Farming and Rural Communities

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

To move that this House takes note of the impact of the Government’s economic and planning measures on farming and rural communities.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as a dairy farmer; landowner; forester; natural capital, residential and renewables developer; and investor in natural capital businesses Cecil, Circular FX and Agricarbon and other farming-related businesses such as Deere, SLC Agricola and Anglo-Eastern Plantations. I am most grateful 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 reliefs under agricultural property relief and business property relief remains a hugely emotive and damaging subject. We remain puzzled why this was necessary, given that the Treasury expects to raise only £500 million per annum, and it will be only a transitory gain as tax-planning options remain open to reduce or eliminate this exposure, as Government Ministers have themselves conceded.

A small cohort of currently elderly farmers, sufferers of serious illness or victims of mortal accident 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 out potentially exempt transactions, or even the four and a half years until the next election, will take the timing and manner of their death into their own hands. I have asked repeatedly whether the Government will keep and publish timely data on suicides by farmers and family business owners in the run-up to the reduction of these reliefs and have received a negative response each time. Will the Minister review this denial?

It seems particularly cruel that the £10 million mental health support fund for farmers has been shelved, despite the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, suggesting that mental health support is there for farmers should they consider taking control of the timing of their deaths. The massive reduction in delinked payments, which will be subject to a regret Motion later this month, as well as the abrupt closure of the sustainable farming incentive scheme, leaves many farmers in a dreadful position. Those who were trapped in the long-term higher-level or Countryside Stewardship schemes and unable to access sustainable farming incentives are hit with the delinked payment reduction without any offset. Those who were counting on new SFI income this year to replace old schemes that had ended are even harder hit. This does not appear to be a way to run a Government, whereby decisions are made that lead to considerable unfairness in outcomes and the unlucky lose financial viability.

In answer to my Written Question, the Minister replied:

“We remain committed to investing £5 billion of funding in the farming budget this year and next … We are on track to spend all the funding that is available”.


This seems hard to square, given that the National Farmers’ Union estimates that £400 million was saved by the steep reduction in delinked payments, yet only a few months later SFIs are cut off at a moment’s notice. Evidence given to the EFRA Committee by Defra Ministers and officials appeared to suggest a deliberate intention to ignore the six weeks’ guidance. Can the Minister also assure us that the £200 million investment in the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s Weybridge laboratory is not coming out of the farming budget? I wonder whether she is also able to tell us how much of that farming budget actually ends up in the hands of farmers, not in administration or projects run by others, and not in infrastructure nor arm’s-length bodies.

The £100 million rural service delivery grant being redirected to deprived urban areas, despite the widespread rural issues and the higher cost of living in rural areas, perhaps signals where this Government’s focus is. Farmers are having to contend with these capricious decisions and their often life-changing impacts while also dealing with massive inflationary pressures, low grain prices and increases in employers’ national insurance contributions and minimum wages. It has been suggested by the Government that the new SFIs that are planned are likely to require the land use framework to have been published. The Minister has indicated in a reply to my Written Question that

“the publication of the Land Use Framework”

will be

“this year. A timeline for publishing the Land Use Framework will be set out in due course”.

Could she confirm whether the publication of that framework will be necessary prior to the publication of new SFIs and what that might mean for their timing? A department official has suggested in front of the EFRA Committee that details of future SFIs would be with us in July. Can she confirm that?

The second prong of the attack on farmers and the rural community comes from planning, whether by displacing agricultural production on prime agricultural land with solar farms and other energy infrastructure, or the enhanced compulsory purchase order powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We on these Benches are broadly supportive of the Government’s housing ambitions, but there is no reason why they need to come at the expense of the rural community.

Land-owning farmers are threatened with compulsory purchase of their land at values that do not represent market value, as the value of alternative uses will be disregarded. Taking part of a holding often undermines the viability of the whole and, while the price paid may reflect the agricultural value, that is unlikely to be enough to replace that land locally—even if such land is available. It is hard to understand what is wrong with the current valuation framework that ensures fair payment for land. It is also hard to understand how this can be consistent with the ECHR on confiscation, as the Government claim on the face of the Bill.

Further to this, the role of Natural England becomes terrifying. As drafted, the Bill confers enormous powers on Natural England to CPO whichever land it chooses to fulfil its environmental delivery plans. Why does Natural England need these powers? Why can it not simply offer to pay landowners to carry out the work or deliver the services that are intended in these EDPs? Surely, there is a choice of sites where such work can be undertaken and that can introduce competition in service delivery while allowing value to be delivered in the EDPs. I fail to understand how nature restoration levies can possibly be well used by Natural England to CPO land as it sees fit. It has not been necessary to nationalise sites of special scientific interest to protect them. Just how large should we expect these nature restoration levies to be?

We on these Benches 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 payment for the public goods being delivered, as well as the traditional food and timber outputs from rural land. We see numerous ways of delivering this—but 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 the inclusion of woodland carbon units in the emissions trading scheme? 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 would encourage new tree planting to meet and even exceed targets. Our climate is perfect for healthy, vigorous establishment and growth in trees. Our target of 16.5% tree cover, as I have previously said from the Back Benches, is unambitious, and our progress even to that is very disappointing. Trees capture significant quantities of atmospheric carbon, replace high-carbon emissions materials in building, reduce peak flow rates in flood events, help to purify water and benefit biodiversity. Surely, we must do everything in our power to increase this tree cover. The Government’s own chief executive officer of the Forestry Commission, Richard Stanford, eloquently explained these benefits to the APPG on Forestry and Timber Security, as did the Woodland Trust team to the APPG on Woods and Trees.

When can we expect mechanisms to allow water companies to pay for the flood mitigation and water quality improvements that regenerative farming, peatland restoration and new woodland planting deliver? When will action be taken to solidify the strong position of the woodland carbon code and the peatland carbon code by certifying them under the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market? How will the Minister incentivise the private sector to pay for nature restoration and biodiversity protection and improvement? Surely the planning Bill is a golden opportunity to move forward on this, beyond 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 in nature restoration, or even changing the rules on bidding for government contracts to require companies to invest in it?

Farmers and the wider rural community deliver unquantifiable value to our country; feeding us, protecting and restoring nature, sequestering carbon, growing timber to displace the 73% that is currently imported, protecting our archaeology, looking after our fresh water, maintaining our countryside for access and removing litter. Most of these public goods are not paid for at anything like their 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 random new taxes imposed. The rural community needs confidence that this Government are committed to ensuring that these public goods will be paid for. I very much look forward to the insights of all other noble Lords in this debate and the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Motion, and to the Minister for attempting to answer as many questions as she could in the time available. I look forward to her later answers to those that were missed.

I will summarise and highlight a few points. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, made a very welcome contribution to the debate, but I take issue with his comments about inheritance tax on family farms and family businesses. Family businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. Without them, we would not have Pearson, Rolls-Royce, GKN, Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Whitbread, Sainsbury et cetera. Large businesses start as small businesses, and they are started by individuals and families. At the moment, we have companies like Dyson and JCB, which are private companies and are thriving.

We on these Benches want fair treatment for all family businesses and to allow them the chance to compete effectively with public and overseas companies so that they can grow into future champions of our economy. Having to be prepared at all times to pay a 20% IHT charge, as well as funding the dividend tax liability on that, is highly damaging. I would go further than my noble friend Lady Shephard and others—all family businesses, including farms, need these reliefs to thrive.

My noble friend Lord Grayling made a powerful case that it is absurd, when we have so much land that is not the best and most versatile, that the Secretary of State for Energy continues to permit so much solar development, in particular on this best and most versatile land. I also completely agree with him that housing development should be prioritised on brownfield land before greenfield is taken.

A number of noble Lords spoke about the disparity in opportunity, healthcare, et cetera, between the rural and urban environments. I particularly noted the powerful discussion of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, of access to emergency and chronic healthcare, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans highlighting the productivity gap between the rural and urban environments. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, highlighted the planning constraints on livestock farms in Northern Ireland that make it so difficult to improve animal welfare and allow for better management of animal waste. It was encouraging that the Minister mentioned ongoing work to allow farmers to do more on the planning front to support their businesses. I hope the Government will consult widely on that.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford summed up the mood in the countryside. There is an all-time low in morale, which means there is a huge opportunity for this Government to improve things. I hope that some of the suggestions raised in today’s debate will be taken forward. In the meantime, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.