Sustainable Farming Incentive

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Victoria Atkins

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement, which I am going to pull apart in a moment. I thank you as well, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question that forced the Minister to the Dispatch Box, because the Government sneaked this statement out last night, presumably hoping nobody would notice; but, guess what, the countryside has noticed, because the question we are all asking ourselves is: what have this Government got against farmers and the countryside?

They sneaked out this announcement that they were halting the sustainable farming incentive scheme immediately. The scheme replaced the EU’s common agricultural policy scheme when we left the EU. We set up this scheme with our Brexit freedoms to establish a farming policy that works for farmers, the environment and food production, yet Labour pulled the plug without warning last night.

The SFI scheme is popular with farmers, but the Minister does not have to take my word for it. To quote one:

“The…schemes have the potential to be the most progressive and environmentally responsible schemes of their kind anywhere in the world.”

Those are the words of the former president of the Country Land and Business Association, and father of the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), who I am sure will agree with his father’s analysis. Why, then, would this city-dwelling Government stop such a successful scheme? In the words of the CLA president, Victoria Vyvyan:

“Of all the betrayals so far, this is the most cruel. It actively harms nature. It actively harms the environment. And, with war once again raging in Europe, to actively harm our food production is reckless beyond belief.”

Does the Minister think she is wrong?

The Secretary of State, by the way, is missing in action. This is a significant statement, yet he is sending out his junior Minister to take the heat. Perhaps it is because the Secretary of State did not want me to remind him of his own words in November, when he said that farmers

“feel ignored, alienated and disrespected”.

I do hope the Minister will tell us how that is going.

This Government’s farming policy can be summarised in three sentences. First, they will halt any farming and environmental scheme on which farmers rely without warning or consultation, using criteria they have never before defined. Secondly, the state will seize their farmland at will through the compulsory purchase orders that were announced yesterday in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Thirdly, if families have managed to cling on to their farms despite all that, then Labour will tax them for dying. However, I am delighted to hear that the Minister for farming himself can see that farmers do not make enough money—I hope he will be changing the family farm tax.

It all adds up to nothing less than an outright assault on the countryside. As a proud rural MP—someone who actually likes the countryside—I am already being contacted by constituents and farmers across the United Kingdom who have had the door slammed in their face with no notice, asking how they are meant to diversify, make a living and protect our countryside.

The Prime Minister has said he understood the significance of losing a farm, acknowledging that it “can’t come back”, and warned against “constantly moving the goalposts” for the agricultural sector, yet that is exactly what his Government are doing. The statement issued by the Government last night was a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. It says that the SFI scheme has “reached completion”. What criteria have they used? They have not set those criteria out before. The Government’s own website stated that up to six weeks’ notice would be given for the withdrawal of SFI. Why was that disregarded last night? Does the Minister recognise that, in doing so, this Government have betrayed the trust of the farming community yet again? How many farmers does his Department believe will now be caught out without an SFI agreement during the transition period of at least a year? Just as with the family farm tax, Labour has got its figures wrong.

The CLA has asked me to ask the Minister some questions. What are his Government’s ambitions for the two thirds of farmers in England who are not currently in environmental schemes? How much have the vast cuts to payments under the basic payment scheme saved his Department, and where has that money gone? How will the Secretary of State support upland farmers who were intending to move on to the sustainable farming incentive scheme?

Then, of course, there are the legal problems cause by last night’s announcement. How will the Government meet their legally binding environmental targets, given that they rely so heavily on the SFI scheme? I do hope that the Minister will be able to give us a good, clear legal analysis on the impact of the changes to SFI on internal market competition law between England and other devolved authorities.

Any words that the Minister uses about food security are meaningless in the face of this policy, particularly as we all know that this Government have been delaying consideration and grants of these applications since the general election. The figures that the Minister is using are wrong and the theory behind this policy is very questionable, yet the Government would have us all believe that he understands farming and the impact that this measure will have on farmers. Farmers are in despair.

My message to farmers is clear: we have got your back; we will help you, so please hang on in there for the next four years; we will axe the family farm tax; and we will sort out this shocking mess of SFI, to help build a bright future for British farming with British farmers.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Well, really! I had hoped that the shadow Secretary of State would understand how the schemes that her own Government created actually work. Let me explain the problem that we inherited—there are some on the shadow Front Bench who, I think, understand this better than her. This time last year, these schemes were undersubscribed; they are now oversubscribed. It is not a complicated thing to say that, when the budget is spent, a responsible Government responds to that. The budget is spent. [Interruption.] The budget has been spent and what we are doing in a sensible, serious way—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should actually be celebrating the fact that so many farmers are now taking up these schemes. I am confident that we will be able to sort out the mess that we have inherited. Basically, if you set up schemes without proper budgetary controls, you end up in this kind of position. We have had to take the hard decisions that the previous Government ducked.

Rural Affairs

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Victoria Atkins

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

We have—plenty!

[Victoria Atkins]

You couldn’t make it up, could you? This is what is so worrying. This is why, at the beginning, I talked about a Labour Government who do not understand and do not care, and it is exactly this attitude from the Government Front Bench that farmers and their families are seeing. In answer to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), I say as a former Treasury Minister that if there is evidence of abuse, of course the Treasury and the Chancellor must go after that, but given the way the Government have designed this policy, it is going to go after the hard-working families that look after our farms in our great county.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Victoria Atkins

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

20. What recent steps he has taken to ensure fairness in the application of the tax system.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

It is right that everyone contributes to sustainable public finances, and the Government are ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share. The spring Budget took steps to tackle avoidance and to improve the ability of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect tax debts. That is alongside taking millions out of tax altogether by consistently raising personal tax allowances. An average of more than £3,300 of assistance per household in the UK has been provided for help with the cost of living over this year and last.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Last week, energy companies announced record profits—some £60 million a day from North sea oil and gas. Today, the Daily Mirror reports that last month 2 million people were unable to pay a bill, so why on earth do the Government not close those huge, huge holes in the levy on North sea oil and gas profits, and get that money to the people who need it?

[Victoria Atkins]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is being quite fair, as he neglects to tell the House the rate of levy for those companies. He will understand why we have said to businesses that want to invest to improve energy security in the United Kingdom that we will support such investment. That is in our interests, as we have heard today concerns raised by Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents about the cost of living and the impact particularly of energy prices.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Victoria Atkins

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

3. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that companies publish action plans to reduce their gender pay gaps.

[The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)]

I am delighted that 10,212 employers have now reported their gender pay gap, as of 9 o’clock this morning. That is 95% of eligible employers. Of course, reporting is just the first step, and it is important that employers now take action to close the gender pay gap in their businesses and organisations. Many have already published action plans, and we are working to support employers to take action to close those gaps.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Of course, had the coalition implemented Labour’s ground-breaking 2010 Equality Act fully, we would be much further down the road towards gender pay equality today. It is all very well publishing the data, but when is the Minister going to show some grit and insist that companies produce action plans, so that we can make some real progress?

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Gentleman does the Government a disservice, if I may say so. This is world-leading legislation, and I have always been careful to ensure that we share the credit for it with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who brought the Act into being. We are ambitious about this, but we want to bring business with us. This is about cultural change, and there are really good signs that businesses are now listening to the public’s will that women must be paid fairly and properly.

Data Protection Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Victoria Atkins

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

If I may, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with that precise number, but I know that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is very clear in its guidance that employers must act within the law. The law is very clear that there are to be no direct or indirect forms of discrimination.

The hon. Member for Cambridge raised the GDPR, and talked about looking forwards not backwards. Article 5(1)(a) requires processing of any kind to be fair and transparent. Recital 71 draws a link between ensuring that processing is fair and minimising discriminatory effects. Article 35 of the GDPR requires controllers to undertake data protection impact assessments for all high-risk activities, and article 36 requires a subset of those impact assessments to be sent to the Information Commissioner for consultation prior to the processing taking place. The GDPR also gives data subjects the tools to understand the way in which their data has been processed. Processing must be transparent, details of that processing must be provided to every data subject, whether or not the data was collected directly from them, and data subjects are entitled to a copy of the data held about them.

When automated decision-making is engaged there are yet more safeguards. Controllers must tell the data subject, at the point of collecting the data, whether they intend to make such decisions and, if they do, provide meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences for the data subject of such processing. Once a significant decision has been made, that must be communicated to the data subject, and they must be given the opportunity to object to that decision so that it is re-taken by a human being.

We would say that the existing equality law and data protection law are remarkably technologically agnostic. Controllers cannot hide behind algorithms, but equally they should not be prevented from making use of them when they can do so in a sensible, fair and productive way.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Going back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend, I suspect that the number of cases will prove to be relatively low. The logic of what the Minister is saying would suggest that there is no algorithmic unfairness going on out there. I do not think that that is the case. What does she think?

[Victoria Atkins]

I would be guided by the view of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which oversees conduct in this area. I have no doubt that the Information Commissioner and the Equality and Human Rights Commission are in regular contact. If they are not, I very much hope that this will ensure that they are.

We are clear in law that there cannot be such discrimination as has been discussed. We believe that the framework of the law is there, and that the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, with their respective responsibilities, can help, advise and cajole, and, at times, enforce the law accordingly. I suspect that we will have some interesting times ahead of us with the release of the gender pay gap information. I will do a plug now, and say that any company employing more than 250 employees should abide by the law by 4 April. I look forward to reviewing the evidence from that exercise next month.

We are concerned that new clauses 7 and 8 are already dealt with in law, and that new clauses 9 to 11 would create an entirely new regulatory structure just for computer-assisted decision-making in the workplace, layered on top of the existing requirements of both employment and data protection law. We want the message to be clear to employers that there is no distinction between the types of decision-making. They are responsible for it, whether a human being was involved or not, and they must ensure that their decisions comply with the law.

Having explained our belief that the existing law meets the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, I hope he will withdraw the new clause.

Data Protection Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Victoria Atkins

Thursday 15th March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

I am very happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about that. The exemption does not cover all processing of personal data by the Ministry of Defence, but I am happy to write to him on that subject.

It may assist the Committee if I give a few examples of processing activities that might be considered to fall into the definition of defence purposes requiring the protection of the exemption. Such processing could include the collation of personal data to assist in assessing the capability and effectiveness of armed forces personnel, including the performance of troops; the collection and storage of information, including biometric data necessary to maintain the security of defence sites, supplies and services; and the sharing of data with coalition partners to support them in maintaining their security capability and the effectiveness of their armed forces. That is not an exhaustive list. The application of the exemption should be considered only in specific cases where the fulfilment of a specific data protection right or obligation is found to put at risk the security capability or effectiveness of UK defence activities.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley asked for a definition of national security. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to define national security in statute. Threats to national security are constantly evolving and difficult to predict, and it is vital that legislation does not constrain the security and intelligence agencies’ ability to protect the UK from new and emerging threats. For example, only a few years ago it would have been very difficult to predict the nature or scale of the threat to our national security from cyber-attacks.

Clause 26 does not provide for a blanket exemption. It can be applied only when it is required to safeguard national security or for defence purposes.

[Daniel Zeichner]

What weight does the Minister give to the written evidence that the Committee received from the Information Commissioner’s Office? It is obviously expert on this issue, and it addresses some of the points she made. It concludes that there is no threshold for when “defence purposes” are to be used, and that there is no guidance

“for when it is appropriate to rely on the exemption.”

What weight does the Minister give to that, and what is her response to the concern raised by the Information Commissioner’s Office?

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, surely it is for the Executive—elected officials—to take responsibility for decisions that are made by data controllers in the Ministry of Defence. Obviously, the Department has considered the Information Commissioner’s representations, but this is not a blanket exemption. The high threshold can be met only in very specific circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

National security: certificate

Data Protection Bill [ Lords ] (Morning sitting)

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Victoria Atkins

Thursday 15th March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

I am very happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about that. The exemption does not cover all processing of personal data by the Ministry of Defence, but I am happy to write to him on that subject.

It may assist the Committee if I give a few examples of processing activities that might be considered to fall into the definition of defence purposes requiring the protection of the exemption. Such processing could include the collation of personal data to assist in assessing the capability and effectiveness of armed forces personnel, including the performance of troops; the collection and storage of information, including biometric data necessary to maintain the security of defence sites, supplies and services; and the sharing of data with coalition partners to support them in maintaining their security capability and the effectiveness of their armed forces. That is not an exhaustive list. The application of the exemption should be considered only in specific cases where the fulfilment of a specific data protection right or obligation is found to put at risk the security capability or effectiveness of UK defence activities.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley asked for a definition of national security. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to define national security in statute. Threats to national security are constantly evolving and difficult to predict, and it is vital that legislation does not constrain the security and intelligence agencies’ ability to protect the UK from new and emerging threats. For example, only a few years ago it would have been very difficult to predict the nature or scale of the threat to our national security from cyber-attacks.

Clause 26 does not provide for a blanket exemption. It can be applied only when it is required to safeguard national security or for defence purposes.

[Daniel Zeichner]

What weight does the Minister give to the written evidence that the Committee received from the Information Commissioner’s Office? It is obviously expert on this issue, and it addresses some of the points she made. It concludes that there is no threshold for when “defence purposes” are to be used, and that there is no guidance

“for when it is appropriate to rely on the exemption.”

What weight does the Minister give to that, and what is her response to the concern raised by the Information Commissioner’s Office?

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, surely it is for the Executive—elected officials—to take responsibility for decisions that are made by data controllers in the Ministry of Defence. Obviously, the Department has considered the Information Commissioner’s representations, but this is not a blanket exemption. The high threshold can be met only in very specific circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

National security: certificate