Fishing and Seafood Sector Strategy

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, not least because it raises the question of fuel, which is a serious issue for the industry at the moment, although today’s debate is about longer-term issues. He also makes an important point about the knock-on effects of something that is possibly the responsibility of other Government Departments. It will be part of my case that we need to see those issues as a whole.

During the all-party group’s inquiry, we heard all the pressures I have just described reflected back to us by industries in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Some call it death by a thousand cuts. The consequence of a fragmented policy landscape and the absence of a strategic view for the sector—those challenges will be familiar to anyone who has spoken to people on the ground in coastal and island communities. I am convinced that, as the all-party group concluded, addressing those challenges requires a coherent, joined-up response from the Government. That is why the action plan centres on a foundational recommendation that asks the Government to set out a long-term strategy for UK fishing and the wider seafood sector within the next 12 months, as part of the sustainable ocean plan that they have committed to delivering next year.

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

As co-author of the report, the fact that I agree with the hon. Member might possibly qualify as the least surprising news of today—the need for that strategy is becoming more urgent. However, there are other things that could be done much more quickly though. One is to include food and drink in the industrial strategy, which of course is not the Minister’s responsibility—it relates to another Department. If food and drink had been in that industrial strategy, the energy spike that is currently hitting processors would be dealt with by assistance from the Government. Does he agree that a lot of the answers lie with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but not all of them?

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and always asks insightful questions. I can assure him there was quite a debate about whether to include food in the industrial strategy. Of course, there are wider consequences and costs to including it. I am no longer in a position to comment on the Government’s perspective, but I am sure the Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

To shape the strategy, the report proposes four pillars: sustainable management and access to space and quota; fleet modernisation, infrastructure and technology; workforce and labour; and supply chains and domestic consumption, underpinned by measures relating to governance, science, funding and the sector’s social licence. The strategy is set out across 38 separate recommendations. You will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go through them, Sir Roger, but I will make some brief observations on the merits of that strategy through the lens of food.

As we are all repeating these days, food security is national security, and on an island that surely must be as true at sea as it is on land. After all, fishing is fundamentally about food production. I will take three aspects of this in turn: food security, health and climate. First, on food security, I do not represent a fishing constituency, but like all constituents, mine eat fish—although probably not as much as they should. What struck me throughout the process, and during my time as Minister and shadow Minister, was how disconnected the fish on our plates has become from the boats that catch it. According to the most recent figures, 461,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish were landed into UK ports in 2025. At the same time, we imported more than 1.1 million tonnes of seafood, while UK consumers purchased more than 411,000 tonnes of seafood in retail outlets.

It is true that we export much of what we catch and import much of what we eat. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; it is part of the reality of a rather remarkable food system. We heard in our inquiry that both are key to the UK’s diverse seafood economy, and in normal times that serves us well. From the pandemic to the war in Ukraine and instability in the middle east, we have recently learned just how fragile supply chains can be. We also know that supply chains will be strained further by climate change and biodiversity loss.

In those moments, a diverse domestic fleet and onshore processing capacity are strategic assets—a source of food that can be redirected to our own tables when supply chains are under pressure. However, in the UK, fishing and seafood all too often remain on the periphery of how we think about food security and resilience. Too often, they are absent from the discussion. We have no headline measure of how self-sufficient we are in seafood, and we continue to fail to connect the role of sustainable fisheries to our resilience planning. It is so frustrating to see an indigenous food-producing industry remain on the edges of those conversations.

That is why the action plan recommends that seafood should be fully represented in food security assessments, so that we understand how domestic fisheries can help the food system absorb shocks now and in the future. Alongside that, it recommends measurable targets for seafood supply, consumption and the sector’s contribution to food security. I am very grateful to Dr Sarah Coulthard from Newcastle University for her work on small-scale fisheries, the inshore fleet and their contribution to our food security.

Secondly, on health—for food is also about health—sustainable seafood has a lot to offer towards a healthier nation. The NHS recommends at least two portions of fish a week, one of them oily. However, the average person in the UK eats around half that. The gap is widest among children and lower-income households—the very people who stand to benefit most from seafood nutrition. A strategy for fishing and seafood should set out practical steps to address that, including a sustained two-a-week campaign run with the NHS, better food environments and public procurement—a lever that the Government control directly. After all, a healthier population is ultimately a lower burden on the health service.

Thirdly, on climate, well-managed, wild-caught seafood offers a relatively low-carbon form of animal protein. It needs no feed, no fertiliser and no land. Emissions from fuel use across the entire UK fishing fleet account for around 0.12% of the UK’s territorial emissions, and about 1.1% of those from agriculture. If fishing is to play its full part in climate action, however, we have to be honest about the current state of play.

Parts of the fleet are ageing; some boats are around 60 years old. Many want to modernise, but few can afford to. Vessel construction and operating costs have risen sharply, and smaller operators struggle to access affordable finance. There are no off-the-shelf net zero solutions for fishing vessels. That is why the action plan calls for a programme of demonstrator vessels and research into alternative fuels to build evidence and de-risk investment, and for a national assessment of harbour and shoreside infrastructure needs, including readiness for decarbonisation.

The industry is working hard to meet its sustainability obligations, but if we expect it to succeed, including on decarbonisation, we must help it to meet the costs of getting there. Investment via the fishing and coastal growth fund is welcome, and the strategy could help to guide where that money goes so that it can effectively support the industry and the wider sector.

As I have already suggested, none of this sits neatly in one Department. Food security sits with DEFRA; health with the Department of Health and Social Care; energy and net zero with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; procurement right across Government; crew visas with the Home Office; trade with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade; and fisheries management itself spans three devolved Governments, and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

You are most kind, Sir Roger—thank you very much. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for raising this vital issue.

The Northern Ireland fisheries industry, which is critical to the wellbeing of our coastal communities, contributed to the groundbreaking road map that the hon. Member for Cambridge referred to, and it welcomed the opportunity to do so. The hon. Gentleman had the good fortune to come to my Strangford constituency and visit Portavogie, where he was well received. How good was his visit? Well, the people of the fishing sector in Portavogie still say what a pleasure it was to have him there. They often reminisce and tell me how good it was to see him. I am sure that when the Minister comes over, he will be more than welcome, and maybe he will get the same accolades after his visit.

I have said on several occasions that the Northern Ireland fishing sector has been facing a perfect storm of crewing issues, fuel prices, spatial squeeze and restrictions on access to Isle of Man waters, to name a few of the major and existential challenges they face. It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. I have also highlighted, on behalf of the sector, the fragmented governance and a legislative framework that—I say this with great respect—is increasingly out of step with the operational reality of fishing businesses, creating further challenges.

The action plan recognises the issues and refers to fleet modernisation, to infrastructure and technology, to workforce and labour, and to supply chains and domestic consumption, as the hon. Gentleman clearly laid out. It has been a huge task to set out a road map that addresses the complexity of UK fisheries while navigating the realities of a devolved fisheries landscape. It is crucial for the survival of the industry that the action plan is turned into meaningful delivery.

Of particular interest to the Northern Irish industry are a number of recommendations that speak to the multiple threats it currently faces. The hon. Gentleman referred recommendation 12 of the report, on sustainable management and access to space, which goes to the heart of the issues in respect of marine spatial squeeze. The report calls for the value of food production from fishing to be weighed equally against other uses of marine space, with cumulative displacement effects assessed properly and a formal statutory route established for the industry.

I often say—and I stand by this—that fishermen are the original stakeholders in our seas. They feel increasingly that their rights are being ignored and eroded, so we are here to speak up for our fishing sector. As well as Portavogie in my constituency, I speak for Ardglass and for Kilkeel—the hon. Member for that constituency does not come here to speak for them, so I am happy to speak up for them in his absence.

On fleet modernisation, recommendation 16 calls for a

“more enabling, outcome-focused approach to gear trials”.

Where have we been in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland industry has been leading the way on gear trials over many years, and needs support to turn innovation into reality. The Minister will find a sector in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel in Northern Ireland very willing to work alongside him to do so.

Recommendation 17 calls for a

“dedicated, purpose-built immigration route”.

This is my big ask, and I know it is an ask of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) as well. The recommendation demands that a “short-term bridging solution” be implemented before the current skilled worker visa eligibility for fishing roles disappears at the end of 2026. Time is of the essence; we put that on the record, ask for the Minister’s intervention and hope for his support. The immigration salary list, the mechanism that currently keeps fishing crew roles accessible under the skilled worker route, is due to be abolished. As the report says, the deadline is not abstract: the fishing industry is facing an imminent recruitment cliff edge. That is my biggest ask of all the recommendations.

[Mr Carmichael]

We all know that the use of migrant labour should be a short to medium-term measure until we are able to grow the workforce in our own ports. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that truth reinforces the importance of the strategy that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) has spoken about, because in order to grow that workforce, signals have to be sent to the industry that the Government have a clear vision of what is expected of them? Unless and until we do that, we will not persuade the next generation to go to sea.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the knowledge he brings to the debate. The Minister is listening intently, and hopefully he will respond to that in a positive way.

The Minister should be aware, if he is not already, that we are looking for visas for seasonal workers for nine months. In other words, the people who get them go back home again—they are not staying here. The Department has in place a system, through the seasonal worker programme, for other sectors; that is an issue we could probably look into.

The funding and investment section of the road map calls on the Government to treat the current acute cost pressures facing the sector as a matter of immediate urgency. It calls on them to allow the industry to access the same energy cost support that is already available to other sectors of the economy. Northern Ireland fishing boats are being forced to tie up due to the ongoing high costs of fuel, which have persisted since March 2026. What annoys us is that Republic of Ireland and EU companies are already getting fuel support from their countries, creating an unfair competitive advantage over those in other jurisdictions.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you for the unexpected pleasure and opportunity, Sir Roger. I will say just a few words on the subject, because there are a number of matters that concern me.

I want to pick up on a few of the points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She spoke about the quality of scientific advice, and ICES is the absolute benchmark in these matters. However, she may wish to consider the fact that, last year, the mackerel stock recommendation was for a total closure—in fact, from memory, I think we agreed a 40% cut. This year, on the basis of new advice, it is apparent that the mackerel stock is back at a safe biological level, so there are these occasions when it becomes apparent that the fisheries advice from ICES has to be put into its proper context.

On the many occasions when I am told that it is necessary to have a total allowable catch of zero, it is often in answer to the question: what will it take to restore the stock to a safe level within 12 months? The only answer to that question can be a zero TAC, but that then begs another question that nobody ever asks: if we have a zero TAC, will it restore the stock to that safe level? The answer is no, because it will take several years before stocks of white fish, such as cod—we all know the pressures on North sea cod at the moment—can recover.

The hon. Member for Rotherham also referenced the healthy level of haddock stock at the moment. For those who are responsible for fisheries management, that highlights the difficulty and complexity of this issue. To put it in its crudest form, haddock swim with cod. If we set a zero or very low TAC for cod, as has been suggested for the northern shelf this year—notwithstanding the fact that we think that there are at least three subspecies of cod in the North sea—there is a danger that it will serve only to present cod as a choke species. That then prevents the white fish industry from targeting the haddock that, as we know, is in a healthy state.

I say to the House, and to all those who follow our proceedings, that in this industry there is an infinitely complex scenario, and it really is necessary for everybody to approach this issue with a measure of humility. We must understand that for those communities where fishing matters—the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) referred to them in his speech—it matters a great deal. I am concerned when I see the plethora of environmental non-governmental organisations that now enter this debate with a very simplistic analysis. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would deny commercial fishing opportunities to those communities that rely on them most. That is why the hon. Member’s work and that of the APPG, of which I have been a member for 25 years, to bring people together to achieve an in-depth understanding of what is involved for the different stocks and the different communities, is absolutely critical.

It feels like there is always some species under pressure in some part of our waters, and I fear that that will always be the case. A few years ago, the different pelagic species were under serious pressure. We understand that pelagic species, such as mackerel and herring, will migrate through British waters into Faroese waters and up into Icelandic waters. That is why the idea that somehow or another one country can take responsibility for fisheries management is simply for the birds—biology defies that sort of simplistic approach.

At the end of the day, the people who have the biggest stake in ensuring that there are healthy fish stocks are the people who work in the industry and who will want some day to pass the businesses that they have built up over several generations on to the next generation. These are the people and these are the communities who suffer most when we get it wrong here.

[Sarah Champion]

I am listening intently to everything that the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I completely agree that it is UK communities that are suffering the most at the expense of the internationals. Does he agree that we need to listen to those people and include them at the heart of any fishing decisions we make? At the moment, they do not have a seat at the table on every occasion.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have preached that sermon in this House for the last 25 years. We should also remember that the ICES advice we spoke about earlier is two years out of date—the data is two years from the acquisition to the implementation. Hearing from fishermen and understanding the expertise they employ when they take their nets out to sea must be at the heart of this debate. Respect for people who have, for generations, made a living from this industry—from the seas—must be the starting point. Stick to that and everything else will surely fall into place.

I am very grateful to you, Sir Roger, for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

As the Government start redesigning the sustainable farming incentive, can I draw their attention to an initiative launched today by Aldi and ABP, “Grounded in Goodness”, which is paying a premium to their beef producers? It is only £4.5 million and one supermarket, so it is not a panacea, but it is a good start, rooted in the principles of simplicity, accessibility and food production. As the Secretary of State redesigns the SFI, would that not be a good model to follow?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We did simplify the SFI this year, having inherited a scheme that had not only no budget control, but over 140 different actions. I am looking at this issue, and am more than happy to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about the principles he has outlined as we work to introduce a simpler, easier to use scheme in 2027.

Support for Farmers

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing to engage with his local farming community. I will be talking about that more, but work is already under way to make those improvements and scrap the first come, first served element of the scheme.

We anticipated stronger demand and increased the window 2 budget significantly over this summer. An additional £50 million was announced by the Prime Minister in August as part of the response to the dry weather that we saw, and a further £20 million was added before window 2 opened.

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

rose—

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I will give way because it is the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to my former colleague on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—these links are important. Can she tell the House how many applications the Department expected? It was modelled by some that there would be somewhere in the region of 40,000. In fact, there was money available for 12,000. Did it come as a total surprise to the Department that it got as many applications as it did?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that modelling was undertaken. As a result of that modelling, a further £50 million was announced by the Prime Minister and a subsequent £20 million was announced by the Secretary of State.

I recognise that the substantial demand remained unsatisfied when window 2 closed, and I understand how difficult that was for farmers who were ready to apply but did not have the opportunity to secure an agreement. Let me say this clearly: there will be future SFI offers, and we plan to make an SFI27 offer available as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is completely right to outline the impact of the statutory instrument that was voted on just this week, which all Conservative Members voted against.

I was just about to come on to the point that this does not stop with the family farm and family business tax. As if the dramatic drop in de-linked payments, the SFI debacle and the family farm and family business tax were not enough, from 1 January next year Labour will hit farmers with yet another tax—the fertiliser tax—through the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Industry warns that this new fertiliser tax could pile up a further £75 a tonne, if not more, on current fertiliser prices. This is simply unfeasible. It adds an additional cost to many of our farmers at a time when they are already being pushed to breaking point. The fertiliser tax should not have been introduced, and the Conservatives voted against it last week.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Member will be aware that the carbon border adjustment mechanism was started under the last Government. The consultation was launched in 2023. With the benefit of hindsight, does he think it might have been a good idea at that stage to take fertiliser out of it?

[Robbie Moore]

I pleased that the right hon. Member, for whom I have great respect, has raised this point, but I will gently push back and say that we are two years into this Labour Government. He makes reference to a consultation that was started under the previous Conservative Administration, but we voted on the fertiliser tax this week, and it was predominantly Conservatives who voted against it. I have to say to the Liberal Democrats: where were you when we voted to stop the fertiliser tax? Not one Liberal Democrat MP voted to stop it.

Yet again, the Liberal Democrats are all over the place. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) said in a debate that I attended last week:

“We Liberal Democrats support the carbon border adjustment mechanism.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 12 October 2026; c. 7.]

However, in today’s motion, the Liberal Democrats propose that the House

“notes that farmers are deeply concerned about surging input costs, the impact of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on fertiliser costs”,

but they cannot bring themselves to be concerned enough to vote to stop it.

Far from protecting our farmers in this House, the Liberal Democrats simply demonstrate that they are Labour enablers, helping those on the Government Benches bulldoze their plans through while outside this House, I suspect their leaflets will be portraying a very different message to their constituents to try to keep everybody happy, but we see through that.

To conclude, the record of this Labour Government is clear for us all to see. They broke the SFI scheme and cut its budget. They taxed family farms and now are taxing fertilisers and assets. We have a Farming Minister who faints at the sight of meat. We have a countryside Minister who thinks that anyone who has a black Labrador and enjoys a warm pint in one of our rural pubs is far right. What an absolute nonsense. Farmers feed this nation—they deserve a Government on their side. It is clear that farmers can no longer afford another day of this Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). I can endorse his asks to the Chancellor and I could probably add a few of my own. Like him, I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), to her place. She has maybe had a slightly rocky start at some moments, but I know from her time on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that she has knowledge about and a concern for the industry. It is in everybody’s interests that the Government should be successful, so we wish her and her colleagues well.

I am not going to say a great deal about the sustainable farming incentive. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), is coming to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next week and we will doubtless spend some time on it then. It would be worth him and others reflecting on the full extent of the damage and the nature of the damage that has been done by that particular episode, because we are already seeing an unpicking of land that has been managed in a way that was beneficial for nature, sometimes for decades.

Farmers have found themselves overnight with massive holes in their budgets. When they ask, “Well, what is going to happen next?”, it is simply not tenable for any of us to turn around and say, “Well, it is okay—just trust DEFRA. They will come up with something in the next financial year.” I am pretty sure what most farmers would say if we turned around to them and said that.

The real impact is another nail in the coffin of financial investor confidence in the industry, at a time when there is a perfect storm for British farming. We have seen a price spike in input costs from earlier in the year, as a consequence of what happened in the strait of Hormuz, particularly in relation to urea for the production of fertiliser and diesel. The Food and Drink Federation told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in May that that would take another 10 months to feed through into price inflation, so we still have the worst of that to come in the new year.

Since then, we have had a long, hot summer, in which many arable farmers have been through the third bad harvest in succession, with yields down. Let us not forget that many of them chose not to plant in the spring in the first place, because it made more economic sense just to sell the fertiliser and not plant the seed. The usual sources of replacements, at the time of a bad harvest in continental Europe, are going through exactly the same things that we are going through. Our livestock farms are already feeding winter forage, because they have not had the grass available for their cattle and sheep. Parenthetically, let me say that that is not the case in Orkney, where the problem we have with our winter forage is getting it off the fields after a long, wet summer.

In the red meat sector, our livestock numbers continue to decline in a way that risks threatening the critical mass of the industry. If that were to fall over, it would have a massive ripple effect through the rural economy—through the marts, hauliers, abattoirs, vets and merchants of all sorts. The chicken and pork sectors are under serious pressure. I had a conversation just last week with Cranswick, one of the biggest operators, which told me that between it and 2 Sisters, something in the region of £1.5 billion of planned investment is held up in the planning system. In many ways, that sums up the frustration of the situation in which we find ourselves.

Despite this perfect storm, there are people in every sector of this brilliant industry who continue to want to farm and invest. We have spoken about all the different agricultural policies that have an impact on the sector, but there are policies across nearly every Department of Government, especially in relation to the planning system, that could free up investment opportunities that would generate growth. The Prime Minister speaks about growth in every postcode, and a lot of postcodes are in farming communities. The rural economy presents a real opportunity to generate the economic growth that we all know we need.

For all the downsides that there are in the industry at the moment, I remain optimistic for one reason only, which has nothing to do with anybody in this Chamber or in government: despite everything that happens to our farmers, they continue to want to produce food to feed our nation, and they are better than almost anybody else in the world at doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour Minister did not seem to understand the impact that the mechanism would have. I was even more shocked that the Liberal Democrats decided not to vote against the proposal, unlike Opposition Members.

As I was saying, the ammonia that our fertiliser depends on is now just about all imported. For farmers, the fertiliser tax is not about protection, but is simply a further tax on growing food. As the NFU has warned, food grown overseas with exactly the same fertiliser will come into this country with no tax being paid. British farmers will be put at a disadvantage in their own market by their own Government. This tax will hit every farm in the United Kingdom, including the farms on the Scottish Borders that the SFI never reached.

As we have heard, the Conservatives tried to stop the fertiliser tax, but where were the Liberal Democrats? They were sitting on the fence. When I challenged the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—she is not in the Chamber, but she was a member of the Committee that was considering this regulation last week—she accepted that there were concerns about the uncertainty and the additional costs; but when it came to the vote, the Liberal Democrats sat on their hands. They refused to oppose the measure imposing this additional tax on our farmers.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Lamont]

The right hon. Member had his time to have his say, but he refused to deal with this issue. The Liberal Democrats have had their say, but have refused to justify their failure to stand up for the farmers and try to stop this. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

When the Labour Rural Research Group polled rural voters in the summer of 2025, 75% of them told us that their communities had been neglected over the past 15 years. Over half, 51.3%, said that agriculture and the rural economy should get more Government spending—a higher share than for any priority except the NHS. People really do care about this agenda, and it is important that we on these Benches remember that.

There is no doubt that there was exceptional demand for SFI26; that demonstrates farmers’ desire to invest in their soil, hedgerows, crops and wildlife. That was partly anticipated, which is why the Government allocated an additional £20 million in window 2, on top of the £50 million announced by the Prime Minister in August. I am pleased that, through this scheme, we have nearly £1 billion of investment in nature-friendly farming, as part of the £11.8 billion in funding for sustainable farming in this Parliament.

The good news is that SFI26 was allocated; the Tories did not manage that. But farmers had been preparing for months, and some were left part of the way through applications that could not be completed. The Government have acknowledged that too many farmers who hoped for an agreement have been left disappointed. I welcome that acknowledgement, but acknowledging a problem is where fixing it must begin, and we need to see the co-design of a new system very quickly. We need the IT systems at the Rural Payments Agency reformed, and we need a much clearer and more transparent road map for future application timelines.

I agree with the part of the motion that covers some of the failings of the previous Government. The motion

“regrets the previous Government’s decision to design the SFI on a first come, first served basis”.

It also regrets the trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and it is true that the Conservatives left a transition that was half built and half funded. On trade, the former Secretary of State, Michael Gove, has admitted that the Conservatives negotiated poorly with Australia and New Zealand.

There are therefore serious questions that need answering ahead of next year’s scheme. First, the National Farmers’ Union has said that any decrease in income jeopardises future business planning, so when will the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commit to a date for SFI27? Secondly, there is potentially the gap mentioned earlier today: £520 million of agreements are due to expire. In the Minister’s view, is that accurate? If so, what are the Government doing about it? Thirdly, I seek clarity on the timing for those whose applications failed because of the system’s technical problems. Fourthly, on horticulture and smaller farms, SFI must work for market gardens and smaller growers; the 3 hectare minimum for SFI26 shut some of them out altogether. Can that be reconsidered?

[Mr Carmichael]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we neglect at our peril the sheer extra cost of administration for SFI, as compared with the basic payment scheme. Baroness Batters has remarkable figures on that in her report. Does he agree, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), that one of the advantages of a more universal system is that it would be hardwired in for food production, and would be much cheaper to administer?

[James Naish]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks from a position of expertise. He is right that the more complicated we make a system, the more expensive it is to administer. I know that Ministers are looking into how a system that is not “first come, first served” might work; there are risks with that, and we should acknowledge that in this place. It is not a silver bullet by any stretch of the imagination.

I notice that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), did not mention the word “profitability” in his contribution. However, that is an essential point in any debate on farming. Baroness Batters’ “Farming Profitability Review” notes that the farming budget in England has hovered around that £2.4 billion figure since 2007, but the input costs are forecast to be 30% higher this year than in 2020. We need to be clear about the essential mission for farming. The aim is a countryside where farms are less dependent on subsidy and scheme windows, and more independent, resilient and sustainable—for people, profit and our planet. That is the thread that ran through the Batters review, and it is also the thread that ran through the Labour Rural Research Group’s report on the rural economy.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

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

How many applications did the Department expect to receive when it opened the window? The farming software platform Soil Benchmark publicly estimated that there would be about 40,000 applications, and it thought that there would be a budget for about 15,000 successful ones. In the event, it was about 12,000. If Soil Benchmark could do that calculation, why did the Department not do so? Or did the Department do that calculation and then open the scheme in the knowledge that approximately two thirds to three quarters of applicants would be disappointed at the end of it?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for his measured intervention, and look forward to being before his Committee later this month. We obviously anticipated that there would be high demand for the scheme this year, which is why we had two windows and increased funding for the overall pot to £310 million—I have already mentioned the window 2 process. DEFRA expected strong initial demand, and made it clear before the window opened that its duration would depend on the rate of applications. Ministers obviously allocated the £50 million, and then the additional £20 million. We are really keen to learn from all in the sector what we can do to improve the scheme going forward, and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s contributions in due course.

English Whisky: Single Malt Definition

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; Scotch whisky is one of the country’s top global exports, and that is not going to change any time soon. We remain committed to backing it and supporting its continued success.

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

I am really struggling to see what the Government are seeking to achieve by removing the requirement for the whole process to be carried out on a single site. It seems to me that they risk confusing the definition for the Scotch, Welsh and Irish industries, and they undermine the investments that have already been made in the conventional model by other English distilleries. Are the Government trying to create a new market for a different product, and if that is what they are doing, should that not be reflected in its name?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his long-standing support for the Scotch whisky industry, including as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I know that he recognises the significant contribution that whisky plays to our national identity and as a global export opportunity. I can assure him that nothing has changed in terms of the protected status reputation or production requirements of Scotch whisky. I am looking forward to meeting him later today, when I will be happy to answer any further questions he may have.

Bluetongue Virus in Livestock

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and also that my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon.

What is happening was predictable because it was predicted. The Government were warned by the National Audit Office in June last year that they were unprepared for outbreaks of this sort. Will the Minister tell us what actions were taken by the Department following that? The priority for the moment must be getting a better vaccine supply and faster testing turnarounds, but then there are questions that need to be answered about the lack of a proper awareness campaign earlier in the midge season, because we will be coming back to this.

Why is better information not available for vets and farmers? I vaccinated my stock last year. I could not even find out this year whether that was going to be sufficient, or whether vaccination would need to be done again. The Minister is right about the protection we get from vaccination. The second most important thing is reliable information.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his contribution. He is absolutely right that this is a serious issue that needs serious consideration. I mentioned that DEFRA has tried and tested approaches to dealing with outbreaks. There are always lessons that we can learn. I will certainly look very closely at what the report tells us and I will listen very closely to what the Select Committee may say on these issues in due course.

On communication, there is always more that we can do. We have had popular webinars and have been putting information on the gov.uk website. There has been information from the APHA as well. I also want to praise the contribution the National Farmers’ Union has made to ensure that farmers are engaged on these issues and are getting the right support at the right time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

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

I welcome the new Minister for farming to his post and welcome his willingness to meet the National Pig Association, and presumably the National Farmers Union Scotland pig sector, too. However, I suggest that the situation needs a bit more urgency than meeting in due course. There is a clear and present crisis for the sector, which is complex and requires action from producers, processors, retailers and regulators. Will he convene a summit of all these different interested parties and come forward with a package for help? Without it, we are going to lose the smaller independent producers.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. I take these issues extremely seriously, and will bring forward the meeting so that I see the organisation as soon as possible.

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

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

I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I welcome the publication of the farming road map. It may not have been rushed, but it is welcome none the less; all we need now is a revised food strategy, and the Secretary of State’s homework will be up to date. Is the implementation of the Batters review still being pursued as a discrete piece of work, or is it being subsumed into the farming road map? In as far as that relates to the operation of the market, why is she not involving farmers’ unions from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State refers to DEFRA as a growth Department. Agriculture accounts for 0.6% of UK GDP at the moment, so if we follow the road map and she gives leadership to the industry, what would she want that figure to be in the future?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for marking my homework, and I look forward to having it marked in even more detail when I appear before his Committee. There is a separate document in which we have published our response thematically to the 57 recommendations of Baroness Batters’ profitability review. We are already working closely with the sector to take forward those recommendations. In December, we accepted a number of her recommendations: first, the Farming and Food Partnership Board; secondly, the sector growth plans; and thirdly, the trade missions. I suspect that I will be able to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions in more detail when I come before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

Obviously, there are real opportunities to be had from the completion of an SPS agreement, but those who import fresh produce, in particular citrus fruit, are concerned that imports from countries outside the European Union will become more difficult and more expensive as a consequence. May I encourage the Secretary of State to engage more vigorously and in greater detail with the Fresh Produce Consortium, which brought these concerns to my desk recently?

[Emma Reynolds]

The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs is more than happy to meet the consortium. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is a big prize here, because we do more trade with our nearest trading market and, as he knows, there have been significant delays at the border, and administrative costs. That means that the export of fresh produce is very difficult; in some sectors, such as shellfish, it becomes almost impossible. We have to keep our eyes on the prize. I understand the point that he makes about produce from non-EU countries. We are engaging on that, and as I say, the Minister is happy to meet the group that he mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

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

Has the Minister had the opportunity to consider the report by the Andersons Centre for CropLife UK? It estimates that if a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union was implemented without a suitable implementation period, it could result in steep drops in UK crop production and a total loss of income of up to £810 million. That is why the Select Committee is today asking for an implementation period of 24 months. Will she impress upon her colleagues in the Cabinet Office the need for that suitable implementation period?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The first thing to say is that the SPS agreement is attempting to put right the Tories’ botched Brexit deal, which made it almost impossible for many people to export to our largest market. The idea is that this should be a new, mutually beneficial agreement to remove barriers, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman supports it. I know that the Select Committee report came out last night, and we will certainly respond to it in more detail. We are aware of the potential downsides if wrong deals are done, but we will not sign a deal that is not in the UK’s interests.