Farming: Financial Sustainability

David Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the financial sustainability of the farming sector.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. In a shameless effort to garner sympathy, I thank you for allowing me to sit down if I need to; I have a bad back today. Members can feel free to be sympathetic in their interventions.

It is a great pleasure to be here for this debate on the financial sustainability of the farming sector. The best beef in the world is reared in my constituency of North Northumberland. There may be some competition there, but let me assure the Chamber that that is true. However, farmers are not taking home the best cuts in terms of profitability. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission—the FFCC—found that in 2023-24, an average cereals farm in England took in a quarter of a million pounds from selling crops such as wheat and barley, but after costs, it made a loss. For profit, it relied on subsidies, diversification and environmental schemes. Those are all good things, but they come with an underlying challenge.

As the party of labour, we should be alarmed when any worker receives a poor return for their work. I know that alarm is shared by my colleagues in the Labour rural research group, many of whom are present, and by the Minister, whom I welcome to his new role and to this debate. In her profitability review, Minette Batters was very clear that

“there is no silver bullet to achieve farming profitability.”

Today, by genuinely happy coincidence, the Government have published their 25-year farming road map, with a focus on profitability, productivity, sustainability and resilience. I look forward to digesting the road map, which I have with me, and I trust that many of the points raised in the debate will chime with its contents. I hope that the Batters review, the farming road map and the LRRG’s upcoming report on farming profitability can help the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Government to tackle the wide range of reasons why farming often does not pay.

I want to focus on three elements: protecting our farms from the global markets as part of a drive for food security, regulating the marketplace so that produce receives a fair price, and cutting costs and boosting innovation so that farmers have more at the end of their work. On food security, one farmer recently told me that

“covid and the current conflict in the Gulf have shown that globalised supply chains do not have the resilience of a strong indigenous industry.”

He is right, and I am glad that the Government share that view in the road map, but our industry is not strong enough. Our farmers earn a lower share of food chain gross value added than farmers in Germany, France or the Netherlands. Just 9% of farms produce 62% of our food, and high production costs mean that high-quality British produce struggles to compete with the international market on price.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that there are lots of people who want to speak. Interventions really do need to be short.

[David Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will see this in the road map and in the Government’s approach. There needs to be the right balance between environmental approach, renewables and food production. I agree that the decision about where solar farms go is key.

We need to help British farming to develop greater financial resilience and shield it from external pressures. That starts with ensuring that imported food products meet the same high standards as home-grown produce. I ask the Minister to offer some thoughts on what guarantees he can make so that alignment with the EU and other trade deals will maintain a level playing field on quality. That subject was not heavily touched on in the road map.

Stability is also vital for our farms. Although agri-environmental schemes should not be the difference between the black and the red, they have a role to play in farm budgets. They can cover a bad year or provide extra on top, but take-up, delivery and financial sustainability demand stability. The withdrawal of the sustainable farming incentive last year dented farming confidence; I encourage the Minister to pay very close attention to roll-out of that, which we expect imminently.

Devolved economies have a role to play in developing food security, too. Farming should be part of a tightly bound regional ecosystem in which regional investment banks, devolved funding pots and local authorities work together to match up funding, skills and procurement pathways. In our manifesto, we promised that half of all food purchased across the public sector would be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards—a great ambition. Will the Minister update us on the progress towards that, and on what work he is undertaking to create a public record of how much of public institutions’ food is sourced from the UK? We can create a virtuous circle in that way.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The hon. Member is right to say that we need to produce more food in this country but, at the moment, farmers are telling me that they are not putting crops in the ground because they cannot afford the fertiliser to sustain them because of the situation in the Gulf. What does the hon. Member think the Government should do to support farmers right now?

[David Smith]

If the right hon. Member bears with me, I will get to exactly that point.

The second area of concern is the marketplace. The FFCC reports that farming productivity increased by 60% from the ’70s to the 2020s, but that farming incomes have not increased in line with that. The size of and competition between supermarkets have forced farmers to accept bargain basement farm-gate prices at times, and the middle men have consolidated too. The National Farmers’ Union reports that, in the ’70s, there were 2,500 abattoirs across the UK; there are now just 200. The reality for the fragmented farming sector has been bleak: its increased productivity still ends in lower prices.

One of the best responses to this high-cost, low-price trap is to create a new labelling and welfare system based on the Made in Australia approach, which the LRRG has advocated for. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) for his work on that. Every food product in supermarkets, wholesalers and catering should clearly tell consumers how much of it was made in the UK, ideally in which region and to what welfare standard. Indeed, regional identity systems should be supported and verified. Instead of superb Northumberland beef being thrown into the same mincer as low-cost, low-welfare imports, packaging can help consumers choose between different quality products at different price points and different welfare standards. The farmers who invest more in their produce can then negotiate for more at the farm gate.

The Government have to develop tighter rules on what can and cannot be claimed as “farmer-supported”, “grown in Britain” or other heartwarming slogans that do not reward the hard graft of British farmers. I welcome the fact that the Groceries Code Adjudicator has already been taken into DEFRA following the Batters review.

We should help farmers consider how to develop better collective bargaining power. My understanding is that the Agriculture Act 2020 provides a framework for producer organisations to form co-operatives. We should give that our full support. At the end of the day, we the Labour party are a party of mutuals and co-operatives.

The third and final string of the bow is innovation. There have been some major steps in this direction under Labour. I am really pleased that the road map is so committed to innovation, and that £123 million has been committed to investing in innovation this year alone. The NFU has urged the Government to implement the national policy planning framework as soon as possible, which would really help.

We need to look at how we can cut inputs and free up capital for farmers to reinvest in their farms. Energy prices are too high. The recent red diesel fuel duty cut was an incredibly welcome step and has been well received by my farmers. I am now interested to see what options are open to help farmers install renewable energy supplies on their estates via GB Energy. I support the NFU’s ask of the Government to help farmers cut electricity prices by opening a standard industrial classification subdivision for energy intensive farming.

Fertiliser prices are too high. There is massive unease about the incoming carbon border adjustment mechanism regime and its effect on fertiliser prices, which is already one of the biggest costs for farmers. We can transform the fertiliser conversation altogether by restarting ammonia production in this country. Sadly, the last plant to produce virgin fertiliser in this country was allowed to wind down by the previous Government in 2023. I know that the Minister for Industry has been working hard in this area already, and I hope that the shadow farming Minister can look at this.

All that strategic support would cut input costs, thus freeing up capital for farmers to use on developing new technologies that help them produce more for less. The Government’s farming innovation fund will have £200 million up to 2030. That is an excellent example of state-backed innovation. Farmers in North Northumberland are already experimenting with using soil and sampling and targeted purchases to cut their fertiliser bills. The Government need to find those farmers and invest in their work.

A local farmer told me recently:

“As a farming family we often accept that we are privileged to work in the profession that we do…but it is often somewhat demoralising (and distracting) to consider what little relative financial reward we receive for the work we do.”

Other industries grow and shrink as conditions change, but we will always need food, and we will always need much of our food to be grown here in the UK. The issue is that what we pay for food today is also what we are paying for our food tomorrow. While farmers remain stuck at the wrong end of the low-price, high-cost cycle, our national food security is also at risk.

It is the role of Labour, not a laissez-faire Conservative party or a rootless Reform UK party, to dignify the work of farmers by ensuring that they receive proper reward for what they do. All workers should be supported by the Labour party, whether they are blue, white or green-collar workers. By developing more resilient British farming as part of our national security, regulating the marketplace so that quality produce gets a fair price, and opening up opportunities for farmers to innovate and increase their margins, we can make sure that farming is sustainable for years to come, and we can keep North Northumberland beef on the menu.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in this debate. Given the number of Members wanting to take part, I have to impose a formal time limit of one minute and 30 seconds—90 seconds. I call Olly Glover.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive speech, and especially for touching on the issue of fertiliser. That issue is significant for all hon. Members here, and we will follow up on it.

The discussion has, for the most part, been cross party. If the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), would like to see the level of conversation and the in-depth relationships that Labour MPs have with our farmers, I encourage him to go on social media to look at all our different listening exercises. He should also look at just how many—there are more than 100—rural Labour MPs sit in this House.

I could say many things, as some fantastic points were raised, but I finish with the idea of identity in our countryside and way of life. We need to secure that, and we will not do so unless we make farming financially sustainable.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Smith Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I do not know which one to answer! I reassure the shadow Minister that the Government are absolutely committed to maintaining high animal welfare standards, and we made it clear to the United States when we were doing the deal with them that we will not tolerate hormone-treated beef and certain other products.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to help protect communities vulnerable to flooding.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

On Tuesday, I was delighted to announce the biggest ever flood programme; we are investing £1.4 billion across 2026-27 in over 600 flood schemes across all regions of England. The Government are investing at least £10.5 billion to 2036 in building new flood schemes and strengthening existing defences, and that record funding will protect 900,000 properties over the next decade.

[David Smith]

I warmly welcome the funding just announced, including for areas in my constituency—Budle bay, Belford and areas along the Coquet river. The national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk assessment says that one in four homes are projected to be at risk of flooding by 2050. Will the Minister give us further assurances about what the Government will do on an ongoing basis to address those concerns?

[Emma Hardy]

I know how much my hon. Friend cares about this issue. As well as announcing the biggest ever major flood investment, we are also changing the flood and coastal erosion funding policy. As part of those changes, at least 20% of future investment will be set aside to help the most deprived communities. The reforms will make it quicker and easier to deliver flood defences, and ensure that deprived communities continue to receive vital investment. We are also investing at least £300 million in natural flood management over the next 10 years.

Public Services: Rural Areas

David Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Colleagues across the House will be delighted to know that, as we have rattled through the business today, we get to have a four-hour debate, so I welcome interventions, and will welcome anybody else making a speech.

It is genuinely a delight to lead my first Adjournment debate, especially one focusing on access to public services in rural areas. I am proud to be a rural Labour MP, so it is especially good to talk on this subject. I have given my debate the subtitle, “The Case for the Countryside”; Members can feel free to bear that in mind when making an intervention.

The key point in this debate is that we as a country need to value the people, the landscapes, and the produce of our countryside a great deal more. For too long, successive Governments have not recognised the crucial role of rural communities to our national flourishing. Up to 10 million people across the country live in rural areas like North Northumberland, and our natural landscapes and quiet places form a deep and enduring part of Britain’s imagination. Rural areas often possess enduring community, but they also risk becoming museums, full of interesting artefacts for visitors, but lifeless and neglected underneath. That is something, I am sure, that none of us in this Chamber wants. It is vital that rural communities are vibrant and full of life.

In this speech, I will outline the domino effect, by which a range of below-average rural public services, especially poor public transport, underperforming education, inaccessible healthcare and low connectivity, interact and overlap to drag rural areas down, including North Northumberland. I will also remind this place that rural Britain is a deep and integral part of our nation. As the frantic pace of life in our big cities has increased, so has our ability to extract, consume and bottle the virtues of rurality, while rural regions struggle at times to see the benefit in return. Every time we eat a meal, switch the lights on, turn the radiator up or take a trip to the countryside, we are benefiting from rural areas doing the hard work of producing and delivering, often out of view.

I have to ask whether our increasingly urban nation is committed to the flourishing of our rural areas in return, because the quality of our public services sometimes suggests that it is not. According to the Rural Services Network, those in predominantly rural areas pay 20% more council tax than those in predominantly urban areas, yet in urban areas, Government-funded spending power is 41% higher. I am not trying to set up some kind of dichotomy or competition between rural and urban areas; we simply have to acknowledge that sometimes our rural areas miss out when it comes to public services.

That spending gap impacts the practical delivery of services. In the northern part of my constituency, the nearest accident and emergency department is an hour and a half away. Many children heading out of the constituency for secondary school spend two hours a day travelling to and from school. The village of Pegswood, of 3,000 people, has a doctor for just half a day a week. I wonder how rural Britain can nurture our nation’s traditions, history and community, as well as produce the goods so desperately needed by urban areas, when its basic public services can fall below the basic standard.

Any conversation about rural public services begins and ends with transport. Rural authorities spend 4.6 times less per head on bus services compared to urban authorities, yet those living in small rural settlements travel a third greater distance than their urban counterparts.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important topic to the House. As an MP whose constituency also covers part of Northumberland, I know all too well the impact on public services in recent years. A mum in New Hartley recently shared with me how the unreliability and inconsistency of the local bus service means that her son is often late for school. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for children to miss out on their education as a consequence of poor public services in rural areas?

[David Smith]

I could not agree more. I will come on to talk about bus services, but the situation is especially challenging in counties such as Northumberland. I certainly find that there are students in my constituency who struggle to get to school.

Getting around areas such as North Northumberland without a car is extremely difficult, and North Northumberland residents are right to be sceptical of local bus services, considering that Arriva, which runs the primary bus service in my area, is owned by an American equity investment fund based in Miami. Members can make of that what they will. From 2017 to 2022, the distance travelled by bus services in Northumberland fell by over a third—the highest reduction of any authority in the north-east. The confused status of cross-border buses makes a bad situation worse, with many people around Berwick crossing the Scottish-English border multiple times a week, and having to own multiple bus passes or buy new tickets to change services. Also, the elderly cannot use their free bus pass on both sides of the border.

Recently, I was made aware of a constituent’s teenage daughter who undertook an apprenticeship across the border in July. Emma—not her real name—lives in Berwick and was catching a bus to and from work; however, just a few weeks later, Borders Buses removed the morning bus. This young woman is now relying on taxis to get her to her apprenticeship in the morning. This is costing her family, who are not in a position to afford it, £150 a week. She endured a difficult time at school, but was thriving in her apprenticeship, yet that is now at risk.

What we need in rural areas is a publicly controlled bus system run for public service, not private profit, with an emphasis on accessibility, affordability and simplicity. As luck would have it, that is exactly what the Government are aiming for and what Kim McGuinness, the Labour metro Mayor for the North East, is seeking to introduce. She has capped bus fares at £2.50 for over-18s and started the process of bringing bus routes back into public control, and she wants to invest in an integrated public transport system that gets people where they need to go. No one expects rural Britain to have the same level of public transport as central London, but a reliable network would boost confidence, improve work and school opportunities, and boost struggling communities.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

This is the second useful contribution the hon. Member has made to our affairs this afternoon. I have two points that he might want to take on board in the considerations he is offering us.

First, public funding formulas should be sensitive to the particularities of rural areas such as Lincolnshire and his constituency, and at the moment they are not. The local government funding formula and the police funding formula, for example, are skewed towards urban areas.

Secondly, and pertinent to the hon. Gentleman’s point about transport, we need to re-dignify small towns and rural places by ensuring that the footprint of government in those places is felt. Over my time as a Member of Parliament, we have closed magistrates courts and removed tax offices. Driving test centres have been centralised, and cottage hospitals have reduced in number. When the dignity is taken out of rural places, it obliges people to travel much further to access what they need and it changes the character of those communities.

[David Smith]

Absolutely. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), is looking at the formula for how grants are made to local authorities in rural areas. Fundamentally, there should not be a penalty to living in the countryside or in a rural area. It is not an indulgence; it is vital to the future of our country, so we need public services in rural areas.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his comments. We know that it costs more to deliver services in rural areas, yet rural councils are set to receive 41% less central Government funding than urban councils in the local government finance settlement that is coming up. Does the hon. Member agree that the settlement formula should consider rural deprivation alongside clustered deprivation to ensure that rural areas receive the services they deserve?

[David Smith]

People would expect me as a Member of Parliament for a rural area to say it is absolutely essential that we consider the peculiar circumstances, geography, logistics, the long-term challenges and the rural deprivation, which really does exist, when considering grants to local authorities in rural areas.

I will move on to education, which is another of the four areas I want to discuss. Assuming that children can get to school, having just talked about transport, we need to ensure that they can go to a good school that sets up their future and energises the local community, but when the school provision in rural areas suffers, so does the whole town or village, because there is no business or transport link more significant than the nearby secondary school.

The town of Berwick is extremely reliant on its one secondary school for the nurturing of the necessary skills and qualifications for the town’s economy, so when the school struggles, the town struggles. A report from 2017—I think it still stands—noted:

“Berwick is one of Northumberland’s most deprived towns. It has a vulnerable economy characterised by poor quality job opportunities, part time working, low wages and very limited education facilities.”

Berwick does not just need a better school; it needs a school that can generate a revival in a beautiful but isolated town that has no A&E, no major employer and minimal further education. Right now, Berwick deserves, and has the opportunity to build, a new world-class educational campus on the secondary school site that combines learning with further education, vocational study, special educational needs provision, local enterprise and primary healthcare. That makes the slow progress of Conservative Northumberland county council’s plan to rebuild Berwick Academy frustrating for parents, students and the whole community.

The further education point is important. North Northumberland students keep pace with their national peers up to GCSE level, but at A-level and higher education level they begin to struggle, because further education opportunities are few and difficult to access. One constituent in Berwick told me about their son who wants to be on a sports course in Newcastle that would set him up to go to university. The council is able to provide basic transport, but only to a course in the closer town of Ashington, which would not provide him with qualifications for university. Instead, his family are paying £15 a day for his transport to the educational opportunities that he needs—an unsustainable amount for basic provision.

[Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the record settlement given to Scotland by this Government should be spent by the Scottish Government on vital infrastructure such as schools and transport for constituencies such as mine, which feel sadly neglected after 18 years of SNP Government? No SNP Members are here for this debate, unfortunately.

[David Smith]

I do not know whether I should declare an interest as a Scotsman who is the Member of Parliament for an English constituency—and proud to be so. I have seen that with my own eyes, and I agree that the record settlement that the UK Government have given the SNP Government in Edinburgh should be used well to provide for the whole of Scotland, but especially rural areas.

I will stick with education but look a little more at special educational needs. There are 588 children on an education, health and care plan in North Northumberland. Many of those with more severe special educational needs face a 100-mile round trip to access adequate education. There are not enough specialist schools nearby, or enough specialist places at mainstream schools, to support their learning. That is why I welcome the Government’s £1 billion increase in special educational needs funding—that is excellent—and I look forward to ensuring that rural areas receive their fair share of it. Rural areas get held back by a lack of educational opportunities. They need help from a broad coalition of local residents, businesses, council and Government to develop outstanding solutions that can become engines for opportunity.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech. I can tell him that people in the west of Northumberland share his frustration about the neglect and the contempt in which they seem to be held by the Conservative administration at county hall. I am delighted that he has picked up on the point about provision of SEN transport. Constituents visiting our surgeries are devastated by the challenges they face in getting their children into an appropriate educational environment. Does he agree that we must judge local government on the provision of those opportunities, and that residents of Northumberland will ultimately judge the Conservatives on that come the local elections?

[David Smith]

Yes, I wholeheartedly associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. Last Friday, I was in the village of Chatton, which is near the border between our two constituencies, to speak to a group focused on autism and special educational needs. There was palpable frustration in that room among 30 parents and carers who are simply unable to get the support they need from the county council, despite the additional funding. I believe that he and I can work on that together.

Let me move on to my third and fourth points, which relate to healthcare. Until schools improve, and until transport becomes more reliable, healthcare professionals will not move to rural areas. For Berwick to have an accident and emergency department, and for North Northumberland to have genuinely local primary care, we must incentivise doctors and nurses to move, with their families, into our neighbourhoods. Until they do, rural healthcare will continue to suffer.

Some 25% of rural residents are aged 65 or over, and in North Northumberland the average age is 54, but rural councils receive 14% less grant funding for social care services and 58% less for public health. Dental care provision is also extremely sparse. It is estimated that a 1,500 sq km region of North Northumberland has no NHS dentist. Imagine someone living alone in Wooler or Rothbury—miles from the nearest NHS dentist—whose tooth starts to twinge.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

On healthcare provision in rural areas, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a desperate need to review GPs’ core contracts, so that we better incentivise GPs to set up in rural areas? Would he also agree that, in areas where the ongoing need for a GP surgery is clear, integrated care boards have a role in managing that estate so it can be secure over a long period?

[David Smith]

Yes, we need to do everything in our power to encourage healthcare professionals, including GPs, to move into rural areas, where they can have a fantastic quality of life. I think there is a role for ICBs. I am pleased to see that, in my part of the world, 25% of GP surgeries in the Northumbria healthcare NHS foundation trust are working directly as a part of the trust. We should look at any option that can draw additional healthcare resource, especially people, into rural areas.

We need to rethink how we do rural care and primary care. In Orkney, for instance, I am reliably told that doctors practise in rotating shifts—one week on, eight weeks off—and pursue other work. It is certainly an unusual solution, but to provide rural residents with quality care, we may need to think and work creatively together. I welcome the Government’s work and funding to incentivise GPs to see more patients, as well as more of the same patients, and the promise to introduce 700,000 more urgent dental appointments.

That leads me to the last of the four points I would like to make.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous in giving way, and I thank him for giving me a second bite of the cherry—I know he is moving on to his exciting peroration. GPs seem less and less keen to meet people face to face and still less keen to visit them in their homes, as they once did routinely, by the way, in my lifetime. Would he agree that, rather than their distribution, the centralisation of services, which seems to have been the order of the day under successive Governments on the grounds of rationalisation, is particularly bad for rural areas and for least advantaged people?

[David Smith]

I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It may be utopian to imagine the family doctor doing home visits, but we should always aim for the ideal. As I have said, there are particular challenges in attracting and retaining GPs in rural areas.

The last point I want to make is about digital connectivity. Any discussion of rural areas must also include the ultra-rural. It can be hard to believe, but thousands of homes across this country do not receive mobile coverage, gas from the mains or even electricity. If we split the country into urban and rural, there is this other category of the ultra-rural, and many of these ultra-rural areas are in North Northumberland. I am thinking of settlements such as Elsdon and Thropton, tiny villages in the east of my constituency, which are perhaps as isolated as it is possible to be in modern England.

Perhaps 12,000 properties in North Northumberland are not connected to the gas grid, instead relying on a mix of alternative fuels, and a handful of properties do not even receive electricity. This year, residents in the upper Coquet valley are being connected to the electricity grid for the first time, thanks to the Ministry of Defence. Prior to that, two neighbours could not put the kettle simultaneously on without both houses being plunged into blackout. I remain hopeful and excited about the promised potential of Great British Energy for these ultra-rural communities. I look forward to finding out in more detail about hyper-local and hyper-rural communities can benefit from the renewables that will come about from Great British Energy.

On top of this, BT estimates that 1,000 premises in North Northumberland will not benefit from commercial investment in gigabit-capable broadband coverage, because they are simply too hard to reach. It is a similar story when it comes to mobile networks. I can hear my constituents groaning as they listen to this, because mobile signal comes and goes as we drive up and down the constituency. Ultra-rural settlements cannot take advantage of the digital age because they can barely get online. I am thankful for the Government’s commitment to the shared rural network and to developing ways of supporting Project Gigabit so that ultra-rural communities benefit from these upgrades, otherwise we risk turning into two divided nations.

I could go on, and I am sure hon. Members would be delighted if I did—

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Go on!

[David Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend. However, I hope a few points have become clear from my remarks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, both as the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief and because I understand it is his first Adjournment debate. I wish him well—he is using his time well. He has lots of time; he can go to 7 o’clock if Madam Deputy Speaker does not take exception.

One issue in my community and countryside, and the constituency I live in, is mental health—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the chance to mention that. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), who is sitting in front of me, always speaks about farmers living alone, independence, and the pressures of life, and never more in all my life do I remember those pressures being this intense. Does the hon. Gentleman have similar problems in his constituency to those I have in mine?

[David Smith]

Yes, sadly my constituency absolutely has those same challenges with mental ill health in the farming community but also in the rural community, which often comes about from isolation. People living generation after generation in rural communities are proud and resourceful. Sometimes they perhaps do not reach out for help, but I would encourage them to do that—it is always a good thing for someone to reach out for help if they are struggling, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech. He and I sit at opposite ends of our region, but rural communities across the region share similar challenges. He has spoken about mental health, and I wonder if he would comment on the problem of addiction and substance abuse in our rural communities. That is a real issue in communities in my constituency, but there are some positive community-led initiatives that local councillors have been involved in, in particular Brotton, which has a peer-led scheme called Recovery Connections in the local village hall. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending that work, and does he agree that it is important to tackle the issue of substance abuse in rural communities?

[David Smith]

I am so pleased that my hon. Friend made that intervention. I declare an interest because, before I became a Member, I was chief executive of a homelessness charity, and I was delighted to work with Recovery Connections, which is a great organisation doing great work. We have talked about mental health challenges in rural areas, but we also have challenges with drugs and addiction, which is not the preserve of urban areas. We have our own challenges, and we need support as a result of that.

Rural areas provide so much for the flourishing of the nation as a whole, but they are not receiving enough in return, especially in terms of public services, which is the subject of this debate. Public services overlap and create a network effect to either energise or hinder the flourishing of rural areas. Bad public transport means less educational access, which dampens the desire of healthcare professionals to move in and treat our sick. That issue is not easily fixed or accounted for with a simple spending algorithm, but we need to address it.

Raising the quality of public services in our rural areas will require a combined approach across Government. The Country Land and Business Association may have a point when it says that Ministers and officials across Departments assume that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has sole responsibility for the rural economy—I am pleased to see the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs in his place—but DEFRA does not have the economic levers at its disposal to unlock the potential of the countryside by itself. DEFRA has an important role, but it cannot do that itself. That power lies in other Departments and, increasingly, local authorities. We need a cross-Government approach to rural public services, and I appreciate the Minister being here today.

Rural areas are not simply urban areas with fewer houses. They cannot be approached and handled with the same calculations as in our cities because they are serving our country in different ways, whether preserving land, investing in local communities, producing our food, reminding us of our past, generating our energy, or offering a vision of the good life. To do all that, rural residents need to know that their children can hop on the bus to a good local school that sets them up for the future, that they can access primary and urgent healthcare when they need it, that they can phone family and friends without fear of a power cut, or hop in an electric car, charged by the mains, to visit them. They need to know that their nation values them and their way of living, and is determined to see them thrive. I am encouraged by all the Government are doing and have done to serve rural areas, and I encourage them, and all Members of the House, to ensure that rural Britain plays as key a role in establishing our future as it has our past.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Smith Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the scandalous situation that the previous Government left our waterways in, with record levels of pollution and raw sewage filthying our rivers, lakes and seas. I have appointed Sir Jon Cunliffe to lead a commission to review governance and regulation so that we can stop it ever happening again.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I welcome the landmark £5 billion agriculture budget announced in the Budget, which is the biggest-ever budget for sustainable farming. My farmers in North Northumberland desperately need that money. In that context, what more can the Secretary of State do to push for his Department to get that money out the door in a way that the previous Government did not?

Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities

David Smith Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Aphra Brandreth]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The sector faces a wide range of challenges, and of course, the decisions that the Government are making will contribute in part to some of those challenges. Some are outside the control of all of us, the weather being one example.

I represent Chester South and Eddisbury, a constituency with a large rural area. Because of the nature of Cheshire’s ground and topography, dairy is the predominant mode of farming locally. That brings additional challenges through the risks of animal disease outbreaks, and their financial and emotional consequences.

I would like to take a moment to share some of the very real stories that demonstrate why I have asked for today’s debate, because behind every statistic is a personal story. There are families, loved ones, friends and communities who are deeply affected. Those of us who represent rural and agricultural communities know that the suicide rate among farmers is tragically high. Sadly, even in the short time that I have had the privilege of representing Chester South and Eddisbury, I have had examples in my constituency that have caused a great deal of pain to the families and the surrounding area. When something like this happens, it rocks a tight-knit community to its core, and the impact is felt by many.

Only last week, I heard of a tragic incident where a daughter found her father after he had taken his own life in one of the barns on their family farm. In a tribute, the daughter wrote of how her father worked so incredibly hard, and how proud he was to have increased the acreage and yield of the family farm during his stewardship. He was immensely proud of the operation he had built. His daughter summed up the vocation of farming in her online tribute:

“Farmers work harder and longer than most other trades and earn significantly less. We love what we do, or we wouldn’t do it. We feed the nation to the best of our abilities”.

I cannot begin to imagine what the families of those two farmers are going through, but as I said earlier, such cases are too common. Members from right across the House will have heard other stories like these in their own constituencies.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for securing this important debate. On the vital issue of the tragedy of suicides among the farming community, I have met several farmers in my constituency who have felt that pressure—the common theme is that everybody knows somebody who has felt that pressure at some point, or sadly has even taken their own life. Does the hon. Lady agree that right across the House, we should agree to support farmers in whatever way we can?

[Aphra Brandreth]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s comments, and I am sorry to hear about the tragic instances in his constituency. We very much need to be collaborative to improve things for the farming community.

Sheep Farming

David Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to make a contribution. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) for securing the debate and for his knowledgeable, thoughtful and heartfelt speech. There have been some great contributions from other hon. Members. I note that we have heard from the Members representing the largest constituency in England, the second largest—and now the third largest.

As in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, farming plays a vital role in the community life, the economy, and the past and the future of North Northumberland. The very landscape that we view as quintessentially British has been shaped by farming—especially sheep farming—so it is integral to our vision for Northumberland, North Northumberland and the country as a whole.

We have around 2,000 farm holdings across Northumberland, and we are a proud and productive farming county with great produce and excellent conditions for growing and rearing. I recently met a farmer in my constituency from the Coquet valley, who farms both sheep and cattle, and he said that if he could choose to farm anywhere in the world at the moment, it would be in Northumberland—I could not agree more. Indeed, more broadly, the world record for wheat production by yield is currently held by a farm near Bamburgh in my constituency. The area has great conditions.

The suitability for farming in North Northumberland is true of sheep farming in particular. The climate and topography lend themselves well to sheep farming, especially hill farming, which we have heard about already. DEFRA estimates that there are approximately 457,000 sheep and lambs being raised in my constituency of North Northumberland. That is 3% of the national total.

We have touched on trade. The UK is the world’s sixth largest lamb producer, and third largest exporter. Brexit and some recent trade deals by the last Government have brought new challenges, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), but the export of sheep and lambs must be part of the sector’s future. This world-class produce—by quantity and quality—is immense in North Northumberland and around the country.

We have also said that food security is national security. In the world in which we live, the United Kingdom must be as self-sufficient as possible when it comes to the staples of life, so we must produce as much of our food chain in Britain as possible. That would be good not just for our food security and health, but for our efforts to tackle climate change. In fact, sheep farming in particular has a strong cyclical benefit with regard to recycling carbon emissions.

The question is: how do we ensure that farming, and sheep farming in particular, flourishes into the future? I will suggest a few points that I have heard when speaking to farmers, especially tenant farmers in the Cheviot hills, the Coquet valley and all around North Northumberland. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject in any way, but I have tried to listen to my constituents and to present their points here.

The first point is that we need to encourage younger people—the farmers of the future—into sheep farming. That came across loud and clear from the farmers I have spoken to in my constituency. A common theme is the fear that the intergenerational link is being lost, and it is harder than ever to see where the next generation of farmers, especially sheep farmers, is coming from. There are many reasons for that, including the difficulty of the work for relatively modest financial gain, as we have discussed; the growing distance for many in our society from the land and knowledge of the land; and the lack of broad agricultural education, whether that be in mainstream education or even in some sector-specific agricultural colleges. Finally, many young farmers face difficulties in securing a tenancy—access to land is a real issue. What more can we and the Government do within our education system to give young people a taste of the land and farming and to draw them into that connection with the land?

Secondly, sheep farming is a good entry point into the broader world of farming, given its relatively low initial capital costs, but access to land and the affordability of tenancies is a key barrier. Will the Government to consider how the sustainable farming incentive can be used to sustain farming itself? Is there a way in which the SFI or other Government funding could be used as long-term loan finance, for example, to enable more entry-level farmers to get into sheep farming with a portion of the risk shared? Could landowners be given tax incentives to incentivise them to let land at more affordable rates? We need to think about how we can increase access to land in what we might call starter farms.

My third and penultimate point is that we need to make rapid progress on the overall funding subsidy settlement for British farming. I am regularly told by constituents that the uncertainty around the successor to the common agricultural policy and the basic payment scheme in the next few years—up to 2027 and beyond—is making it difficult for many of our farmers to plan in the medium to long term, and that is particularly true for sheep farming. For the Government to bring clarity to the future of farming, subsidy is key. Notwithstanding the strained state of public finances, overall I urge the Government to commit to at least the current £2.4 billion of funding for farming for the duration of the Parliament.

Fourthly and finally, it is so important to get the calibration in the SFI correct when it comes to the balancing of environmental subsidy and subsidy for food production. I am told that currently the scheme seems to make it much more financially attractive for farmers to take good-quality land out of production—for instance, to rewild or plant forestry, or to prioritise soil and nutrient management. Those are worthy and important aims that I support; however, we need to ensure that we choose the correct land for those purposes so that we can maintain adequate food production. A land use framework cannot come soon enough. I truly believe that there are Venn diagrams where all these worthy enterprises can come together; it is not necessarily a zero-sum gain.

However we proceed on all these issues, I am sure that all Members present agree that sheep farming makes a rich and important contribution to British farming and society, and we must do all we can to secure a flourishing future for it.