(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberIt is important to assure noble Lords that, just because something is not specifically in the farming road map, that does not mean that it will not be part of this long-term plan. The whole point of the farming road map is that it is not specific and dialled-down—it is a 25-year look ahead. On the basis that it is a long look ahead, you would not expect all the detail and information to be in it, because that will be developed as we move forward, and things will change a lot over 25 years.
My Lords, is it not the case that, for too long, rich farmers have been getting far too much subsidy? Is it not good that this Government are introducing a system that will help smaller farmers and hill farmers?
The new SFI, which we announced fairly recently and which runs through to September, was very much aimed at smaller farms and those that do not already have an agreement. The fact that 50% has been allocated already shows that that was a very popular decision.
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberWe are investing a lot into chalk streams. As well as the £2 billion that water companies are investing over the next five years into targeted actions towards chalk stream restoration, which is part of our plan for change, we are investing £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and the water environment improvement fund for locally led chalk stream clean-up projects across affected regions. Much of that will be catchment led, because a lot of local projects are worked on right across catchments.
My Lords, does not the state of our chalk rivers demonstrate what problems were caused by a Government who did not care about the state of the rivers and a regulator that turned its back on them?
My noble friend is absolutely right that this is a long-term problem that has been going on for many years. Unfortunately, the water industry has simply not been held to account in the way that it should have been, and that is why we are bringing in the clean water Bill and changing the regulator.
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberI am sure that the noble Lord is aware that the Government made some changes to the inheritance tax policy. We are continuing to listen to farms and farm businesses. I am sure noble Lords know that we have a small holding; I am very aware of the challenges for small farms and know a number of small farmers where we live. It is important to look at how we get farms into profitability—that has to be the focus—which is why I was so pleased to see the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. The Government are looking to introduce many of her recommendations.
My Lords, is not transferring resource support to smaller farmers and tenant farmers the right thing to do to stop rich billionaires getting funded, rather than the farmers who are trying to provide food?
As I have already said, when the new SFI offer opens, it will be targeted at small farms. It is important that we look at how we support all farmers to ensure that they can support us with our aims on food stability and security.
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberAs 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.
My Lords, will the road map deal with the scandal of billionaire farmers who are getting millions of pounds in subsidy despite the fact that they pay no tax in Britain at all?
I am sure my noble friend will be delighted to be aware that the next round of the SFI is very much targeted at the smaller farmer.
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberWe have tried to reduce the complexity of the scheme. We want to make it more straightforward for more farms and different types of farms to access. There are opportunities for horticultural growers, which are often smaller farms as well. We are looking to better support tenant farmers and, importantly, are doing more to support people who farm on moorland and in upland areas. If we are to support sustainable farming, we need to encourage all farms to feel that they are part of what the Government are trying to achieve.
My Lords, is it not about time that we means-tested farmers? We seem to be giving taxpayers’ money to billionaires. Is it not time that we stopped doing that?
One of the recommendations in the Batters review is about active farming and ensuring that the payments that we make from government go to people who are farming and supporting the food production that our country so badly needs if we are to have food security. That is what we are trying to do.
(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberI thank the noble Lord for mentioning the TNFD, because it is very important. We are continuing to fund the Green Finance Institute to progress market capacity building and uptake through the TNFD UK consultation group. That is evolving to include a pilot programme on integrated nature transition plans. Fifteen businesses are currently already signed up to that. We are also in the process of onshoring the International Sustainability Standards Board’s general sustainability and climate disclosure standards in the UK. That will draw on the work of the TNFD. We are looking at its imminent work on nature standard-setting. Once that direction of travel is clear, it can inform our future paths on policy and regulation.
My Lords, how will the Government’s strategy deal with the problem of pollution by farmers in our rivers?
We are currently looking at that. We need to reduce the amount of run-off, for example, from farms, and we are looking at how best to work with farmers to improve the situation.
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberIn my response earlier to my noble friend I talked about ELMS, the environmental land management scheme, and I will provide a bit more detail about that. The Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme provides a number of ongoing actions to help create water storage and prevent flooding, including actions on arable land and grassland to mitigate flooding and create flood-plain storage. Capital grants are available to support natural flood management, which can improve soil health, as I mentioned previously. Together, the Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme, the sustainable farming incentive and the ELMS capital grant schemes provide support to help plan, plant and manage agroforestry systems, wood pasture and so on, which also helps to hold water.
My Lords, given that we should hold the water companies to account for the problems they cause, is it not time that we froze pay and dividends to water companies until they fix the infrastructure that they created, ending up with the problem that we have now?
I am sure my noble friend is aware that the Government are keen to stop any inappropriate payments to senior members of water companies where they have been seen to pollute indiscriminately.
(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberI suggest that the noble Lord has asked an incredibly wide-ranging and sweeping question. I am afraid I simply do not have those figures at my fingertips.
My Lords, is it not the case that this is a monopoly, and monopolies have no accountability? Until, as a previous speaker said, we get some direct accountability from chief executives, where they have to lose pay for bad performance, we will continue to have the problems we have with water authorities.
When the Water (Special Measures) Act passed, one of its key parts was around making chief executives much more responsible for the pollution that was happening on their watch. I am very pleased that we have got that legislation through. We just need to build on it. We need to make sure that water companies can no longer get away with the kind of behaviour they have been getting away with for years.
(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble Baroness raises a very important point, and that is why we now have a strategic objective to ensure that at least 4% of flood and coastal erosion risk management investment over the next 10 years is dedicated to natural flood management. This means that we will invest at least £300 million in natural flood management over the next decade—the highest amount so far during the floods programme. We are also prioritising projects by their benefits for every pound of government investment, because we know that natural flood management has historically attracted contributions from partners. Again, this will help to boost effectiveness. We are completely committed to continued investment in these natural flood management systems.
My Lords, is this not another case of privatisation going wrong and the water companies taking massive profits out of the water system, leaving the Government with liabilities that are now costing a fortune?
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberThe official veterinarians in the Food Standards Agency are present in all approved slaughterhouses during slaughter operations. It is their job to monitor and enforce animal welfare requirements. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that some slaughterhouses carry out both stun and non-stun slaughters. It is difficult to attribute audit outcomes to one type of slaughter if both have occurred. It is difficult to link it specifically to a slaughter method. What we should be concerned about in government is consistently high standards in our abattoirs. That is something that we work with the FSA on.
It is the turn of the Labour Benches.
My Lords, religious conventions change over the years. As we have heard, this is a very cruel practice. Has the Minister considered meeting religious leaders to see how animal welfare could be improved?
I have in the past done exactly that and we will continue to look at how we can improve animal welfare by encouraging take-up of the demonstration of life protocol. As we look to move forward in discussing labelling of food production, we will work with stakeholders, which, of course, if it was impacting on religious practice, would include religious leaders.