Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

All these insults adding together culminate in a simple message: this nation—in fact, any society—is no more than three meals away from anarchy, and a Government who forget that, deserve everything that is coming to them.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, listening to this debate, it becomes apparent just how diverse our nation’s agriculture is. For every remark by one speaker, there is probably someone who knows about agriculture in a different part of the country, in a different sector, where it is not directly relevant. But the message that comes across—and I declare my interests in agriculture in Cumbria, which the Minister knows about—has the same effect: what ought to be a profitable activity, providing public goods, which is not merely food but a whole range of other things, becomes unsustainable quite simply because it does not pay. It does not matter how you look at this; at the end of the year, if income and expenditure do not balance, then that enterprise cannot survive for all that long.

I think that government has an important role to play in every advanced western society. The Government provide a framework around which farming, agriculture and land use functions, not least because the consequences of what is done are so important in widely varying ways to other parts of the economy. What worries me about the debates on agriculture in this country is that, if agriculture is not sustainable and if the businesses, be they big or small, become unsustainable and cannot survive on their own commercial terms, either because they cannot generate enough revenue from husbandry or other land use activities that they carry out, or, equally important, because of the incidence of tax that they will have to pay—it is no good thinking that an inheritance tax is a kind of one-off thing; the reality is that you have to put aside money year on year in order to build up a reserve or, alternatively, borrow money which then has to be paid off over a long period to pay off the debt that is owed to the state—we will continue in a world where many of those who are operating in a smaller way in the agricultural sector are on standards of living below those promised to the employed sector by the minimum wage.

That is not the basis for a long-term, sustainable, rural, agricultural food sector. I believe that we will end up, if we are not careful, in those kinds of circumstances, because the analysis that is necessary behind working out what the policy needs to be is not the kind of thing that is simply learned in an economics course or an agricultural economics course at a university. It depends on an understanding of the realities of what carrying out this business entails. My concern about the context of the debate this evening is that policy is not being made with sufficient understanding and recognition of the realities of what is underlying this whole part of the economy. If you do that, it will not work. Already in agriculture, the rate of return that people expect is probably 2% or 3%. Who in the commercial world—I have chaired some commercial companies—will invest getting the rates of return that you get from agriculture?

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It was fine; they are good words. But good words are not enough here. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who normally sits across the Chamber, said on a number of occasions, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. The litmus test for agricultural policy, like every other policy, is: is it engendering a sector of the economy that is working in the public interest? I am deeply concerned that the way in which it is being approached by the present Administration is not going to bring that about.

Finally, as somebody who is also about to leave, I would like to add my sentiments to what a number of others have said about the way in which the whole infrastructure of the House has supported my work here. I make a particular reference to the nurse, whose name I never knew, who identified that I got sepsis and sent me straightaway to hospital.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Sorry, I was so fascinated—I was pondering the thought.

I thank the Minister for setting out with such clarity this statutory instrument and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for bringing forward his regret amendment, which has created an opportunity for a much broader-ranging and, I think we can agree, interesting debate. It has been an absolute privilege to be here for the last speeches by, for instance, the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Inglewood. I had the great privilege of working with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on various issues—sometimes we did not agree on one or two of them, it must be said—and with my colleague on the Conduct Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which is a fairly typical in-the-background public service to protect the reputation of this place, for which he should be thanked and we should be enormously grateful. It is fitting that we have heard from so many experts, particularly on this area.

On the regulations before us, the Liberal Democrats have long accepted the case for moving away from the basic payment scheme, a system based largely on land ownership, which was never the right long-term foundation in our view for supporting agriculture. We support the principle of transition towards a system that rewards farmers for the delivery of public goods, restoring nature, improving soil health and strengthening resilience in the face of the climate emergency. However, support for reform cannot mean a blank cheque for the way that it is implemented. In a way, the question before us tonight is not whether the change is needed but whether this stage of the transition is being managed in a way that is fair, predictable and sustainable for those most affected; we have heard evidence that it is not.

The first concern is the pace and scale of the reductions. Delinked payments were intended to provide a degree of stability during a period of significant change, yet many farmers, as we have heard from this debate, now face a position in which support is being reduced more quickly than they are able to plan for and than viable alternatives are becoming available. For businesses operating on tight margins, that creates enormous pressure on cash flow and on long-term planning. A transition, as we know, that is too abrupt, risks undermining the very resilience it is expected and hoped to build.

Secondly, there is the question of where the money is going. I appreciate that the Minister set out some of this in her opening remarks, but the NFU—I thank it for its briefing—has made clear that there are some concerns about where the money is being allocated from these changes. It says that there remains a lack of clarity, and in some cases confidence, about whether funding is reaching farmers in practice at the scale and pace required.

Thirdly, there is the impact on different types of farm. Smaller and family-run farms are often less able to absorb sudden changes in income or navigate complex new schemes. If this transition is not carefully managed, there is a risk that support will become unevenly distributed, with some farms better placed than others to adapt. We have heard already about the economic consequences of that.

There is the wider point about the link between agricultural support and environmental outcomes. We believe the shift away from direct payment is justified in part by the promise of a more sustainable and environmentally focused system, but that promise depends on delivery. If funding gaps, uncertainty or administrative complexity prevent farmers participating fully in new schemes, we risk weakening farm viability and environmental progress at the same time. The position of these Benches is therefore balanced; we support the direction of travel towards a more sustainable and environmentally grounded system of agricultural support, but we share the concerns of this Chamber that the current approach risks getting the transition wrong.

I have three brief questions but, as we are nearly at the end of the Session, if the Minister wishes to answer in writing, I would be more than happy to receive that. First, what assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of these reductions on farm incomes over the next two years? What safeguards are in place to prevent otherwise viable farms being pushed into financial difficulty? Secondly, can the Minister provide a clear and transparent account of how savings from reduced delinked payments are being reallocated, including how much has reached farmers through environmental schemes to date? Thirdly, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that smaller farmers are not disproportionately disadvantaged in this transition? I particularly refer the Minister to paragraph 78 of the 56th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that we ask her

“about the financial impact of the transition to the new support schemes, especially on small farmers”.

These are very practical questions.

In closing, I return to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. It has been an absolute honour working with him on opposite Benches. We had a bit of a reminisce about a mean old fatal Motion that I chucked his way about a year ago on exactly this issue—I reminisced more fondly than he did. Having these kinds of amendments and ensuring that this kind of discussion takes place is critical for the issues we have heard about this evening, so I thank him for raising this.

Farming Road Map

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Discussions with the EU are ongoing, so I cannot say whether they will include some of the issues that the noble Lord talked about. I am sure he is aware that the Government are intending to introduce legislation to enable the EU reset to go ahead, once we have finished negotiations. There will be opportunity to debate that.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Cumbria. Both Defra and the RPA have now confirmed that there is no current mechanism available for common land to enter the sustainable farming incentive or the Countryside Stewardship higher tier for the year 2026. Is that not a more important priority for the Government and for agriculture—what might happen in the next 25 weeks—than looking way ahead to the next 25 years?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As a fellow Cumbrian, I absolutely understand and appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Lord about common land, which is an important part of our farmed landscape. The department recognises the vital role that it plays in supporting wildlife, cultural heritage and rural economies. It is important. I recognise the frustration caused by the fact that commons groups cannot at this stage apply for an SFI agreement. I have been told that that is for technical reasons, but I am aware that the Rural Payments Agency is actively working on a solution. I hope to provide an update about when commons groups will be able to apply.

Animal Welfare Strategy: Rural Communities

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the issues the noble Earl raised, I point him to two parts of the animal welfare strategy. First, we reference labelling. It is something that we will be looking at, not just on the issue he talked about but more broadly. There is a section on labelling. Secondly, we have a section on international impacts around animal welfare, which include trade. In the strategy, we recognise that animal welfare is a global issue, and we will continue to work internationally to champion high standards of animal welfare. That includes looking at how we manage our trade, because we have said quite publicly that we will not allow poor animal welfare standards to undermine our own standards here that our farmers meet.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Government have neither plans nor intentions to ban hound trailing?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can confirm.

Water White Paper

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about science and there not being a lot of it. One thing we are going to do is bring in a new chief engineer to bring more technical scientific expertise to the new regulator, which, just to come back on his point, is important.

On the modelling, the difficulty in moving away is how you are going to do it, because any new model needs to work. The evidence has shown that where there have been problems around the globe, the model has not been the problem; it has been the way that the owners have managed and dealt with the company and any problems that arise from that. I do not think we can just blame the model. We can blame the behaviour of the companies, the fact that there was not enough done to stop that behaviour sooner, and the way that the regulator has been set up—these are the problems we now want to tackle. Rather than just focusing on the model, we should focus on how we can restore confidence to consumers, how we can improve the environment and how we can set up a new system that makes sure this kind of behaviour can never happen again.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure there is agreement around the whole House that the state of the water industry in this country at present is very far from satisfactory. In her remarks about the White Paper, the Minister referred to a whole number of possible initiatives and changes and regulations. Does she agree that, at the last resort, we as a society have to generate enough resources focused on these specific problems to actually bring about change? Is she confident that society will be able to generate those resources, because if not, various things are simply not going to happen?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. It would be useful for me to perhaps have a cup of tea with him and understand specifically which resources he is referring to, because it could be very wide-ranging.

As I have said, we want to ensure that the new regulator is set up with the sufficient funding and resources to ensure that the water companies deliver what they are supposed to be delivering—what their contracts expect them to deliver.

As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, pointed out, this is about a balance between proper consumer support, decent water and the environment, because consumers have been treated very badly by water companies over the years, as has the environment. We need to get that that right, and if those are the resources the noble Lord is talking about, that is absolutely what we are fixed on delivering.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would be absolutely delighted to receive a copy from the noble Baroness.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, for a number of years, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, there were considerable complaints about the illegal landing of black fish. Are the Government satisfied that material quantities of illegally caught black fish are not landed in this country?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The kinds of issues that the noble Lord refers to are ones that the Fishing Minister is obviously aware of and will monitor, because we absolutely do not want to see illegal fish landed. It is really important.

State of Climate and Nature

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. It is why Great British Energy has been set up in Aberdeen, for example; it is to look at the areas that need the finance. I know that other areas, in the Midlands and the north-west, that have suffered in the past for lack of investment are now going to have huge opportunities through green finance and green infrastructure being built.

He is absolutely right. It was a little disappointing, to be honest, to hear the Opposition’s response. I remember at one time when the Conservatives were talking about being the greenest Government ever.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that talking about climate change does not really do very much about mitigating the problems we all face. What we need to see happen is what my children call “stuff”. Of course, that entails regulatory frameworks and available finance. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented favourably—and rightly, in my view—on the recent changes proposed to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Can we take it from the Minister that this is a precedent that will stand when similar problems are faced in trying to bring about the mitigation of the climate problems that we are looking for, and that this is the attitude that the Government will adopt towards these problems?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are absolutely serious about tackling climate change. I really hope that that has come across both in the Statement and the answers I have given. We are also absolutely determined to ensure that nature and development can work together, that one does not have to be at the expense of the other, which is the challenge we have in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and why, following the discussions in the other place, we have brought forward amendments to try to acknowledge some of the concerns that have been raised also by the OEP and certain NGOs. The important thing for me is that, whatever proposals and Bills we put forward in the future, we have to look at the impact on climate change as we go forward. We have to look at the impact on biodiversity and nature, and that is what the Government are working to do.

Farmers: Competitiveness

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I should probably declare an interest here as I know Julia extremely well and meet her to discuss exactly these issues. Julia does an awful lot of work on uplands and common land, and it is important that we are able to support the farmers, particularly in uplands, who have a much more challenging environment to farm in. That is one of the reasons why we are looking at reforming the SFI to target those who need it most. Previous schemes have not always benefited those, such as in the uplands, who need the most support.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Can the Minister confirm that in New Zealand, which is probably the pioneer of subsidy-free farming, there is no inheritance tax?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am afraid I have to admit to the noble Lord that I know nothing about New Zealand’s inheritance tax law, but I am more than happy to look into it.

Beaver: Reintroduction in England

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The Government are very serious about this. Nature-based solutions will be incredibly important if we are to get the outcomes and results that we want. We are continuing to make progress, and I am happy to keep the noble Lord updated as that progress continues.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, bearing in mind the experience of the introduction of the grey squirrel in this country and that beavers have been introduced into Scotland, is there not every likelihood that it is only a matter of time before the beavers establish themselves in England—with or without consent from Natural England?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said, any introductions are being very carefully managed and licensed. We have a five-step management approach to beavers, which can also come in if there are illegal releases or releases that have spread into areas that are less appropriate. That five-step approach has a number of actions to cope with beaver numbers as we move forward with this programme.

Rural Economy

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests, which are financial, as set out in the register, and also personal, given my actual involvement in things. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on calling this debate. It may disappoint him, but it seems to me that rural Britain is not really homogenous, and I am afraid I am not really interested in the Home Counties. Rather, my concern focuses on the shires and beyond—what I like to think of as l’Angleterre profonde. They are particularly important to us in this country as a whole, partly because they are part of our collective sense of Britishness and of a perception, from the outside, of what this country is. In their own way, they are as important as, for example, the building where we are this afternoon, or Canterbury Cathedral, or the National Gallery.

Rural Britain is experiencing two revolutions. The first is in town and country planning. The important thing for the countryside is that the underlying thinking behind the settlement of the post-war planning regime is now under challenge. Rural Britain is not only for farming and forestry. Particularly with the development of connectivity, all kinds of possibilities are opening up that are consistent in land-use terms with what was tried to have been protected. Of course, we all know that connectivity is pretty erratic in the countryside, but I hope the relationship between fibre and mobile, with the two—as I understand it—coming together, means it may be possible to achieve an adequate overall system quicker than perhaps was previously thought possible.

Secondly, now that we have left the common agricultural policy, there is a revolution in that area too. It is worth remembering in this context that agricultural policy has always been a distinct specialist phenomenon in politics, going back to the Middle Ages, for rather obvious reasons. Public money and the public goods that the public are going to receive for it are in a state of flux.

The questions that we need to ask are twofold. First, what is rural Britain for? Secondly, how is that aspiration going to be achieved? In my case, much of my thinking is derived from looking at the Lake District, which the Minister obviously knows well. It is 40 years ago that I became a member of the Lake District special planning board and chaired its development control—that is, its planning committee. Subsequently, I have always watched what is going on very carefully. In many ways, it is completely unrecognisable from what it was then.

The point about the Lake District is that it is England’s premier national park. It is the crucible of the Romantic movement, both here and abroad, and relatively recently has been inscribed as a UNESCO world heritage site, both for its landscape and for cultural reasons, and they are equally important. It is not just any old corner of contemporary Britain or just part of our nation’s family silver; it is part of the world’s patrimony. The point of that is that it is much more significant than simply a bean-counter’s analysis of a profit and loss account.

Despite all that, productivity, as it is now measured in this country, means that the Lake District is below the national average. To a degree, that may be to do with the methodology employed. It has always interested me that water, which in very large quantities is exported into what used to be known as industrial Lancashire, does not play a proper part. It is not only that they cannot spend a penny in that area without our water; industry—and everything in society—would simply grind to a halt.

Equally, as a number of speakers have mentioned, housing policy is seriously flawed. There are plenty of houses in the Lake District, but the problem is that people who want to live there and need to work there cannot do so because housing has become a must-have asset for rich, moneyed southerners and international money. If you think about it, the houses are there. The place is a national park, so the solution is not building more houses; it is finding a way of moving the houses that are there into a category which means they will be restricted to people who live and work there. You have to think out of the box a bit, but it is far from impossible to see relatively easy ways as to how that might be done, given the political will.

The visitor economy has been mentioned. It is important, but it is beginning to cause problems along the very general lines of the problems that it is posing in places such as Venice and Barcelona. It requires considerable thought. I was a bit startled the other day when my son said to me, “You know, dad, I think the Lake District is now more famous for food and fine dining than it is for the landscape and what it’s really all about”.

Our economy is dysfunctional. Despite providing and contributing a lot to UK well-being, it still seems to be unable to generate enough money to look after itself. Its liquidity, taken across the piece, is haemorrhaging. That is why the ideas proposed in the Budget for taxing small businesses and farms are, frankly, cuckoo. You must not take working capital out of a series of activities that are losing money.

I suggest that the Minister looks at the system used for dealing with works of art in a similar context. There are all kinds of pointers that seem to suggest that there are ways of both taxing and collecting the money at the time when the asset’s value is realised. That is a much more sensible way of doing it.

The world is changing. We are not yet in a world where the policies and systemic framework surrounding all this are stable. Until just the other day, I chaired the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, which is 50% industrial and 50% rural. I believe that we managed to achieve a harmonious partnership between local authorities, the voluntary sector and industrialists. In particular, industrialists and businesspeople are important, because they are the people who know how things are done. It is very important that, as we go forward, we find a way of making sure that those who do the business take part in and drive the policy.

Storm Bert

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I live in a community in Cumbria that floods a lot, and one of the most extraordinary things when you have faced a serious flooding event is the way the local community comes together, whether that is farmers helping to clear the roads, people checking on vulnerable residents or people looking after other people’s pets when they have had to go into hotel accommodation. Community support, the way communities come together, should be hugely commended in our society, and farmers have an important role to play in that in rural areas.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given that we seem to have more and more floods, do the Government have any analysis of whether people are taking flood warnings more or less seriously than they used to?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is an interesting question. All I can say, for my part and that of people I know locally, is that in the last 20 to 25 years, since the flood warning system was set up and made available to communities, we have taken the warnings extremely seriously. It is important that we have these systems set up in order that they can help people in advance. If that did not happen this time, that is something we need to look at.