Farming and Rural Communities
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Roborough on calling this debate. It is, as ever, a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, who brings a depth of knowledge and experience to this subject.
It is right that the Government be held to account for the seemingly reckless way in which they are dealing with the farming industry and rural communities. As the right reverend Prelate said, they are home to nearly one-quarter of our population. The other issue I wish to raise is the danger to our food security at this unprecedented moment for global trade.
The Labour manifesto promised to champion British farming. Instead, from the farmer’s point of view and the point of view of rural communities, Labour seems to have launched a series of crippling blows on farming, starting with the Budget changes to inheritance tax for farmers. That is going to cripple British farming and prevent investment and growth in the rural communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised a really interesting point about assets and their taxation. I certainly believe that the so-called assets of land, machinery and livestock are not an indication of farmers’ wealth but the essentially means for them to earn a living. You cannot have a farmer without him owning or renting land. They care for 70% of our countryside and grow 60% of our food, as has already been mentioned in the debate.
I do not want to blame the Minister; I never do. She and I know where the real culprit lies, but the effect for farming and the rural community is the same. The latest bombshell was dropped on 11 March this year, with 30 minutes’ notice, announcing that the sustainable farming initiative was closed to new applications. This was at a moment when many farmers were still preparing their applications, having been assured by Defra that if there was to be any change in the procedure, six weeks’ notice would be given—another broken commitment.
The SFI was launched in 2017. It had all-party support. Its purpose was to help farmers transition from straight subsidies to grants for introducing more sustainable methods. In 2022, Daniel Zeichner MP—then shadow Minister for Agriculture—castigated the then Government for dragging their feet, demanding a commitment to long-term funding for it and a guarantee that goalposts would not be moved. Daniel Zeichner MP is now the Minister for Agriculture in the other place, and I am not sure what he is saying now. Have the Government scrapped the SFI? Do they intend to? If so, what is to replace it?
I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that and, in particular, on 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 food security a major concern. On the day after “liberation day”, will she be able to explain to noble Lords how her Government propose to deal with tariffs if, as seems likely, they will affect agriculture? Was Nigel Farage MP telling us something when he said last week that he welcomed the import of chlorinated chicken?
If the Government are planning for such eventualities, why, by their taxation and other policies already raised by noble Lords, are they reducing farm incomes, prosperity and growth in our rural communities? They should be supporting the vital stability of our food security, not diminishing it. I hope the Minister can reassure the House. She always listens carefully and takes note of the argument. Dare I wish her a happy Easter?
Rural Economy
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on calling this very important debate, and on bringing to it his great knowledge, his experience and his insight into the workings of the rural economy and rural people. Today’s debate is timely. The new inheritance tax rules for family farms announced in the Budget have dealt a hammer blow to every rural community in the country. I very much fear that, if the Government do not modify their proposals, as suggested, for example, by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they really will have damaged any prospect of growth in the rural economy for generations. Because growth in the rural economy depends heavily not only on the prosperity of the farming sector but on its stability. Nicholsons, a farm machinery business in Norfolk, is already facing increased wage costs from national insurance changes and says that the uncertain future for family farms will
“reduce investment in people, infrastructure and technology, if not wipe it out altogether”.
The very essence of the prerequisites for growth will be lost.
These issues were impressively rehearsed in the recent debate on family farms called by my noble friend Lord Leicester. From memory, there was only one speaker in favour of the Government’s intentions. I am sorry to repeat myself from that debate, but I do feel that the Government have got this wrong: their plans may destroy and not grow the rural economy. Rural communities, as described by the right reverend Prelate, already face many challenges. I agree with him that one of the most vital is that of access, getting to work, getting to schools and colleges, getting to health service provision, and of course getting access to broadband internet and phone coverage.
I will give some examples of difficulties of access. Difficult or non-existent transport links can mean that almost all working households in rural areas, whether they can afford it or not, have to have a car, and sometimes two cars—certainly for part-time or shift work. Domiciliary care workers struggle to provide a reliable service to their clients. Travel at night can be difficult for many. Providing school travel, in particular for special needs pupils and for colleges, is an added cost for rural local authorities. A visit to the GP or out-patients’ clinic can take the best part of a day.
There has been a slight improvement in access to internet and phone coverage for rural businesses in the year to September 2023, but it is still not as good as that in urban areas. And, of course, there is our old friend, the power cut. This is a regular occurrence where I live if there are gales, snow, frost or storms—or sometimes, one wonders, just for fun. Having been brought up without either electricity or running water, I obviously have an armoury of candles, torches and storm lights. But this is a serious problem for rural households and businesses.
As in all communities, we face potential conflicts: choices, for example, between providing the affordable housing which would prevent the closure of schools and the hollowing out of our villages, or catering for the thriving second-home and tourist market, with jobs for builders, craftsmen, designers and architects, and in hospitality and retail. Then there is land use: for building, for solar power and wind farms, or for food production.
However, all communities face their own challenges, not just rural communities. We are nearing Christmas, it is the last day of term and I feel I should say that those of us who live in rural areas enjoy some of the most wonderful benefits: a beautiful environment; strong and self-reliant communities, supported by incredible volunteers in every sphere, from the car hospital service to lifeboats, to supporting those isolated by ill health, age or location; our rural schools, nearly a quarter of which in Norfolk are church schools, where teachers strive to nurture and to encourage ambition and aspiration; and our network of churches, a lifeline for many. I have a message of cheer for the Minister. We do not know whether the Treasury consulted Defra, of course, but, if she somehow has the feeling that the Treasury picks on Defra, I can tell her that all her predecessors—several in this House, including myself, whether at MAFF or Defra—felt the same. It goes with the territory—but happy Christmas.