Small Farms and Family Businesses

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Leicester on securing this most topical debate, and on his moving and convincing introductory speech. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her great speech and great contribution to your Lordships’ House over many years.

Farmers deserve compensation for their protection and stewardship of our beautiful countryside, but the Budget has now removed indiscriminately most of the remaining BPS payments and, at the same time, put in jeopardy the long-term viability of many farms with the restrictions placed on APR and BPR. The Government defend their attack on APR by citing the growing number of rich people seeking to avoid inheritance tax by investing in farmland. That may to some extent be true, but surely a solution must be found that closes that loophole while not punishing long-term farmers, many of whom are of advanced years and have reasonably held expectations that they would be able to pass on their farms to the next generation, free of tax. They have done exactly as they have been asked to do by Governments over the past 50 years—to produce food, manage the environment and comply with tax policy. These people have not invested purely to avoid IHT. They are the backbone of the countryside.

Many farms may well now face a cost of over £1 million on death—a bill equivalent to 20 to 30 years of income, or one generation’s worth of income from the land. Farming will rapidly become unviable in this country if we punish farmers in this way. Can the Minister say whether this is really what the Government intended and if he thinks that it is fair?

I understand that the Government want to close the loophole, so should they not restrict APR to exclude mere investors and instead back tenant farmers, allowing both landlord and tenant to invest in the countryside, while the retention of BPR could provide support to genuine farming businesses, suitably qualified, to close any loopholes? Did not the working farmers’ relief scheme, introduced by the then Labour Government in 1976, provide the right solution and form of words?

Farmers should have to qualify for IHT relief. The current qualification for BPR is for at least half the business to be farming. Perhaps the 50% hurdle could be increased a little. Genuine farmers would still get the relief, while those just investing would not qualify.

The new SFI is working, so why, in its first few years, change the underlying rules relating to owning farm assets? Without adjustment, the Government’s proposal to tax farms will mean that holdings which have been built up over many generations will be split up and sold.

The Government should revise their plans. Instead, they should first end holdover relief on premium land sales. That is more palatable and would bring intermediate revenue. Secondly, the Budget measures may, perversely, encourage wealthy individuals to purchase a small farm to avoid IHT, so why not revise the qualification rules to close the loophole? Thirdly, the Government should continue to improve the targeting of subsidies to help farmers most in need, as opposed to the blunt instrument of IHT. Fourthly, they should provide a fair timeframe for those elderly farmers who may not now expect to live seven years from handover.

Finally, let us look at how the Government and farmers can work together to encourage British companies to invest in farming and the environment, ultimately satisfying ESG and carbon-reduction requirements. I trust the Minister will agree that it is enormously important to avoid an outcome where small farms and parcels of land have to be sold in order to pay tax bills. I look forward to hearing other contributions and the Minister’s winding-up speech.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean in bringing back his excellent and very necessary amendment. I supported his identical amendment in Committee and had intended to add my name to this one too, but I was beaten to it by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who is not in his place. Nevertheless, I entirely and whole- heartedly support this amendment.

I remember that the Minister told your Lordships’ Committee:

“The Government wholeheartedly support the objectives”


behind my noble friend’s amendment. But he clearly did not think it is necessary and has not tabled his own amendment. However, he did acknowledge that the intent of the existing regulations

“is not currently being achieved”.—[Official Report, 22/10/24; col. 565.]

My noble friend Lord Forsyth has rightly tabled this amendment again and has so well explained the serious damage caused to the Atlantic salmon population by open-net salmon farms in Scotland, many of which are not adequately regulated. In particular, my noble friend has drawn your Lordships’ attention to the harm cased by the toxic chemicals used to treat the infestations of sea lice and the damage caused to the wild salmon’s DNA, which is specific to each river system, by interbreeding with escaped salmon from the open-net farms.

It is true that apart from one salmon farm in Northern Ireland, open-net salmon farms are at present confined to Scottish waters. However, we absolutely do not want them in England. I strongly support my noble friend in bringing back this amendment. I should also declare an interest as a salmon fisherman on the River Tamar in Devon. I strongly support the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in bringing up the problem of the oyster farming in the south-west river estuary systems.

Before I finish, I will ask the Minister again the question I asked in Committee concerning the unnecessarily restrictive licences issued for the shooting of cormorants which prey on wild salmon. Does he know how many gamekeepers are employed by the Crown Estate and how many cormorants they are licensed to shoot each year? I look forward to other noble Lords’ interventions and the Minister’s reply.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I want to make two very short points relating to the reasoning the Minister gave in response to these amendments earlier. I should also say that my sympathies lie with my noble friend Lord Devon, in that I wish this were a wider aquaculture thing, and that the commissioners were able to consider the environment for all of aquaculture, for the reasons I gave in Committee; I will not repeat them.

The first logical problem I had with the Minister’s response was in relation to how many salmon farms there are and the intention of the current commissioners of the Crown Estate not to do any salmon farming. The difficulty I have is that salmon was an incredibly common thing to be fed to people in Victorian times. We are able to legislate on the Crown Estate for only the first time in 63 years, so if we are legislating for 63 years’ time, I feel that logically we need to think a bit more about protection further than however far out the current commissioners look, which, I imagine, is something like five years.

I feel that we are going to have to improve aquaculture around our waters because of the lack of calories that we are producing for our population. Therefore, it is poor logic to say that we do not need to legislate for salmon because we are not interested in salmon farming at the moment. I hope the Minister might address that in his remarks.

My second logical problem is that the Minister was able helpfully to list a number of statutory instruments in Scotland setting out the rules for salmon farms, but those all apply to salmon farms that have already been established. The problem I was told about by Crown Estate Scotland is that, because it is not really able to look at economic benefit, sometimes it might let through licence holders of lower quality that then create the problems. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said so eloquently, they are not being held to account by these complicated rules because there is not really a police force. In any event, there is no one to fine, because often the reason that things have gone wrong is that the small entity that owned the farm has gone bust, even though it was, in fact, a subsidiary of a very big entity. That entire list is irrelevant. What matters is not what happens after you have established a salmon farm but the decision to establish it in the first place. I would be very interested in any help the Minister can give on those two logical issues.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Forsyth and have signed Amendment 37. We have now got to the stage of the debate where this amendment has been grouped with Amendments 37F and 37G from my noble friends Lord Leicester and Lord Douglas-Miller.

This is a really interesting debate, because much of what this involves is in Scotland. Of course, there are aspects of this which are devolved. It might be tempting for the Minister to say that it is nothing to do with him, but I think that would be unwise and unhelpful. I hope that the Minister is not tempted to do that, because Clause 3(1) states:

“This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.


It would be helpful to know what discussions, if any, have taken place between the Minister’s department and Scotland Office Ministers about the kinds of issues that have been raised so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I say “eloquently” but I mean vividly as well and, in some cases, very movingly, too.

I am not one of those who has always been implacably opposed to salmon farms around Scotland. What I very much oppose is what my noble friend described and has described in his amendment as lowering “environmental impact” and lowering “animal welfare standards”. It must be in all our interests to ensure that these salmon farms, which provide so much economic activity in relatively marginal areas, should also be run in such a way that we can all be proud of what they are doing.

I look forward particularly to the speech on aquaculture that my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller will make in a few moments, and that of my noble friend Lord Leicester on offshore energy installations and generation. In the meantime, I do not know whether the Minister will be able to accept my noble friend’s amendment—it would be great if he could—but what I suspect is more likely, and what I would like him to do, is to give a very positive encouragement to this amendment so that perhaps at a later stage the Government might come forward with their own amendment to put right what is clearly a wrong.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I am supportive of the Bill’s objective to enable the Crown Estate to continue to fulfil its core duty of maintaining and enhancing its value.

Amendment 37, as introduced so powerfully by my noble friend Lord Forsyth and to which I have added my name, is a massive improvement to the Bill. I also agree with what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in his impressive speech. I suspect that the main purpose of the Bill in the minds of its drafters was to ensure that the Crown Estate should continue to focus on activities which align with wider national needs, including energy security and sustainable economic growth, as the Explanatory Notes make clear. Indeed, the Bill specifically mentions its role as an enabler of offshore wind power generation.

Offshore wind power generation has a part to play in our energy mix, but it may receive too much emphasis as most offshore wind projects produce electricity too far away from where it is needed, and the costs of transmission and storage are often opaque. I would like to see more emphasis on small and so-called advanced nuclear reactors, which can be sited adjacent to data centres and industrial clusters where the energy is actually needed.

It would appear that the Government have introduced this legislation with only one major objective: to encourage and enable the Crown Estate to build more offshore wind farms. This is also evidenced by the announcement of the partnership with Great British Energy. I look forward to learning more about how GBE will operate; there are still relatively few details available. However, it is important in legislating to increase commercial activity in the seabed around our shores that restrictions must be placed on the development of salmon farms in England and Wales, especially given the damaging effects on nature and the environment resulting from salmon farms operated in coastal waters and sea lochs in Scotland. I declare an interest in that I fish in England on the River Tamar, as well as on the Rivers Laggan and Sorn on the Scottish island of Islay. We do not want to see the depleted populations of salmon migrating to English and Welsh rivers exposed to the additional threats posed by salmon farms.

Just over a month ago, my noble friend Lord Forsyth asked in Grand Committee what steps the Government were taking to protect wild salmon populations. I confess to having been underwhelmed by the reply to the debate given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, especially on two points: the need to monitor more strictly the harmful activities of some salmon farms, and the quite ridiculous restrictions placed on river-keepers’ ability to control stocks of predators such as cormorants. She noted that some predators are themselves protected so we had to be

“careful about how and when such predators can be managed”.—[Official Report, 12/9/24; cols. GC 170-171.]

I think that the noble Baroness is unaware that the cormorant population has increased from some 2,000 in the 1980s to over 62,000 today. Each bird requires over a pound of fish a day; why are they still protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981? Why does the EU still protect them under the birds directive? Does the Minister know how many gamekeepers are employed by the Crown Estate and how many cormorants they are licensed to shoot each year?

In replying to the debate last month, the noble Baroness the Minister said that the Government recognised the need for higher standards to be maintained in fish farms. The problems of excessive sea lice escaping fish possessing a very different genetic make-up and a very different DNA construct compared with indigenous fish were raised by several noble Lords in that debate, and spoken to especially powerfully by my noble friend Lord Forsyth just now. What discussions has the Minister had with the Crown Estate about fish farms and about moving to more sustainable methods of farming salmon, especially land-based farms, which are completely isolated from the endangered wild salmon population? As my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Strathclyde have already said, this amendment would very much improve the Bill.

It is fortunate that, until now, English river systems have been, I believe, free of open-net fish farms, but I worry that the encouragement, implicit in the Bill, for the Crown Estate to increase commercial activity might change that—and I believe that this amendment is therefore absolutely necessary. I hope that the Minister will accept it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—words that I never thought I would hear myself speak. I was unable to attend the Second Reading but my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle did attend. After the previous day in Committee, I was approached by four different Conservative Peers who complained that a Green had not spoken on that day. One of those Peers was the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who has consistently, over the 11 years I have been here, complained that Greens speak too much. I hope to hear him express his gratitude today to hear a Green speak.

I support the amendment because, although I am highly suspicious of Conservatives and their environmental credentials, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is absolutely genuine in his care for salmon—and I support that completely. This is a very sensible amendment, and I cannot see any reason for the Labour Government not to accept it, so I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of why they will not.

These issues of environmental impact and animal welfare standards should be an overarching staple of any check on any Bill or policy that the Labour Government bring forward. I am afraid that these days I have my doubts about the Labour Government’s environmental credentials. We have seen some horrific decisions already in the first 100 days, or three months, so I sincerely hope that the Labour Government will accept this quite simple but, I think, very necessary amendment.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, if it is not too late to do so. I was delighted to learn from his interview with the Financial Times that he is working on breaking down

“very big obstacles to inward investment”.

This Bill is intended to contribute to financial stability; I imagine that the Government think that periods of relative financial instability have constrained foreign direct investment. That may or may not be true, but is it not also the case that foreign investors are more likely to invest in countries with relatively low rates of tax and relatively light and proportionate regulatory regimes?

The Government also make much of their democratic credentials but the effect of this Bill is to transfer power away from the democratically elected Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—accountable to the House of Commons—to an independent body that is, however well regarded it may be as a fount of prudential wisdom and the most formidable number cruncher bar none, still a quango. There are too many quangos and they have too much power, which has been relentlessly but steadily drawn away from Ministers. Most new substantive Acts of Parliament create a separate independent quango with its own offices, board of directors and substantial costs that are met by either taxpayers or consumers.

I was rather sceptical about the OBR when it was created by George Osborne. I did not believe that there was any chance that it would be a more accurate predictor of the consequences of any fiscal changes on the economy than the Treasury. Graham Stringer, speaking in another place last Wednesday, suggested that George Osborne created the OBR in order to trap an incoming Labour Government, restrict them and slow them down; he described it as

“an odd thing that we see this quango being gilded ”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/9/24; col. 340.]

Is it not obvious that, as is reported in the media, the existence of the fiscal rules as adjudicated by the OBR severely limits the Government’s choices? Does the Minister agree that these limitations were behind the Chancellor’s decision to cancel infrastructure spending to meet public sector pay demands?

I am not sure that having the OBR really protects us at all from financial instability. I am pretty sure that the average voter does not have a clue what it is or what it does—but we have it, and we should make sure that it is as cost-effective as possible. I am sympathetic to the attempt made by my honourable friend in another place, Nigel Huddleston, who sought to amend the Bill to ensure that any changes in the fiscal rules would trigger a requirement for the OBR to issue a report. As the Government have committed to reduce the national debt, it is also critical that we understand the definition of debt in connection with the application of the fiscal rules. Without certainty in respect of these two points, it is hard to accept that the fiscal lock will be effective.

As was discussed in another place last week, it is also unclear what happens when a fiscal measure intended to be temporary—I understand that this means up to two years—runs on beyond that time limit. The example of income tax was given; it was introduced as a temporary measure in 1799 by Pitt the Younger. I ask the Minister whether there should be constraints on Ministers taking significant decisions on other measures that are not fiscal ones if it is considered that, severally or cumulatively, they may have an effect on GDP of over 1%.

Does the Minister not agree that it would be much better if the revisions to the Charter for Budget Responsibility had been published already? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on this. Can the Minister tell your Lordships whether there will be an opportunity to debate the changes to be made to the charter in due course? The separation of the charter revisions from the Bill itself gives the impression of undue haste. I am tempted to agree with those who think that the Bill is not necessary and is as much concerned with political theatre as with making changes that will have any real positive effect on the operations of the OBR.