Agriculture

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Like the official Opposition Front-Bench team, we do not seek to oppose this SI, not least because we do not want to give the Government any excuses to be slower in the roll-out of the new schemes than they already are, but it is absolutely right that we do not allow this moment to pass without there being a debate because I would not wish anybody either in this place or elsewhere to think that the roll-out of ELMS was going well—for most farmers it is going the opposite of well.

Britain desperately needs its farmers. Whether in Westmorland, in my own communities or across the whole of the country, we need our farmers to protect the built-up areas around rural Britain and in our urban areas from flooding, with water retention and all the other things we can do to slow the flow in the uplands. We need our farmers for developing biodiversity and for tackling the greatest need, which is greater carbon sequestration. We need them because of our landscape heritage and because of tourism. Twenty million people visit Cumbria every year. It is the biggest destination in the country outside of London. They visit not just because the hotels are great, but because the landscape is epic. In the Lake district, we were given world heritage site status not many years ago and the UNESCO document granting it world heritage status gave as much credit to the farmers for how the landscape looks as it did to the glaciers that carved those valleys in the first place. So we are desperately in debt to our farmers, both in our neck of the woods and across the country, for various reasons, but none as great as the fact that they feed us. We see too little focus on the fact that Britain’s farmers are first and foremost food producers in our discussion of public policy. This transition has been botched to the detriment of our farmers, to our ability to deliver environmental goods and especially to our ability to feed ourselves as a country.

At the last general election, £2.4 billion was the pot set aside for England’s farmers. We know of course that £2.4 billion now is worth an awful lot less than £2.4 billion four and half years ago, in large part because of the behaviour of this Government in trashing the economy, fuelling inflation and therefore making everybody’s pound in their pocket worth significantly less, but no more so than in the case of Britain’s farmers.

Over the last two years, £400 million of that £2.4 billion each year has been unspent, which is utterly inexcusable. There is a danger in this, which I am almost scared to say publicly, although I do not imagine the Treasury has missed it: when the Treasury, whether in the hands of the party now or in those of a party that might be in power soon, sees that a Department cannot spend its budget, it asks questions about whether that Department needs its budget. Britain’s farmers need every bit of that £2.4 billion and more, yet the incompetence of this Government to spend the money set aside for farming and the environment via agriculture means that we are putting farming at risk generations ahead. The Minister’s reply to a written question from me just last week confirmed that last year the Government underspent by more than £200 million—that was just in one financial year.

Therefore, there is a range of things that are the fault of this Government which put our farmers at risk and under pressure, and seriously put at risk our ability to feed ourselves in this country and care for our environment. Then there are some things that are not the Government’s fault. I do not blame the Government for the weather, I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear me say. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) says I am not trying hard enough. I will perhaps find a way of blaming the weather upon the Conservative party. But, no, I do not blame the Government for the weather. However, we need to accept the consequences of the unusually wet weather of the past few months on farming in every part of the country, including those where the weather was not so awful, because the reality is that it has an impact on our ability to sow crops. We have seen crops rotting in the fields, unable to be reaped. The impact on arable farming is obvious, but the impact on livestock farming is also huge. The availability and affordability of straw and other forms of animal feed later in the year and next year are particularly precarious. We have already talked about inflation, the cost of living for farmers and how margins are massively under pressure, but if feed prices go through the roof over the next year or so because of this weather, it will put our farmers into serious problems.

Let us not forget that livestock farmers have seen a massive impact, by which I mean the awful tragedy that in my constituency the 2% average rate of lamb mortality—that is always utterly tragic and heartbreaking for farmers and their families—is up to 15% this year because of the weather. We can imagine what that is like for farmers and their families as they deal not only with that mortality, but what that does to their businesses.

Alongside our compassion for farmers struggling through these terrible circumstances, we need to be aware of what the situation is doing to the cash flow of our farms. We hear the Government saying, “Right, there has been an underspend of £400 million over the past couple of years. We will get it out the door by grant support”. Grants can be useful. In the lakes and the dales in Cumbria, farming in protected landscapes—FIPL, as we refer to it—has been a positive thing. Some grants have done a lot of good for the farming sector, but let us not forget that, with most grants, the additional money will only be available after the election anyway, so it will not help people in the here and now, and we are expecting most of these grants to be delivered to farmers who can co-fund the project. If farmers have no money, what are they co-funding with?

It is more important that we think more intelligently about how we can support farmers with their cash-flow needs during this difficult time. The Minister says the cake is the same size, but is being distributed differently. I am afraid that for farmers the cake is not the same size for the time being. I have talked about the inflationary impact shrinking the size of the cake, but the fact is that several slices of the cake are stuck in the Treasury and are not out there with farmers, who see no sign of them.

One of the reasons we do not oppose this statutory instrument today is that, like everybody in the House today, we agree that ELM schemes are a good thing in theory. I have said it before, so I do not mind saying it again: as we search high and low for Brexit benefits, this potentially is one of them. The common agricultural policy was indefensible for all sorts of reasons, some of which the Minister spoke about. The ability for Britain to design a scheme that is better is absolutely to be lauded, which is why it is so frustrating that we are missing that opportunity so badly. The underlying principles of public money for public good is something that farmers across the country absolutely welcome. I welcome it, as do communities across Westmorland. What is deeply troubling is that the production of food in a country that only produces 60% of what it eats is not seen as a public good. That is criminal, ridiculous, foolish and unwise.

We are talking about the roll-out of ELM schemes and how we make these new schemes land. Among the positive projects is landscape recovery. We can see lots of good potentially coming through it. I saw a very good scheme up Kentmere just a few weeks ago, but I have also seen schemes rolled out badly and poorly, to the detriment of our environment, communities and farmers. I saw the failure of a landscape recovery scheme in the Lyth valley that the Winster farmers were supportive of. It failed because it wanted to keep productive land dry. We should not be putting public money into stopping productive agricultural land being used for agricultural purposes. We should be making sure that less productive land is used for environmental purposes and that we bring farmers with us. When farmers see themselves principally as food producers, we need to work with their motivations to do good for the environment.

Bringing in these changes, particularly landscape recovery, before the Government have enacted many of the most serious and important of the Rock review’s recommendations seems to be putting the cart before the horse. It is good that the Government embrace Baroness Rock’s proposals for a code of practice for tenants and landlord relationships, but they have so far shown no sign of introducing a tenant farmers commissioner. I tabled a private Member’s Bill calling on the Government to do just that. There is no point having a code, rules and regulations without a referee to enforce them and to protect tenants.

What troubles many of us at the moment, as has been mentioned, is that farmers are facing a frightening transition. For a variety of reasons—including the fact that 50% of farmers’ basic payment will be taken by the end of the year—livestock farmers’ incomes have reduced by more than 40% just during this Parliament. Who in this place could live with a 40% drop in their income in four years? It is outrageous. We need to take action here to defend that cash flow.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I wonder where the hon. Gentleman stands on the issue of how many sheep there should be in the Lake district. As he will know, there is a lively debate about whether the numbers should be reduced, and the future of the Herdwick. I would be grateful to know his views on that.

[Tim Farron]

As I said, our landscape in the Lake district is crafted by many hands, including sheep. I am deeply concerned that we may see the complete destocking of some of our fells. There is a notion that somehow we are overstocked—we probably were during foot and mouth, but that is more than a generation ago. There may be some give and take about what the numbers should be in different valleys, but I am deeply concerned not to see the roll-over of the stewardship schemes, because to continue in a scheme, folks are being asked to lose up to 80% of their stock. Let us ensure that we do things that work with the motivation of our farmers. We can do a woodland pasture, for example, and carbon sequestration and livestock farming can continue at the same time. If we do not work with farmers, we will not deliver environmental goods. I share the concerns that I suspect the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) has.

Let us look again at what has been discussed, and some of the proposals from other places. The hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) talked about the NFU’s proposals, which I think have been slightly misunderstood. The NFU says that one way to get cash into farmers’ pockets is to pause the cancellation of the basic payment system for the next year or two. That is not pausing the roll-out of ELMS—I want the Government to speed up that roll-out. I want more people in stewardship schemes, landscape recovery and SFI. The fact that 100% of farmers in my community are losing their basic payments but only one in seven of them is in an SFI scheme tells us all we need to know about why farm incomes are plummeting.

The proposal is worth taking into consideration. We could come up with a cleverly worked out, bespoke scheme to support farmers though this terrible period. How many months would that take to put into practice? How hard would that be to make work? We could do grant support, as the Government propose, but that will not happen until after the election. In any event, unless farmers have the money up front, the grants will be of little value to them. There is great merit in the NFU’s proposals and I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to consider them, in thinking that we can continue to roll out ELMS and green our farming programmes, but not threaten the livelihoods of farmers in the interim. My great fear is that we are forcing excellent farmers out of the system, or they decide that the only way to keep the wolf from the door is to double their livestock numbers to take advantage of lamb and beef prices, and therefore opt out of environmental schemes all together. That would be completely counterproductive to what the Government, all the environmental groups and we rightly want.

It would be far better to ensure that we keep farmers farming. It would be tragic to see hundreds, if not thousands, of farmers around our country—hundreds in my communities alone—whose families may have farmed those valleys for generations, feel that because of this moment of flux botched by this Government, they might be the one to lose the family farm. How heartbreaking, terrifying and shaming would that be to many people in my communities and beyond? Let us protect those people’s mental health, wellbeing and their ability to feed us.

The greenest, most environmentally positive thing that this or any Government could do is to keep Britain’s farmers farming to feed our country. By doing so, we ensure that we do not import excessive amounts of food and damage the environment through all the extra carbon miles entailed, and we do not displace our demand on to other countries, many of which are poorer. We should not rob the poorest people of this world by raiding the commodity markets because we cannot afford to feed ourselves. The best environmental policies on the planet are but useless bits of paper in a drawer if we do not have our farmers, from Westmorland to every corner of this great country, delivering them. The botching of the transition is causing heartache, pain and poverty in my community. It is robbing us of food production for the country as a whole. It is damaging our environment and the Government need to listen to our farmers.

Checks on Goods Entering UK

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s tenacious campaign on behalf of her constituents and the port of Dover, but I hope she will not mind my drawing attention to the fact that these are separate regimes: goods coming in legally, via legal channels, with the right documentation will move to Sevington, but the port of Dover is the right place for Border Force to ensure that we are protected from illegal imports, and those checks will still take place. The conversations with the Port of Dover over funding continue, and we want to see Port of Dover continue to help to keep us safe and intercept any illegal imports that people may attempt to bring into the UK.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Those of us from rural communities, particularly those like mine in Cumbria that had to live through the horror of the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, know how vital it is to have biosecurity at our borders—but intelligently applied, so that we do not damage supply chains and have excessive red tape. Does this issue not shine a spotlight on the fact that we are now, sadly, increasingly reliant on food imports? Britain produces only 60% of the food we eat. Does that not remind us that the Government’s agricultural payments scheme, which actively disincentivises the production of food on good-quality, productive agricultural land, is extremely foolish and should be reversed if we are serious about our security as a country?

[Sir Mark Spencer]

I am familiar with the beauty of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency; as he knows, I was there on Saturday with the shadow Minister. He gives the figures for what we import in total, but for the food we can produce we are at 72%. The Prime Minister has also recognised that challenge, and we will introduce a food security index so that we can monitor this issue, to make sure that the Government’s policies do drive farmers to increase their productivity and their production. I have full confidence in the ability of our farmers to continue to produce top-quality British food, to continue to expand their productivity and to keep the country well fed.

Flood Recovery Framework

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Efford. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who has championed these issues for some time, and I pay tribute to him and thank him for his contribution.

We talk about the weather an awful lot in this country, because it is never boring, although we sometimes wish it was, and that is especially so for those who live in England’s wettest county. Yes, we have to keep our breathtaking lakes topped up, but there is a limit, and we fear that we may have reached that limit. I simply want to ask the Minister briefly whether he will he keep a close eye on the flood relief schemes in Kendal and Appleby, and listen to local residents to ensure that those schemes are completed in accordance with the wishes of the residents and businesses there.

We do not blame the Government for the weather, but the flood recovery framework is a welcome attempt to help us cope with the consequences, and I want to focus my few moments on the Government’s failure to use the framework well to defend farmers. Cumbria did not qualify for any of the support coming through the framework, despite the fact that farms across our county are still dealing with the consequences of Storm Henk.

The complaint of farmers across the country is that, despite having the building blocks of a reasonable scheme in the form of the flood recovery framework, in practice the Conservatives have left farmers, families and businesses to fend for themselves, threatening their livelihoods and our food security. The Government response has been sluggish, acquiescent and inadequate. Farmers tell me that they feel that the Government simply do not care.

To be fair to the Government, they activated the flood recovery framework after Storm Babet in 2023 and Storm Henk earlier this year, but to qualify for funding at least 50 properties have to be affected by internal flooding, and many communities in Cumbria—Meathop, for example—are much smaller than 50. There are further concerns about the Government’s cut-off date for grant payments and whether resilience measures can be built in time, given how hard it is to bring things on stream.

I have worked very closely over the past several years with farmers in the Lynster Farmers’ Group, the Grange-Over-Sands Golf Club, businesses and other residents to try to tackle the flooding caused by channel movements in Morecambe bay and the silting- up of river channels, which has led to flooding in the Winster and Lyth catchments. All those problems are exacerbated by increased heavy and persistent rainfall and storm events. The farmers have called for more effective, proactive collaboration, with a plan for management and investment. Although that has had my active support, to date the Government and their agencies have failed to act. Incidentally, it is highly likely that that failure to take action may have contributed at least in part to the subsidence of the track and the shocking derailment of a train on the Furness line near Grange station last month. That event could easily have led to serious loss of life. Storm Babet led to farmers’ crops rotting underwater after a devastatingly wet 2023. That flooding means that no planting is possible this year in many areas. Grazing is limited and spring lambing is much harder.

At the same time, 100% of those farmers will lose 50% of their basic payment this year, and only one in eight will get anything from the sustainable farming incentive. The Government’s policies mean that our farmers simply cannot afford to endure the consequences of these unprecedented flooding levels. Meanwhile, farmers do not receive compensation when the Environment Agency effectively floods their fields to protect downstream houses and villages, despite the harm to crops and livelihoods. That is all happening against the backdrop of huge cuts to the Environment Agency’s budget since 2015, which have reduced its capacity to meet basic flood management requirements. There has been a litany of incompetence and poor choices, and farmers are paying the price.

It is not just farmers. The Government’s failure to tackle these issues means that Britain’s fragile food security is at even greater risk. We already produce only 60% of the food we eat in this country. We have the madness of a Government with an agricultural policy that actively disincentivises the production of food, and our flood recovery framework not being used for its express purpose and failing to protect land that could and should have been producing food to feed us. On top of that, lower crop yields will mean higher prices in our supermarkets and higher prices for animal feed, pushing up costs for consumers who are already under unbearable pressure. In short, the flood recovery framework is just that: a framework. The fact that it exists is to be welcomed, but the Government are dragging their feet, underfunding it and bogging everyone down in bureaucracy.

We say we need a proactive management plan for the Environment Agency to control watercourses and defences, and we should bring forward the funding we need to keep our farmers farming. We say that the environmental land management budget must be increased by £1 billion so that farmers are rewarded properly and provided with the support they need to transition to the new scheme, recognising that farmers should be rewarded for the service they provide in protecting places such as Kendal, Appleby-in-Westmorland, Staveley and Burneside from flooding. Investment in new schemes to support farmers in delivering natural flood defences is absolutely essential. Let us remember that this is, at least to some extent, about producing food to feed us all. Surely that must be considered a public good.

The failure to protect our farmers from flooding and to adequately compensate them is dangerously undermining our ability to feed ourselves. A country that cannot feed itself is destined to fail, and a Government who cannot protect and support their farmers in order to do that must be removed.

UK Food Security

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Dyke]

Fine Shetland sheep, indeed. I do understand the challenges of accessing a local abattoir, not only a local one but one able to help with the services that small producers require. I will cover that in a minute, but I would like to make some progress.

I want to see changes in the public procurement system that provides schools, such as King Arthur’s School in Wincanton or Ansford Academy in Castle Cary, Frome College or Huish Episcopi Academy with the flexibility to source local produce, whether that be food or drink, and ensure that local provenance. Many schools do not have the flexibility to do that. That particularly resonates with regard to the 800,000 children living in poverty who are not eligible for free school meals as their households are in receipt of universal credit and have in excess of a £7,400 post-tax income.

Building awareness among children of where their food comes from now can sow the seeds of good food habits for life. The Liberal Democrats believe it is crucial that we extend free school meals to all children in primary education and all secondary school children whose families receive universal credit, but there is a threat to that. There has been a 12% increase in the number of large-scale industrial farms in the UK from 2016 to 2023. The intensive nature of those farms means that accessibility to local food and drink is likely to be diminished. Environmental standards will decline and the custodians of our countryside—the small family farm—will disappear.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt and am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in her excellent speech. Does she agree that one of the threats to the family farm is the fact that we have a range of new schemes being put out by the Government, many of which are commendable in themselves under the environmental land management schemes heading but which fail to protect tenant farmers? Baroness Rock’s review includes 70 excellent recommendations, including that of a tenant farmer commissioner, which should be put in place to protect tenant farmers before many of them are kicked off their land by landlords exploiting new schemes. Is that not just morally wrong but extremely stupid because it reduces our ability to feed ourselves as a country?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which I wholeheartedly support.

It is critical for long-term UK food security that we employ sustainable agricultural practices, which focus on appropriate food production that helps protect the environment, conserve natural resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while ensuring an adequate and reliable food supply to meet the demands of the population. The Government’s food strategy was described as “a waste of trees” by Professor Tim Lang. The Government should now not baulk at producing a robust land use strategy, which has been promised for more than a year but has yet to be seen. Can the Minister provide an update on that this morning? The Liberal Democrats will develop a comprehensive national land strategy, including a horticulture strategy to encourage the growth of the horticulture sector and effectively manage the competing demands on land.

I thank the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its recent report on insect decline and food security, which raised an important issue. The loss of biodiversity and pollinators will have a heavy impact on our ability to grow food in future. Around 40% of all insects are at risk of extinction. They are an integral part of our ecosystem and without them, we simply would not survive. Dung beetles, for example, fertilise and aerate soils, helping to maintain pasture that livestock is fed on. Indeed, it is estimated that dung beetles may save the UK cattle industry a whopping £367 million a year through the provision of ecosystem services.

One of the many things for which Somerset is famous is our cider. Pollinators are crucial to apple production, yet we have already witnessed their decline. Buglife’s South West Bees Project report in 2013 focused on 23 bee species considered most at risk in the south-west. Twelve of the target species are found in Somerset. Sadly, however, six target species have already been lost.

The national pollinator strategy is due for renewal this year, and the Government must take the opportunity to redress our biodiversity losses. However, I do not have confidence that they will do so, because this is the fourth year in a row that the Government have authorised the emergency use of neonic pesticides, despite knowing the harmful effects on our wildlife. The Liberal Democrats oppose the use of these damaging pesticides and recognise how important it is to protect our wild pollinators, to stop further damage to our biodiversity and to protect UK food security in the long term.

That point brings me on to UK household food security. A resilient food system can help to stabilise food prices and minimise market volatility. According to the Food Foundation, the poorest 20% of households would need to spend half of their disposable income on food in order to afford the NHS’s recommended healthy diet. That is clearly impossible for those people.

Food-related ill health is a growing issue in our society. Unless we take action to improve our food system, it is estimated that 40% of British adults will have obesity issues by 2035. That would mean increased costs, not just for our NHS but for our economy as a whole, given that we already have 3 million people out of work due to long-term sickness. We must therefore stem the tide of junk food, unhealthy food and processed food that is currently flooding our supermarkets, our screens and our high streets. Instead, we must actively work to promote locally grown whole foods such as fruits and vegetables. That is best for our health, for our economy and for our planet, but also for our farmers, who want to sell their produce to local people. That is how we can create a thriving food culture of which we can all be proud.

Household food security can be a particularly prevalent issue in rural areas such as my constituency. Rural communities are less likely than urban areas to have a glut of supermarket choices. They are therefore more reliant on smaller local supermarket stores. Research by Which? has found that those stores almost never stock essential budget-line items, which may result in higher food costs and household food insecurity. The major unfairness is that these communities are often side by side with those that are growing food.

As I have pointed out, farmers want to sell their food to local residents, but the food system prevents that. We must act now to make that a reality, as we will soon face a time when climate change disrupts our system with increasing regularity. If we are not prepared and ready to adapt, our farmers will suffer, and as consumers we will all suffer. By taking a holistic view of UK food security, we can ensure that we have a sustainable future that supports British farmers, supports our environment and biodiversity, and supports the growth of a healthy nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

Having been involved in the agriculture sector for my whole life before entering this place, I know just how important pasture and grassland are to carbon sequestration. When we are rolling out environmental land management schemes, it is important that the benefits of pasture land through carbon sequestration are taken into account. That is why the reforms that we have introduced, through coming out of the common agricultural policy, are so important to supporting a highly productive sector that is environmentally sustainable.

In addition to the sustainable farming incentive, the farming investment fund and the farm productivity innovation funding will further improve farm productivity. Our schemes will ensure our long-term food security by investing in the foundations of food production, such as healthy soil, water and biodiverse ecosystems. Backing our farmers is so important, which is why the Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary announced a range of measures at the National Farmers Union conference to boost productivity and resilience in the sector, including the largest ever grant offer for farmers in the coming financial year, which is expected to total £227 million.

[Tim Farron]

The Minister mentions the rolling out of the grant offer, which can be very valuable to many farmers. Is he aware that tenants cannot make those grant applications themselves? Does he agree with his noble Friend Baroness Rock that tenants and landlords should be able to make joint applications for capital grants so that our farmers can thrive and our tenants can remain on the land?

[Robbie Moore]

Baroness Rock’s review produced a fantastic report with many excellent recommendations. My DEFRA colleagues and I are in close interaction with Baroness Rock and are working our way through her many recommendations. If we are rolling out schemes, it is vital that any innovation or productivity grants, along with any sustainable farming incentive schemes or others that fall under the environmental land management schemes, are available to all applicants to ensure that we can get the best out of the land that they farm.

Building on the recommendations made, the £427 million of funding for measures announced at the National Farmers Union conference doubles the investment going into productivity schemes, growing the grant offer from £91 million last year to £220 million this year. We have already awarded £120 million in grant funding to farmers through the farming investment fund and have committed £120 million to 185 projects as part of the farming innovation programme. The Government will also provide £15 million in funding to stop millions of tonnes of good, fresh farm food going to waste, by redirecting that surplus into the hands of those who need it. Together, these funds will support innovation and productivity and will improve animal health and the environment.

We will continue to work across Government to ensure that we carry out the commitments made in the UK food strategy and at the farm-to-fork summit in respect of the national planning policy framework. We want to ensure that this fully reflects our shared food security and climate and environment ambitions. The national planning policy framework sets out clearly that local planning authorities should consider all the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land when making plans or taking decisions on new development proposals. This point builds on the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). Where significant development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, planning authorities should use poorer-quality land in preference to a higher quality.

Food supply is one of the UK’s 13 critical national infrastructure sectors. DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency are joint lead Government Departments, with DEFRA leading on supply and the FSA on food safety. We work closely with the Cabinet Office and other Departments to ensure that food supply is fully incorporated as part of emergency preparedness, including consideration of dependencies on other sectors.

In the Agriculture Act 2020, the Government made a commitment to produce an assessment of our food security at least once every three years. The first UK food security report was published in December 2021, and the next food security report will be published in December 2024. To ensure our continued food security, the Prime Minister has also announced that a food security index will be published annually—that has been welcomed by the sector—and will complement the three-yearly UK food security report. We are currently developing the content of the index, but we expect the index to present the key data and analysis needed to monitor how we are maintaining overall food security. Productivity, resilience and environmental sustainability are incredibly important to domestic food production and are a key element of our food security.

At the National Farmers Union conference, the Prime Minister also made an announcement about ensuring that we are giving internal drainage boards more support. We know how important lowland farmland is for producing food, which is why the £75 million of funding announced by the Government during the spring Budget and earlier at the NFU conference is so important to ensure that we can give our internal drainage boards the support that they need to mitigate flooding downstream as well as possible.

On health and wellbeing, I want to pick up on a point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made about the Farm Safety Foundation. I know that James Chapman, the chair of the trustees, is doing an excellent job; he has been involved in the organisation since 2014, I believe. I wish him and his team well with the Farm Safety Foundation, as I know just how important that organisation is to improving not only farm safety, but the general health and wellbeing of our farming community.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to the land use framework. I reassure her that the Secretary of State wants to ensure that food productivity is at the heart of the land use framework, which is why we are scrutinising it before it is released. Not only does it have to cover energy security, biodiversity offsetting, net zero and other measures, but we want to ensure that food security is at the heart of it before it is released. Our food security is strong, but we are not taking it for granted; we will continue to work across the supply chain to maintain and enhance it.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I assure them that the Government consider food security to be incredibly important and will keep it as a top priority for the DEFRA ministerial team.

Question put and agreed to.

Thames Water: Oxfordshire

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the performance of Thames Water in Oxfordshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I thank the Minister for being here to listen to my constituents’ concerns.

The River Thames is an integral part of life in Oxfordshire. Whether they are rowing, swimming, punting or walking, Oxfordshire residents love spending time outdoors and around our precious waterways. But our local environment is under threat, thanks in part to the shoddy performance of Thames Water. One constituent described Thames Water as a “disaster of a company”, and I am afraid to say that I completely agree. It dumps sewage in our rivers, fails to unblock drains, fails to fill reservoirs and does not deliver value for money.

It will come as no surprise that I start with the issue of sewage dumping. The statistics speak for themselves: across the network, Thames Water spilled sewage for 6,500 hours in the last nine months of 2023. Right now, sewage is flowing from treatment works at Combe, Church Hanborough, South Leigh, Stanton Harcourt, Standlake, Appleton, Oxford, Kingston Bagpuize, Drayton, Clanfield, Faringdon, Wantage and Didcot. There are 28—I will not go through all of them. It is like this every day. Sewage pollutes our waterways, damages the natural environment, and poses serious health risks to wildlife, pets and humans.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a remarkably important speech and delivering it very well. We know about the issue because of testing, yet the testing in her area and mine is done by the water companies themselves—in my area, the north-west of England, by United Utilities—so there is a lack of confidence in my constituency, and I suspect in hers, about its reliability. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for the water companies to mark their own homework, that instead the water companies should be charged the full cost of that testing, that that money should be given to the Environment Agency, and that testing should be done independently, so that we can rely on it?

[Layla Moran]

I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning on the issue at the national level; my constituents are grateful to him. I could not agree with him more. I will talk about bathing water status in a moment.

Residents set up a huge citizen science group so they could do the testing themselves. They worked with Thames Water at the time, but they wanted the Environment Agency to be properly funded so that it could do the testing and they could have that reassurance. It is not right to ask residents to do that work, and I share my hon. Friend’s scepticism about the water companies sticking to their word and doing the testing 100% correctly, given that it is in their interests to make it look like the issue is getting better.

A mother got in touch with me after her son was admitted to hospital with a water-based bacterial infection on his hand. He is a keen rower, and a blister became infected by dirty river water from the Thames in Abingdon. It is not just about humans: a number of constituents also got in touch to say that they are worried about their pets. Matthew recently contacted me after his much-loved greyhound, Roy, sadly passed away. Matthew is convinced that that happened as a result of Roy going into raw sewage as he was frolicking along on his normal walk, and the vet said that contaminated water cannot be ruled out as the cause of death. There has been a spate of such deaths in Oxfordshire, including in Eynsham and Wolvercote, and I wonder whether there have been any elsewhere in the country. We have tried to interrogate the Department and Thames Water about the issue, but they do not monitor how many animals—that is, pets—are getting ill. Thames Water has biodiversity targets, but to the best of my knowledge the Department does not look at the issue at all. I urge the Minister to do so.

Just beyond Oxfordshire, in the village of Charvil, in Wokingham, a local fisherman described seeing raw sewage float past the end of his fishing rod. It is just disgusting. When we think of frolicking about in boats and the classic English countryside, we do not want that image. Rowers should be worried only about freezing temperatures at this time of year, dog walkers should be worried only about how muddy their pets are when they get home and fishermen should be worried only about their catch. No one should have to endure raw sewage floating past them or risk getting seriously ill by doing an activity that they love. The Government, despite their frequent protestations, are not doing enough.

In Oxford, local campaigners and I fought hard for Wolvercote mill stream at Port Meadow to gain bathing water status. I know the Minister has a keen interest in this, because the River Wharfe in Ilkley, which was the first to gain that status, is in his constituency. We were very proud to follow his constituents and become the second. Indeed, the then Minister with responsibility for water, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), came to wade in it herself when the announcement was made in 2022.

However, at every single data collection point so far, Wolvercote mill stream has been classed as poor. If the water quality does not improve in the next three years, we will lose bathing water status. Despite bathing water status placing a legal duty on water companies to clean up their act, Thames Water continues to discharge sewage from the treatment works at Cassington and Witney, just upstream of Port Meadow. That means that the levels of harmful bacteria, including E. coli, are dangerously high.

The regulations clearly are not working. In April last year, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs promised legally binding targets on sewage dumping, yet nothing has come to fruition. The Government talk about progress in monitoring, but it is not good enough just to monitor the sewage that is flowing into our rivers; we need to stop it altogether. Areas such as Port Meadow simply cannot afford to wait. If it loses bathing water status, the blame will lie squarely with this Government. Has the Minister considered tougher targets for water companies, specifically in areas such as his and mine that have bathing water status? Will he look at introducing a targeted plan for bathing waters that are rated as poor?

This is not the first time that I have raised the issue, or raised it with the Minister. I asked to meet him back in December, after Port Meadow was first rated as poor. I thank his office, and I am sure we will find a time in the near future to discuss it in more detail. However, I am afraid to say that sewage dumping is not the only thing that I would love to chew his ear off about, because it is not the only area in which Thames Water is failing. Almost no part of Oxford West and Abingdon was unaffected by the flooding after Storm Henk in January. It is one thing to see floodwaters lapping at the door, to be scared and to have to decide what to take up to higher levels while trying to get the water out. That is scary enough, but for the residents of Lower Radley, blocked drains meant that they were not looking just at floodwater but at floodwater and sewage in their homes. That was a direct result of Thames Water failing to clear drains that we had been alerting them to for months because they were blocked; in fact, it had been three years since Thames Water had cleaned them. One resident wrote to me:

“This has been going on for some years with zero remedial action from Thames Water…utterly appalling!”

One couple who are suffering are in their nineties. They simply should not have to go through that misery time and time again. Fields, gardens and homes were flooded with water; meanwhile, residents in Farmoor noticed that the levels of the reservoir were low. Thames Water claimed that the level was normal for this time of year, but residents were confused because it seemed that the whole of Oxfordshire was under water except the reservoir. Thames Water said that “dirt and debris” in the rivers prevented abstraction, but one resident described the situation as the water company

“pooing in their own nest”.

Filling reservoirs in periods of heavy rainfall is vital for drought preparedness, but Thames Water’s refusal to invest in infrastructure and fix leaky pipes is putting that at risk. In the south-east, we regularly endure hosepipe bans in the summer; in the summer of 2022, the village of Northend in south Oxfordshire was forced to survive on emergency rations after its water supply stopped entirely. Yet Thames Water loses an estimated 630 million litres of water to leaks every single day—the highest it has been in five years. Thames Water cannot seem to put anything in the right place: there is sewage not in the rivers but in people’s homes, and water is leaking out of pipes while the reservoir’s level drops. It is not just gross; it is gross incompetence across the board.

My constituents are incredibly concerned that, despite that litany of errors, Thames Water is planning to embark on an enormous infrastructure project called the south east strategic reservoir option—known locally as the Abingdon reservoir. It is vast. It will cover an area of 7 sq km and have a volume of 150 million cubic metres. Local campaigners, such as the Group Against Reservoir Development, have raised a number of questions about the water demand projections used to justify this project, the environmental impact of the project and the safety measures that are in place to mitigate any risk of a dam breach. So far, Thames Water has failed to answer those questions. More importantly, however, my constituents simply have no faith that Thames Water has the wherewithal to undertake such a significant infrastructure project. In December, its auditors even warned that the water company would run out of money by April of this year without a serious cash injection from shareholders. Thames Water has been horrifically mismanaged, and there is no sign of that turning around. That is why I am calling for a public inquiry into its super-reservoir plans, to ensure rigorous scrutiny and transparency in their decision making.

It is all the more galling, in the middle of this cost of living crisis, that Thames Water announced late last year that water bills were set to rise by a whopping 60% over the next six years. That increase is to allow water companies to invest in infrastructure, which is something that they should already have been doing, and that they are now asking bill payers to do in their stead. The average household water bill will go up from £456 a year to an expected £735 a year by 2030. The price hikes are going to hit this year: water bills will increase by 6% above inflation in April.

People cannot afford it. They are already struggling; they are on their last 50p, if they even have that. They cannot cope with this. That is why Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats have started a petition calling on Thames Water to scrap this unfair price hike. What conversations has the Minister had with his departmental colleagues and the water company about the fairness of this hike? Is support in place for people who will simply not be able to afford the increase? We are not just talking about people who are on universal credit anymore. We are talking about people who go to work every day. They are in work, but they are in poverty, and this will just make the situation worse.

Do the Government seriously think that it is acceptable for taxpayers to foot the bill for the historical failings of Thames Water? Well, the Liberal Democrats do not. That does not just go for Thames Water; the whole system needs to be fixed. We need radical action. We need to protect our environment and bring down people’s bills. The Liberal Democrats are calling for England’s water companies to be transformed into public benefit companies. That is a new thing for the UK: it is not a social enterprise, as such, and it would mean a complete shake-up of the boards. Public policy benefits would explicitly be considered in the running of the water companies, putting a stop to the prioritisation of profit over our waterways, without the distraction of renationalisation. We want to see environmental experts and local community groups on the boards to ensure proper scrutiny and transparency. The concept is radical and new, and I would like to know whether the Minister has looked into it seriously because, if not, I would urge him to do so. We are also calling for a ban on water executive bonuses until sewage dumping stops, a sewage tax to fund the clean-up of the most polluted lakes, rivers and coastlines, and, ultimately, an end to sewage dumping altogether.

In our view, the Government have acted far too slowly and limply, as our rivers get dirtier and our water bills get higher. Knowing that it is happening is not enough; it is time for radical improvement. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks about what the Government are going to do about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I want to reassure not only the hon. Lady but every Member who has customers of Thames Water that the Government will hold the water company to account through the use of the regulators—the Environment Agency and Ofwat. I will shortly meet again with the new chief executive of Thames Water, which follows a meeting that the Secretary of State and I had with the CEOs of Thames Water and other water companies very recently. It also follows on from a meeting that the previous water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), had back in November. We want to take all these concerns seriously and deal with surge discharges, supply interruptions and internal sewer flooding, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon.

I know that Thames Water is under no illusions as to the scale of the challenge. It has recently published its revised three-year turnaround plan to address some of the concerns raised today, and while we all understand that it will take time to turn performance around, I want to be clear that I expect to see clear and measurable progress being made by the company as swiftly as possible.

[Tim Farron]

I want to press the Minister on the point I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) a moment ago. The Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), said something encouraging the other week. He said it was not right that the water companies were marking their own homework in assessing the scale of the problem. Does the Minister agree with that? More importantly, will he give us some details on the testing? There are more than a dozen water company assets around Windermere, many of which are failing, but we only know that they are failing when the water companies actually do the testing. Should it not be the case that the water companies pay for the testing but leave the Environment Agency to actually do it, so that we can have confidence that the data is independent?

[Robbie Moore]

I will come on to that point as part of my speech. I also want to clarify that we only have to turn the clock back to 2010 to see that only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. For a Government and a regulator to hold water companies to account, they need 100% monitoring, which we achieved at the end of December last year. That is 100% monitoring of storm overflow discharges compared with only 7% in 2010.

I want to pick up on some of the specific points made by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon on bathing water status. I know how important this issue is, having campaigned in my constituency for a bathing water designation on the River Wharfe in Ilkley. The hon. Lady rightly raised the issue of the “poor” classification on her bathing water designation. I know the challenges of that, since my local bathing water designation is still classed as poor. As we both recognise, that is why it is incredibly important to have a specific plan to tackle improving the designations poor, sufficient, or even good, to bring them to an excellent rating.

At Wolvercote, the Environment Agency is currently undertaking a nationally funded joint bathing water investigation, both in Yorkshire and in the Thames region, including enhanced monitoring and DNA sampling. That will help the Environment Agency find the sources of bacterial pollution and develop plans specifically on a local catchment area approach to address them.

Thames Water also has a role to play in fixing the problem. That is why, as part of its business plan from 2025 onwards, it will identify and address additional actions needed to improve the quality of the bathing water site, which the hon. Member referred to. Although those business plans are subject to scrutiny by Ofwat, to ensure value for money for customers, I welcome those positive steps to protect people and the environment.

I want to pick up on some points made about data. We must remember that bathing water quality in England has improved significantly due to robust regulation and strong investment. In 2023, almost 90% of designated bathing waters in England met good or excellent standards. That was up from 76% in 2010, despite stricter standards being introduced in 2015.

To address the point on storm overflows: the frequency and duration of storm overflow discharges in the Thames region is completely unacceptable, though it would be unrealistic to suggest that the issue can be simply turned around overnight. Independent estimates show that eliminating all discharges nationally would cost between £120 billion and £600 billion, increasing water bills between £271 and £817 per annum by 2049.

Our storm overflows discharge reduction plan is the most ambitious plan to address storm overflow discharges in water company history, delivering £60 billion of capital investment by 2050. The Government have also driven water companies to ensure that 100% of storm overflows, of which there are about 15,000, have been monitored. Furthermore, our plan for water, which is delivering more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement to clean up our water, makes a step change in how we will manage our waters, delivering for customer bill payers and for our environment.

I also want to pick up on supply interruptions, which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon referred to. I know that customers in Oxfordshire and the wider Thames region have experienced multiple supply interruptions, largely as a result of adverse weather, in the past 18 months. I understand how frustrating that can be for customers. Water companies must by law ensure a continuation of water supply throughout an emergency. Plans must cover a range of risks and include the provision of alternative water supplies. Those requirements are set out in the security and emergency measures direction 2022.

I wish to assure hon. Members and the House that, during any incident, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs engages closely with water companies to obtain accurate and timely updates on the scale, impact and response, to ensure incidents are being resolved as swiftly as possible, and that impacted customers—particularly vulnerable customers—have access to alternative sources of water, such as bottled water, when a supply interruption takes place.

I understand how pressing a problem this is for affected customers, particularly in the Thames region. For that reason, this is another issue I will raise directly with the chief executive when I meet him shortly, as we have done in relation to recent supply interruptions in the Reading area.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon mentioned storm Henk. Extreme weather can also lead to sewer flooding, such as that experienced during storm Henk in January. I understand how difficult and distressing it can be for the public when sewage gets into their gardens and properties. Indeed, recently I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris); although her constituency is not in Oxfordshire, she has constituents who are part of the Thames Water region. We specifically talked about Lambourn in her constituency, where again Thames Water’s response to an incident has not been sufficiently robust. I expect the chief executive of Thames Water to update me on what it is doing in Lambourn when it is dealing with surface water flooding.

I want to be very clear that any sewer flooding is unacceptable and that Thames Water has reassured me that it plans to invest £1.12 billion in 250 sewage treatment works between 2025 and 2030, including those in Oxfordshire, to increase capacity to prevent sewer flooding from happening again. Ofwat will also assess internal sewage flooding inside people’s homes as a core performance commitment and where companies fall short of that metric they will be required to return money to customers under Ofwat’s outcome delivery incentives.

The hon. Member mentioned Abingdon reservoir. There is obviously a clear need for the water industry to improve the resilience of water supplies through new water resources infrastructure. Abingdon reservoir is subject to ongoing assessments, which will continue in the future, to develop the design and to understand the impacts of the scheme. Thames Water will need to ensure that any scheme that it builds will not only possess the resilience that we expect within its supply systems but has proper environmental benefits that can be demonstrated to its customers. Of course, any new development of this nature must also provide at least 10% biodiversity net gain, which again must be capable of being demonstrated.

Although the hon. Member did not mention it, I am also aware, from speaking to Members with constituencies that neighbour hers, about Witney sewage treatment works, so I will just use this opportunity, given that time permits, to provide an update on that. I am aware of the discharges from Witney sewage treatment works and the impact they have had on local communities. I share Members’ concerns about that and I want to reassure them that the Government and the regulator will take robust action on pollution incidents.

A criminal investigation into sewage discharges at Witney is currently being conducted by the Environment Agency, regarding significant sewage pollution incidents impacting the Colwell Brook and Emma’s Dyke downstream of Witney sewage treatment works. This was brought to my attention by the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any detail, because this is an active investigation, there are significant consequences when water companies pollute the environment. For example, in July 2023, following an Environment Agency prosecution Thames Water was fined £3.3 million for discharging sewage that caused significant environmental impacts.

I also wish to assure the House that the Environment Agency is ensuring that treatment capacity at Witney sewage treatment works is increasing, meaning that the site will be able to treat more sewage before using its storm tanks, which will reduce the risk of pollution in the future. That work is due to be completed by 31 March 2025.

Furthermore, the Government are strengthening regulation. The Environment Agency can now use new powers to impose unlimited penalties, raising the previous cap from £250,000. This change came into effect at the end of last year and it will apply to water companies for a wider range of offences, following the Government’s changes to broaden the scope of the existing civil sanctions regime to remove the previous cap on penalties.

We are also increasing funding for the Environment Agency. Its funding was raised by both Members who have spoken today. We are providing £2.2 million per year specifically for water company enforcement activity, so that robust action is taken against illegal breaches of storm overflow permits. Both hon. Members said that the Environment Agency was not being given enough money, but I can reassure both of them and the House that, as I say, an additional £2.2 million per year is being given specifically to the Environment Agency to carry out enforcement action.

I have tried to go through all the points that have been raised, but I want to be as robust as I can. For the reasons that I have set out, it is therefore critical that all water companies, including Thames Water, clean up their act, behave transparently and take urgent action to improve their performance when they fall short. If they do not do these things, the Government will not hesitate to hold them to account.

Question put and agreed to.

Hedgerows: Legal Protection

Tim Farron Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning, Ms Elliott. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), who made a fantastic speech, and others who have spoken commendably in the debate so far, especially the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby).

There is feverish political speculation at the moment, with all sorts of discussions about demographics, electoral movements, and blocs in the countryside or around the country. There is talk of how people will vote—red wall, blue wall—but we are very much focused on the dry stone wall where we come from. That is a particular Lib Dem demographic.

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who raised an important point. People think about the lakes, the dales and Cumbria and they think of dry stone walls. Those walls are not all in open landscape. Many are historical, many are ancient and many are in the midst of what was once pasture but is now quite mature woodland. There is an awful lot of that around the Kent estuary near where I live, for example. Huge biodiversity benefits come from dry stone walls and they are also incredibly important to our cultural heritage, as has already been said. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that we still have miles and miles of hedgerows in Cumbria, which are of enormous significance.

I have been involved in judging hedge laying competitions at Arnside and Stainton, where I assure you, Ms Elliott, that I was guided by people who actually knew what they were talking about, as well as considering just what seemed nice to me. Also, the Westmorland County Showground regularly has national and international hedge laying competitions, so it is a major part of our culture, as well as being part of the agricultural skillset that it is so important we protect, export and maintain.

There can be no doubt that hedgerows are of enormous significance to our country and our nature. They are teeming with life and are vital. I will focus most of my words on hedgerows in agricultural areas. As the hon. Member for Copeland said, 70% of England is agricultural, so the land on which we farm will be a huge part of protecting, maintaining and expanding our hedgerow network. It is also worth bearing in mind, however, the importance of residential hedgerows in built estates, in people’s gardens, and in public spaces, parkland and so on. We need to make sure that we have planning laws and regulations that support and promote those, and I might come on to that subject if I have time towards the end of my relatively few words.

If we think about the scale and size of Britain’s hedgerows—there are more than half a million miles—they would stretch to the moon and back. They are of great significance, bearing enormous biodiversity. They are an important wildlife habitat in their own right and the most widespread semi-natural habitat in the UK. They support a large diversity of flora and fauna and make a great shelter for animals and flowers. Their berries and nuts are a vital source for what are believed to be 1,500 different species of invertebrates in the UK that have their homes in our hedgerows. I think of the Government’s biodiversity action plan and the 130 species that are closely associated with hedges, including lichens, fungi and reptiles. Many more use those structures for food and shelter, at least during some point of their life cycle. Bank voles, harvest mice and hedgehogs all nest and feed in hedgerows, alongside birds that include blue tits, yellowhammers and whitethroats, while bats use them as what we might call “commuter routes”. We talk about nature corridors—they are so important.

There are many things we can say, and I will say, about the transition to the new ELM schemes. For those who have been able to get into them, there is the prospect of local nature recovery. Many farmers and landowners are involved in the project from Kendal to Penrith, which will potentially provide a continuous corridor, much of which is based upon the extension and maintenance of hedgerows. It will bring huge benefit to our biodiversity, by tackling climate change, and by providing an improved home for nature. Let us be honest, they are important boundary structures and really effective for efficient land use.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome set out so well, the loss of cross-compliance is really key. Like a lot of the current transition, a foreseeable mistake has been made. Alongside all sorts of other legal obligations, until last year every single one of the 85,000 farmers who receive basic payment also had an obligation through cross-compliance to maintain their hedgerows and do other environmental goods. I am not defending the direct payment schemes, but I will push back a little against those who said they were universally awful. They were not without environmental gain, and that was achieved through cross-compliance. I support the transition, but I think it is being done badly.

Under cross-compliance, 85,000 people were obliged to maintain their hedgerows, and 5% of them would have received an inspection from the Rural Payments Agency every year—so farmers knew it was coming. Now, barely 10% of people are in SFI. Of the 1,100 farmers in my constituency, fewer than 100 are in SFI schemes, and a minority of those will be in hedgerow options. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome set out very well, they are laudable and good, but they are also impractical, bureaucratic, and do not replace the money that has been lost. It is good that the options provided through countryside stewardship are there, but they will only be available to a very small minority of farmers, and a very small minority of Britain’s current and potential hedgerows. We are losing a lot to gain a little.

I do praise the Minister when it comes to the development and granting through Natural England of the Kendal to Penrith countryside corridor—that is a really great thing. For every one of those, however, I can name several that got turned down. The Lynster Farmers’ Group in Meathop and Ulpha bid for a scheme to protect their hedgerows from the totally avoidable flooding caused by the failure in managing the River Winster to follow its proper channel out into Morecambe bay. I would really love the Minister to look again at that, to ensure those farmers can protect their wildlife, both flora and fauna, including hedgerows.

The hedgerow options and the approach to hedgerows through the ELM scheme transition is emblematic of lots of other aspects of this transition. While they are laudable and good, they are not remotely capable of replacing a fraction of the income that farmers are losing. I was with farmers in Appleby recently. The least badly affected of them reckoned that through the various ELM schemes he could replace 60% of what he had lost. The average figure for which farmers thought they could replace what they had lost through the transition was less than 10%.

What do those farmers end up doing? Well, they go bust or their mental health ends up in a terrible, terrible state. I am truly frightened for the state of the mental health of many of the farmers in my communities—really frightened. This is not helping at all. The pressure will also lead them to make poorer decisions. If someone sees their income receding, what do they do? What do they have to intensify? They may feel against all their better instincts that they have to rip out hedges in order to maximise short-term value from the land, which I fear is happening. While these are laudable schemes, they are not even remotely attractive enough to draw people into them. They are bureaucratic and do not replace the genuine income that has been foregone, and so people are voting with their feet—like I say, 10% are in SFI. Meanwhile, my upland livestock farmers have lost 41% of their income under the Government in this Parliament.

What are farmers? Principally, they are food producers and stewards of the countryside, and they are proud to do both those things. They do not need beating over the head or to be given huge wads of cash to do things that are instinctive to them. It is really important in all of this that we do not allow people to demonise our farmers, who are doing their best with what they are given—but they are being given far too little.

I have a few words to say against those who may well be “more” culprits—our developers, who will always ask for more lax planning rules to allow them to do whatever they want. I am the opposite of a nimby, but the evidence in the lakes and the dales is that if we are really prescriptive in planning law and say what developers can and cannot do when it comes to affordable homes, zero-carbon homes and protecting and extending nature, they will grumble for a bit, but then realise that that is the only game in town, and they either build or do not build. If the Government were to give to local councils, and not just national parks, the power to be far more prescriptive about protecting and extending hedgerows, local authorities would have the power to do that.

What are the options? We can give planners and local authorities those powers, and we can extend legal protections, as the hon. Member for North Devon rightly said, but let us also think carefully about whether in the short term we need to roll over cross-compliance, so we do not lose all the good that people have done over the past few decades for the sake of a mismatched and botched transition. Ultimately, we are seeing something that is an unintended but totally foreseeable consequence of the transition. The Government can do things now to protect our hedgerows, and I pray that they will.

10.16 am

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott, and to listen to all the contributions this morning. It has occasionally felt like a DEFRA Front-Bench speakers’ reunion, but I have enjoyed all the speeches, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who helpfully contributed to Labour’s internal discussions. I can assure him that we will always be nature-positive in our approaches.

I also listened with great interest to other hon. Members’ speeches, particularly the last one. I can assure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) that whether it is the blue wall, the red wall or a dry stone wall, Labour’s ambitions are boundless now. I listened very carefully to what he was saying about the issues around the environmental land management scheme, and I found myself very much in agreement with a lot of what he said. I also enjoyed the speeches from the hon. Members for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke).

Most of all, I enjoyed the introduction from the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). Before the debate started, I was slightly intrigued because I always wonder what it is that motivates hon. Members to bring a debate to Westminster Hall. I was wondering which of the proverbial five tribes of the Conservative party the hon. Lady sits in. I always thought of her as belonging to the more beleaguered, sensible part of the Conservative party—I am sure that that is where she sits. I was hoping that probably means the Minister has something exciting to tell us at the end of this debate—that she will produce a proverbial rabbit out of the hedgerow, and explain how she is going to deal with what is not at all a good news story for the Government, for the reasons that have been explained.

I thought that, in her normal powerful manner, but gently, the hon. Member for North Devon introduced a considerable range of quite pertinent criticisms of the Government’s record. I will go back and read her speech closely, and hon. Members may find me echoing some of those criticisms in addition to my own.

I welcome the chance for us to discuss a way forward on the agricultural transition that enshrines the necessary protection required for hedgerows, ensuring that they continue to play their vital role in our natural environment. As we have heard, hedgerows are much more than just markers that neatly divide up our countryside and farmlands. They are highways along which wildlife of all shapes and sizes flow, and home to insects that thrive on the pests that are sometimes fond of farmers’ crops. Crucially, they also store carbon and work as a natural means of reducing the risk of flooding.

Experts from the Woodland Trust tell us that two activities are particularly bad for the health and resilience of hedgerows: first, the spreading of agricultural chemicals up to the foot of the hedges; and secondly, poorly timed and over-zealous cutting—already mentioned in the debate—that physically damages the hedges and their ability to play their role as a habitat at crucial times of the year.

We have heard about the cross-compliance rules. I remember the discussions that took place during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020, when some of us talked at length about good agricultural and environmental conditions, the standards of GAECs, and the fact that there were good standards under the old basic payment scheme mechanism. We all have our criticisms of those schemes, but as has already been explained, they did at least produce a structure and a system for 85,000 producers. That scheme ensured that land managers kept a buffer strip within two metres of their hedges and banned the use of pesticides in those spaces. To protect the crucial nesting period, land managers were also prohibited from cutting hedges for six months of the year, between March and August.

None of what we have heard comes as a surprise. We were talking about this during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020 some four or five years ago; the Government knew the cross-compliance rules would come to an end on 1 January this year. I have regularly reminded both the current Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), and his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), of these points and of the benefits of cross-compliance. Despite knowing the potential consequences, the Government have dithered, delayed and failed to act. Perhaps the first thing that the Minister can do today is explain why we find ourselves in this situation.

The consultation was carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last year, but the Department has still not responded. We were told the response is to come early in 2024. Well, here we are—early in 2024. Will the Minister tell us when we are going to get that response? Frankly, it is only a response to a consultation. With no cross-compliance rules, protection for hedgerows is now substantially weakened. Does the Minister accept that point? Can she make an assessment of how much damage is likely to be done between now and when new rules are put in place? Because, although I entirely agree with the previous comments and do not expect farmers to be abusing the situation, some can, and I fear some will. What assessment has been made of the damage that will be caused by the Government’s negligence?

We are left with the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, which do offer some protection but only to “important” hedges. Sadly, the definition of “important” is so narrow that it rules out many hedgerows. The soonest we can hope to have greater protection—unless the Minister tells us something in this debate—is summer this year; that is not good enough. If the Government choose to introduce primary legislation to protect hedgerows, as some have suggested, we may have to wait until 2025 before protection is restored.

Of course, it is not just hedgerows. Cross-compliance rules on minimum soil cover, prevention of soil erosion and pesticide-free green cover near watercourses have all fallen by the wayside. History tells us that, without those protections, it is harder for us to meet legally binding targets on carbon and nature. Last week’s report from the environment watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, shows that the Government are already failing to meet almost all their environmental and nature goals. They should hang their head in shame at that report. We can scarcely afford to make the situation worse. It is interesting that the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned the Stacey review of some years ago; that was another example of things being promised and not delivered. I found myself thinking during her speech that there have been lots of targets—targets are all very worthy, but it is about delivery and action and measuring what is actually going on.

If the decline in species abundance is to be halted, the contribution made by hedgerows will be necessary. They also play a role in meeting the carbon goals that the environmental watchdog warns are in danger of being missed. Not only are they crucial stores of carbon in themselves but, as evidenced in research from the University of Leeds, the soil beneath hedgerows works as a sponge for carbon, capturing an average of 30% more carbon than intensively managed grassland parcels.

Two-metre buffer strips around hedges, which were protected by those cross-compliance rules, are also important to nature restoration. The strips host many threatened species and ensure the resilience of hedgerows. They act as corridors in what can often be inhospitable terrain for invertebrates and mammals. Significantly, buffer zones can also help stop the movement of pesticide and fertiliser away from their intended place of use and reduce run-off into our water system. Given that the Government have once again reneged on promises on neonicotinoids this year, that remains an important issue.

This is a sorry saga. The Government must act swiftly to provide clarity to the sector in the interests of land managers and nature. The first step should be finally to publish the consultation response on the future of hedgerow regulation. It is not good enough that we have yet to see it, over six months after it began. Legislation should also be brought forward at the earliest opportunity to, at a minimum, restore the protection that hedgerows enjoyed under cross-compliance rules. With support from wide across the sector for these measures, including voices such as the NFU and the Wildlife Trust, I urge the Government to move quickly on this issue. Every day without regulation risks more damage being done to these natural marvels.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair for this fascinating debate, Ms Elliott.

We have our differences, but here we are obviously all true hedgerow lovers, having all got up to get here for the 9.30 am debate on hedgerows. All of us present can be proud of the hedgerows in our area, as well as our stone walls and the other beautiful and iconic features of our landscapes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this important debate. She is passionate about hedges and has done a great deal of work with the CPRE, whose information I have read; I know that a number of other Members present are also hedgerow champions with the CPRE. Of course, I also thank the former nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), for all she has done on hedgerows. She has shared a great deal of knowledge with us this morning.

I grew up on a Somerset farm, and hedgerows are something that was ingrained in me, which is why I have been working very hard in the Department to ensure that we have the full understanding of hedgerows. We have great officials working on this as well; the Department does recognise the importance of this issue.

The farm I grew up on was mixed livestock: we had dairy and arable rotations and so forth. My father, Michael Pow, who very sadly died just over a year ago, was a great planter of hedgerows. Wherever he went out in the Land Rover—I was very often with him, because we were constantly moving cattle from field to field—he would carry bits of baler string, which he would put round trees and hedges to mark them so that the hedge cutter left them and they would not get cut. We now have wonderful standard trees growing out of the hedges on the farm. My father was way ahead of his time in that he cut the hedges only every other year, to leave one side to grow, which is what we are advising farmers to do now, decades on! When I go home to the farm, it is just a burgeoning froth of blossom of hawthorn, as someone mentioned, blackthorn and all the other wonderful blossoms. The National Trust runs a wonderful occasion— I do not know whether it is a day or a week—to recognise blossoms in the hedgerows. They are so valuable to wildlife.

Members really do not have to tell me how important hedgerows are, because I absolutely recognise that. The Government recognise that too. Many colleagues have mentioned the benefits we get from hedges: they provide habitats and wildlife corridors; they are great for holding the soil and stopping water run-off; they are wonderful habitats for our pollinators to shelter and hibernate in; and of course they sequester carbon. Interestingly, hedgerows were not planted for those reasons; started off as boundaries to keep our livestock in, but they have morphed into this wonderful feature that brings so many more benefits. They are so important to our landscape. They have also become important as we adapt to climate change, because they are part of our net zero commitment. They store carbon, and they are really valuable for that.

It is for all those compelling reasons that our environment improvement plan is supporting farmers to create and restore 30,000 miles of hedgerows by 2037, and 45,000 miles by 2050. That will enable all of those multiple benefits to be multiplied even more. We have calculated how much carbon can be sequestered by all those hedges, and we have the figure for 2037. It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon mentioned that her own Liberal Democrat council has failed its net zero target on hedges. It should probably look to its hedges and to see what it could do to get there. My hon. Friend is right: hedges can make a real difference on that agenda.

I will run through the strong legal protections for hedges that we have in law already. The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 prohibit the removal of most countryside hedgerows, or parts of them, without first seeking approval from the local planning authority. Important hedgerows with wildlife, landscape, historical or archaeological value cannot and must not be removed, and local authorities have powers to act should anybody break the law. Also, all wild birds, their eggs and their nests are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which prohibits killing, injuring or taking wild birds or taking or damaging their eggs and nests. Taken together, those legal protections safeguard most countryside hedgerows and farmland birds.

However, as we leave the EU’s common agricultural policy and move to our new and, I would say, better system for paying for environmental benefits, we have considered whether we need additional protections to manage hedgerows in law. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon mentioned, we ran a consultation last summer asking stakeholders how best to protect hedgerows through effective, proportionate regulation as we leave behind the EU’s cross-compliance system, with which the Labour party is still very much aligned. The response to that consultation should not be a surprise to anybody here, because it showed how much members of the public and farmers share our love for English hedgerows. We received almost 9,000 responses—a huge amount. It will be published imminently—the shadow Minister asked about that—but the information in it has already been looked at and used to inform the recent rise in SFI payments.

We are analysing all the data. There was overwhelming support from farmers and non-farmers alike for maintaining our legal protections. The support and enthusiasm for good hedgerow management shown in the responses from the farming community—from both individual farmers and the industry—show how much hedgerows are valued.

We have to trust farmers to do the right thing. There have been one or two damning comments today about farmers wanting to rip out hedgerows, spray all over them or plough right up to them, should there be a tiny window in which the protections are slightly different from what they were under the EU system. I live among farmers; that is how I grew up, and my husband was an agricultural auctioneer. We have to trust them. As has been said, they are the custodians of the countryside. It is disingenuous to suggest that the farming community will go out and spray, or plough right up to, hedgerows after they have created these wonderful buffers with burgeoning wildlife.

[Tim Farron]

The Minister is talking to a straw man. I do not think anybody here has said what she suggests. A number of us have said that if farmers are pushed into a situation where they have no other source of income, they will make decisions that they do not want to, but nobody has said any of the things that she mentioned.

[Rebecca Pow]

We have to be careful. There is a suggestion that what I said might happen if there is a gap. I certainly got that impression from one or two comments, but that may not be how the hon. Gentleman understood them, and his point is on the record.

We recognise the importance of the legal protections in place to prevent any of the concerns that I outlined. We do not want any of those things to happen. Those concerns come from both stakeholders and farmers. I want to make it very clear that, as a result, we will seek to regulate to maintain hedgerow protections as a matter of priority, when parliamentary time allows. That is the rabbit that I am pulling out of the hat today. I hope that will be welcome news, because I think we all agree that this is a priority. We want to make sure that regulation is fair and proportionate to farmers. That has been very clear in all our consultations. We want to get the support of farmers, and we want them to comply with the law where they have to; but we want to work with them, not against them.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) mentioned that advice is important. Advice is critical, so that farmers know what they have to do. There must be guidance that ensures that they can protect hedgerows, and we should reserve sanctions for the most serious offences. On many occasions when I have been out and about, particularly in farming areas and protected landscapes where designated advisers were working with farmers, I have seen how useful it is for farmers to have someone to talk to. I met an adviser recently in the Kent downs area of outstanding natural beauty—now called a national landscape—who was an ecologist. She said that meeting and chatting with farmers was the best way to encourage them to sign up to the levels and different options in the SFI. It can seem a bit scary, or feel like there is too much paperwork, but we have simplified the whole scheme; we have listened to our farmers on that point.

There was a bit of negativity from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the increased payment levels that we have just given for hedgerows. I thought she might have welcomed that. Although they have all gone up, we need to remember that farmers can apply for lots of different levels. It is not just one sum; they can get a sum for recording the hedgerow, a sum for managing it and so on—there are various amounts that will add up, given all the other things they can apply for in the SFI. The idea is that cumulatively the scheme will be attractive; we really want farmers to understand that and apply.

Storm Henk

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for contacting me over the Christmas period to raise his concerns, not only about the farm at Short Ferry. It was good to meet his constituent Henry Ward at the weekend to see the EA asset and the implications of the water flooding his farm. I also saw on that visit how the vegetation in the River Witham and the delphs, which sit alongside it, needs attention. As my right hon. Friend will know, I am minded to look at options including dredging and removing vegetation in EA assets to ensure that we deliver a system that moves water further down the system more efficiently, which better protects our farming community. I have seen the report from the NFU and look forward to working with my right hon. Friend, his Lincolnshire colleagues and the NFU to try to get to some conclusion on that.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

In Cumbria, we sadly know only too well the devastating impact of extreme weather events and flooding, so I and all of us in Cumbria stand in solidarity with those reeling from the impact of Storm Henk.

I want to say something positive about the Minister’s statement and what he has said in replies about farming. The worry that I have, which I think many of us have, is that farmers are still systematically at the bottom of the priority list when it comes to tackling flood risk. Can he tell us—he can do it later if he finds that easier —how many farms have received support for managing flood risk through countryside stewardship schemes? In my area, will he agree to direct the agencies of his Department— the Marine Management Organisation, the Environment Agency and Natural England—to act swiftly to support the Lynster Farmers Group to secure action to tackle flooding that threatens farms, livestock welfare, the Grange golf club and other local businesses by allowing the channel of the River Winster to flow as it should?

[Robbie Moore]

I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the detail and figures he requires, but I reassure him that the Government are taking our farmers and the impacts on agricultural land incredibly seriously. That is why this weekend we announced that farmers who have suffered uninsurable damage to their land will be able to apply for grants of up to £25,000 through the farming recovery fund. That is a step where we have gone over and above what we have done before, and that is in recognition of the fact that the ground is absolutely saturated on the back of Storm Henk, Storm Babet and the constant rainfall we have had over the winter and autumn period.

Sustainable Farming Initiative

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of transitioning to the Sustainable Farming Initiative.

It is an ongoing pleasure to continue serving under your guidance this morning, Dame Maria. I welcome hon. Members to their seats and the Minister to his. I start by wishing everyone merry Christmas, in the spirit of the debate we have just had.

The sustainable farming incentive is a cornerstone of the Government’s environmental land management schemes. The hallmark of SFI in particular, and ELMS in general, is that public money should support our farmers for delivering public goods. The principles underlying that transition are supported by farmers across the country, by environmental groups and, for what it is worth, by me. The point of this debate is to issue a plea to the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that they start listening to farmers and acknowledge the damage they are doing to farmers, food production and our environment by the way they are managing the transition from the old scheme to the new.

The Conservative manifesto promised £2.4 billion to English farming, yet in the past year the Government spent only £2.23 billion on various schemes and, crucially, only £1.956 billion of that went into farming. The Government have, therefore, broken their promise to farmers to the tune of £444 million last year and, with the phasing out of the basic payment scheme stepping up, they are set to break their promise to farmers to an even greater degree next year.

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Recent figures show a remarkably low uptake of the sustainable farming incentive. Does my hon. Friend agree that it simply does not have enough incentive for farmers to join?

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; I will come to that in a little while, because I think that does explain a lot of why that underspend has happened. It is easy to see how it has happened; it is not a mystery. It is down to two things: first, the Conservative Government have been very good at phasing out the old BPS, and secondly, they have been relentlessly incompetent at bringing in the new schemes, including for the reason that my hon. Friend set out.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs figures show that around £460 million has been removed from farmers’ pockets in the form of the BPS phase-out, which eclipses the increase in environmental payments of around £155 million. Much of that has not even gone to farmers. It has instead found its way into the very deep pockets of large landowners, including new entrant corporate landowners, looking to do a bit of greenwashing at the taxpayer’s expense.

In the spring of 2021, the Government promised to spend £275 million on SFI schemes in the 2022-23 financial year. Yet, in reality, excluding the pilots, they spent literally nothing—zero pounds, zero pence. This year, the Government plan to spend just shy of £290 million on SFIs. One question for the Minister is: how much of that money will actually go to farmers in this current financial year?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understand clearly what the hon. Gentleman is saying but I would respectfully like to put forward a suggestion. There are examples where the schemes have done good. For instance, there are some wonderful farm shops in my constituency, such as Corries butcher’s, a good scheme set up some years ago, and McKee’s farm shop. For those farmers who can afford additional farm shops, this is a wonderful way to diversify in an effort to boost income and ensure functioning sustainability. Does the hon. Gentleman agree—I think he does—that small financial incentives could be a way to support our local farmers to diversify, and that could be introduced through the sustainable farming incentive? In other words, we can all gain.

[Tim Farron]

I go back to what I said at the beginning. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are clear advantages in the scheme, and we support its principle. The problem is that they are outweighed across the piece by the negatives.

What does the botching of the transition mean for individual farmers? Last week, I met a group of farmers in north Westmorland at Ormside near Appleby. One told me that SFI would replace just 7% or 8% of what he is losing in basic payment. Another explained that if he maximised everything in his mid-tier stewardship scheme and got into all the available SFI options, he would replace only 60% of what he received through BPS. The others in the room looked at him with some envy: he was the least badly affected.

Last month, I met a group of farmers in South Westmorland, in Old Hutton near Kendal. One told me that the loss of farm income meant that he had to increase the size of his flock to make ends meet. He knew that in making that choice he was undoing the good environmental work that he and his family had been doing for years, but he could see no other way to keep afloat. That is a reminder that the Government’s handling of these payments means that they are often delivering precisely the opposite of what they intended.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

One issue that farmers in my constituency have raised is that existing schemes to help the environment are not eligible under the sustainable farm incentive, so farmers are incentivised to rip those schemes out, undoing good work that they have done and damaging the environment. Does my hon. Friend agree that a tweak to the payments to recognise good work that has already been done would be welcome?

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point, and that also happens in my constituency. Accidentally, the Government are acting in a counterproductive way when it comes to the environment.

Others at that meeting in South Westmorland near Kendal told me that they are putting off investing in capital equipment because the loss of BPS and the lack of replacement income means that they do not have the cash flow to invest in a long-overdue new dairy parlour, a covered slurry tank or other things that would increase productivity and improve environmental outcomes. The Minister will say that many grants are available to farmers to help them in that respect, and in some cases they absolutely can, but not if contractors need to be paid up front as DEFRA expects farmers to demonstrate that they have the money in the bank to do that before releasing those grants.

DEFRA’s own figures show that upland livestock farmers have lost 41% of their income during this Parliament, and that lowland livestock farmers have lost 44%. One famer near Keswick told me, tongue in cheek, that he had calculated that the fines he would receive for committing a string of pretty terrible crimes would not amount to what he lost in farm income thanks to this Government.

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Does he agree that financially aware farms help make financially secure farms, which build food security for the country?

[Tim Farron]

Absolutely. If we do not give people stability of income and certainty, how can we expect them to provide the food and the environmental gains that we need?

I challenge the Minister to come up with any industry that has been penalised as badly by the Government over the past four years as our farmers. To be fair, I do not think the Government actually intended to do so much harm to farming and farmers. I do not believe they sat down and decided to break their promise to farmers and make a net cut of more than a sixth in farm spending, but those cuts have happened all the same because of flaws built into the system either by accident or by design, which have led to predictable and ever-increasing sums of money being taken out of farming, while smaller and less predictable amounts have been introduced.

Let me set out some of the flaws, in the hope that the Minister will address them. First, the system has built-in perverse incentives, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) said, which mean that farmers at the forefront of environmental work are penalised. Farmers who are in an existing higher level stewardship or uplands entry level stewardship scheme lose their BPS—by the end of this month, they will have lost between 35% and 50%—yet they cannot fully access SFI. In other words, farmers already doing good environmental work can only lose income from this process. That is especially so in the Lake district, the Cartmel peninsula, the dales and the Eden valley—some of our most treasured and picturesque landscapes. In upland areas, basic payments typically make up 60% of financial support. Farmers in those beautiful places, which are so essential to our heritage, our environment and our tourism economy are stuck. They are already in stewardship schemes, but their BPS is being removed and they cannot meaningfully access SFI.

The Lake district is a world heritage site. If the landscape changes dramatically for the worse in the next few years because of the Government’s failure to understand the impact of their error, that world heritage site status is at risk, and its loss would cause huge damage to our vital hospitality and tourism economy in Cumbria, which serves 20 million visitors a year and sustains 60,000 jobs.

The Government’s failure to allow farmers to stack schemes to deliver more for nature is foolish and bureaucratic, and it means that they were always going to be taking more away from farmers than they could ever give back.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

I am not sure whether things are just different in North Devon, but my farmers seem to be able to stack their schemes. I was asked to come here today by a lovely lady called Debbs Harding, who is part of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, to fully endorse this programme. Yes, there is more to be done—there is always more to be done. However, I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrats welcome the schemes and are not just going back to Brexit, which has been their previous position.

[Tim Farron]

On the point that SFI can add value, the reality is that, with the exception of moorland options, there is no reason for anybody in a stewardship scheme to add to what they currently lose. My colleague from Appleby, who said he can only replace 7% of what he loses from BPS, is typical of many people. There are exceptions, of course, and I could name people who have done well out of it. Yet when we have taken out the best part of half a billion and put in £155 million to replace it, it stands to reason that the average farmer in North Devon and everywhere else is worse off.

I try to give the Government some credit by saying that this is incompetence and not malice. They did not mean to break their promise; they have just botched the transition and broken it by accident. However, if the Minister will not address the flaw that prevents farmers in stewardship schemes from meaningfully accessing SFI, we can only conclude that the betrayal of England’s farmers is not accidental after all, but deliberate. Will he look at the matter urgently, so that we do not lose farmers pushed to the brink due to the Government’s obvious failure?

Another flaw in the Government’s approach to the new scheme is that they keep chopping and changing. The Rural Payments Agency cannot keep up with the constant flux, as the Government reinvent SFI every few months. The platform for delivery is struggling to keep pace. For example, the Government’s latest edict is that everyone who began an SFI application in September must have completed it by 31 December. If they have not completed and submitted it by then, all their details will be wiped and they will have to go back to square one and start again. To add to that, the Government’s insistence on drip-feeding SFI options to farmers means that many have not applied because they are worried that if they do, a better new option may be revealed soon after.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about SFI options. One thing I have picked up from the farmers in mid and east Devon I represent is that they are concerned about how the options are profligate. At the beginning of this year, more than 100 options for both schemes were new or were being reviewed. I am hearing from farmers in my corner of Devon that they want greater simplicity in the SFI.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I hear across Westmorland and beyond. All that puts people off applying for new schemes because under DEFRA’s rules, farmers can only change or upgrade options once a year, on the anniversary of their entry into the scheme. As a result, hundreds of farms in Westmorland are hanging on. They are unwilling to apply for the latest option because they cannot be sure that it will not be superseded a month later, leaving them locked into an inferior scheme.

I mentioned earlier the concerns expressed to me by farmers in Westmorland about capital schemes. That is a typical concern in landscapes with sites of special scientific interest, especially in the lakes and the dales. SFI moorland payments are higher than others, which is welcome, but farmers cannot get into that option without significant capital spending. For instance, farmers —or more likely a group of farmers—who farm on a common might typically need to spend a quarter of a million pounds on peatland restoration, sorting out leaky dams and slowing the flow of rivers and becks before they can qualify. Yet farmers—many of whose incomes in reality amount to less than half the national minimum wage—do not have a quarter of a million pounds sitting in the bank to pay up front for that work.

The Minister will say that those farmers could get the money back through the grant schemes, but if they do not have the money up front to defray the costs, they are effectively barred from entering. What are the answers here? We could start with the Government revising their payment rates. If we value these public goods—biodiversity, access, carbon sequestration, flood prevention, and so on—we should pay for them accordingly. That is why the Liberal Democrats have committed an extra £1 billion in UK agricultural payments to protect our environment and support farmers. Increasing the payment rates for SFI would draw more people in, and increasing payment rates for stewardship schemes would help too. The payment rates for HLS and UELS are £60 per hectare for commons and £50 per hectare for non-commons. Those rates have not been changed since 2010, so will the Minister address that?

The Government could then get rid of the barriers in the application process, such as counterproductive cut-off points that prevent farmers in stewardship schemes from replacing lost BPS income with SFI options. Next, the Government could do a really radical thing and actually decide on a policy and then stick to it. The Government constantly changing their mind is damaging the ability of the RPA and Natural England to deliver these schemes. The Minister might also consider whether three-year SFI agreements are long enough. Should there in addition be 10-year options, to at least give farmers the choice of a longer, more stable scheme? That would give them the security and stability they need.

On capital grants, the Government could ensure that the lack of cash flow—exacerbated by the withdrawal of BPS—does not prevent farmers from securing capital funding. The transition is a stressful and complicated business for farmers, as well as a costly one. Will the Minister invest more in face-to-face, on-farm, trusted advice to support people as they make these significant business changes? Will he ensure that Natural England does not habitually block access to new schemes to those in SSSIs by throwing hurdles in their way—as we saw on Dartmoor—and instead offers a helping hand to lead farmers into those schemes?

I restate that public money for public goods is the right principle to support farming, but the transition to the new scheme is causing hardship across Cumbria and across rural England as a whole. We need to remember that farmers are food producers first and foremost. If we do not understand that, we run the risk of damaging our food security even further. Already, the UK is only 55% self-sufficient in food. The Government’s approach will mean fewer farmers and less food production. Not only does that further undermine our ability to feed ourselves, it also displaces the environmental damage overseas. It racks up food miles and makes us reliant on food sourced from commodity markets, which will impact on and increase food prices for some of the poorest people in the world. There is a clear moral imperative for Britain to back its farmers so that Britain can feed itself.

Farmers are also our best hope in securing environmental gain. Of England’s land, 70% is agricultural. If we push farmers to the brink, who will deliver our environmental policies? Let us be dead clear: pushing farmers into bankruptcy is bad for the environment. The greenest thing the Government can do is to keep farmers farming, yet by botching the transition they are doing the opposite. [Interruption.] I will draw my remarks to a close soon— I apologise.

I can think of farmers who are essentially staring into the abyss. For example, people in their 60s who are tenants or else owners of a family farm. They are the fifth or sixth generation to run that farm. It is a beautiful place, but at times it is bleak, and it is always isolated. Life can be lonely.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Member wind up, please?

[Tim Farron]

I will. I was a bit too generous—I apologise.

That farmer is working 90 hours a week, with no headspace to deal with the flip-flopping and chopping and changing of the new schemes. They see their BPS disappearing, with nothing to fill its place. There they are, on the farm that their great-great-grandparents farmed before them, and all they can see is that they look increasingly like being the one who will lose the family farm. It will all end with them. Can we imagine what that does to someone, to their state of mind, and to their business and personal choices? What a burden we place on the farmers who feed us and care for our landscape and our environment, all because the Government will not face up to the reality that the transition is bleeding a torrent of cash from our farms, while injecting merely a trickle.

My final word is this. A farmer from near Kirkby, Stephen, who works with farmers on common land, said this the other day:

“I spoke with all the graziers over the weekend. Desperate and broken would probably describe the mood. A few years ago, I scanned a customer’s sheep, and six days later he killed himself. His friend and neighbour to this day cannot forgive himself for missing the signs, as did I”.

I am proud of our farmers and of the work they do to feed us, care for our environment, tackle climate change and maintain our breathtaking landscapes. I plead with the Minister to take note and to urgently make changes to SFI and to the whole transition, so that we do not irreparably damage people, businesses and our land, just because we did not listen to our farmers.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am happy to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), and to agree with many of the things that he said. My party and I are very supportive of the Bill. To ban the live export of animals, in particular cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses and other equine beasts, is a really positive step. We hope there will be no opposition to the Bill this evening, but should it come to a vote, we will support its Second Reading. If there is, we will join the Minister in the Aye Lobby.

We are disappointed—and we are not alone in this—by what is not in the Bill, because it was dropped in the last Session; by the fact that the measures previously promised by this Government are now either being dropped altogether or put through the very unreliable route of private Member’s Bills; and by the length of time it has taken to get here. But we cannot avoid the fact that the ban on live exports of animals is a positive move towards easing unnecessary suffering of animals. The journeys that those animals have been forced to make before being slaughtered are often needlessly stressful and distressing and a threat to animal welfare. It is a basic act of decency that today we begin the process of legislating accordingly.

However, as has been mentioned by more than one contributor to the debate so far, we signed trade deals not very long ago with at least one country that is not abiding by this kind of legislation. Australia still permits live export of animals over long distances, including overseas, for the time being, and in a country much larger and much hotter than the one in which we are legislating to regulate. If we are talking about the impact and influence that this country has on animal welfare, why did we not use that sovereignty and that power to ensure that we were not just exporting the animal welfare problems while importing produce to this country?

That deal threatens not just animal welfare globally, but the wellbeing, welfare and incomes of our own farmers, who abide by animal welfare standards often higher than those we legislate for in this country and legislated for previously through the EU, and are a beacon of strong animal welfare performance. For them to be undermined by that trade deal was an outrageous assault on our farming community and a threat to animal welfare. I hope the Government will learn the lessons from that in any future trade deals.

The Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, was right when he said that the UK has the best animal welfare standards in the world. I think that is accurate. Not only does it feel correct, but I think it is accurate. I am concerned, though, that they are not just accidentally so. One of the reasons they are so is the nature of the farming we have in the United Kingdom: largely small family farms, maybe large in geographical scope but small in terms of the size of the businesses. They are the basis of our farming economy across the United Kingdom.

I would say that getting rid of the common agricultural policy and moving to the environmental land management scheme is one of those rarely sighted beasts, a Brexit benefit—a good thing, if the Government were handling the transition well, but they are not. We see that at least a sixth of the money that the Government promised to English farmers is not being spent and has not been spent in the last financial year, not because the Government have chosen to cut that money, but because they have just not managed to spend it. Farmers are losing vast amounts of their basic payments and are gaining very little in environmental payments to replace them. I talked to a farmer on Friday who reckoned that he would make up about 7% or 8% of what he had lost in basic payment via the new schemes.

What does that do to farming across the country? We lose farmers. If we lose farmers, we lose the ability to do good environmental work on our landscape, we lose our ability to feed ourselves as a country and we increase the chances of moving to ranch-style farming, which tends to have less close animal husbandry and therefore, culturally and necessarily, lower standards of animal welfare. As we pass this legislation, and I hope we are going to start that ball rolling tonight and that we will all agree to it, let us ensure that we are not, through our fiscal actions, undermining animal welfare throughout the country.

It is true that how we treat animals is a sign of what we are as a culture and whether we are decent or whether we are not. It is absolutely right that we are doing what we are doing; while the challenges out there still remain, if we can minimise journeys of animals from where they are reared to slaughter, as my neighbour the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border rightly pointed out, that is of great significance and importance to tackling animal welfare problems.

My fear is that the red tape and the collapse of the workforce in our abattoirs, not just the inability to bring in vets from overseas, but the lack of other members of the slaughterhouse workforce, mean that many small abattoirs are under enormous threat. Four million pounds will not even touch the sides when it comes to protecting small abattoirs in Cumbria, which are the best in the country—they are family firms, they aid animal welfare and they are massively important to our local economy.

This Bill does many good things, but it does nothing to address a series of other compassionate moves that could have been dealt with in one swoop, as the Government originally were planning to do. The RSPCA, which of course has campaigned for this particular ban for 50 years, found that the dropping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill last year and the omissions in the King’s Speech broke a grand total of 14 pledges on animal welfare. I will just list a handful of them.

The first pledge was on zoo licensing. The original plan was for animal welfare standards in zoos to be enforced more thoroughly, increasing the penalties for zoos that missed those animal welfare standards. That pledge was dropped and there was no sensible reason for that. The second was livestock worrying, which is a serious problem for our communities in Westmorland. It is unbelievably distressing to farmers, their families and everybody else to see the goring of livestock by uncontrolled animals. In the Government’s original plans, the police would have been given additional powers to protect sheep and livestock from dogs, something that was not only an animal welfare issue, but an economic one for the farmers. There was no obvious reason why that would be dropped.

The third pledge was a ban on primates being held as pets, and dropping that ban was a ridiculous nonsense. There was no reason why it should not have been in this Bill or why the original Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill should not have proceeded. That has been omitted. It is bizarre that that was not all in the same legislation. The fourth was puppy smuggling. We know that, as things stand, people can bring five animals per person in a vehicle over the border legally. We know that puppy farming is a problem, and the failure to tackle it through this Bill just seems peculiar. The lack of additional intervention and action to punish the theft and unlawful importation of such animals seems a massive missed opportunity.

By the way, the Government could have adopted my presentation Bill, the Pets (Theft and Importation) Bill, just a few months ago, if they had wanted to go down that route. The Bill was a reheating of their own promise from the 2019 Conservative manifesto. I just wonder why the Minister did not just seek to adopt my Bill and put it into practice. I would obviously have been very happy if they had stolen every single word of it.

To conclude my remarks, I also regret any sense that one party loves animals more than any other. I understand that, and I am sure that the Government Front Bench is filled with animal lovers as much as every other part of this House. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that that was not enough for, maybe not the Minister, but Government business managers to have acquired the backbone to take on their own Back Benchers when they threatened to be troublesome over a more comprehensive version of this Bill, the one that was promised in the Conservative manifesto and that has now not been delivered.

The omissions from this Bill are a source of shame and anger for many of my constituents in Westmorland, but what remains in the Bill is good, so it would be foolish to oppose it, and we will support its Second Reading.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your guidance once again, Sir Charles. It is a real privilege to follow everybody in this debate, but especially my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), who succeeded in securing this debate and made an outstanding speech at the beginning.

I want to cover many issues we have already talked about, and I will start with farming. Farming is crucial to feeding our country, protecting and restoring our environment, tackling climate change, promoting biodiversity and underpinning the landscape that our tourism economy depends on, but it has been badly let down. Farmers across my community feel angry with this Government for many reasons—including the trade deals with New Zealand and Australia that threw them under the bus—but specifically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned, the botched transition from the old scheme to the new scheme.

We believe in environmental land management schemes, and we think the project is one worth supporting. However, the Government promised £2.4 billion in their manifesto for farming in England, and the latest figures for 2022-23 show £1.97 billion for agriculture in England. Environmental schemes have increased in their expenditure to farmers by £145 million a year—great—but basic payments have fallen by £490 million. We see upland livestock farm incomes down by 44% and lowland livestock farm incomes down by 41%.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I remind hon. Members of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. If the Government find it so difficult to put money into farming in the way my hon. Friend describes, could they not perhaps give a bit more attention to ensuring that farmers get a fair price for their product at the farm gate? The Groceries Code Adjudicator has not achieved what we wanted it to, but surely somebody, at some point, has got to address the fact that that market is failing, and it fails to the disadvantage of our farmers and rural communities.

[Tim Farron]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point; he is absolutely right. The Groceries Code Adjudicator has the capacity to potentially make a big difference for farmers and growers—producers of all kinds. But the reality is that it does not have the sanctions and remit. It is not allowed to take third-party referrals from the likes of us or the NFU on behalf of farmers who are being stitched up by processors or retailers. It is absolutely right that the Government support farming, but the market should be fixed so it does not exploit our farmers either.

We already have a situation where we are only 58% self-sufficient in farming in this country. We are never going to deliver the environmental goods we need if we do not have those expert hands on the land delivering those environmental policies. Our landscapes are at risk of changing radically, dramatically and negatively to undermine—for example—the £3.5 billion-a-year tourism economy of the English Lake district.

Moving on to broadband, Project Gigabit is a good idea, but there will be many people who miss out. Thousands of homes in my part of Cumbria are outside the scope, or in deferred scope, of Project Gigabit. B4RN—the Minister may be aware of it—or Broadband for the Rural North is an excellent local community interest company. It could absolutely connect all of those homes in—I am going to mention them now—parts of Sedbergh, Kaber, Murton, Long Marton, Winton, Warcop, Ormside, Hilton, Hartley and Bleatarn.

I mention those places because, if the broadband voucher system were still available, they could be connected now through B4RN, if it was not for the fact that Project Gigabit is trying to only ride one horse, and is not prepared to accept that not every issue has to be dealt with in the same way—one size does not fit all. I ask the Minister to look specifically at those communities and consider restoring the vouchers to them so that they can be connected well and connected now.

I want to briefly move on to buses. The right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) rightly points out the importance and value of the £2 bus fare, which I think has increased footfall or “busfall” by about 10%—it certainly has in my community. The £2 bus fare does a fat load of good if there is no bus. I want this Government to give local authorities like mine the power to run their own bus companies and the funding to ensure that they work. Buses often do not make a profit, but they are the oil that ensures that the economy works in communities to keep people connected and to ensure that people can get to work and school, or make use of leisure facilities. Back our buses.

[Keir Mather]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

If the hon. Gentleman gives way, he will squeeze the time available to the mover of the debate to wind up.

[Tim Farron]

In which case, I really apologise—I will not give way. I apologise, Sir Charles. I do not want to be ungenerous to the mover especially.

I will finish on health, and I want to talk about cancer in particular. The reality in a community like mine is that, throughout south Cumbria, there are around 700 people having to travel each year for radiotherapy treatment to their nearest radiotherapy centre—the Rosemere Cancer Centre in Preston in Lancashire, which is excellent. That is a two, three or four hour round trip for those 700 people. Swindon has recently been allocated a satellite unit on the basis of 600 patients who would use that centre. My call is for a satellite radiotherapy centre to be placed at the Westmorland General Hospital in Kendal to serve south Cumbria and to ensure that those people receive the treatment they need.

The latest figures tell us that 38% of people in south Cumbria diagnosed with cancer wait more than two months for their first intervention, and 54% of those in places in north Cumbria, such as Appleby, Kirkby Stephen and Shap, have to wait more than two months for their first intervention. We know that, for every four weeks of delay in cancer treatment, one has 10% less chance of surviving. I believe that people in rural communities have as much right to have a life ahead of them than those who live elsewhere, yet we have a funding situation that does not treat them as such. I will finish there, Sir Charles, and thank you for overseeing this debate. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call the spokesman for the SNP, who has five minutes.