Farming
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and David Mundell(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely do, and my hon. Friend puts it perfectly when she talks about working with farmers. It seems that—this is as true for Governments north of the border as it is for those south of it—so much of what passes for agricultural policy is something that is done to farmers, rather than in partnership with them.
To get to the bright future that I believe farming can have, we have to get past the present. The decision to close the sustainable farming incentive scheme on Tuesday without any notice has provoked predictable and justifiable fury, but doing it with a press release that sought to present it as some sort of triumph added insult to injury. It was almost like a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union, when the Politburo would boast about their advances in meeting their targets in the five-year plan for tractor production. The Government have pulled the rug out from under farmers across England, and that comes on the back of the accelerated removal of the basic payment scheme in the Budget.
I am afraid that the Minister’s defence in the House yesterday around an uncapped budget is not adequate and does not tell the whole story. On 14 January this year, the director general for food, biosecurity and trade told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that they had had almost 11,000 applications to the SFI, with 7,000 contracts offered. She said:
“If that continues at that scale there may come a point where the budget comes under pressure and we have to consider taking action.”
What has been happening in DEFRA since that time? The permanent secretary was open with the Select Committee. She said that future funding hinged on the spending review. How did we get from that point, where officials seemed to be warning us, to the point we got to on Tuesday, when we saw the scheme closed without notice?
The press notice announcing the closure of the SFI specified the budget as £1.05 billion capped. That is the first time I have been able to discover that that figure has been put into the public domain. Without that transparency, how on earth can farmers and their representatives possibly hope to regulate their behaviour, or know when the money will be running down and when they should be getting their applications in?
The frustration is that for some, this situation did not come out of a clear blue sky. It had been rumoured for some time, and it is well known that land agents, consultants and others had been quietly advising clients to get applications in to beat the deadline and the exhaustion of the pot. That is fine if a farm is big enough to employ a land agent or a consultant, but this is a busy time of year for small family farms, upland farmers and others. Those are the people who deserve and need the assistance more than ever, and they are the ones who have again been left behind.
Tom Bradshaw described DEFRA as “a failing Department”. That is strong language from a man not given to hyperbole, but the Minister would do well to take heed. In that evidence session on 14 January, we heard evidence from the permanent secretary, the director general for food, biosecurity and trade and the deputy director of policy, engagement and strategy. The Committee has not formally expressed an opinion, but it is fair to say from the informal discussions that followed that that session left few of us, if any, with the impression that it was an impressive leadership team entirely in command of their brief.
It was clear that the team understood the target and where they wanted to get to, but it was unclear how they would achieve their targets. We saw that with the various false starts and missteps on the road to the environmental land management schemes, although I acknowledge that much of the responsibility for that lies with Ministers from the previous Government. The permanent secretary called it an iterative process, which to my mind just seems to be another way for people to say that it is okay to get things wrong and to make it up as they go along. I am afraid that in the minds and eyes of farmers across the country, Tuesday’s announcement on the SFI simply reinforces that impression.
The future of farming could be bright, but we have to give farmers the confidence to invest and banks the confidence to lend. The Government have to acknowledge the damage that was done to that confidence by the Budget changes, especially in relation to agricultural property relief and business property relief. Anecdotal evidence has been growing for months. We have seen the closure of agricultural merchants and machinery dealers, and we have seen the number of first registrations of tractors fall. This week, we have the publication of the National Farmers Union’s confidence survey.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent contribution to this debate. Do the points that he is making not underline the issue that is faced in my constituency? Given the value of land, it is being bought up by private equity firms and pension funds for use in industrial tree production or solar farms. Land is lost to food production as a result of such developments.
Mr Carmichael
What the right hon. Gentleman refers to is the consequence of an agricultural policy that, despite aiming to do many worthy and worthwhile things, no longer has the concept of food production at its heart. Across this House and the different parties, we need to rebuild a consensus around getting food production back into agriculture. Climate change mitigation, nature restoration and the rest of it are all important parts of the context, but without food production at the heart of it, we will have the unintended consequences that he outlines.
Medicinal Cannabis
Debate between Alistair Carmichael and David Mundell(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing forward this debate on an important issue.
On the number of Members present, the Thursday afternoon slot in Westminster Hall is challenging because Members often have to return to their constituencies. For people outside who have an interest in this matter, it is very important to convey that there are a large number of Members on both sides of the House who are focused and interested in this subject. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group for medical cannabis on or under prescription, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). I contributed—as did the hon. Member for Strangford and the Minister as the then Opposition spokesperson—to the last debate that took place on this in Westminster Hall.
The hon. Member for Strangford, as is often the case, delivered a tour de force on the issues and concerns, with the appropriate level of compassion and empathy for those who are caught up in this issue and affected by it. I do not want to overly dwell on the issues that he set out, because he did that very well.
Medical cannabis is demonstrably a cost-effective way to treat an array of conditions, including childhood epilepsy, to ease the impact of chemotherapy, or to alleviate the stiffness and spasms of multiple sclerosis. There is a strong body of evidence that it could be used for even more conditions, and the hon. Gentleman highlighted the continuing and ongoing need for trials.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman touches on something that piqued my interest in this subject 20 years ago, when my constituent the late Biz Ivol, who was a sufferer from multiple sclerosis, told me that the only relief she got from multiple sclerosis was by her own—shall we say—non-prescribed use of cannabis. She described multiple sclerosis to me as being not just stiffness and spasms, but like somebody was pulling barbed wire down inside her spine. When somebody is feeling that sort of pain and discomfort, surely it is incumbent on us all to find a way, through medicine, to give them some relief if we possibly can.