Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill will give certainty and clarity about this year to all farmers who currently make a BPS claim and have done for some years. That will include, of course, dairy farmers and beef farmers. Beef farmers in particular have been through a rather difficult year, in which beef prices have been suppressed, and the knowledge and clarity that there will absolutely be continuity this year, and that payments will be made, will be very welcome to them.

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

The Minister’s own Department’s figures recognise that 85% of livestock farm income comes through basic payments. Of course, this 12-month stay of execution will be welcomed by many of my farmers, but from next January, he is planning to phase out BPS, and the danger is that there will be no certainty about its replacement before 2028. Does he not worry that we will lose many livestock farmers during that seven-year transition, and does he agree that he should therefore delay the phasing out of BPS?

[George Eustice]

It is important to recognise that a significant proportion of sheep farmers in particular do not receive the basic payment scheme area payment, because they are on contract farm agreements and the landlord receives that money. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I think the principle of investing in public goods has support across the House, but we need to strike this new course sensitively and ensure that agriculture remains profitable. We want a vibrant and profitable agriculture industry, which is why the Agriculture Bill also makes provision for payments to improve productivity, and sets a quite long transition period of seven years, so that we can gradually phase out the old legacy scheme. He will be reassured to hear that the Bill before us makes no changes at all for the coming year. Farmers in his constituency can rest assured that once this Bill is passed, the direct payment scheme will operate this year in exactly the same way as it has in previous years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sure that we will return to this issue over the coming weeks and months. We hear what the Government say, but the simple way of resolving the matter would be to put something into the Bill, which is what many people would like to see. The point in this context is that we would all agree that this is not easy. It may well take time, and it will be difficult.

Alongside the potential delays, the National Audit Office has pointed to teething problems with the Government’s planned environmental land management schemes, which are terribly important to how our rural areas will be supported in future. Added to the 14-month delay to the Agriculture Bill, the Opposition are simply not convinced that everything will be in place for the new farming payment system by the end of the year.

We want to see an urgent shift to a payment system that rewards public goods, environmental protection and welfare standards, but there is a danger of continuing uncertainty for farmers who will have to make decisions in just a few months’ time about their plans for the following year. If the introduction of the new payment system is delayed, it is imperative that a continuation mechanism is in place in this Bill.

The new Agriculture Bill proposes powers to extend direct payments in future, so we will doubtless discuss those powers at that point, but the fact remains that, as we stand here today, that Bill has not even had its Second Reading. We are starting with this Bill, and we believe it would have been wiser for the Government to have re-examined the sunset clause to allow the possibility of extending the provision of direct payments to farmers beyond 2020 in the event of any delay. That would have given confidence and, frankly, would have reflected what many of us think is likely to happen anyway.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. As things stand, we are certain that the BPS will begin to be phased out in 12 months’ time, and there is a possibility that we will have the environmental land management scheme by 2028. In principle, he and I probably agree that scheme is a good thing but, in practice, it does not yet exist. Does he agree there is a danger that, in the seven-year transition, we will lose many of the farmers we need to deliver those public goods?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I suspect that discussion will continue, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I said on Second Reading, we have replaced the certainty in the system. The only certainty we have now is of future uncertainty, which makes it extremely difficult for people who are planning ahead.

The Government have expressed total confidence that a further period of direct payments will not be needed. I wonder whether we will be having this discussion again in a year’s time. They are absolutely confident that there will be no further delays and, frankly, we hope they are right, but if they are not, I suspect we and others will be quick to remind them of the problems they caused by failing to prioritise safeguards in such an extension.

Another missed opportunity is the exclusion of measures to provide potential compensation to those farmers who have faced, and likely will face, delays to their payments. I cannot help noticing that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) made this point, and I am sure she will happily support us when we return to this topic in future.

Although the Government have rightly lauded the efforts of the Rural Payments Agency to pay farmers on time this year, I am afraid we are all well aware of the previous difficulties, poor performance and delayed payments in its management of direct payments to farmers.

Of course, it is not only about the Rural Payments Agency’s past performance. Look at what it is facing now: there is a real risk that it will be diverted by planning ahead for changes next year while we enter this period of uncertainty about our post-Brexit trade negotiations and the complex provisions of the Agriculture Bill. The danger is that we will find late payments building up again at precisely the time when farmers will most need financial certainty. A sensible response to that threat would have been to make provisions to enable farmers to be compensated if they suffered hardship or financial loss because of a delay in payments under this Bill. I hope the Government will duly consider a compensation mechanism for any such delays.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

Adding to comments that others have made, this is undoubtedly necessary legislation and we certainly will not seek to oppose it. It is a small amount of certainty in a sea of uncertainty for our farmers—certainly for mine in Cumbria.

When I speak to farmers throughout the lakes and dales and the rest of south Cumbria, they tell me that their concerns regarding our departure from the European Union are manifold. One undoubtedly is the future of direct payments and the environmental payments that we now refer to as coming under pillar two, but the concern about trade deals is massively significant. Over 90% of Cumbrian farm exports are to the single market, so a deal is critical. The problem is, of course, that if we are desperate for a quick deal, the chances of us getting a good one are, almost by definition, reduced.

It seems to me that there are three options; I cannot think of a fourth one. Option one is that we align wholly with single market rules, either officially or unofficially, in which case we have lost control, not taken it back one little bit. Option two is that we de-align and increase our standards, as many people say we would, but that will likely mean increasing input costs, making British farming less competitive at home and abroad. Option three, which is most likely, is that we de-align and reduce the standards of our production, meaning that we may be competitive, but we undermine everything that we said we hold dear and everything that our farming community holds dear. I see no alternative to those three options. We need there to be a deal, but the chances are—in fact, the certainty is—that it will not be as good as the one we currently have.

I am glad that the Government are committing to this legislation, which gives some stability and predictability for the next 11 months. While there is a commitment to £3 billion or so a year for the life of this Parliament, we have no clarification about where that money will go. For all its faults, the CAP money that came to this country was restricted for use on agriculture and the environment. If we are making up our own rules, to which there are many advantages, who is to say that the £3 billion that the Government have allotted will not end up being siphoned off to other rural pots? That might be all well and good, but it would reduce the amount of money going into agriculture. In fact, when I questioned the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that point, he specifically said that he could not promise that all the £3 billion would be spent on agriculture and the environment. I would like the Minister to comment on that. Will all this money be ring-fenced for agriculture spending? There is nothing to force the Government to do that at the moment. It is a likely cut in the money that will go into our agricultural sector.

Over the last 45 years or so that we have been in the European Union and the Common Market before it, we have not had to debate whether it is right to subsidise food, but we do, and if we stop, we will notice. The average spend on food in 1970 was roughly 20% to 25% of household income. Today, it is around 9%. Whether it is right or wrong to subsidise food, we have done so, and choosing not to will have enormous consequences for the lives of every one of our constituents and colossal political consequences. Thinking this through is vital.

We must consider the unintended consequences. As several Members have said, there is an understanding throughout the agricultural community—indeed, across the country—that we should be spending public money on public goods, and I completely support that, but there is great vagueness about that as things stand. For instance, farmers in my community have always opened their doors to local primary schools, so that children can look around, enjoy being on a farm and get a sense of where their food comes from. In the future, will he or she have to formally bid for funding to provide that public good? Are we in danger of getting to a stage where we account for everything and take the heart out of the public role that farmers currently provide willingly and freely?

So many of those public goods are hard to pin down. How do we make a payment to a farmer in Troutbeck, Kentmere, Longsleddale or the Langdale valley to compensate and reward them for the aesthetics of their land—for ensuring that the Lake district continues to be our premier rural tourist destination and the second biggest tourist destination in the country? How do we put a price on that or fund it? These things are massively important and will not be easily done overnight.

We must think about the value that farmers bring to the United Kingdom. In terms of the production of food, we already import nearly 50% of that which we eat. It is so important that we maintain at least what we currently produce and preferably expand our production. Farmers also maintain rare and natural habitats, promote biodiversity and look after our rich heritage landscapes, which underpin our tourism industry, worth £3 billion a year to the Cumbrian economy and providing 60,000 jobs. What about the water management work in the uplands, protecting the towns and villages from flooding? All those things are massively important, and we will have nobody to deliver the environmental goods that we so desperately need if there is nobody working in the farming industry—especially in the uplands—at the end of the seven-year transition period. If we care about the environment, we care about protecting the livelihoods of those people who are there as our partners to protect our environment.

That is why I am so concerned about the Government’s plan to start phasing out basic payments from next January, which make up 85% of livestock farm incomes in this country. That is a certainty; it is what they face. It is, if you like, a seven-year notice to quit. For all the benefits that I believe and hope environmental land management schemes will bring, they will not be available to everyone until 2028. That is seven years during which British farming has to hang in the balance. Many farmers will either choose to leave the industry before it gets bad or will go under because it has got bad. If we care about our environment and protecting the public goods that farmers bring to this country, we must do the right thing—I challenge the Minister to do this—and agree not to phase out the BPS until 2028 for anyone until ELMS are available for everyone.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson). I recall the Crewe and Nantwich by-election in 2008—the weather was quite nice, and I congratulate him on his first victory. I spent some time in Eddisbury in, I think, ’99 for the by-election, when Stephen O’Brien, his predecessor but one, was first elected, so I know where it is—there is a good chippy in Winsford, if I remember correctly. I genuinely mean it when I say that the hon. Gentleman was an excellent children’s Minister. This will massively hamper any rise he may subsequently make, but if the Prime Minister should be thinking of a reshuffle, he could look no further than him. I also thank him for paying tribute to his excellent and very principled predecessor, Antoinette Sandbach, my former hon. Friend.

Let me make a little confession. Some years ago, before Brexit was even a thing—back in the day when the Prime Minister thought it was madness to even countenance leaving the European Union—I said that I could see one advantage in the United Kingdom departing the EU: I could see how we could spend the common agricultural policy money better than it is often spent through the current system. That does not mean that I predicted that a future Government would spend it better, but I could see how they could—that is an important caveat.

The Bill is necessary and provides a modicum of certainty for farmers as we leave the European Union in just a few days’ time. It permits a small island of temporary predictability in a sea of uncertainty. It kicks the can a few yards down the lane, but it will do nothing to disguise the chasm that is opening up for farmers as we leave the EU. The Government believe that they have a mandate to “get Brexit done”, but nowhere is the nonsense behind that statement laid bare more than in the case of our farming industry.

I will tell the House what Brexit has done: according to the Secretary of State last week at the Oxford farming conference, it has done for the basic payments scheme—which constitutes 85% of the income of the average livestock farmer—starting in less than 12 months. It has done for free access for British farmers to their most important export market—90% of Cumbria’s farm exports are to the European single market. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be believed, it has also done for our alignment with the single market and will therefore usher in a new era of red tape, costs on farm businesses and non-tariff barriers to trade.

The idea that a 12-month stay of execution for farmers equates to certainty is, frankly, laughable. Even if the Government were to make a commitment for the whole Parliament, anyone who thinks that even five years constitutes the long term in farming cannot be taken seriously.

The Government’s stated position—reiterated again at the Oxford farming conference—is that the BPS will be phased out over a seven-year period from next January. I am privileged to chair the all-party group on hill farming and I was very pleased to hear the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), refer to the importance of hill farming to our country as a whole. In our view, it is a dangerous thing to start phasing out the basic payment when we have yet to clarify what will replace it: the ELMS—the environmental land management scheme—which will be available for some farmers in 2024, we are told, but not all farmers until 2028.

With all due respect, farmers lack confidence in Governments of all colours and their ability to deliver an as yet undefined new payment on time because they have consistently failed to deliver existing payments over the last two decades. Being told for certain that you will lose 85% of your income while being offered the dubious possibility that you might have something else in future is unlikely to get Britain’s farmers dancing in the street.

The Bill is a necessary one-year fulfilment of the obligations of the withdrawal agreement. It is not a real commitment to farmers. Even if the Government were to bodge together extensions of one year at a time for the inevitable slippage on the roll-out of ELMS, what does that do for the ability of farmers to plan for the medium term, let alone the long term?

Why does this matter? It matters because over the transition period of seven years, the Government’s plan will reduce Britain’s capacity to feed itself in the future. We think far too little about food security. Some 50% of the food that we consume is imported. Twenty years ago, the figure was more like 35%. It is an extremely worrying trend. If the ability of farmers in the UK to make a living and compete is further undermined, this situation will only get worse. That will be bad for the environment, for British farmers and for the security of our country, as we cut ourselves off from our most important trading partner.

We need to think of the bigger picture and the long-term impact. You can tick the boxes with legislation such as this and “get Brexit done”, but that is a slogan with a heavy price tag—a price tag that in the case of our farmers could be fatal. The production of food must be considered a public good, but it is certain that the loss of BPS with an as yet undefined replacement will see people leave the industry. Some will flee before it gets too bad, others will be forced out when they cannot make ends meet. To put it bluntly, if we are to deliver public goods through farming, we need to make sure there are some farmers left to deliver those public goods by 2028. Without those farmers, who will deliver biodiversity programmes? Who will deliver natural flood management schemes? Who will deliver growth and maintain the woodlands and peatland necessary to absorb CO₂? In Cumbria, including the lakes and the Yorkshire dales, who will maintain our footpaths and our rare historic breeds? Who will beautifully keep and present the landscapes that inspired Wordsworth and inspire 16 million people to visit us every single year?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This morning, the National Trust held an event downstairs. It was keen to show what it was doing on the environment. It has plans across its 500 properties to plant more trees and thereby be the lungs of the United Kingdom. There are many groups and landowners doing lots of things to help to tackle climate change.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Farmers are at the forefront of tackling climate change—they see the climate changing before their eyes, they are the eyewitnesses to our changing planet and the damage being done. In the uplands, in Cumbria and elsewhere, it is they who have the ability to help to protect the towns and villages from flooding by planting more trees, managing the land and more generally ensuring the carbon sink that will help to protect our planet. Without them, who will maintain the backdrop to the tourism economy in Cumbria, which is worth £3 billion a year and employs 60,000 people? Indeed, 80% of the working-age population of the Lake district currently earn their living there.

How can farmers be expected to invest in the long term if they can only look ahead one year at a time? Like most farmers, I accept that in the long term BPS needs to be replaced by public payment for public goods— no argument there—but “public good” needs to be defined widely enough for farmers to make a living, especially farmers in the uplands of Cumbria. I am not saying, therefore, that we should scrap ELMS and keep BPS forever, but I am saying that the Government should not delude themselves into thinking they can make radical change as seamlessly as they appear to think.

The Bill is necessary and we will support it—not just not oppose it—but it does not answer the need to pave the way for a new system. The Government cannot be permitted to do the bare minimum to fulfil the obligations of the withdrawal agreement, with no thought to the impact in real terms. The Government must protect British farming and therefore the environment—and therefore food security, rare breeds, heritage, landscape, our tourism economy—so will the Government now commit to transition arrangements that allow farmers to survive that transition? In short, I say to the Government: do not remove a penny of BPS from anyone until ELMS is available for everyone.