nature’s recovery.

Food security is national security, which is why supporting farmers to feed our nation remains a top priority. To achieve that goal, the Government will leverage their purchasing power to ensure that at least half the food procured for hospitals, military bases and prisons is locally sourced and certified to meet high environmental standards. We have provided £60 million through the farming recovery fund and allocated an additional £208 million to strengthen defences against disease threats. Those are clear examples of a commitment to safeguard farming in the UK. That is what tangible support for British farmers looks like.

Opposition Members can moan, but let us remember that since 2010 more than 12,000 farmers and agriculture companies have been forced out of business. Moreover, trade deals with New Zealand and Australia, brokered by the Conservatives, opened up the UK to meat imports produced to standards so low that they would be illegal in Britain. That is their legacy on British farming. Non-farming investors have dominated land purchases, with over half the farms and estates sold being acquired by non-farmers. Meanwhile, a small number of wealthy landowners have disproportionately benefited—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

16:50

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this important debate.

Farmers are environmental stewards, custodians of our heritage and vital contributors to our local economies. Yet, under the previous Conservative Government, rural and farming communities were totally undervalued and undermined. In my constituency, more than 18,000 hectares of farmland, spread across 178 holdings, produce some of the best food in the country. I have had the pleasure of meeting some of my local farmers, who tell me that their futures are now under threat.

The Chancellor’s 2024 Budget imposes a series of damaging policies on rural communities. Cutting agricultural property relief risks the viability of family farms. In Chichester, it could affect nearly 50 farms. When farmers are faced with the choice either to be in debt or to sell off land to pay the tax, the choice will be clear and farms will be eroded. The introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism will add an estimated £50 per tonne to fertiliser costs. Combined with the 1.9% cut to day-to-day spending at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, those changes will make sustainable farming practices harder to achieve.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I recently met a family of farmers in my constituency who mentioned the point about fertiliser. It is not just the changes to inheritance tax that are going to clobber our farmers; it is the combination of a perfect storm. Does my hon. Friend agree that this change is coming down the track after a £227 million underspend by the Conservatives, and that we need the Government to look into that and ensure that farmers get the funding they deserve?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a series of things, compounded on top of each other, making our farmers feel totally let down. They felt ignored by the Conservative Government for years. When Labour stood on a manifesto pledge of change, farmers did not think this would be the change they were promised.

Farmers in Chichester and across the UK deserve better. They are critical to our food supply, environment and rural way of life. I urge the Government: please stop undermining them and start supporting them. Let us work together to ensure that farming remains a thriving and sustainable pillar of our nation for generations to come. I call on the Government to look at the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto pledges, such as a £1 billion increase in the farming budget to support sustainable agriculture, the renegotiation of our trade agreements to protect British farmers from being undercut by imports failing to meet UK standards, and a reinstatement of the capital grants scheme to support environmentally friendly farming practices.

I am aware that many Members want to speak, so I will leave it there.

16:53

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

I think we can all agree that food security is national security. The future of British farming deserves a stable Government with a funding strategy reflective of that significance. I and so many others welcome the Government’s £5 billion increase to the farming budget over the next two years—the largest budget for sustainable food production in our history. The size and scale of the commitment to our farming future are unprecedented and not talked about enough. The reforms and investment, all detailed online, will future-proof our domestic food production and food security. I will not go through them now because we do not have time.

When the political winds have blown the Opposition on to another topic, we will be here, in government, to work with farmers on improving the sector and its resilience.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best thing the Government can do is give some direction and certainty to farmers with the new land use framework and the new pipeline of sustainable farming incentives, which are upcoming to balance food production, nature recovery and carbon reduction, so that they have the confidence to invest and to return to profit?

[Dan Aldridge]

As so often, I agree with my hon. Friend and fellow south-west MP. As she has identified, we are trying with the Budget to fix the neglect of the previous Government.

It is important to say that so many of my constituents in Weston-super-Mare are dismayed at the idea that tax relief of up to £3 million is not enough. These are finances outside the concept of the vast majority of my constituents. For people living in a community where we all work together, the rhetoric we are hearing is quite divisive. It is a hard pill to swallow when so many have little to no savings, nor any prospect of owning property to pass on to their children. Many millions of people, including farmers throughout the country, are working harder than ever to pay for the basics that their families need simply to survive. The Government are simply saying that, in any community, those who can pay more should.

16:55

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will focus my comments on areas where I think we can achieve a degree of cross-party agreement. I have already heard agreement that farmers are the stewards of the land. We can agree that farming is a diverse sector, and farmers as a group are very diverse, which we need to bear in mind whenever we make policy.

I would like to discuss four issues that farmers in my North Herefordshire constituency have raised with me. First, farmers need long-term policy certainty. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) talked about record investment in farming, but in real terms it is effectively static. What we need is a significant ramping up of Government support for the farming sector. The Nature Friendly Farming Network has called for a doubling of the farming budget, which is a call that the Green party strongly supports. We need far more investment in environmental land management schemes, as well as the long-term certainty that farmers need to make decisions to put land into those schemes.

Secondly, farmers tell me that they want better regulation of the food sector, such as a more even balance of power between farmers and supermarkets. Too many of them feel under the cosh as price takers, not price makers. That is a real problem. There is also the phenomenon of farmwashing, whereby supermarkets pretend that their food is grown on lovely family farms all over the UK when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. We need clear Government regulation on that.

The third issue, which has already been mentioned, relates to the Government’s role in public procurement. I am glad the Government are taking some initiative on that, but there is far more that could be done, particularly to ensure that schools provide universal free school meals based on the procurement of local, sustainably grown food—

16:57

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:15

On resuming—

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important debate.

Seventeen per cent of Scotland’s population is rural and it delivers some of the best agricultural produce in the world. Seventy-six per cent of the land in my constituency is used for agriculture, and farms are incredibly important to the local economy. Labour shortages have impacted farms across Aberdeenshire. Food can be left unpicked due to labour shortages, and that needs to be addressed, especially following Brexit and the associated migration changes. Even a regional visa for rural farms in Scotland would be an incredible help to farms in my constituency. Technological solutions currently cannot solve labour shortages. In the meantime, there is a risk that, without the right amount of labour at the right time, these types of farms could become unviable in Scotland.

In a discussion about the future of farming, it would be remiss of me not to mention the recent change to agricultural property relief. Many farmers in my constituency have been in touch to express their concerns about the change and the significant financial burden it will place on family farms. I am of the view that the change will be damaging for rural communities and farms across the UK, never mind Scotland, and I would like to see it reversed.

I am sure that Members here and the UK Government understand that food security is national security, and I welcome any action to secure that. It is key to get more people buying local produce, supporting local farms and, in turn, reducing emissions and supply chain issues. Finally, I am delighted to learn of the commitment today by the Scottish Government to support farmers in Scotland, including an investment of £660 million and a capital transformation scheme of £20 million in 2025-26.

17:17

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing the debate. I declare an interest as a tenant farmer.

Farmers in Wales feel threatened by the approach that this Government are taking to inheritance tax. It concerns me that that approach threatens the viability of working family farms. The UK Treasury data used to calculate the impact of the Government’s approach includes smallholdings and non-working farms, distorting the number of Welsh farms affected by inheritance tax thresholds. The Farmers Union of Wales says that had the Treasury focused its estimates specifically on the mainstream farms responsible for the bulk of agricultural outputs, the proportion affected by the changes to agricultural property relief would be revealed to be far higher than it claims.

The FUW estimates that farms responsible for nearly 90% of Welsh food production could be in scope to pay inheritance tax. That would be devastating for farmers in Wales, as the average income of different types of farms is much lower than the potential inheritance tax charge. Livestock farms predominate in Wales, making up 70% to 80% of Welsh farm holdings, and inheritance tax bills could be many times the annual income of such farms. The changes will also impact tenant farmers. With around 30% of Welsh agricultural land rented, reduced availability of rented land could lead to business closures, homelessness and a decline in new people entering the workforce.

It is clear that Wales’s needs have been ignored so far by the Treasury. Will the Government listen to the likes to the FUW and NFU Cymru, which are calling for a Wales-specific analysis of the impact of the changes to APR?

17:19

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for working so hard to keep the plight of farmers throughout the United Kingdom in the mind of this Parliament. She does her constituency credit, as always. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and as a landowner and farmer.

I have spoken on this issue so many times, yet I do not grow tired of it. The reason is clear: without small family farms there is no food sustainability or, subsequently, food safety. Most of the 25,000 farms in Northern Ireland are small family farms run by one or two farmers. They are not the massive profit-making industries that perhaps the Government have been led to believe they are. The farmers might be land rich, but they are cash poor. They love the land; they have it in their blood. They do not toil to make a massive profit, but to pay the bills and continue doing what they love.

The fact is that most farms—65% of farmers—could not survive with this inheritance tax. That does not pave the way for food security or production in Northern Ireland. We do not have large farms making millions each year. We have families who are working farms that cannot even pay a living wage. On some of the best farms in my constituency, the sons work the farm but also work privately for income, as they cannot raise a family on the farming income. That is the reality in Northern Ireland. I beseech the Minister to listen to the points I am making, because they are made with sincerity and honesty. If we add to this the inheritance tax and remove the protection from the farming grant, we are left with unprofitable farms, and sons and daughters who have no option but to sell the land and get a job.

The end of farming as we know it is not simply sad, given the history and the lifeblood that flows through farming families, but worrying, as it leaves us beholden to other nations for our food. The average farm in Northern Ireland is worth £14,000 an acre, and the average farm is 100 acres. If the Minister or his civil servants add up the figures, they will see that that means that the threshold is quickly reached. For many farms in Northern Ireland the situation can be fixed if the Government look at it honestly and come up with a different scenario and a different threshold. The quicker they do it, the better.

17:21

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

17:23

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

Many hundreds of family farmers in the constituency of Boston and Skegness are appalled at the family farm tax. Just last week, Richard and his son Jake came to see me. Their farm has been in the family for 120 years. They went through the cost increases recently: the fertiliser tax, the reduction in basic payment scheme payments, the carbon tax, and now the increase in national insurance. They say they will not be able to afford to pay the farm tax even with the 10-year payment timeframe, and will therefore have to sell upon death. This tax will bring the exact opposite of what the Government want—what we all want—which is growth.

One farmer told me that he has cancelled a £1 million expansion to his strawberry farm. Another said that he has cancelled an order for a £300,000 piece of equipment. This tax will do the exact opposite of what the Government want. There is a very simple solution: to increase the threshold on which it is payable and increase the qualifying period threshold at which people benefit from the tax relief. With that, the Government can achieve their aims and avoid the abuse, and family farmers can continue to invest.

17:25

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

In Northern Ireland, land prices are in some cases twice as high as in other parts of the United Kingdom. The consequence of that is that the farm tax threshold will be reached more quickly and the burden will be even greater. But the real cruelty of the tax is this. In many cases, when one generation take over a farm, they naturally want to grow, expand and improve their productivity. Very often, during a lifetime, extra land will be bought. That extra land is bought with money on which tax has already been paid. So this is a double taxation: people buy land with profits they have made on which they have paid their tax, then when they die, the Government come looking again. That is so unfair, particularly when it is family farms being crucified by that tax.

I understand that there are people exploiting the market who are interested not in farming, but in tax relief, and own land for that purpose. The Government should hit them with all the might they can with the 40% inheritance tax, but exempt the genuine farmers—those who have a farm business number; those who are in receipt of direct payments; those who are genuine, active farmers. If the Government exempted them and went harder after those exploiting the system, they would probably have the same return at the end of it. Would that not be far more equitable than what is being proposed?

17:27

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing the debate.

I want to take exception to language used by Government MPs here today and in the debate we had in the main Chamber on 11 November, when they accused anyone who raised genuine concern for family farms of being either in the pocket of big business or alarmist. I can assure you, Sir Roger, that the Members I know who have spoken here and those who spoke in the main Chamber on this issue did so out of genuine concern and understanding of the effects that this tax grab will have on our family farms.

I was so concerned that I asked for clarity on the figures that I had used from the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister. He responded:

“I am disappointed at the UK Government’s dismissal of the figures you quoted and the subsequent comment that our analysis that one third of farmers and up to 75% of dairy farmers will be affected by the new inheritance tax limitations as ‘alarmist’. I can assure you that these figures are based on a solid analytical basis…from data collected as part of the Northern Ireland Agricultural Census 2023.”

I may have many differences with him, but I believe the Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland over what I have heard from the Labour Government about how the tax will impact Northern Ireland farmers.

A 2023 Irish Farmers Journal survey showed that the average price of agricultural land in Northern Ireland is £13,794 per acre. It would be reasonable to assume that by 2026, when the inheritance tax changes take effect, the average price will have increased to £15,000 an acre. Based on that information, farms in Northern Ireland with 67 acres of land will be affected by this tax grab.

17:29

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this important debate. Farmers are the very foundation of rural communities the length and breadth of the country. They put food on our tables, steward our countryside and sustain rural communities. Farming is more than a profession; it is part of Britain’s identity and, as the hon. Member said when opening the debate, something that is worth protecting.

I have the privilege of representing many farmers in my Newbury constituency, who are vital to our local community and our way of life. Farming is a uniquely slow-moving industry, heavily influenced by seasonal uncertainties. In such an unpredictable landscape, scaling up operations becomes essential for achieving profitability. Yet, despite those mounting pressures, successive Governments have failed to support our farmers. I am sure that Labour Members—

[Sarah Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Dillon]

I will not give way.

I am sure that Labour Members never expected to vote for small farms to close or to be swallowed up by large landowners, but that is what will happen as a result of this policy. In 2022-23, the Conservatives underspent the promised funding to farmers by £227 million and failed to adjust England’s farming budget to keep pace with inflation. Labour’s manifesto made no mention of the agricultural budget, signalling from the outset that this Government do not prioritise protecting our farming industry.

The changes to agricultural taxation in the recent Budget represent yet another blow, threatening the future of small-scale farms and rural communities across the country. While I understand the challenges that the Government face due to the black hole left by the previous Government, they do not excuse the recent decisions to impose such harsh tax burdens on vital industries.

The Government claim that only 27% of farms will be affected by the changes. That equates to 55 farms in Newbury, similar to the number for my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), but that figure is based on His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data from 2021-22 and risks significantly under-representing the true impact. The NFU warns that, in reality, around 75% of commercial family farms will exceed the £1 million threshold, making them subject to this tax change. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that this will impact family-run farms, pricing out young farmers from the industry, as well as other rural businesses that rely on the farming economy.

Additionally, over the last week, the Government abruptly paused the capital grant scheme, a crucial resource for funding sustainable farming projects. It is vital to allow farmers to carry on their work, which is essential to public safety, including managing floodwater and storing slurry safely. It is incredibly concerning that the Government have decided to freeze that scheme without warning, and even more concerning given that the Government have made cuts to the basic payment scheme on the basis of expanding environmental grants to farmers. On top of those cuts, farmers have seen their input costs rise sharply in recent years, yet the price they get for their produce at the farm gate has fallen.

I too recently met with farmers in my constituency; during that meeting, one farmer shared that he has worked his land for many years and was looking forward to this year’s being the first ever where he was able to make a profit. He calculated that, effectively, his hourly wage as a farmer is just £6.22 an hour—half the national minimum wage. Another farmer shared that only 15p of every £1 spent on agricultural products actually goes back to farmers, which highlights the tight margins in which they operate. According to Riverford Organic Farmers, 61% of farmers in the United Kingdom fear that they could be out of business in the next 18 months as a result of this Labour Government’s proposal.

Farmers are at the forefront of protecting our natural environment, but it is extremely important that we provide them with the support they need to ensure that they can continue their work. We look to the future of farming; it is vital that the Government do not make the same mistakes as their predecessors and undervalue rural communities.

In conclusion, I urge the Government to raise the farming budget by £1 billion, as outlined in the Lib Dem manifesto, to renegotiate those trade agreements to protect British farmers and to strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure that farmers can keep farming in fair circumstances. It is essential to our country—it is vital—that we protect farmers at all costs. The Government’s proposed changes threaten the future of farming and place undue pressure on this critical industry.

I am proud to represent so many hard-working farmers in Newbury. I, and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, will continue to fight tirelessly to ensure their survival and success for generations to come.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I call Dr Neil Hudson for the Opposition. You have five minutes.

17:34

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important, forward-looking debate, and for highlighting the challenges facing our farming communities—not least their mental health.

In Parliament today, we have had the biosecurity debate in this Chamber, which I spoke in, the family farm tax debate that has just concluded, and this current debate. Three debates related to farming in one day show how important these issues are to this House, to our constituents and to the farmers who feed us and look after our precious environment.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Dr Hudson]

I will not give way, I am afraid.

Hon. Members will all be aware of the ongoing situation with bluetongue virus, avian influenza, bovine TB and other diseases, of threats from outside the UK, from African swine fever to foot and mouth disease, and of the challenges that they pose to our livestock farmers, our economy and our national security. As I said this morning in this Chamber, biosecurity is national security. While I note that the Government have chosen to allocate £208 million for the transformation of the Animal and Plant Health Agency HQ in Weybridge, I urge the Minister to make representations to the Treasury to ensure that that HQ is funded in full. In 2020, the previous Government rightly committed £1.2 billion to start that off, but now we need the further full £1.4 billion to complete that critical national security measure.

It is vital that we also make use of new technologies to further build our national resilience against livestock disease, and to protect human, animal and plant health. The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, brought in by the Conservative Government, will help with that, in terms of disease resistance in plants and animals, and climate-resilient crop development. Likewise, wider innovation in machinery, horticulture, farming practices and sustainability are all positive processes.

The elephant in the room today is family farm tax, and we cannot have a debate in which we do not include it.

[Sarah Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Hudson]

I am not going to give way, I am afraid. That tax hits at the heart of future thinking in farming, taking aim at the bond between farming parents and their sons and daughters, and punishing farming families who have worked their land for generations for acting in the best interest of their children and grandchildren, and of our country by looking after our environment and feeding our nation.

What possible incentive can there be for sustainable, thoughtful farming or for improving the productivity of a field, flock or herd when, after a farmer has passed, the farm will have to be broken up to pay that unfair inheritance tax?

There have also been, as we have heard today, worrying developments in the Government’s approach to capital grants. Those vital lifelines, which make possible the wider environmental objectives of the environmental land management schemes, have for some bizarre reason been suspended by the Labour Government, with no warning or phase-in period. Farmers want to be able to deliver food for our country in an environmentally friendly way, but that will only be possible if the Government of the day, of whatever political colour, is prepared to support them on that journey. The slashing of those grants is another hugely damaging development in relation to future impact on our farmers, which is what we are considering in this debate.

We must clear away the dark clouds of the ill-judged, short-sighted Labour Budget, in particular the heartless family farm tax, which will damage food security, hollow out rural communities and deeply impact the mental health of the people living and working in those sectors. The Government must start listening now. They must reverse this awful tax, and we must help our farmers to see some sunlight on the horizon.

In conclusion, biosecurity is national security. Food security is national security. The Government must start listening and actually look after the communities that nurture those critical factors for our country. I urge them to consider what they are doing and to do the right thing.

17:38

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your very crisp chairmanship, Sir Roger. I pay tribute to all hon. and right hon. Members for whittling down what must have been very long speeches into very short, but none the less well-received and well-delivered, speeches.

I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), not just for securing this debate but for her work representing her party here in Westminster as a spokesperson on environment, food and rural affairs. She well knows that agriculture is a devolved issue, but we are committed to working closely with devolved Governments as we work to support British farmers and boost the nation’s food security. My colleague Baroness Hayman is in Northern Ireland tomorrow, meeting with large food producers, the Ulster Farmers’ Union and Northern Ireland’s Agriculture Minister.

As the granddaughter of a Fermanagh beef farmer, I too have farming in my blood. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has many talents, but he has not yet acquired the skills of cloning himself, so I am here as a pale substitute for him today.

I thank all Members for the comments they have raised. We will never forget that farmers are the beating heart of our great country, and farming and food security is the foundation of a healthy and resilient economy, local community and environment. It is the hard work of our country’s farmers that puts food on the table and stewards our beautiful countryside, which is why, despite the difficult fiscal situation, we are maintaining the total level of Government support to farmers across the UK. For the devolved Governments we are removing the ringfence to respect the devolution settlement, and we are providing the same level of funding in 2025-26 as they are receiving in 2024-25. In England, we have committed £5 billion to the farming budget over two years, including more money than ever for sustainable food production. That enables us to keep momentum on the path to a resilient and more sustainable farming sector.

Environmental land management schemes will remain at the centre of our offer to farmers and nature in England, receiving £1.8 billion in the financial year 2025-26. What is more, we have announced that we will rapidly release £60 million through the farming recovery fund, which will support farmers, including those on family farms, affected by the unprecedented extreme wet weather last winter. Roughly 13,000 farm businesses, including family farms, will receive an exceptional one-off payment to help with severe flooding.

The Government are also investing £208 million to protect the nation from disease outbreaks that threaten the farming industry, our food security and, crucially, human health. All of that is part of the Government’s new deal for farmers. On a UK-wide level, we are working to cut red tape at our borders and get British food exports moving again—protecting farmers from being undercut by shoddy trade deals done by the previous Government. We will lower energy bills for farmers by switching on GB Energy, and introduce grid reform to allow them to plug their renewable energy into the national grid.

We will use Government purchasing power to back British produce so that half of our food in hospitals, Army bases and prisons is locally produced and all certified to high environmental standards. We will introduce a land use framework that balances long-term food security with nature recovery. Critically, we will introduce the first ever cross-Government rural crime strategy to crackdown on antisocial behaviour, fly tipping and GPS theft—a subject on which I have spent many happy hours in the Chamber.

I will address the agricultural property relief changes head-on. There has been a huge range of figures and analysis quoted on all sides. The Treasury’s figures show that 500 estates a year will be affected. That is based on the hard data of actual claims, a figure that is endorsed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. It includes the impact of APR, business property relief, nil-rated inheritance allowances, and other capital allowance. The Government have engaged and will continue to engage with the NFU, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association, MPs and other stakeholders on the issue. The reforms will not be introduced until April 2026, so there is still time for farmers to plan for the changes and get professional advice on succession planning.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and I have both contacted the Ulster Farmers Union in Northern Ireland. We have spoken to John McLenaghan, the legal officer, who told us clearly that 65% of farmers in Northern Ireland will be impacted. With great respect, when I hear his legal opinion and the opinion that the Minister has just referred to, there is a chasm of difference. Somebody is telling porkies—I do not know who it is.

[Mary Creagh]

With any fiscal change, we look at the previous year’s figures to see what the impact will be. I am not going to get into the analysis around the figures—I want to make some progress. Those figures have been verified by our independent fiscal authority, the OBR.

We know that the current-use rules have been used by wealthy landowners to avoid inheritance tax, and currently the largest estates pay a lower inheritance tax than smaller estates. That is not fair or sustainable.

[Perran Moon]

Does the Minister agree that it falls to this Government, following the abject failure and economic incompetence of the previous Government, to deal with the rampant speculative acquisition of farmland by closing the tax loophole that has been exploited for too long, and that if the Conservatives really cared about the future of farming, there would be more than one Conservative MP here, with the exception of the shadow Minister and the Chair?

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which sets out why the Government are better targeting tax reliefs: to make them fairer and to protect the smallest family farms. We believe that that is a fair and balanced approach that safeguards small family farms, while also fixing the public services that farming families rely on. Those families will be able to pass the family farm down to their children just as previous generations have always done.

I will quickly make a couple of other points. The hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned Bovaer, the feed additive. We know that agriculture is one of our largest emitting sectors, and we consider that methane-suppressing feed products are an essential tool in the decarbonisation of the agricultural sector. Bovaer was approved by the Food Standards Agency in April 2024 for use in the UK as a feed additive. The authorisation process assessed evidence about animal health, consumer health and environmental safety, and the evidence that was provided to demonstrate the methane reduction efficacy of the product. Bovaer is fully metabolised by the cow and is not present in milk or meat, so there is no consumer exposure to it. I hope that reassures her about Bovaer.

I will also discuss the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). Its introduction, including on imports of specific fertiliser products, was announced by the previous Government in December 2023, but it will not come into force until 2027. It is intended to address carbon leakage, which is the movement of production and emissions from one country to another due to different levels of decarbonisation effort. About 70% of UK agrifood imports come from the EU, and fertiliser used by EU farmers will have already faced a carbon price. Many non-EU imports cannot be produced in the UK, so the Treasury expects that the impact on UK farmers will be modest and that there will be no material impact on food prices.

On capital grants, we have seen an unprecedented demand, and we will continue to process the applications that have already been received and accept new applications for woodland tree health grants. Capital grant plans and management plans are important to help Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier arrangements, protection and—

17:48

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).