Lords Chamber

Thursday 3rd April 2025

(began 3 weeks, 1 day ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:06
11:07
None Portrait Oral questions: January poll published by FGS Global which found that one in five people aged 18 to 45 in the UK prefer unelected strong leaders to democracy
-

rating's Multipliers and Private Schools Act, Chancel Repair, Church Commissioners Liability Measure and Church Funds Investment Measure. First oral question, Lord Harris.
11:07
11:08
11:09
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:29
None Portrait Oral questions: Implementation of Basel 3.1 on measures by the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Treasury to address base erosion and profit shifting
-

Third Oral Question. Paper. Paper.
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: NHS pensions
-

Commons on Tuesday first of April NHS pensions.
11:49
11:49
11:51
11:51
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:56
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, two days ago, magistrates and judges across England and Wales were effectively blindsided. At midday, they were informed that sentencing guidelines that they thought had come into force had in fact been suspended. The courts would have been sentencing offenders guidelines that the Lord Chancellor herself now admits are fundamentally flawed. These are guidelines which she has stated would inflict a two tier system of justice. Undermining fairness and consistency in our fairness and consistency in our courts.

In addition to this, buried in the very email sent to judges and magistrates, the Sentencing Council, somewhat audaciously declared, and I quote " We remain of the view that the guidelines are necessary and appropriate." While the Lord Chancellor advised in the other place yesterday, and I again quote, " I believe that we must reverse them." So, my Lords, the Lord Chancellor says one thing and the Sentencing Council continues to see another. A situation that was entirely preventable, had the Lord Chancellor put party politics aside weeks ago and back, rather than blocked, the bill, which my right honourable friend introduced in the other place.

This was a bill that would have restored the accountability and given the Lord Chancellor the power to govern justice policy. My Lords, we may welcome the belated introduction of the Lord Chancellor's Sentencing Council bill. Although, I would express regret that it had to come to this. But we should be clear that the proposed bill does not address the core of the problem. Which concerns the status of the accountability of Sentencing Council. They have already been concerns about other aspects of the Sentencing Council guidelines.

Reference has been made publicly to the guidelines, with respect to immigration offences. Although, I understand that is debated and indeed disputed. Further concerns have been expressed about guidelines, in respect of the provision of bail. Where there is particular reference to the priority of ethnic minorities and transgender offenders. That is also potentially discriminating practice that should not be maintained in our Criminal Justice Act system. My Lords, what is required now is a calm and considered review of the entire situation rather than just a knee- jerk reaction bill that addresses a symptom, rather than a cause.

And I therefore invite the Minister, on behalf of the government, to commit to a comprehensive review of all Sentencing Council and Ministry of Justice guidance, in regard to sentencing policy and bail policy, which should properly rest with the government, in the form of the Ministry of Justice, and not with the wholly unaccountable Sentencing Council. However much a high regard we have for those who sit in that council.
12:15
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, if the Lord Chancellor maintains that this statement raises issues of principle, but it is about policy being for Parliament, and not for judges. At the Sentencing Council has breached the principle of equality before the law. My Lords, we hear complaints from the Conservatives in particular, and the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen, is no exception to this. And it is unsurprising that I take a different view from him. Complaints of judicial overreach, under a two- tiered justice system.

However, my Lords, we are all, in this House, committed to equality before the law. But the background to the new proposed guidelines is the wealth of evidence, almost entirely undisputed, that ethnic minority defendants are more likely to be sent to prison than white defendants. My Lords, yesterday, I mentioned the Lammie review, but there is so much more. This inequality of outcomes must be It itself is the very opposite of It itself is the very opposite of Lord Chancellor appears to accept that.

And the only other significant assistance a sentencing judge receives as to an offender's background and circumstances is the speech in mitigation from defence counsel. Although speech in mitigation is a powerful tool, they are made by defence counsel on the instructions of the defendant. So they are neither independently prepared nor are they impartial. And more generally can they be independently verified. So we need this report and they have long been intended to be the norm, not an optional add-on.

Yet resources for these reports have effectively been rationed. The Probation Service was hopelessly mishandled by the last government, and one result has been that there is not enough money to fund the number of presentence reports that we need. The noble Lord Lord Simpson yesterday gave the figures, the number of presentence reports down by 44% from 2013 to 2023. The letter from the chairman of the sentencing Council to the Lord Chancellor on 10th of March explained the very thorough process that had led to these new guidelines.

The context, I might add, of the statutory duty imposed by Parliament of the sentencing Council to give guidelines to judges as to sentencing. Part of the reasoning behind the establishment of the sentencing Council was precisely to encourage consistency in sentencing. That is equal treatment before the law. Yet now we have the government resorting to hastily drawn and unhelpful emergency legislation that tries to address a complex issue in simplistic terms. The operative section would provide the sentencing guidelines about presentence reports may not include provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of the offender.

A subclause goes on to cite the personal characteristics may include, not most, may include in particular race, religion or glue, or cultural background. But the cohorts identified by the sentencing Council is normally calling for a PSR include young adult, a female, pregnant, or postnatal. Are those not personal circumstances? And relevant? My Lords, the solution to this is not emergency legislation. The emergency has now passed because the sentencing Council has paused production of the guidelines. This emergency bill has not yet had a second reading.

And I therefore confide the government now to withdraw it and end this unnecessary ground. It is unseemly and widely regarded as such by the public. The solution lies in rational and moderate discussion between the sentencing Council, and I suggest the Chief Justice, and the government, to which this House, from the Ministry of Justice, would have an important contribution to make. First, the aim would be to reach a solution that ensures that presentence reports are properly funded so that they become the norm once again.

In cases, in all cases, where a substantial prison sentence is not inevitable. Secondly, that we recognise that these reports play an important part in addressing and reducing the inequality of outcomes for ethnic minority defendants stop this must be a major priority of the government. And thirdly, that we all respect and ultimately achieve respect and ultimately achieve genuine equality before the law.
12:21
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the points they have made, and the questions they have asked. Just to set the scene, we believe the guidelines as formerly suggested risk differential treatment before the law, and that is why we oppose them. We ask the sentencing Council to revise the guidelines and they did not do so. The Lord Chancellor has introduced legislation a couple of days ago to address the specific issues to which the government objects. And the sentencing Council has put the guidelines on hold while Parliament has its say on these matters.

The Lord Chancellor has gone further than this and she has committed to reviewing the role of the sentencing Council more broadly and is considering all options. And we are grateful to the sentencing Council for pausing the introduction of the guidelines so Parliament can have its say on the bill which has been introduced. The noble and learned Lord Lord Keen referred to the Conservative Party's proposed bill. We believe that bill goes wider than necessary and the bill which the government is putting forward is addressing the specific point within the guidelines to which the government objects.

But we do acknowledge there are a wider considerations and that is why my right honourable friend has put in place this wider consideration of the sentencing, the role of the sentencing Council and its recommendations. I reject the noble and learned Lord's assertion that magistrates and judges were blindsided. I don't think they were. I don't think there would have been any inadvertent sentencing, so I reject that accusation. I do think there is a call which my right honourable friend has acted swiftly to address.

The points made by the noble Lord Lord Marks, I agree with a lot of them. I would just reflect that in my previous role as a magistrate I would have ordered many hundreds of resentenced reports but I'm conscious of sitting in this chamber now, there are colleagues who would have ordered many thousands of presentence reports throughout their career. And of course, I agree with the points he made the AR invaluable tool for any who is seeking to sentence in our criminal courts.

-- That they are an invaluable tool. I also agree that they have been degraded under the previous government. Both in their use and to be frank, the trust they were held in by sentencing magistrates or judges. And it is very much the current government's intention to increase the number of probation officers. It was 1,300 last financial year and it will be another thousand in the current financial year. And I very much anticipate that there will be an enhanced role of the privation services as we move forward with future recommendations on sentencing -- the probation services.

I agree with the general points the noble Lord made about the importance of presentencing reports and we want to build on that. The point the noble Lord made about the wider cohorts which are not explicitly referred to in the published bill, the point I would make is that it is for any judge or any magistrate can always order a presentence report as they wish. And that has always been the situation and it remains the situation.

Just because a specific cohort was not referred to in the bill, doesn't mean that judges can't go ahead and order presentence reports as they see fit. So nothing has changed in that context. In conclusion what I would say is I do hope that, and this is clearly a difficult situation, however the Lord Chancellor has strong views on these matters and it is of utmost importance that the wider public have faith in and continue to have faith in our court system and continue to have faith in both the judiciary which certainly the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regard. Are used to share the sentencing guidelines Council which was the predecessor to the present predecessor to the present sentencing Council -- I used to chair. As the House has had a primary role of the sentencing primary role of the sentencing Council is to promote consistency in sentencing. At present, there is an sentencing. At present, there is an apparent inconsistency in that ethnic minority defendants appear ethnic minority defendants appear according to statistics to be receiving more severe sentencing
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
I thank the noble Lady for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support. I do not think there is any dispute whatsoever, as to the principles on whether the judges suit sentence, most of them are laid suit sentence, most of them are laid down in a Sentencing Code and there was agreement on equality before the law. Secondly, I think everyone recognises the achievement of the recognises the achievement of the Sentencing Council in going a long way to achieve consistency and educating the public on understanding the way in which understanding the way in which sentencing operates.

But, I do this without wishing to enter into the political debate, we do find ourselves constrained by resources. And when resources are tight, problems arise. And therefore, I greatly welcome the Lord Chancellor said yesterday in the other place in saying she would make more resources available to the service. But my experience has been to found. First of all, we have a constitution now that operates on a degree of partnership between the Lord Chancellor, and the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice.

And secondly, at times, when And secondly, at times, when resources are tight, he will -- People forget that our whole institution works and independence in different branches of the government out I would hope that we can follow the example of the late can follow the example of the late Lord Judge, and Mr Straw who together, and I was there when it happened, crafted this legislation. happened, crafted this legislation. See in a chamber, of having a former Lord Chancellor, you see discuss things often.

We didn't see eye to eye, unsurprisingly, one everything, but we managed to find a way forward. And Canon noble Lord, the minister, assure us that everything will be done to try and make work this way forward, i.e. In discussion, in partnership, and keeping this whole thing out of politics, which is so destructive to the independence of the sentencing process.
12:39
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:45
12:46
12:47
None Portrait Debate: The impact of the Government’s economic and planning measures on farming and rural communities
-

Motion for debate, farming and rural communities.
12:47
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
I first draw attention to my register of interests as a dairy farmer, landowner, Forrester, Natural Capital, residential renewables developer, investor in natural capital businesses, circular effects and carbon and other farming -related businesses such as dear, SLC. I mostly full to my Parliamentary party for making the plight of farmers and rural communities a top priority and allowing time for this debate today. The list of negative spending and taxation decisions by this government on farming and rural communities is long.

The cumulative impact is devastating on the financial and mental well-being of farmers in particular, but also the wider rural community. The reduction in Inheritance Tax release under Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief remain hugely emotive and damaging subject. We remain puzzled by this will necessary given the Treasury only expects to raise £500 million per annum. It will be only a transitory gain as tax planning options remain open to reduce or eliminate this exposure. As government ministers has themselves considered, a small cohort of currently elderly farmers suffer a serious illness or victims of model accidents will be caught by this capricious decision.

There is a high risk that those who reasonably assume that they would not live either for the seven years needed to time at potentially exempt transactions, or even the 4.5 years until the next election, will take the timing and manner of their death into their own hands. I have asked repeatedly if the government will keep and publish timely data on suicides by farmers and family business owners in the reduction of run up to these. Will she review this denial? The £10 million health support fund for farmers has been shelved, despite the noble Lord Lord Livermore suggesting mental health support is there for farmers should they consider taking control of the timing of their deaths.

The massive reduction in payments which are subject to a regret motion later this month, as well as the abrupt closure of the sustainable farming and sentence scheme, give many farmers a dreadful position. Those who were trapped in long-term high- level or Countryside Stewardship Scheme's are unable to access Sustainable Farming Incentive's are hit with the dealings payment reduction without any offset. Those who are counting on you SFI incomes this year to replace old schemes that had ended are even harder hit. This does not appear to be a way to run the government, where decisions are made lead to considerable unfairness in outcomes and the unlucky lose financial viability.

The noble Baroness the Minister in answer to my written questions replied, we remain committed to investing £5 million for funding in the farming budget this year and next. We are on track to spend all the funding that is available. This does seem hard to square given the National Farmers' Union estimate that £400 million was saved by the steep reduction in delinked payments and yet only a few months later SFI's are cut off at a moment's notice. Evidence given to the committee by officials appear to suggest a deliberate intention to ignore the six weeks guidance.

Can the noble Baroness the Minister of social asked that the £200 million investment in the animal Plant health agency's Weybridge laboratory is not coming out of the farming budget? I wonder if the noble Baroness the Minister is also able to tell us how much of the farming budget ends up in the hands of farmers, not in administration or projects run by others and not infrastructure or arm's-length bodies. The £100 million will also if we grant redirected to deprived if we grant redirected to deprived urban areas, despite the widespread rule and the high cost of living in rural areas, perhaps signals where this government 's focuses.

Farmers are having to content with these capricious decisions and they are often life changing impact, while also dealing with massive inflationary pressures, low grain prices and increases in employers national insurance contributions and minimum wages. It has been suggested the government that the new SFI's that are planned are likely to require the land-use framework to have been published. The noble Baroness the Minister has indicated in reply to my written questions that the publication of the land-use framework will be this year.

The timeline for the framework will be set out in due course. Could the noble Baroness the Minister confirm whether the publication of the land-use framework will be necessary, prior to the publication of new SFI's, and what that may mean for their timing? A department official has suggested that details of future SFI is with be with us in July. Can the noble Lord the Minister confirm that? The second attack on farmers and the rural amenity comes from planning. Whether it is displacing agricultural production on prime agricultural lands with solar farms and other energy infrastructure, or the enhanced compulsory purchase order powers and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

We on these benches are broadly supportive of the government's housing ambitions. There is no reason why it need cover that -- the expense of the rural community. The values do not represent market value. Taking part of the holding often undermines the viability of the whole and the price paid may reflect the agricultural value, that is unlikely to be enough to replace that locally even if such land is available. It is hard to understand what is wrong with the current valuation framework.

It is also hard to understand how this can be consistent with the ECHR on confiscation as the government claims on one phase of the bill. Further to this, the role of Natural England becomes terrifying. As drafted, the bill confers enormous powers of Natural England, to CPO which ever landed tutors to fulfil its environmental delivery plans. Why does Natural England need these powers? Why can't it simply offer to pay landowners to carry out the work dismantled deliver the services which are intended in the EDPS.

Surely there's a choice of sites where such work can be undertaken and that can introduce competition in service delivery and allow value to be delivered in the EDPS. I fail to understand why nature restoration levies can possibly be well used by Natural England to see Pearland as it sees fit. It has not been necessary to nationalise sites of special scientific interest in order to protect them. How large shall be expect these nature restoration levies to be? We fundamentally believe in reducing the size of the state.

However, capricious short- term spending and taxation decisions are not the way to do it. We want to see a vibrant rural economy, financed by fair payments for the financed by fair payments for the public goods being delivered. As well as the traditional food and timber outputs from rural lands. We see numerous ways of delivering this that without killing the patient before the cure is administered by withdrawing funding before a replacement is available. When will the government make a decision on inclusion and woodland carbon units at the Emissions Trading Scheme stop the noble Baroness has previously said in due course but the consultation was launched last summer and surely cannot be very complex.

The additional financial incentives to encourage new treeplanting to meet and even exceed targets. Our climate is perfect for healthy, vigourous establishment of growth and trees. Our target of 16.5% recover as has previously said from the backbenches is an ambitious and our progress is disappointing. Trees capture significant quantities of atmospheric carbon replace high carbon emissions interiors at building, reduce peak flowrate and flood events, help water and also benefit by diverse. Surely we must do everything in our power to increase this tree cover? The government's loan Chief Executive Officer, Richard Stanford, adequately explained these benefits to the APPG on forestry and timber security, as well as the Woodland trust team to the APPG onwards and trees.

When can we expect mechanisms to allow water companies to pay for the flood education and water the flood education and water quality prefix that are delivered. When will action be taken to solidify the strong position of the woodland carbon code and the peatland carbon code by satisfying them under the integrity counsel for four carbon markets? How will the noble Baroness the Minister incentivised the private sector to pay for nature restoration and biodiversity detection and improvements? Surely the Planning Bill is a golden opportunity to move forward on this year and our own Biodiversity Net Gain measures on a larger scale? Why are we squandering this opportunity by giving it to Natural England? Would the government consider tax incentives to encourage private investment of nature restoration or even change the rules on eating for government contracts to require companies to invest in nature restoration? Farmers and the wider community deliver unquantifiable value to our country.

Feeding us, protecting and restoring nature, sequestering carbon, going timber to displace the 73% that is currently imported, protecting our archaeology, looking after our freshwater, maintaining our countryside for access, removing litter, most of these public goods are not paid for at anything like the true value if at all. This is simply not sustainable for the rural community. For the farming and rural community to move forward with confidence, existing spending commitments cannot be changed overnight and brand-new taxes imposed. The rural community needs confidence that this government is committed to ensuring that these public goods will be paid for.

I very much look forward to the insides of all other noble Lords in this debate and the noble Baroness the Minister's response. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be agreed to. I look forward to this debate and I thank the noble Lord Lord I thank the noble Lord Lord Roborough for introducing the issues Roborough for introducing the issues that are clearly of, that clearly do need to be addressed and I look
12:58
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
need to be addressed and I look forward to my noble friend's response. I'm a sort of bookend in this event. I come as much to listen and learn as to provide definitive information. I'm not a farmer. My father decided he did not wish to take over the family farm. He was a qualified chemist. But I do have a sense, because of that, I feel, to have a limited extent of the cultural hold of being from a farming background and I still occasionally visit the land that was ours, and I do feel a sense of attachment.

So I get that. And it's important that government policies recognise that the cultural content of farming and agriculture. But in general, what we need our economic and planning decisions that support farming practices, that deliver benefits for food production, for biodiversity and climate resilience. While at the same time, maintaining the countryside that we all know and love. And frankly organisations and the library, I thank them for their briefings including the Nature Friendly Farming Network, the World Wildlife Fund, UK, and the campaign for the preservation of rural England.

I assume there are parallel organisations in the other nations of the UK. What they all emphasise is the vital role of public funding, planning and creating and maintaining thriving rural landscapes while meeting our shared environmental goals. And not least achieving a successful and thriving agricultural and. Now, the noble Lord in introducing the debate outlined a number of nature concerns. The issue of compulsory purchase order land in order to meet housing targets. Clearly has to be undertaken in a way that doesn't work against the general objectives Think the issue of what should be paid for land, whether it is the enhanced market value with planning permission for housing, or the value of agricultural land is clearly an important issue and I fully support the government's approach to that.

No, the most contentious issue in this area has been the inheritance tax and I think in any debate you have to recognise on this issue that the problem has been created by the inheritance tax system in general and suppose I see no reason why particular groups should be absolved from their responsibility of paying part of their wealth following their death to the general good. I support the concept of inheritance tax and I do not see any reason in principle by the agricultural industry should be exempt.

However, going back to the point I made earlier, the cultural significance of the family farm is a real factor. And any changes that we have taken have to recognise that. In truth, if you read the financial pages over many years there is a general view that inheritance tax is a voluntary tax and in order to avoid it you have to make changes to the way in which history has required farmers to behave. And that will take time to adjust.

We have asked many other communities to make cultural changes and I see no reason why farmers should be exempted from that. I support the government's farming initiatives and I look forward and I hope that my Noble Friend will cover the issue in the 25 year farming growth act and I look forward very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much to hearing others opinions. I am grateful to the Noble Lord for securing this debate presenting for securing this debate presenting an excellent speech and I declare my interest for the coalition and is
13:03
Lord Bishop of St Albans Portrait The Lord Bishop of St Albans (Bishops)
-
-
interest for the coalition and is the vice president of the Local Government Association. I have already spoken in your low chips house on changes to the agricultural relief Business Property Relief, so my view is already recorded in house and I lament the sudden closure of sustainable initiatives and that reforms to can. Repurchase and the infrastructure bill. If your low chips house would indulge what I really want to do is focus onto associated areas which are pertinent to this whole debate. Firstly, the great potential of the economy to contribute to the need for economic growth which we can all I think believe in, it is just a matter of how we achieve it.

And secondly I want to make if you comment about the complete lack of strategic policy or effective rural proofing on Government decision-making. It is very easy for us to sit here and talk about the things we do not like and I proud to be president of the coalition that is trying to work alongside Government and to put some positive ideas and initiatives, facts and figures on the table to help us achieve the growth in the rural that we believe we need.

And I want to mention the pragmatic report that we commissioned which some of your logics house will have heard reigniting rural futures. This evidences the extraordinarily large productivity between rural and urban areas and the billions of pounds that are lost through chronic underinvestment rural infrastructure in services. With the right policies in place we made out in economic case that the rural could be contributing up to an additional £19 billion in tax revenue for the Treasury.

It would, of course, be addressing the digital divide, rural transport, access to banking services, the rural affordable housing crisis, funding for rural local authorities, and yet none of his majesties Governments in these areas mention or account for the needs of rural communities. Despite 1254 small to the question about rural affording housing in the PPF consultation. The Government has provided no guidance on the delivery of affordable housing in rural communities. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill also misses the opportunity to implement changes to help deliver small rural housing sites.

The Bus Services Bill, which contains many good provisions which we are very grateful for need to implement cross subsidy between rural and urban areas to account for the additional costs generated by sparsity. The local Government funding segment this year once again has rural Government under funded with urban areas receiving 40% ahead of the Government spending power than rural counterparts. On top of the additional cost to delivery services due to sparsity. So, I would urge his majesties Government to address these issues in the funding formula to recognise that density and deprivation is not the only factor that affects costs of service delivery.

And to leverage the capital spending power across rural or urgent authorities. The word rural is mentioned once in the word rural is mentioned once in the industrial strategy Green Paper. Over a series of written answers I can only conclude that the rural industry is not really being considered in the government's growth or to waste. It is urgently vital that the Government from a coherent rural strategy and ensure that all policies across-the-board can involve rural communities. If these communities are left behind again, 20% of the population will be in rural areas and over half a million businesses, then we would all be the poorer for it and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

entire nation loses out. My Lords, I congratulate my Noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I congratulate my Noble Friend on calling this debate. And it is, as ever, always a pleasure to follow the Right Reverend Pruitt follow the Right Reverend Pruitt with a depth of knowledge and experience to this whole subject. It experience to this whole subject. It is right that the movement are held to account for the seemingly reckless way in which they are dealing with the farming industry dealing with the farming industry and rural communities. As the Right Reverend Pollitt said, home to nearly 1/4 of our population.

And the other issue I wish to raise in this debate is the danger to our food security at this unprecedented moment. The Labour manifesto
13:09
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Portrait Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Conservative)
-
-
promised to champion British farming. Instead, from the farmer's farming. Instead, from the farmer's point of view in rural communities, point of view in rural communities, the seem to have launched a series of rules on foreign, starting with of rules on foreign, starting with the budget changes to inheritance tax for farmers. That is going to cripple British farming and prevent cripple British farming and prevent investment and growth in the rural communities. Now, that Noble Lord Davies raised a really interesting Davies raised a really interesting point here about assets and their taxation.

I must say on the side of the House but I certainly believe that the so-called assets of land, machinery and livestock are not an indication of Farmer's wealth, but this essentially means to earn a living you cannot have a farmer without him already owning or renting land. They care for 70% of our countryside. Grow 60% of our food. Those in the House already have already been mentioned in the debate. I want to say I do not want to blame the Minister.

I never do. She and I know where the real culprit lies. The fact for farming and the rural community is the same step and the latest bombshell was dropped on 11 March this year with 30 minutes notice. Announcing that the sustainable initiative was to close to new applications at the moment when many farmers were still preparing for their applications, having been assured by DEFRA that if there was to be any change in procedure, six weeks notice would be procedure, six weeks notice would be given.

Another broken commitment. Now, SNRI launched in 2017. They had full party support. Its purpose was to help farmers transition from street subsidies grants and introducing more sustainable methods. In 2022, Daniel Zeichner, then shadow minister for agriculture, trusted then Government for dragging its bid, demanded a commitment to long-term funding for it and a guarantee that goalposts would not be moved. Daniel Zeichner MPs and other Ministers for agriculture in The Other Place and I'm not sure what he is saying now.

Has the scrapped the SFI? Does it intend to? If so, what is to replace it? I do hope that that noble Baroness that minister will be able to enlighten us on that, but in particular how the Government plan to support our agricultural productivity and resilience when climate change, environmental insecurity, geopolitical events, and now, in particular, tariffs, make the whole issue of our security, food security, a major concern. On the day of liberation day will she be able to explain to noble Lords how her Government proposes to deal with tariffs, if, as seems likely, they will affect agriculture? And was Nigel Faraj telling us something when he said last week that he welcomed the import of chlorinated chicken? And if the Government is planning for such eventualities, why? By their taxation and other policies already raised by noble Lords.

Why are they reducing farm incomes? An prosperity and growth in our rural communities. They should be supporting the vital stability of our food security and not diminishing it. I do hope the Noble Lady the Minister can reassure the House. She always listens carefully. She takes note of the argument. Dare

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish her a happy Easter. My Lords, it is super to killer pleasure to follow on from that pleasure to follow on from that noble Baroness Shepherd and to very much agree with her. She just said much agree with her. She just said about food security. And I would also like to congratulate my Noble Friend for securing this debate. And I think underpinning what Baroness Shephard has just said about the
13:13
Lord Grayling Portrait Lord Grayling (Conservative)
-
-
Shephard has just said about the need for food security is the need I think to see a clearer strategy for our countryside, for our farmers, and our rural communities. And we have seen none of that so far since this Government took office. And we desperately need that right now because as the Chancellor on these teams said recently said last week that the world has changed. We cannot be certain that we will always be able to import all the food we need.

We can now be certain that we will not see it further. Of geopolitical instability, and so therefore the need to protect in particular the land in this country which is our most productive is of paramount importance. And we are right now trying to grow our food, generate electricity, protect our nature, and build our houses, all in the same land spaces. And we cannot just do it in a haphazard way. It has got to be done carefully, strategically, and thoughtfully. And so I think the first thing I would say to the Minister is please country and employees in Government work this through in a much more careful way than has happened up until now? There are some great practical examples.

Should not, for example, building solar farms on our productive areas of land. There is very clearly a place for solar power in this country. And there is a lot of land that it is an second of or third-degree usefulness where there is a genuine opportunity to do that, but we should not be using our most productive land for this stop likewise, on housing, there is a need to build more housing. At the easy option for housing development is also just to build houses on Greenfields.

That is by far the easiest option. But we should not be taking the easy option. There are plenty of avenues in this country for us to pursue first smarter development. It is a matter of great importance to me that this Government does not seem to believe in urban development, as they call the reason of the housing needs in the future, the targets for big-city areas have not risen anything like the same way as the rural areas, the areas on the fringes of our cities, the greenbelt.

I saw this in my former Institute where there was a real opportunity to build on brand land to identify the development we It is something I believe the current government wants and we have got to be smart about how we do that. One of the disappointments of the approach to farmers, I think the previous government was right... Like to try and empower farmers to do more to protect the countryside. I don't see the way in which the current government is approaching things like the SFI as reflecting and understanding the role of farmers.

There has got to be a more holistic approach to how this happens there is one point I want to make in particular, it drives to the heart of the question of how planning goes forward in rural areas, whether it is about housing, onshore with, -- window and how that fits with the challenge of restoring biodiversity, that is about corridor selection. What we have to understand is whether it is wildlife on the ground or birds in the air, putting the filament in the wrong places has a negative impact on the ability of nature to recover.

The final point I would like to make, as she works with colleagues across government, and as they set guidance for local authorities and put in place the measures to drive growth in energy, and housing, it is of paramount importance that they reflect the realities of local nature recovery. If we do those things in the wrong places, erecting windfarms in the middle of bird roots, we will go backwards not forwards. What we need is a holistic strategy, so far, we have not seen it.

I hope the Minister can deliver it soon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I join others in congratulating the noble Lord and having secured this important debate and the informative way in which he has
13:18
Lord Kakkar Portrait Lord Kakkar (Crossbench)
-
-
informative way in which he has introduced it. I do not come from a farming or rural background but my territorial designation is a small hamlet in mid Devon, where my father-in-law is a sheep farmer. I have come to understand, in some way, the powerful communities that exist in these small farming areas. And have come to greatly respect it. His Majesty's Government has a range of economic policies and they will impact all parts of the country, including rural areas.

The impact on health outcomes, it is frequently neglected. We know that, in, there is an assumption that because the countryside is beautiful and people can get out and about, people will be healthier and live longer. But there are substantial disparities and outcomes, we have heard of the high suicide rate experienced in farming communities in comparison to many urban teams but there are disparities in other health outcomes and, importantly, inequalities in access to healthcare facilities, for instance, 51% of the rural populations live over one hour travel distance away from their closest hospital.

Compared to only eight% of urban populations. Some 43% of rural populations are within half an hour walk of a general practice primary care facility compared to 95% of urban populations. There is inequality of access and waiting times can be longer. Pharmacies are more sparsely distributed and, most importantly, dispensing pharmacies in rural locations often frequently have less stock of medicinal products and individuals have to travel longer distances. These are important problems with regard to access. There are also concerns about accessing a clinical service in acute situations, the time from onset of symptoms to intervention onset of symptoms to intervention for patients is critical in terms of achieving clinical outcomes and frequently patients in rural locations experiencing those conditions have to wait longer to achieve those interventions and this problem extends to management of chronic conditions, where there are long distances to travel for those receiving fractions of radiotherapy to manage the cancers.

This suggests there must be a clear focus in terms of honey considerations when taking forward other policies to ensure that we can achieve equitable outcomes for those living in rural locations, as we do for those in urban locations, with regard to the provision of healthcare. We are about to experience a major reorganisation of the NHS England, the government has set three clear priorities, a move from hospital to community care, a move from analogue to digital care and a move from a treatment to prevention.

For all of those transformations to apply equitably, in rural as well as urban locations, there needs to be very careful consideration of the specific needs to achieve those policy objectives. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirmed Baroness, the Minister, confirmed that, in taking forward and understanding and with regard to impact in rural communities, there is proper consideration of the impact on achieving health outcomes and, most importantly, in terms of economic policy, the impact on the social determinants of health, housing, education, and are also determined for those communities.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend for having brought this debate today. For suggestions on how things could For suggestions on how things could be better. I tried not to get too political but I am conscious that while the noble Baroness, Minister,
13:23
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
while the noble Baroness, Minister, is from a very rural areas, it is worth noting that all Commons ministers present urban areas, that is why I feel there has been a lack of consideration and true understanding of some of the impact of recent decisions that has been made in both the farming community and also the rural. There is often a assumption that somehow rural communities are wealthy, it is not the case. The Right Reverend Prelate talked about rural strategy, a couple of years ago, the previous government produce something called unleashing rural opportunity, that was one place I was able to get a map into the particular document, and really challenge other ministers at the time and the country as a whole to see how Stark variation is.

So, what can be done? Confidence is now trashed by not only the actions but the proposals to be made. Particularly in the planning and instructor bill. But I do genuinely hope that the lordships understand how bad this has got. When we think about the relationship that Natural England has, to then give them powers to compulsory purchase order land, not only is that being put into the wrong hands, if anything, it should be done by the 60th, potentially delegated, but recognising it completely destroys the nature markets framework and the approach of ringing private finance into this sector.

Last week, Steve Reed, the pharming Secretary, was right to praise the standard that has come out to open the market, building on work from two years ago, we finally got there. On the other hand, not seeing the irony, why should farmers be bothered to get involved? When we come to debate the SI in a couple of weeks time, after recess, I think if we get more into the many is being spent, I'm conscious that with the change away from the guarantee fixed payments, there was always going to be a seesaw as that moved forward and people might not initially take up proposals that they would understand and learn.

I hope that farmers are making a complaint to the Department because I believe serious maladministration has been done by pulling the plug against an expectation, because we need farmers. We need landowners, we need rural communities, to help about the future of our planet and it is this topsy-turvy difficulties in which we are living, I am sure that farmers who are the original Friends of the Earth and there have been some poor farming practices that we recognised, which are being changed but we need to bring those people with us.

In terms of one other point I wanted to make, about housing, I am concerned about the proposal to adjust the planning decisions and most councils are not NIMBYs but when they are faced with an 82% increase for housing, no changes in London, where the housing demand is strong, that is going to put pressure on not only our fields but are villages, small communities, by the way, at the same time as housing associations are flogging off houses in these villages so that they can release capital to build more houses, they are doing that 60, 70, 80 miles away, very close to the new areas of growth and it is ridiculous.

There are other things that worry me, where local plans have already set housing densities, developers, long and they say, we don't want to build any more. What ministers are not realising that there is a consequence, it will take two or three times the amount of land to build houses already there, imagine stating that to double. We are in a difficult time, I know that the Minister is a champion of rural areas, I hope she can persuade the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rest of the chamber to be so as well. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend, the House is enriched noble friend, the House is enriched by the knowledge and experience that she brings to the chamber. I declare she brings to the chamber. I declare my farming and land management interest in Wales and congratulate my noble friend for securing this my noble friend for securing this absolutely crucial debate. Since the general election, we have seen
13:29
Lord Harlech Portrait Lord Harlech (Conservative)
-
-
policy decisions that have actively harmed the agricultural sector, undermined rural prosperity and jeopardised our nation's food security. The election platform promised to support farmers and stimulate economic growth, instead, the policies have betrayed these commitments, leaving many farming businesses struggling to survive. A prime example of this is the sudden and shocking conclusion of the Sustainable Farming Incentive. This move, made without consultation or warning, has left thousands of farmers in limbo. Many were in the midst of applications, investing time and resources into what was supposed to be a staple scheme.

Now, they find themselves excluded, with no viable alternative, forced to return to intensive farming methods in direct contradiction of the environment of goals. Take, for example, Richard, a dairy farmer, he had spent months preparing the SFI application, planning to transition the farm to a more sustainable practice. When the scheme was abruptly closed, he was left with more support -- no support and his business is at risk of collapse, he might have no option but to sell off part of his herd to survive.

The Country Land and Business Association, alongside CBI economics, has provided alarming projections with changes to APR BPR that could shrink the Gross Value Added by 15 billion by 2030, eliminate over 208,000 jobs and reduce tax receipt by almost 1.9 billion. For individual farming businesses, this means an average loss of nearly 10% of turnover, a 15% drop in investment and an 80% drop in staff. These are not mere numbers, they represent family run numbers, they represent family run Farmers unable to inherit land and a grim future for British agriculture.

Emily, a young farmer from Yorkshire, had been preparing to take over her families farm, but the proposed changes to APR and BPR, which means she now fears inheritance tax will make it financially impossible. She said she has worked the land for generations. This may be her last. The Government says it would support her, but their policies say otherwise. And yet the Government remains silent on this disaster. Refusing to even open a consultation on these damaging changes. This is unacceptable. The Government must engage with the industry stakeholders and find a fairer approach, such as a callback that does not threaten the survival of farming businesses across the country.

I thought the healthcare perspective to this debate from the Noble Lord was fascinating and something which is often to absent when discussing these issues. Several noble Lords have mentioned housing and rural Britain is in the grip of a housing crisis with young people unable to afford homes in the communities in which they grew up. Small-scale develop movement could address this crisis, while supporting local economies. Instead, as my Noble Friend outlined, the Government proposals focus on empowering combined authorities to develop fast projects while failing to equip local councils with the resources they need to prove modest essential housing.

Furthermore, the reforms inexpensively excluded National Park, further isolating these communities for economic opportunity. The message from rural Britain is clear. This government's policies are failing. What good is a 25 year plan if you do not know how you are going to survive the next six months? Farming community is being taxed into oblivion, environmental cause are being undermined and economic being suffocated by bureaucratic inertia. But the Government is serious about its rural commitments and must take immediate action, reinstate the Sustainable Farming Incentive, rethink inheritance tax relief changes, introduced there planning policies, and protect farmers from unjust compulsory purchase powers.

Our farmers and rural communities are the backbone of this country. They deserve better. I urge the Government to listen, consult, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

act before it is too late. Like you very much for the opportunity to take part in this opportunity to take part in this important debate here this afternoon and I declare an interest as being a farmer in Northern Ireland. I would farmer in Northern Ireland. I would be very interested in some of the debates or discussions so far and I debates or discussions so far and I know that Minister has a culture of farming and rural communities at heart.

I do appreciate that. We must grasp the mantle here and start
13:34
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Portrait Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
recognising that the farming community provides the food on our table. They provide society with jobs. And they are the one economic jobs. And they are the one economic base in this country that are price takers and not press givers. We do not have the opportunity to set our own price for products. If I go and buy a product and assume the prices said then I have to pay that and we produce our milk or wheat for cheaper, we have to pick whatever price the next part of that foodchain gives us, so we do not have that opportunity.

I very interested in the noble Baroness coffees assertion around what should we purchase and I want to give you an example because some of my contributions are around Northern Ireland and more broadly in Northern Ireland we have an example at that moment where the A5 run of 85 km of new dual carriageway is being developed. Those farmers and landowners have that investment for months and have not even gotten an offer of evaluation for it. Is that fair or reasonable? Does farmers cannot plan for a future.

They do not know whether they're going to have use of that land in summer two produce their food stocks, so they have no idea that is totally unfair. I have talked to other farmers in a similar position who lost their land six years ago by investing for a road scheme and they still have not reported any. Totally unfair and unreasonable. How would anybody here like their role compounded by Government, used for their purposes and not paid for? Totally unreasonable and unfair.

But we must recognise the significant input that we have to economy that the farming community have to the economy, other rural communities as well. I very taken by the Noble Lord on the issue around the health debate because I come from a county where we have one state-of-the-art hospital that is only open 12 years. State-of-the- art. But we have theatres in it. We have beds in it that have never been used because we cannot get the health professionals to come and live in rural areas.

There needs to be a change in attitude and a change in policy and a change in direction. I want to say that I have listened as well to some of the issues around some of the financial support for farming community that is not always financial support that the community particularly want, it is the support of Government policy as well and one of the aspects that I want to highlight is where we have the opportunity to improve animal housing, livestock housing, the new modern state-of-the-art housing, I know in Northern Ireland would broadly not do that, simply because if we are within 7 1/2 km of a European designated site that stops us from doing it.

It does not matter what levels of audits we get carried out, there are surveys and assessments, if we are not meeting the targets we cannot replace housing. But would be much better for the environment if we have much less greenhouse from it but we are still not permitted to do it, so it is those types of policies, not just financial support but it is those types of policies. Clearly living in a rural area can be difficult for services, and we have mentioned health service but I know in one village, that has changed now, to be fair, but we have one bus service out per week.

Once this out to that village and back in on the same day, so if you miss that bus you had to wait one week to get it. You understand what I am saying, the level of services are just not provided in rural areas. So, I do want to finish off just on the climate changed debate this afternoon. I do not want to crouch and that too much, but sometimes I believe that there are people and communities in society who would rather that we imported all our goods instead of producing our own, because that may mean we can hit our climate change targets more easier.

For me, that is not the case. I want For me, that is not the case. I want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us to have a better understanding. I congratulate my Noble Friend on securing this important, very timely securing this important, very timely debate. I declare an interest for a number of concerns in the GW CT. A
13:39
Earl of Shrewsbury Portrait The Earl of Shrewsbury (Conservative)
-
-
number of concerns in the GW CT. A retired member of the work in land management and agriculture. The recent news flow from this Government has created considerable concern and uncertainty in rural communities, in particular those dependent on farming, both directly and indirectly, for their livelihoods. The Government should also be concerned as uncertainty at home in combination challenges those in the global markets means that many farmers will need to look to intensify production in order to make ends meet.

Whilst in the past direct subsidy support of the farming sector has been criticised, preventing innovation in farming practice, the new environmental land management scheme, of which the Sustainable Farming Incentive is part, was a very different approach. The scheme was based on the promise of public money for public goods. These public goods are now often embedded in legislation such as the target for nature recovery of the environment act. Therefore the SFI withdraws its no commitment to the resurrection until after the spending review in June.

There was a very big concern potentially undermining the government's ability to meet its 2030 target to the species abundance. The target that we are committed to under international. There are also many farmers who have chosen to go to mid-term countries like stewardship back in 2020 when the new ELMS was being created in order to achieve some certainty for their endeavours. Many of these farmers would be early adopters in the countryside schemes, having understood the importance of being enthusiastic contributors to supporting biodiversity on the farm.

As a result, there mid-term schemes finish at the end of this year and they shall be faced with real risk of the Support for the measures that are already in place, delivering public goods with public money. Given the domestic and international economic backdrop for farmers and rising costs, they are likely to opt to focus on food production might revert land currently given to support pollinators or protect water policies back into crops which can be sold. This will not only impact on species abundance targets but farming is a fixed asset, long-term business model and as a result any changes incurred relating to the challenges of adopting new methods, the SFI included a number of options that supported fathers by creating a premises towards more resilient occupants.

And as a result the gap in the pausing of the SFI creates also affects the ability for Mr change cultivation practices to those that are more that in such as fertilisers, pesticides, or that improve soil health, such as longer rotations. Whilst these all benefit the farmer, there are also public good in that they support wider policy ambitions for pollinators, the National action plan for pesticides, and progress towards net zero. The considerable benefits to the Governments recovery target and the resilience of farming systems to future climate and economic services would be undermined by the suspension of SFI.

It is therefore vital that DEFRA acts as quickly as possible to provide some stability and visibility of scheme availability to avoid cleavage by the ending of the midtier scheme. I would like to end on a positive note, the end of the scheme allows for reflection on where things went wrong and it appears that DEFRA knew wrong and it appears that DEFRA knew the money was going to merge but did nothing to mitigate this risk. It may have been deemed a success to get the money out of the door, not at the expense, the benefits of the schemes improvement.

There is much to like about the SFI, so an in- depth review is not needed, but instead consideration should be given to the fair distribution of bodies to asking farmers to register their interest, that land area they are interested in, and the cap could then be applied if needed. And if this then resulted in underspend then farmers could be invited to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their existing schemes. It is a pleasure to follow my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to follow my Noble Friend and I declare my interest as set out in the register. In a few short months the Government
13:44
Lord Douglas-Miller Portrait Lord Douglas-Miller (Conservative)
-
-
In a few short months the Government has achieved something rather remarkable. It has made those of us Scotland lacking, sadly it has done this by completely undermining the confidence of the security of the farming security across England and Wales with a range of poorly thought out policies. Whilst I concur with the many points that my Noble Friend has made in his opening remarks, I would to focus on three. Firstly, the reversal will leave many into dairy sector distraught at the prospect of heightened incidents of TB and the catastrophic impact this will have on many foreign businesses.

From my own experience I believe that continuing this is a key part of the U.K.'s drive towards eradicating TB and I would be very interested if the Minister could tell us what the chief officer was party to end with this decision. Secondly, this government's policy of reducing APR has been discussed and the devastating impact on family farms clearly, so I do not intend to repeat these but it is safe to say that the alleged £500 million represents an endeavour in the scheme of the Chancellor's self- inflicted economic words.

So, can I ask the Minister whether DEFRA is now run as an offshoot of the And whether she agrees with the policy herself. If it is the latter, could the Minister tell us whether she was party to the decision? Finally, we have the abrupt withdrawal of SFI, hot on the heels of accelerating the reduction in the remaining payments. Creating a perfect financial storm for the farming community. And leaving many farmers across the UK nursing heavy losses as a result of the financial mismanagement.

This feels unjust and must be a deliberate outcome or the unintended consequence of not understanding the implications of their own decisions. I can appreciate that the process for the various modules is more complex than the previous system the system was always going to be more complex than allocating the budget on a per acre basis. This is not an excuse for pulling the plug on a funding source that underpins economic debility and it begs the question as to who has budgeting oversight.

Can I ask three questions. First, whether she was involved in the decision to close down SFI? And whether she has any oversight of the budgeting process? And thirdly, she have any knowledge of when SFI will reopen? They need clarity and certainty and, at the moment, they have neither. One much discussed remedy development of woodland and people and that should fit squarely within the delivery plans. What my noble friend articulated is that farm landowners need clear guidance and positive encouragement rather than the threat of the arm's-length body going to purchase their property if they do not follow natural England's mantra.

I totally agree with my noble friend, Baroness coffee's assessment assessment to give Natural England, an organisation that is so widely distrusted, CPO powers is both disproportionate and overarching. I would urge the Minister to strongly look at this again before it causes conflict.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest in Bucks and Lincolnshire. I would also like and Lincolnshire. I would also like to thank the noble Lord for bringing this debate and all noble Lords that
13:49
Lord Carrington Portrait Lord Carrington (Crossbench)
-
-
this debate and all noble Lords that have contributed so far on such a wide number of topics that this debate involves. I think we can all agree there is a vast amount of uncertainty in farming and rural policy at the moment, due to government action on taxes and SFI. Most importantly, the empty public purse. This was compounded by the forthcoming land-use and framework National Food Strategy, pharming roadmap, the planning and bill, the Renter's Rights Bill and much more.

Despite the uncertainty, farm businesses need to move on. Although planning in relation to environment measures and the horticultural sector must wait until further government announcements on SFI later this year, as well as a replacement of the fruit and vegetable aid scheme. Reductive, profitable farming... Profitable farming Minister at the industry without subsidies and with A-level playing field when it comes to training policy. An import of agricultural products. However, the result of decreasing government support will have substantial fallout on the rule come.

Which the government will need to address. Unsubsidised farming, competing internationally, will not be able to afford voluntary environment to good work unless it benefits farming system, continuing support for the environment and biodiversity will be required. Albeit in a more targeted manner. Parallel to this, it is great to see that, in the other place, Alistair Carmichael has induced the fairness bill to introduce margins for our farmers. As far as this debate is concerned, I wish to highlight productivity and particularly how to facilitate much-needed investment in agricultural science, innovation and technology.

As a member of the APPG science and technology in agriculture, we are focused on the need to attract investment, support farm innovation, as the UK has recognised powers in terms of plant science. The big challenge is to convert these ideas into an accessible, profitable, commercial farming. For this investment needs to be attracted from both the public and private sector. We have not been successful in launching public- private partnerships involving government and science investors. To bridge the gap between scientific research and commercialisation of these ideas, we need to study how other countries have successfully used this model.

To achieve this. The Oxford-Cambridge Arc growth corridor is a welcome movement to encourage growth based on our enviable scientific research we need a series of innovation hubs with infrastructure and ecosystems that attract and support high growth start-ups, investors and corporate partners. This works well in the United States and France, to quote a recent article, frequent convening of entrepreneurs, accelerators and talent is vital, together with physical co-location of research, physical co-location of research, capital and industry.

Our public finances might be weak but the returns on investment in areas where we lead the world, like agriculture -related science, far outweigh the costs. With government encouragement, we will be able to emulate the United States in terms of targeting a 40% increase. With all of the financial upsets, please can the Minister tell us how the government plans to bring stability into the industry, because this is the basic requirement for investment and growth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unlike the noble Lord, I do not possess a great knowledge of farming. It is interesting how many farming. It is interesting how many people who do not possess a knowledge of farming have been drawn into the debate, it shows the concern that everybody has for
13:54
Lord Horam Portrait Lord Horam (Conservative)
-
-
concern that everybody has for farming and what is happening as a result of the actions on this government. The nearest that I got to understanding farming was when I was asked to consider putting my name forward to become the Conservative candidate in the Monmouth by-election, realising that Monmouth was a rural area, there was lots of farming, I rang my wife's uncle, who was a farmer, and we had a useful heart-to-heart discussion. When I got to the final, there were three people there, clearly I had no chance.

When the President of the Welsh NFU came up to me afterwards, he said, I am sorry we are not selective because you do show a remarkable understanding of the problems of Welsh farming. Little did he know. I must not underestimate, totally, because I was brought up in a farming area. And I was born there during the Second World War. Food security was of immense significance. We had rationing, which meant that there was no obesity, as well as no malnutrition, although the downside was that the food was extremely stodgy, the official history of the Second World War, there was a remarkable level of flatulence as a result of the food we were eating.

However, I was shocked and dismayed by somebody who had that amount of concern with the budget. I do not think, actually, the intention was deliberate, I think it was rather accidental, because it was a budget resolution, the people at Defra are essentially urban MPs, similarly with the members of Parliament and the Treasury, they are predominantly urban MPs, they now have little understanding on the effect of farming, of taking a budget review, of what we have to do. This is another example of how taking this immediate fiscal framework, rather than a long-term view, has disastrous consequences.

It is certainly not accidental that the government has followed this up by the closure of Sustainable Farming Initiative, as the time said, it is a shattering betrayal of the farmers who trusted the commitment to green policies, as one prominent environmentalist said, in the context of everything that forms and society have been through since 2017, this is insane. Strong words from the times. The curious thing about all of this is that this was not always... The damaging approach, was not always a characteristic of Labour governments.

The Minister is very Cape woman. Very good at the despatch box, the former MP for Workington, she will remember one of her predecessors, who will not only Secretary of State for agriculture fisheries, as it was called at that time, but twice, under the second administration. He was much loved by farmers, great experience and understanding of the farming committee. Not only that, another MP, Joe Maynard, was a representative of the agricultural. He was very left-wing and cold Stalin, very affectionately by the House of Commons, would not have stood for all of this nonsense.

Can I call on the Minister to take the colleagues on a trip down memory lane and realise what Labour once had, real wisdom and understanding, get them to change their minds on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these disastrous policies. I am grateful to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lord for in choosing the important debate. I speak as the Bishop of the most rural diocese in total. Agriculture provides significant employment and is extremely diverse employment and is extremely diverse from substantial agribusinesses to small family farms, large small family farms, large enterprises to small livestock enterprises to small livestock health forms. I worked as an economist, advising farmers on crop production, translating scientific research. I had the privilege this year of being President of the three counties show at Malvern, an event I warmly commend as expended day out.

However, over 40 years of involvement, I can honestly say I have never seen morale so low nor such disillusionment with government capacity to understand and respond to the needs of their cultural to the needs of their cultural industry. A thriving farming industry is essential to the wider health of the rural economy. Family farms are at the heart of this ecology. The inevitable consolidation of units that will ensue from proposed changes in APR and BPR will have knock-on effect on support industries, need to rural depopulation and undermine the viability of local services and businesses.

The government has already rejected reasonable proposals by the NFU for a crawl back mechanism. There are injustices in the existing application of APR and BPR which need to be addressed, as Lord Davies has already as Lord Davies has already The NFU proposals which mirror similar practices would go a significant way to address these without collateral damage to small family farms. The conservative lobbying shows that such a clawback scheme would still raise extra 554 million from the Treasury, some 7% more than that return from current proposals.

I hope the conversation about agricultural policy can move beyond our discussion numbers and economic modelling. This speaks into questions of honesty and good governance. This Government campaigned on a manifesto pledge to support farmers and stimulate raw or economic growth. I attended events in this House shortly after election in which I am sure Ira but the Minister reminded us of the changes to APR or BPR. Within weeks those assurances had been set aside. Member's of the Government party from The Other Place have distinct themselves from Government policy on inheritance tax, recognising the serious effects of it on their farming constituents.

Given the proposed changes in inheritance tax seems to be driven by the Treasury without consultation, there would be no shame in thinking again as the implications of this policy for small family farms become evident. Foremost in my mind closing are the men and women performing in an industry that is extraordinarily demanding and always with a woeful return on capital and working hours that would be unacceptable in almost any other walk of life. They produced the most basic staples of life.

There's the mental health and well-being undermined by proposed taxation policy. They feel ignored, misunderstood, and marginalised. And I urge the Government to ensure that this community's voice is heard and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responded to. I welcome and congratulate my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome and congratulate my Noble Friend for securing this debate and I welcome the Minister to this place. I declare my interests
14:03
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
this place. I declare my interests as president of the Association for a number of the Royal interest rates in the Church of England and I work with doctors in rural areas and I can testify to that rural inequality, both healthcare, access to healthcare, housing and transport in rural areas. It is a matter of regret that Labour have elected on the promise of restoring trust and confidence in Government. It has achieved quite the reverse than the planning proposals.

First, they have promised not to amend inheritance tax proposals, affecting farms, no agricultural quality relief and then the closures of the sustainable initiative with six weeks notice. How can any responsible farming business plan around such erratic policy changes without notice no time to prepare to make alternative arrangements? The impact farmers have less stewardship scheme, unable to switch. The impact of early sustainable farm SFI closures has a particularly devastating impact on family farms.

There is a long-term threat to livestock simply disappearing which will have a consequential knock on impact on urban farms also. Iota the Minister to find a better balance between food production and nurturing nature. And recognise who better to achieve this than farmers who actively farm land and tend the livestock. The issues of food security and greater self- sufficiency must be addressed. We must learn that lessons from the invasion and ongoing hostilities in Ukraine as to how quickly the food supply change can be upturned.

The economic impact of the international impact of food farming cannot be ignored. Free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand have been neither fair to our farmers, nor allowed them to compete. The very minimum demand of any free-trade agreement should only be committed if these products are the same animal, environmental standards demand of our producers. In addition, no meat should be allowed into the UK if it is produced with antibiotics, hormones, or rinsed in chlorine.

Farmers claim that might play a crucial role in flood prevention. The Noble Lady will see this first-hand constituency MP. This role is exercised through internal drainage boards as well as the regular maintenance courses which farmers and landowners are responsible. It is still clear that the attempt to store water on land, indeed by farmers such as golf courses will be rewarded in the MC. Also, how the rules will apply for reservoirs in these circumstances. The role of auction marks should be celebrated, not just celebrating an economic price, but also seeing live beyond the animals at the point of sale and providing an essential social and support network.

Farming is a vital part of this amendment. When farming does work, the market flourishes. Children attend schools and are healthy and well fed, farmers clear the roads of ice in to and play other such rules in Europe benefiting the community at no cost. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill places a further threat to oral communities with proposals for building and developing high-grade cultural and. The Minister kindly promised to return to many on the question of 9% of farmland being lost on energy proposals to build solar phone, battery storage on farmland.

Has she had the opportunity to look at those and discussed this to end this place? Farmers need certainty and stability, not these constant changes that do not instil confidence for the future. Mental health issues for farmers raise mounting concerns and I pay tribute to the churches for their work and there is evidence of the outreach through such examples, these are all examples. Can I ask the Minister whether the Government took its decision to end SFI? Will the Government recognise the order for farmers producing food security levels as self-sufficiency levels are being challenged? Will she address the issue of falling stock levels and ensure tenant farmers, most particularly those and the future for prices that want to raise in perpetuity on common land only and where will the growth of the economy come from if not from farming?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Noble Lord rubra for initiating this timely debate and I dilated to follow the noble Baroness
14:09
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
dilated to follow the noble Baroness Macintosh, such a champion for rural communities. My comments addressed the government's economic and planning measures on the medical issue of housing in rural areas. I draw on the work of the Devon housing commission which I was delighted to share which I reported last year. The shortage of secure to an affordable homes is great in particularly acute difficulties for employers in the private and public sectors in rural communities. The rural areas have half as much social how from councils and housing associations as elsewhere.

Only 9% of the stock in rural areas compared with 17% in the country as a whole. The 25 to 35-year-olds are moving away from many rural areas. Not just because they cannot compete with house purchases moving from other places, but also because private sector rents are beyond the reach even of those on average incomes without a workforce, local businesses and public services, inevitably decline. Government is taking action in respect of some of the recommendations in the Devon housing commission but really needs to go further.

First, the affordable housing program needs adequate funding, Government has found a very welcome extra 800 million, but it invasion homes England should recognise that special value of investment in rural areas. 10% of total grant funding should be yet marked for rural housing associations or local community land trusts. Second, in rural areas as elsewhere Government is tackling the delays and blockages caused by inadequate resources for the planning departments. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill should speed up and increase delivery and local Government reorganisation should assist the pressures created by having a multiplicity in planning authorities in some rural areas, Devon, for example, has 10 local authorities with planning responsibilities which, in future, will be combined into their unitary councils to streamline local processes.

Third, there is the need to address the loss of property, available for long-term letting to local people in many rural tourist hot spots caused by landlords switching to air be and be style short term lets. Government is committed to a registration scheme and it has consulted on the creation of a new use class which would require planning consent before they require planning consent before they can be converted to short term lets and I have tabled an amendment to remove this rights forward.

Further, as amended by the Devon housing commission, DEFRA has announced further funding for rural housing in neighbours who are hosted by rural community councils. These play a crucial role in brokering small village schemes with all the relevant parties, housing associations, planners, landowners, parish councils, et cetera. However, DEFRA's commitment has been only four DEFRA's commitment has been only 412 months at a time, inhibiting the recruitment of these enable us. If I program would be much better. Fifth, there is the unique planning tool of rural exception sites which enable planning consent to be granted for development, exceptionally mad precisely because they will serve local needs.

These elements could produce delightful affordable sustainable homes for local people. Replenishing the local primary school. And rejuvenating the local community. It would be good to see the Chancellor encouraging landowners to make sites available for more of these village schemes through tax reforms, as advocated by the country plan and business Association. In conclusion, both the building of new homes that are unaffordable to local households, and that stripping of accommodation for rent to short-term lets risks rural communities becoming on cliffs of older, more affluent owners.

These trends are stifling economic growth as well as eroding long established rural communities. Can the noble Baroness the Minister assure the House the Government will support more of the excellent local social housing schemes that can do so much to sustain and revitalise local economies? And the rural communities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Best who has given us some very interesting ideas about housing. I would like to declare my interest and also to congratulate the Noble Lord for moving this the Noble Lord for moving this debate. We have seen a lot of facts
14:14
Lord Bellingham Portrait Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-
and figures and what I want to try and do is try and get behind the facts and actually look at some of the human interests and look at some real examples. In fact I know the Noble Lord give us two examples and I was lucky enough to be briefed by my contract who explained to me exactly what is happening in one particular Norfolk village. In the heart of the Norfolk rural community. Not my distinction, I would identify. And I want to take your on a tour of that village and the farming activities in and around.

Farm A is thriving, it has a talented form, it is a church, but, it is well-run, mainly arable, supported by those, full time employees, to qualifying under the 1948 legislation. The farmer himself is on the parish council, the wife is involved with the school, there is a governor, PCC. Form B is its hundred acre farm that is owned by the fourth-generation farmers. They have two daughters and he actually operate as a contractor to enhance the business. He and his wife are Farmer C has been in the generation of four for generations, a small farm that is more of a hobby farm, the two brothers involved are involved in other businesses to make ends meet.

Farm D was recently bought by a commercial farming family, about 30 years ago, a very well run family farm of 1,400 acres with two full-time employees and three children. Farmer himself is vice chairman of the parish council. My NFU friend and I talked through what might happen. First of all, the tenanted farm, that is really worried. You might think, he's not involved, he's a tenant, but if the estate involved is hit by 20% IHT, they will have to raise 10 million over 10 years.

What will they do, they will probably sell. In Norfolk, a lot of agricultural land is going solar. That is a disaster. The tenant could be evicted, the House will be sold to a second homeowner. The 600 acre farm, the farm is devastated, he has got, as I mentioned, two daughters, no idea what to do, he was going to wait until he died, the farm would be left, there would be no IHT. What will he do? Will he sell it now? Probably not, they will take the hit, the farm will get sold to a large farming company.

Farmer C, the government goes on about how this will not affect farms, 200 acres is a small farm, they will definitely be hit, the farm will be sold. Farm D, this is an interesting case, the farm and their is relatively young, he has got three children, two sons who do not want to farm, a daughter who might want to farm, and a grand daughter. He does not want to take a decision at the moment about making the farm over, if he does, he will have a sibling meltdown, he wants to wait until he dies and then make it over to the grandson.

If he makes it over now, where will the sons feel about their inheritance? What is a doctor, one is in finance. As was pointed out, we will see a consolidation of holdings. A destruction of local supply chains, all of these farms use local suppliers, we will cease communities broken up. Farmers feel angry, it is not surprising. Just over one year ago, the shadow environment Secretary said, I can give a cast- iron guarantee that an incoming Labour government will not make any changes to IHT relief.

Farmers trusted in him, some voted Labour, they feel betrayed. How does the government expect to deliver the rural agenda of a farming policy without the goodwill of farmers? They lost that. Farmers feel betrayed, there is still time to make up and repair the damage but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time is running out. My Lords, it is a pleasure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow Mike noble friends, and I agree with his comments about inheritance tax. Might I also inheritance tax. Might I also congratulate my noble friend for introducing this debate and use this opportunity to thank him for the help and advice that he gave me when help and advice that he gave me when I came to this place just over one year ago. Having been born and brought up in central needs, before moving to central London, for university, and then living in six of London boroughs, I am conscious that people in this debate have much more experience than I do.

I will keep my contribution relatively short. The point by which to hear is the importance of vibrant, rural economy, in getting people from welfare into work. The government is rightly committed to getting the employment rate back up to 80%, what it was pre-COVID. By getting 2 million people from welfare into work. This is outlined in the Great Britain working white paper. More recently, one a fortnight ago, I very much welcome this objective and commend the government for this ambition.

The focus of such plans and similar think tank plans in the welfare to work agenda, often focuses on towns and cities. I note that as we speak this afternoon, the work and Secretary is in Barnsley to launch the first of nine trailblazer programs. However, rural communities are often overlooked in this debate. Whilst the problem of worthlessness is undoubtedly an issue in urban areas, it is an issue in rural areas. My noble friend has already touched on the important issue.

The latest data showed that rural, inland areas have community levels of 19.6%, rural coastal communities have a rate of 21.9%. This compares nationally. Given that rural areas have fewer job opportunities than urban counterparts, we must not forget rural communities in the welfare to work agenda. A recent piece of research by the jobs foundation, a charity which I am the President of and I declare my interest in the register, looked at the whole welfare to work agenda across the country and focused on for part of the country.

Sheffield, Loughborough, Hartlepool and Pembrokeshire. When we looked at Pembrokeshire, we saw the important role of farms in the area, providing local jobs. Also, hospitality and tourism and also the oil refinery, Pembroke refinery, which has a fantastic scheme in terms of people getting into higher quality jobs. One of these businesses are vital to the jobs market. And all of them will be employers who ensure that the government can actually get the rate back up to 80%.

In our national mission, to get 2 million people into work, it is essential for the government to look at planning measures that are geared towards helping rural businesses to thrive so that they can play their part in getting Britain working.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For over 1/4 of a century, I produced beer in the UK with British
14:23
Lord Bilimoria Portrait Lord Bilimoria (Crossbench)
-
-
produced beer in the UK with British grown barley and I am proud of the quality of our produce, Cobra beer has won 150 gold medals. Agriculture makes up .6% of GDP, for over a decade, I helped and worked with the management of my wife's uncle and aunt family farm in South Africa. Thousands of acres comprising dairy, sheep, cattle, I thank the noble Lord for initiating this debate. May I ask the Minister about the closure of the Sustainable Farming Initiative incentives scheme.

After Brexit, are farmers no longer have access to the Common Agricultural Policy which provided significant financial support to farmers through subsidies, how are farmers going to be compensated for the loss, of the SFI. Farming groups are worried about the inheritance tax, 20% is being applied to family farms. The NFU thinks this threatens family farms and food security, and surely there is an argument for reversing this harmful policy. I give Government credit for some of the initiatives, for example, that the seasonal worker visa, investing £5 million in agri-tech, establishing a national biosecurity centre to combat animal diseases and publishing a 25 year roadmap later this year.

Would the Minister agree we should prioritise farming in Spending Review that is coming up and we should increase the annual agriculture budget to £6 billion. When it comes to the inheritance tax reforms, it is supposed to affect fewer than 500 estate according to the government. But what if a farmer passes away within the next seven years? In a survey by family business UK, it found that with over 200,000 jobs could be lost due to 200,000 jobs could be lost due to the decision, the inheritance tax changes to take effect from next year limit the relief, as I said, family businesses have paused or cancelled investment.

Nearly one quarter have stopped hiring or cut jobs. The changes could reduce economic value by £14 billion. Surely this policy is going to backfire, leading to lower taxation revenue for the government. Would the government consider reviewing this policy. There are alternatives, unwritten insurance for elderly landowners, excepting the elderly, for example those over 80, from tax for example those over 80, from tax changes. The chair of the committee, said that Agricultural Property Relief is not in the poll, successive governments designed to avoid to avoid the make-up of family farms.

This will affect the whole community and in some cases farms will leave too little income and they will have few resources to pay tax and they will be forced to sell part or all of the farm. To build on what the noble Lord said about access to medical care in rural areas, I am proud to be the London... The chair of the Cambridge children's hospital, that will be built in conjunction with the University of Cambridge. Do the noble Lord realise, a rural area, there is no Children's Hospital, they either have to go to Birmingham or they come to Great Ormond Street.

Now we will have a hospital for this area. With regard to self- sufficiency, the UK produces 60% of domestic food consumption, we produce the majority of our greens and yet we have to import 40% of food. Destabilising global supply chains, the NFU is concerned because the US is the second largest export market yawned the European Union. It is the largest market for products outside the European Union and farmers are proud of the quality we supply.

The Secretary of has said there is a red line, a major sticking plaster to negotiations. It is so easy to take the sector for granted, it should always be a top priority for any government at any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. Six months, Labour has morphed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Six months, Labour has morphed from casual indifference to the
14:28
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
from casual indifference to the communities who act as custodians to landscape towards outright hostility. I have a family interest, I am involved in the fertiliser industry, which sits at the start of the food chain and is part of a very large economic ecosystem. Alongside machinery, manufacturers, as well as the more eccentric trades such as ditches, trainers and patches name a few. The hostility is not just felt by farmers but in the trading estate that surround every market town in Britain.

Mostly through the family owned businesses. We have heard it has taken DEFRA to tell the Treasury how to count the number of farmers correctly. Neither DEFRA nor the Treasury has stopped to consider those wider ecosystem businesses which are the multipliers of rural prosperity. A fundamental understanding of how the economy works, it has affected the shires where 90% of businesses employ people. And so the Business Property Relief plans particular disseminate against tenant farms. The most dynamic of farmers.

Who live by their wits. As our noble friends said, Business Property Relief is not in the poll, it is a feature of our economy. Labour has precipitated a countryside cash flow crisis. With the result that artisans and craftsmen must have to wait longer to be paid. Astonishingly, the scaling back has made nature friendly farming approaches economically unsustainable, only now intensification can prevent a small fortune being made by starting with a big one. And the effect of VAT and business rate on private schools are hollowing out the rural market towns.

Often the school is the largest employer. Not highly paid Once I did I detect something more sinister, the Finance act provisions that Agricultural Property Relief would only be available to schemes operated by the environmental schemes operated by the state. You see in Labour's world there can be little room for private sector innovation in the delivery of environment groups where we have demonstrated substantial comparative development of labour solutions to reward the deeply conflicted enemies of growth and Natural England. Not monopoly operating powers alongside other powers to confiscate land in pursuance of their activist agenda.

When you that the socialists wanted these factors of production so badly, but I should know as I have had to deal with Natural England as the leader of the council. I expose that by selectively quoting and misrepresenting academic buttons they say supports their views but does not. They can private and chop and change their minds and they stand in the way of progress and innovation mendacious me and spitefully looking at every obstacle in the way and those of others that have been first to step in to do the work that those on the environment agency appeared to be doing but are not.

They're unaccountable, yet less unaffordable burdens on business and affordable homes for families and have proven many small builders to the world. And I have read the current report published yesterday and I regret to say there could not be a less appropriate body than national England to maintain this work to be a trusted status for by their actions they have forfeited that trust. My overwhelming fear is now that the Government will be nationalising data by becoming the sole regulator, confiscate and operator of environmental schemes, jacking up charges to support a bloated bureaucracy while acting as judge and jury of what only the deemed to be acceptable.

Now, I welcome suggestions to realign the overlap and we will need more than a rerating of guidance and this act as a drug actor on the image and growth in the Shire, only a complete rewiring will do. Whether it is by their economic social environment policies, Labour may think they are attacking farmers in the class war. Ordinary working people and family firms in the wider economy or court in the crossfire of their culture clash. The effect is to damage the long-term economy that landscapes that we should all strive to enhance.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, can I declare my own interest as The Chair of the own interest as The Chair of the partnership and also as director of risk investor involved in the
14:33
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
risk investor involved in the development sector. Can I also thank the Noble Lord for this debate and I know he feels very passionately about this area. I think I first of all would react and respond to the road for front prelate, the Bishop of St Albans who is a true champion of rural affairs, particularly as Chair of the rural coalition, because the rural economies is something that is often forgotten about. It is important, it is not just farming, it is coastal fisheries, it is all of the SME environment and much more, not just farming.

And the big challenges as he said that we can take rural transport which is declining hugely. The ability of young people to get to education facilities, for ordinary people to actually just get to work. This is a real challenge. In terms of financial area we have had a huge number of banks closing in urban areas within the countryside, leaving huge areas where people are wanting to actually talk to their bank manager but it becomes almost impossible. On health, Lord mentioned, when I first became a member of the House I remember going along to enough party Parliamentary group where we had one of the country's experts on strokes and I said well I live in rural Cornwall.

What should I do about that challenge? And he made a very quick and said that was you should move. And that is the dilemma in rural areas of the countryside today. In terms of housing and the Noble Lord best pointed out we have a serious lack of social. When we had the right to buy we were promised the fact that for every social housing house or unit that was sold there would be a replacement. That never happened, practically, at all.

But I have to actually say to the Right Reverend prelate that in my own parish the Church Commissioners have put up for sale some land which is next to social which has been built by our village in the past. The church has insisted that it goes out of the open market, despite the fact that as a community we have said we will pay the market price, but it is out there still for anybody to buy on a public quoting system.

If the Reverend would like to have a word with the bishops we would be very grateful. So, we have all these challenges in terms of local communities. Let's be quite clear about that, all the situations that I have gone through, transport, housing, access through finance, even energy and in Northern Ireland Lord Elliott mentioned the issues there. Of course, in rural communities not on the gas grid, generally, in Northern Ireland particularly that is the case, we have very much require oil heating charges but a lot of those issues, I have to say, got considerably worse during the incumbency of the last Government.

Seriously got worse at that time. Let's move on because those that have mentioned particularly the SFI are absolutely right. I find it incredible that the Government department somehow appears to be caught out in terms of its budgeting of one of its major policies and terms of not just farming sustainability but also the growth of nature as well. We come to a situation where that scheme ends, leaving so many people in limbo and as far as I can see also in terms of the policy in nature restoration and what we have is particularly those farms that have been in countryside schemes coming to an end over this year I think some 45,000 schemes or farms coming to the programs.

Countries led stewardship, they have nowhere to go when that is published. When I spoke we had some ideas on the Noble Lord Harlech in terms of the specific instances and different of mine that she farms in North Cornwall. The point that she made was that she has been very enthusiastic about the very holistic and sustainable approach to dairy farming and she says what I cannot do now is to trust that those schemes will be there for the future, therefore what do I do about all the work that I have done so far while trying to keep my farm viable for the future? And back in the European Union days under the European Union, when you for several years that there was going to be a consistent policy.

It was not a particularly good policy, but we felt we were going to have that in the environment are land management schemes, and yet now we have that uncertainty and farming also in biodiversity is something that needs to be consistent over not just seven years but young that as well. We have those certainties. And just as the Noble Lord will be pleased to say we talked about the biodiversity corridors, everything that needs to be done there.

I think that one of the challenges that we have now, I mentioned this to the Minister before, is DEFRA needs to move out of these silos and be much more comprehensive and commented that reform that we had in just a second. But what concerns me is that we do actually have local nature recovery strategies now in 48 separate ones that are hopefully coordinated, but at the moment we cannot use the size of without particularly the planning process with those especially, so what we need is a much more holistic approach to the way that we are getting those wildlife corridors, everything else that they need to get somewhere towards our 30 x 30 targets that we need to ensure it is better managed and focused than it is at the moment, many of those are good schemes but we need to make sure they can be effective.

And we come onto the report that came out I think yesterday or the day before, which is around DEFRA having to move forward in a number of ways. And these are relevant to this debate. Things like becoming a leader environmental organisation for the DEFRA family to the planning issues, although sometimes I think it could be quite useful in smaller planning issues as well in communities where those developments are not so large in terms of environmental enforcement, making that better and more practical, and many other areas as well, so I would ask the Minister in terms of those recommendations I will not ask her to say which one she will and which one she will not follow but will the Government take those seriously? And start to implement them very quickly.

And can I then come onto trade which was by Baroness Lady McIntosh and others. And this is very much in focus at the moment and I do have a concern we have seen very bad reaction that the community had to the Australia and New Zealand deals during these periods of administration. We are very focused, the Government is, I understand this in terms of economic and trade relations with the United States in the future. I get that. But what I would really like to hear from the Minister is not to have a fight between the trade Department that we have had under the previous administration but we have a administration but we have a determination that we will not have the food from the United States that are substandard in comparison with our own standards and I would like to hear that from the Minister.

And lastly my only other question would be when will SFI function again and can we have confidence in it that it will be a continuous program rather

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than stop and start? Can I start by congratulating the
14:44
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I start by congratulating the Noble Lord for securing this debate and for all noble Lords to have and for all noble Lords to have taken part. The debate has covered a wide-ranging of topics and a large number of questions. I will do my best to answer them, though I may have to write to noble Lords in some areas. I just wanted to start by saying the Government is committed to improving the quality of life of people right across the country, including those who live and work in rural areas and to achieve this we must ensure that the needs of people are at the heart of our policy- are at the heart of our policy- making.

And we recently announced the deal, this will support growth in the farming sector and rural communities and that is determined to turn farm businesses to profitability. One of the underlining problems for farmers and the wider community is that farmers do not make enough money for the hard work and commitment they put in and one of our commitment is to make farming more profitable. And that approach is what is underpinning our 25 year farming roadmap, but also our food strategy, through which we will work in partnership with farmers to make farming and food production sustainable and profitable.

We have already begun profitable. We have already begun the farming roadmap workshops and key stakeholders from right across the farming sector and we plan to The The first The first of The first of these The first of these principles The first of these principles is The first of these principles is our commitment to the sector that has food production at its core. The role of farming will always be to produce the form that feeds our nation. The instability that we have seen, both relating to Ukraine and during Covid, shows that food security truly is national security and we do need to move forward.

Noble Lady, Baroness Shephard, mention food security and she was right. We need to act to support food production. We are using our own purchasing power as a government to back British produce and we also announced an extension to the seasonal worker route. A number of noble Lords mentioned trade and new trade agreements. And, I absolutely understand farmers concerned in this area. Supporting farmers in new trade agreement is a priority. We have been clear, you will protect farmers from being undercut by low standards in trade deals and we will continue to maintain our existing high standards for animal health food hygiene.

The government is committed to developing a trade strategy that will support economic growth and promote the highest standards of food production. On the terrace, I am afraid I am an able to say anything further at this time then the statement made this morning in the Commons. Our second principle is a sector in which farm businesses must become more resilient and able to withstand the shocks that affect farming from time to time. We want to help farmers who want to diversify their income to put more money into the business so that they can survive the more difficult times when they come.

We will give farmers the power to diversify businesses by speeding up the planning system. In the spring budget, we talk about how we will transform the farming system so that they can build and repurposed buildings on farms to support businesses. We will ensure that permitted development rights are working for farmers so that they can convert larger barns into, for example, a farm shop, or if they want to set up holiday lets. These changes can address long-standing concerns that current planning rules hinder farm businesses from being productive and environment friendly.

The third principle is nature, the noble Lord has talked about this, particularly Lord Teverson, restoring nature is vital for through -- food production. Healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water are the foundations that farm businesses rely on to produce high crop yields. The entry turn a profit. Without nature thriving, there will be no long-term food security. This is why, last year, we were pleased to announce £5 billion for the farming budget. We now have more than half of all farmers in environmental schemes that are supported by this budget.

Several noble Lords have raised concerns around recent closures of SFI to new applications and the implication that has on farms, nature and the wider rural. The government has allocated a budget of 1.05 billion for 2025 and 25/26 that will go into farmers pockets and into the wider community. We know that people have been concerned about the sudden closure of the scheme but we can work superficially for the willpower to transition to more sustainable farming model to a range of schemes and grants and we will announce details of the revised scheme after the spending review.

The noble Earl of Shrewsbury and the noble Baroness asked further about SFI reform, they asked if this was a permanent cancellation, absolutely not. We are looking to reform the offer before reopening it. Following the SR decision. The idea is to introduce a more sophisticated budget control to manage the scheme. And ensure that it targets public filing and effectively. Also, where it is most needed, where will it make the most difference? We know that the plans difference? We know that the plans the further support, for example.

Several people have raised concerns about the changes to property relief on inheritance. We have debated this at length in the past, I actually wanted to come at the moment, look at the mental health concerns that have been raised. We are aware of the effects that the issues of SFI pose to farmers and others in rural communities. We will continue to provide funding for the organisations delivering projects to improve farmer mental health and the government is giving way to halt the same attention as fiscal health through deploying thousands of new support workers.

And on that basis, Lord River specifically asked, so we have set up a dedicated team to address that particular issue that drives outcomes in the farming and agricultural sector. We are working with communities and farming support organisations and experts to look at how we can best in this area. But Royal payment agency also runs farmer welfare forums. The government is aware of the specific challenges and opportunities that make rural and farming economies distinctive. Particularly asking about the economy, as did Lord Elliott.

I do think that we do recognise rural areas have a significant potential for growth and are central to the economy. We also recognise the fact that in order to develop the full potential, we need to focus on small farms as well, an important part of High Street and an important part of the rural economy, with many people self-employed. The government is actively working on that. The government has also made a commitment that all decision-making should be rural proved.

DEFRA leads on that but individual apartments department are responsible for making sure and we work with them to consider that. We also know prosperous rural economies require effective transport, it needs a digital infrastructure, the available for housing energy, access to skilled workforce, we are doing our best to work to tackle these issues. Rural housing was also discussed, particularly by the noble Lady, and we are reforming the planning policy to ensure that we can build homes that the rural community needs.

At the same time, recognising the need to protect green spaces and the natural environment. The government's response to last year's consultation has reflected the higher cost of housing delivery in rural areas and the fact that we want to receive more affordable housing as part of the option to deliver the biggest increase in housing in a generation. The noble Lord talked about the work of the Devon housing commission, and how other evidence on housing will be included. That will be...

The draft strategy will be published soon. That will be taken into account there. Also, the rural housing exemptions, the government is supported and is going to be encouraging work on this. Also, empty homes, local authorities have the power to tackle empty properties, for example, through the empty homes order. We are now obviously working on planning and instruction as our next step in the reform program. The noble Lady, Baroness McIntosh, had concerns about the impact on agricultural land and the loss of farmland.

The NPPF prioritises easing lower quality land, protecting the best farmland for food production. Energy projects must ensure that benefits outweigh negative impacts on prime land. Lord Grayling particularly asked about solar and. The figures that I have, less than one% of UK that I have, less than one% of UK land would be used. Also, so farms can operate alongside farming activities. Further renewable percentages, I know Lana Condor... I have to get back to it.

I do not have the percentage of the room. The nature Restoration fund, has been raised and we are working closely with Natural England and others to ensure that resources are in place to administer it. It will run on a cost recovery basis. We will recover cost through developer payments and unlock development more quickly and provide greater assurance to restoration. Others talked about Natural England. We would not expect land acquisition to be considered although it is a possible approach.

It might be appropriate in some circumstances. It is important to remember Compulsory Purchase Order is only wonderful. We would expect Natural England to consider using this only where attempts to acquire land has failed. And it is a very compelling case in the public interest. The noble Lord, thoughtful, and Lord Teverson, mentioned the review, I would urge mentioned the review, I would urge nobles to read it. We have become work on enacting nine of the commissions. One of them is pertinent to the farming sector, about rapidly reviewing and reworking regulatory guidance.

Farmers have to consider and comply with over 150 pieces of regulation which we think is unfeasible. We are looking at that as part of it. On land use, Lord River asked about this, the land use framework, we are consulting not until 25 April. The idea is to not tell anybody to use the land or what to do with it. It is not in the in tent cities it to make binding decision-making for that. It is intended to advise those managing the land who are preparing strategies.

There will be more information on that once it is published. On health, the noble Lord, more people move to towns -- out of towns, at the time they are needing most carefully put most pressures on health services. They should have a specific role to play I completely understand where he was coming from, living in the rural area. Travel times to healthcare, we have portraits, it can take a long time. One reason I am pleased to be on a child poverty fastest for essentially those kinds of aspects of poverty and access to health is a fundamental part of the discussions we are having.

A number of noble Lords mentioned that bus services Bill. The Bill will deliver new Bill. The Bill will deliver new powers. That will include rural services, buses are vital, they have been disappearing at far too great a rate. The noble Lord mentioned payments, I have to declare interest, IM in receipt of those payments come I have a clear understanding of how rapidly they have been going downwards. We have provided a calculator, so that farmers can see the impact reductions could have on the 2025.

Lord River asked a specific question about the budget for Weybridge, that is separate. Lord Horam asked about private investment, in tech and innovation, since 2021, farming innovation program has attracted over £54 million of private investment in addition to the 150 million that DEFRA has committed. That is an important part of what we Tenant farmers, from Lord Fuller and others, Lord Fuller has some interesting thoughts, I thought. It is a collaborative industry represented lives, to improve challenges with tenant farmers to improve the farming tenancy forum.

Also the lack of affordable housing for tenant farmers who want to retire, has been identified as a key barrier. So, we are looking at that, we have started a recruitment campaign for Commissioner of tenant farming. That is no life. Lord Carrington asks about research and innovation. As I said, I will just mention, there is a lot available, we are to work out how we work with people to make sure things are accessible. On Bovine TB, the noble Lord mentioned this, the government started work on its new bovine TB ratification -- Eradication strategy, to drive down TB rates.

A key part of the strategy is to drive forward the ongoing development of the cattle vaccine. And we are working closely with farmers, vets, scientists and conservationists to rapidly and deploy a range of disease control measures. We are also going to introduce the first badger population survey in over a decade, so we can actually have a data driven approach to inform how TB vaccines and other verification methods are deployed and will establish a new badger vaccinated field. The noble Baroness, Baroness McIntosh, ask about if we were supporting farmers to support war- torn farmland.

We are committed to a record 2.65 billion flows investment program, which will deliver on natural flood management, with a project on agricultural land included as part of the funding calculator. And in addition, we have published an assessment back in 2024 of flooding and coastal erosion on of flooding and coastal erosion on cultural land and businesses, this also emphasises agriculture as a provider of natural flood management. My Lords, it looks like I am about to run out of time, so I just want to say in conclusion that I have genuinely listened very carefully to noble Lord's concerns, and I do appreciate there are a lot of concerns around funding and support for farming at the moment.

I do think it's important to recognise the huge interest and knowledge this House brings to these discussions and we have had several debates in the chamber and of course in the other place. And I have also heard as well, separately, from many members who are concerned about the issues that have been facing the rural areas they live in, or have previously represented. So, I just Have, I will take those concerns back to the department. The farming minister is also very cognizant of all of this, so I have run out of time, I would just like to wish the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House a very restful break and a happy Easter. Before the noble Lady sits down, I have asked several question, raised many points, not one has been raised many points, not one has been answered, I would be grateful if the Minister could put a written answer in the library, thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the library, thank you. I did say right at the beginning I was not going to be able to get to everything in the time and that I
15:04
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
everything in the time and that I would write to those questions who hadn't been answered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this motion and also to the noble Baroness, the Minister, the noble Baroness, the Minister, for attempting to answer as many questions as she could in the time available and I do look forward to available and I do look forward to answers where they have been missed. I would like to just summarise and highlight a few points, I thought highlight a few points, I thought the noble Lord made a good the noble Lord made a good contribute to the debate but our take his comments about inheritance tax on family farms and family tax on family farms and family businesses.

Family businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. Without them, we wouldn't have Pearson, Rolls-Royce, GKN, Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Whitbread, Sainsbury's, et cetera et cetera, large businesses starting small businesses, they are started by individuals and families. At the moment, we have companies like Dyson and JCB which are private companies and thriving. We on these benches one fair treatment of all family businesses. And allow them the chance to compete effectively with public and overseas companies, so they can grow in the future champions of our economy.

Having to be prepared at all times to pay a 20% IHT charge as well as funding and dividend tax liability on that is highly damaging. I would go further than my noble friend, Baroness Shephard and others, it is all family businesses, including farmers, needing these reliefs in strife. My noble friend, Lord Grady, made a powerful case, it is a concern when we have so much land that is most versatile. That we have so much land that is not best and versatile, that the Secretary of State for energy continues to commit so much solar, particular on this best and versatile land.

And I would also completely agree with his point that housing developments should be prioritised on brownfield land is before Greenfield is taken. There are a number of noble Lords around the House who spoke about the disparity in opportunity, disparity in healthcare et cetera, between the rural and urban environments, and I note the noble Lord, his powerful discussion and access to healthcare, both emergency and chronic. As well as the right reverend prelate, the Bishop of Saint Auckland, highlighting the productivity gap between rural and urban environments.

And I thought the contribution of the noble Lord highlighting the planning constraints in Northern Ireland, making it so difficult to improve animal welfare and also to allow for better management's of animal waste, and I thought it was encouraging the noble Baroness, the Minister, mentioning the work of another moment, in allowing farmers to do more in the planning front to support their businesses, and I do hope the government would consult hope the government would consult widely on that.

I think the right reverend brother, the Bishop of Hereford, summed up the mood in the countryside. An all-time low in the morale, which does mean there is a huge opportunity for this government, to improve things. And I do hope the suggestions raising today's debate will be taken forward, and in the meantime, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. content". The contents have it.
15:08
None Portrait Short debate: Assessment of the announcement by NATO allies that they intend to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel landmines and the Convention on Cluster Munitions
-

Question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Convention on Cluster Munitions. My Lords, I would like to thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to thank everyone speaking today, no doubt we will hear a range of views. I am sure all of us would rather this debate have been prompted by new
15:09
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
debate have been prompted by new ratification of these treaties, rather than withdrawals. And more reassuring security situation in Europe. But I trust we can also all agree that it is not lack of commitment to international law arms control that has led Poland, Finland and the Baltic states to announce their withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty and Lithuania to withdraw from the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions. These are free law- abiding peaceloving nations, led by mainstream political parties. Centrist parties, affiliated with the European People's Power party, are in power in Poland, Democrats in are in power in Poland, Democrats in Lithuania to liberals in a stony.

My Lords, I co-authored a recent report by Politic Change on these developments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Godson, for his intellectual leadership. An air Marshal as Marshall for his expertise in defence matters. There is a earmarking at the port as I do not yet have firm answers to the questions we pose. These questions are urgent, and we need to hear what our government's thinking is. On that note, in an answer to the written question in this topic on Monday, Lord Coaker said the UK would continue to engage bilaterally on the actions of these states plan to take.

Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, now tell us a bit more about the engagement the government has had so far, with the five allies, following their announcements. And can she also tell us whether there has been any engagement with the French

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government on this matter? My Lords, while our focus today

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, while our focus today is on the Ottawa Treaty and the Oslo is on the Ottawa Treaty and the Oslo convention also mentions, we must remember other treaties and arrangements for our security are arrangements for our security are also in crisis. The 1990 Treaty of convention of Armed Forces in Europe was suspended by Russia in 2007, was suspended by Russia in 2007, November 23, Russia withdrew. Russia has also withdrawn from the open skies Treaty. Russia stopped all verification visits under the 2011 verification visits under the 2011 Vienna document, very important confidence and security building instrument.

On the nonconventional front, the picture is also very concerning. Since 2018, NATO has declared Russia in breach of the declared Russia in breach of the 1987 INF Treaty, the intermediate nuclear forces Treaty, the US withdrew in 2019, citing Russia's continued non-compliance as a reason. In 23, Russia rescinded its ratification, acid put it, of the, hence of nuclear test Ban Treaty. -- Comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Although it was and still is party to the Ottawa Treaty that regulates but does not ban the use of landmines.

Everyone else in Europe, including Belarus, joined the Ottawa Treaty. The Americans did not. The main reason they gave was the defence of South Korea. South Korea has a land boundary of 240 km with North Korea. South Korea has a very advanced military with active personnel of 500,000. The second largest reserve army in the world, over 3 million. There is a long- standing and significant American military presence in South Korea. Each of the five countries that announced its withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty has a longer land boundary with Russia and Belarus that South Korea has with North that South Korea has with North Korea.

There Armed Forces are considerably smaller than South Korea's. In the joint expeditionary force which will lead are also smaller than the US forces in the Korean peninsula. In that sense, it is not surprising these European allies in a much more challenging position they face with Russia on the other side, have concluded that they also may need antipersonnel landmines for their defence. At this point, the only NATO country sharing a border with Russia that has said it will not withdraw from Ottawa is Norway. But given where that boundary is, some 250 miles north of the Arctic Circle, Norway is simply not as vulnerable to a land invasion from Russia as the other five states.

Where did these developments leave Britain as a state party to the Ottawa Treaty, committed as we are to the defence of our allies? The obligations under article 1 are very far-reaching. We cannot use antipersonnel landmines, obtain them or transfer them, directly or indirectly, to anyone. Nor can we indirectly, to anyone. Nor can we assist or encourage in any way anyone to use them. Section 2 of the Landmines Act 1998 creates various domestic law offences, based on these provisions. If antipersonnel landmines become a better or for worse and important part of the defensive strategy often try NATO states, does the government believe that we can be as effective in defending them, while we remain subject to these far-reaching obligations? And have we asked these allies what they think? To justify our cooperation with them, we would have to rely on a declaration we made on ratification of the Ottawa Treaty 1998, as the declaration says, that the U.K.'s understanding is that mere participation in the planning or execution of operations with an nonstate parties that use antipersonnel landmines is not a form of persistence -- Assistance prohibited under the treaty, but we are more than mere participants, we are leader of the joint participatory force, therefore, a country that would have to leading the defence of Estonia.

Does the government consider that this unilateral declaration remains fit for purpose in the current situation, and that it would survive legal challenge. My Lords, the costume additions convention was concluded 10 years after the Ottawa Treaty. By then, Russia's neighbours were becoming nervous. Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Ukraine, Turkey and, of course, the United States all stayed out. The one country that went in with Lithuania, but it has now withdrawn. Unlike the Ottawa Treaty, the cluster munitions convention does have a provision, article 21.3 X specially commits state parties to " Engage in military operations with states not party to this Convention, that might engage in activities prohibited state party." The noble Lord, Lord Browne, who was Defence Secretary at the time and who I know speaks today, reminds us that this was a key provision from a UK perspective, because it meant that we can still operate with the Americans and rely on them.

But is it sufficient now? The Prime Minister, who I think must really be congratulated for his leadership throughout this crisis, has said that the Europeans must now be ready to do the heavy lifting he says rightly that ours is an era where rightly that ours is an era where peace depends on strength and deterrence. If that is so, can Europe's two main military powers, the UK and France, really do afford to deprive themselves of this capability? Let us not forget that both the Ottawa Treaty and the Oslo Convention provides that if the withdrawing state is engaged in a non-conflict, -- And armed conflict, the withdrawal will take effect after the end of the armed conflict.

Ukraine for example remains bound by the Ottawa Treaty, until the end of its conflict with Russia, even Russia is not a party. So, this rule applies even if one party is a victim of an unprovoked aggression by a normal party. We must therefore consider now the impact that this may have on our potential deployment in Ukraine. The purpose of such deployment would be to deter, dissuade, as president McCrone put it, further Russian aggression. The state munitions and antipersonnel landmines have been used widely by both parties in the Ukrainian Russian conflict.

I have read no analysis that suggests that you could be an effective belligerence in that theatre without these capabilities. Indeed, one of the last decisions of the Biden administration was to supply Ukraine with antipersonnel landmines because, as the then US Defence Secretary put it, Russia changed its tactics and Ukraine needed the tactics and Ukraine needed the Would it be wise to deploy British troops without equipping them with the abilities that are necessary in that theatre? If we did with such aid deployment of the credibility that effective deterrence requires? In a widely reported speech last month, Prime Minister said Poland must achieve the most modern capabilities even in nuclear-weapons and modern nonconventional weapons.

This is an alarming statement and we must consider how best to respond to the concerns that prompted it. Is this not the time to provide Poland and other allies with maximum reassurance on the conventional front to lower any incentive that might have explored the acquisition of nonconventional weapons? How can we reassure them effectively if we are now prepared to consider requiring conventional capabilities that under previous assumptions we thought we should dispense with but that have turned out to be necessary.

We cannot avoid conventional rearmament in Europe. What we can't afford it may still have time to prevent its nonconventional proliferation. If we are too cautious on the conventional weapons front we might miss an opportunity to diffuse a far more terrifying arms race. Is the promise to set, we face tough decision, this might be one of them. -- As the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prime Minister said. My Lords, I take a different view

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I take a different view from that of the noble Lord in what he said. I have been involved for a
15:18
Lord Dubs Portrait Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
-
he said. I have been involved for a long time in campaigns against antipersonnel landmines and cluster weapons and I visited the teams in south Lebanon who were dealing with cluster bombs, I have met the people in Vietnam who are clearing I exploded ordinances all over the country. 60 countries are contaminated, for example 2 million landmines have been put in there since February since February 2022. The problem is that both cluster bombs and landmines are there long after the conflict is over.

Cluster bombs don't always explode on impact and aligned minds -- landmines are hidden away and caused enormous danger for civilians want to go there long after the conflict. Children playing, women collecting water, planting crops. These are the dangers and we are living countries badly contaminated. Military use is questionable. I remember general said, I wouldn't send my Marines in where there have been cluster bombs because if they march forward they will get injured. I attended the Dublin meeting at which UK influence was maximum and it was Gordon Brown who sent a message saying, should sign.

Other countries, but is in cluster bombs, other countries say if the UK supports this, it must be OK, and I think we have led the world and we have set a good example. It is those who cannot go home safely because there land are contaminated, their fields. In Afghanistan there are 2,200 staff clearing mines, about half of them have been removed already. : The Baltic States have taken the view they have, the UK should set an example in going on funding the clearance of landmines.

I feel very emotional about this and I hope the Minister will respect positively.
15:21
Earl Attlee Portrait Earl Attlee (Conservative)
-
-
It's an honour to follow the noble Lord Lord Dubs. Because we have debated this issue before, 18 years ago and I have to say that in the 25 years since I have known the noble Lord, he doesn't seem to have aged at all. He still just as effective. According to your Lordships library, there are only two people in this Parliament who are both operational overseas military experience and operational overseas aid experience. The other one is Alex Ballinger MP.

In 2006, I was the only backbencher who counselled caution about the noble Lord bill and my counsel on the issue has not changed. It may be thought by some that the military advice from myself and, more importantly, from the noble and gallant Lord who will speak shortly, takes no account of the suffering caused by these munitions, and is heartless. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 1995, I was running an NGO in Rhondda. Every time a past hospital at Kigali I saw young wounded soldiers with either one or both lower limbs missing -- in Rwanda.

The blood was still often seeping from their bandages. These images are still with me now. Just as strongly as the fatalities and other life-threatening emergencies that I have had to deal with. Obviously, the soldiers were victims of landmines. However, my counsel is to support the policy exchange paper and listen carefully, very carefully, to the noble and gallant Lord. Finally, the noble Baroness the Minister will find herself having to make even more really difficult decisions, and soon

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because of the six-month rule. My Lords, it's a pleasure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lords. Away from
15:23
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
follow the noble Lords. Away from the frontline facing Putin's Russia, it's harder for us to understand the threat that the Baltic States Poland and Finland and other countries face. Many people think landmines are a tool of laws passed but Russia's war on Ukraine is an old- style war. Drones and other modern techniques have added to, not taken away, the threat of unexploded ordnance. Ukraine has the largest amount of unexploded ordnance in the world. I spoke in the debate on International Women's Day of the all women landmine teams in Ukraine and other countries, who are trained supported by UK-based Halo and Mac and funded by international aid from a number of countries including the UK.

At a time when other European countries talk of leaving the Ottawa agreement because of threats of engagement invasion on their doorsteps, it's vital this aid continues. Tomorrow is anti-landmine continues. Tomorrow is anti-landmine day. Today at the APPG, we had a programme of de-mining that also helps local people to develop and enrich the cleared soil and then start growing things again, wheat, fines, olives, whatever the local needs are. The FCDO has a proud history of supporting landmine and cluster bomb clearance.

Regardless of the decisions by the countries facing Russia, and the many other countries still living with landmines, can the Minister Shoigu Lordship's House de mining projects will remain a priority? Because this is so much more. Local people are trained in a range of skills. As mines are cleared to staff also work with their communities. Who are still often fearful and living with a day-to-day consequence of war. And they are given the tools, cleared earth to rebuild their lives, create food and recreate the local economy will stop these FCDO grounds work miracles and above all, these grants

**** Possible New Speaker ****

save lives. In the brief time I have got to I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the brief time I have got to I
15:25
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page