Small Farms
Debate between Lord Katz and Baroness Grender
Lord Katz (Lab)
Of course, the Government share concern when any farming business closes, which is why we are backing farmers to be more profitable and unlocking the full potential of the rural economy, making sure there is business stability and clarity so that they can invest with confidence. That is why we very much welcome the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, did on profitability. We will align that with other strategies, such as the land use strategy, as we unveil this once-in-a-generation farming road map that should cover the next 25 years of agriculture. It is important to understand that over half of England’s farmland, more than 50,000 farm businesses, are already benefiting from our investment in environmental land management schemes, not just SFI but the Countryside Stewardship and landscape recovery schemes. It is important that we get the balance right between restoring nature and having productive farming.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister share with the House any analysis in advance of last week’s Budget to explain how the Government reached the conclusion that freezing income tax thresholds and raising the national living wage and national insurance costs, with only a modest tweak to inheritance tax, will avoid further existential threats to the viability of so many small family farms? If the Minister has that analysis, will he be willing to publish it?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. To be clear, I do not know whether the Treasury has done precisely that analysis, but I can say that at the Budget last week, the Chancellor announced that any unused allowance for the 100% rate of agricultural property relief and business property relief will be transferable between spouses and civil partners from 6 April next year. We have taken this action after listening to feedback from many stakeholders who called strongly for the change to planned reforms to reduce complexity and remove an unfairness for widows and widowers. This change will double the tax-free allowance for agricultural business property available to estates of those widowed before 6 April 2026. It is worth pointing out that almost three-quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are not expected to pay more tax as a result of the changes in 2026-27, based on the latest available data.
Water Companies: Private Ownership
Debate between Lord Katz and Baroness Grender
Lord Katz (Lab)
The Government have indeed published our analysis of the cost of renationalising the water sector, which I believe is what my noble friend is getting at. Our analysis is that—on the basis of regulated capital value, which takes into account not just equity but debt—it would cost at least £100 billion to renationalise the water industry. We are not going to unpick the current ownership model, during which time underinvestment and sewage pollution would only get worse. We believe that the answer is better regulation. We have introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act, which has already hit bonuses for 10 water executives and toughened the rules so that bosses face up to two years in prison for covering up sewage spills. Following the Cunliffe review this year, we are taking forward a number of reforms to the sector, chiefly the creation of a powerful new water regulator.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister regret that average household water bills will rise by £123 a year from this April? Given that so many families already spend more than 3% of their income on water, what can be done to reverse years of shareholder and executive bonuses without improved services and genuine reinvestment? Why is it that customers even now, even after the Cunliffe review, are still having to bear the cost of historic underinvestment?
English Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling and Dredging
Debate between Lord Katz and Baroness Grender
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, while extending the ban on destructive bottom trawling is very welcome indeed, can I ask whether the Government considered a full ban, given the urgency expressed in the Labour Party manifesto on this issue? While the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has asked for a timetable—I think it is reasonable to get some sense of a timetable—can I ask how a timetable will take place for comprehensive protection? Can the Minister outline to us how enforcement will prevent exemptions or delays and ensure that our MPAs are genuinely safeguarded as marine biodiversity?
Lord Katz (Lab)
At the risk of repeating myself, we are not undertaking a blanket ban, because it is important that we can support fishing and other marine activity where it is not damaging marine ecosystems. One of the reasons that we are having the consultation is to understand the detail of it, but there are some MPAs that are not about fishing activity but other protection. We are looking in a proactive way to understand how best to protect water column activity, for instance, as well as to ensure that our seabeds are protected. I will not be drawn any further on the timetable, but we are clear about the importance of proceeding at pace while taking the fishing industry, marine conservation organisations and the wider community along with us. The Wildlife Trusts called the Secretary of State’s announcement the other day a “great step forward”. Oceana UK said it was a
“golden opportunity to safeguard these vital marine sanctuaries”,
and, frankly, I agree with them.