Oral Answers to Questions
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The land use framework will help deliver faster, clearer and more co-ordinated decisions on housing and infrastructure, ensuring that our most productive farmland is safeguarded. As part of the implementation of that framework, we will complete a technical review of the agricultural land classification system by 2028.
Support for Farmers
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for his speech. Farming is not simply another industry. Farmers produce the food that sustains us, manage much of our countryside and underpin a wider food and drink economy. Agriculture alone contributes £14.5 billion to the economy, while the wider food and drink sector contributed £153.2 billion in 2023. That does not just matter to the economy; maintaining domestic food production to at least current levels is integral to our national security.
As the Prime Minister said in this House last month, farming and food production are part of this country’s sovereign production and manufacturing capacity, which we will need to strengthen in the years to come. We will need to depend on it, and therefore we need to strengthen it—that is a clear commitment. That is why this Government are committed to backing British farmers and maintaining domestic food production to at least current levels.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
On the point about maintaining domestic food production, the Minister will no doubt be aware of the problems facing the pig sector. We have had tens of thousands of pigs backed up on farms, contracts cancelled, and farmers losing up to £50 a pig. What discussions have the Minister and colleagues had with the pig sector, and what plans do the Government have to support our Great British pig farms?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. I can confirm that the Farming Minister and other colleagues have been in active conversation with the National Pig Association and are continuing that dialogue.
Our farming road map sets out a long-term direction for the sector that is more profitable, productive, sustainable and resilient, and better able to withstand climate, market and geopolitical shocks.
I want to acknowledge just how difficult this year has been. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson set out the extraordinary combination of pressures that farmers have faced this year alone: drought and water shortages, reduced grass and forage growth, difficult crop conditions, and higher irrigation and feed costs. At the same time, the conflict in the middle east has put further pressure on fertiliser and fuel prices.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister highlights fertiliser costs. Last week, this Government pushed through the fertiliser tax, which will put up the price of fertiliser by between £80 and £90 a tonne, which the Conservatives voted against. The Liberals sat on their hands and did not oppose the tax, which was, frankly, shocking. Does the Minister not recognise the pressures that farmers are facing and the fact that this additional tax that this Government have imposed will do nothing to help?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will remind the hon. Member that the last UK ammonia production facility closed under the Conservatives without any Government intervention.
We recognise that resilience is not evenly distributed and that some farm businesses have significantly less capacity than others to withstand those short-term shocks. The impacts of climate change and drought have been particularly severe, with more than 80% of the country now in drought. The south-east and south-west experienced their driest period from April to September in more than a century, and pressure on water resources continues despite the rain that we are seeing today.
We understand what that means on our farms—less grass, lower forage growth and new crop yields, pressure on irrigation and reservoirs, greater demand for livestock water, and, ultimately, greater uncertainty about the year ahead—so we have acted. In August, we introduced a package of drought support measures including temporary adjustments to environmental land management agreements so that farmers affected by drought could continue receiving payments while taking practical steps to protect their businesses. We also reminded farmers and growers that they can apply to the Environment Agency for temporary abstraction flexibility through local enforcement protections to help them to access water during dry periods where environmental impacts can be appropriately managed.
Liberal Democrat Members ask now what we are doing on water and climate resilience, but the last time they were in government, they cut flood defence spending by a fifth within six months of taking office. We are taking water and weather extremely seriously.
However, responding to one dry summer is not enough; farmers need greater long-term water security. That is why we are making up to £15 million available through a further water management grant to help to build farm reservoirs, which allow water to be stored when it is most readily available and then used to support food production during the drier periods. This will help to reduce reliance on direct abstraction when rivers and groundwater are under greatest pressure. We are also making it easier to build reservoirs by updating planning guidance and working with industry to review whether further planning reforms are needed.
We have also simplified applications for longer-duration abstraction licences, helping farmers to secure finances for on-farm reservoirs by better aligning licence duration with investment and loan repayment periods. We have also brought forward the reservoir refill season from November to October for this year. We are also encouraging farmers to work together through water abstraction groups to strengthen local water resilience, while trialling dynamic abstraction in places like Cambridge, using real-time monitoring and data to help farmers to access water when it is available while also protecting the natural environment.
Drought and climate change are not the only sources of uncertainty, though; the middle east conflict remains a significant source of disruption to fertiliser and red diesel prices. The continued pressures underline something fundamental: our farming system needs to become less exposed to global shocks and expensive imported inputs. That means not simply telling farmers to absorb higher costs, but helping them to become more productive and more efficient, with farming schemes including actions supporting variable-rate nutrient application, companion cropping, legumes and herbal leys, all of which can help to improve nutrient efficiency and reduce reliance on synthetic fertiliser.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that it is simply unacceptable for farmers to be expected to deliver the Government’s environmental ambitions when they have less than six hours to secure the funding to do so? Will she commit to a fairer system for the SFI scheme, with sufficient funding and guaranteed opportunity to apply—for North Devon farmers especially—instead of leaving farmers’ livelihoods subject to a scheme operated on a first come, first served basis?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I will tackle the SFI later in my speech. The Farming Minister has been clear on many of the lessons that will be learned, but I will set them out further shortly.
Across the sustainable farming incentive, countryside stewardship and higher level stewardship, 534,000 hectares are already using precision applications of fertiliser and manure. We have also increased fertiliser market monitoring and encouraged greater use of nutrient planning to help farmers optimise fertiliser use, and we are rolling out an online tool to help farmers use fertilisers more efficiently.
Beyond DEFRA, the Treasury reduced the duty on red diesel earlier this year in response to price increases resulting from the middle eastern crisis. We are investing in innovation, because lasting resilience must ultimately come from producing more efficiently. For ’26-27, £123 million has been allocated to the farming innovation programme, with support for technologies and approaches that can raise productivity and strengthen resilience.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will make progress, because I am coming on to something important.
I want to address the issue of SFI26 frankly. I really do recognise the disappointment and frustration caused by the closure of the second application window on 22 September. The SFI is a scheme that the Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government. They designed this first come, first served scheme, sent a quarter of the money to 4% of farms and now complain that it was oversubscribed.
When we inherited it, the scheme had no budget control and no proper alignment of SFI actions to environmental and sustainability targets, and it included that first come, first served application process. For 2026, we made improvements to the offer to ensure that more farmers could access funding. We made the offer simpler and more focused, with fewer actions while retaining actions for all farm types. We introduced a £100,000 per annum max agreement value cap to spread the availability of funding more widely.
We also gave priority access to the scheme for small farms and farms without existing ELM revenue agreements. Those two groups had been under-represented in the SFI previously. This priority access through SFI26 window 1 remained open for two months. The SFI26 window 2 was open to all eligible farmers and land managers. It experienced exceptionally high demand and closed after around six hours once available budget had been allocated.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I have met with a lot of farmers since the deadline closed, and there is an overwhelming feeling of anxiety, but because they are practical the main thing they want to know is that we are going to learn the lessons of this. Could my hon. Friend please let me know what lessons we will learn and how we will move forward on that basis?
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 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.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I am sorry; I am going to make progress.
To that end, we are working with the farming sector on how the scheme can be improved, and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South, confirmed that we will scrap the “first come, first served” application.
It is important to stress that the SFI is only one part of our support for farming. Across this Parliament, the Government have allocated a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production. That includes £788 million this year alone in new funding for farmers to boost farm productivity, develop cutting-edge technologies that will drive future growth, and maintain a healthy natural environment. Capital grants have provided £225 million this year for practical environmental improvements on farms. At least £50 million is available for new countryside stewardship higher-tier agreements. We have also committed £173 million in 2026-27 for productivity, equipment and innovation through the farming equipment and technology fund and the farming innovation programme. That represents an extensive ongoing commitment to farm adaptation and improvement. I hope that the Opposition support those aims.
Our Government support is not only about grants. Farmers need thriving markets and fair returns for the food they produce. That is why we have established the Farming and Food Partnership Board, which brings together leaders from farming, food, retail and finance to focus on productivity, profitability, home-grown produce and national food security. We are taking action on fairness in the supply chain, too. Fair dealing regulations have been introduced for dairy and pigs, with further work covering eggs, fresh produce and crops.
Our farming road map makes our long-term approach clear: we will maintain domestic food production at least at current levels; we will protect productive land for food production; we will support investment in technology and skills; and we will build resilience to the climate and geopolitical shocks that farmers are increasingly having to manage. That is because healthy soil, reliable water supply, efficient use of nutrients and profitable farm businesses are not competing objectives but the foundations of our food security.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I am going to make progress.
Farmers have endured an exceptionally demanding period. We recognise the pressure that many businesses are under, and I recognise the real frustration for those who have been unable to secure an SFI26 agreement, but our commitment to farming has not changed. We will continue to invest in farmers, support productivity and innovation, improve water resilience, make supply chains fairer and work with the sector to build businesses that can withstand changing weather and an uncertain world. Above all, we will continue to back the people who produce our food, because supporting British farming is not simply about supporting one sector; it is about our food security, our economic security and our national resilience. The Government are determined to secure all three.
Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Excerpts(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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this incredibly important debate. I also thank hon. Members for their powerful and thoughtful contributions. I am very aware that many did not get the time to make the contributions that they would have liked to make. In the interests of time, I will not be taking interventions, but I am more than happy for Members to write to me after the debate and I will get back to them in writing.
I will start by addressing the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley about the status of the assessment and the material behind it, and I know that issue has been raised by a number of Members from across the House. As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), outlined in some detail to the hon. Member for Waveney Valley in a session of the Environmental Audit Committee in July, it is standard and given practice that the Government do not comment on speculation about different drafts or versions. That position has not changed as I stand here today, nor will it likely change tomorrow. With that in mind, it is far more important that I focus my response on the critical themes raised in the debate.
Publishing the assessment was clearly vital, so that Parliament, the public and our international partners can see its core findings. Those findings are clear: biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation pose a real risk to security, resilience and prosperity. We cannot, and this Government will not, shy away from the real challenges that creates. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time, and this Government are the first to lead this country with both a Climate Minister and a Nature Minister. That reflects how seriously this Government take climate change and nature security.
I have long said that net zero and nature are two sides of the same coin when it comes to tackling climate change. The assessment highlights the critical role that nature plays in our ability to tackle the climate crisis. Of course, we cannot fight this greatest challenge alone, and many hon. Members raised that point. Climate change and nature do not abide by rules or borders. Working to implement the advice raised through the assessment requires leadership at home and abroad, working with our international partners to strengthen food security, biosecurity, global supply chain resilience and international co-operation.
As many hon. Members highlighted, the findings of the assessment are stark. Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity. That is not an environmental issue alone; it is a systemic risk to the UK’s resilience and long-term security, as many hon. Members articulated. The UK’s food security and economic resilience depend on healthy ecosystems at home and overseas. Nearly 40% of our food is imported, and for as long as we continue to enjoy bananas, rice, kiwis and avocados, we will never realistically be able to rely on domestic food production alone. That means we are at heightened risk of environmental pressures overseas disrupting our supply chains, increasing prices and reducing resilience in the UK.
That is not an isolated finding. The World Economic Forum’s “Global Risks Report 2026” identified extreme weather as the most severe global risk over the next decade, with environmental risks accounting for five of the 10 highest-ranked long-term risks. The nature security assessment suggests that domestic nature-related risk could reduce UK GDP by around 6% by the 2030s, with a further 6% reduction arising from international risks transmitted through global supply chains in some scenarios. The conclusion of our assessment is extraordinarily clear and should leave no one in any doubt: nature security is national security, and nature stability is global stability.
Responsible Governments identify emerging risks early, strengthen preparedness and build resilience before shocks occur. This Government are determined to rise to that responsibility. Other political parties may tell people simply to sit back and enjoy a rapidly changing climate, as we heard over the summer from Reform. However, we will not give up on tackling these threats head-on or put our head in the sand, as others in Opposition sadly seem determined to do.
It is important to stress that the assessment is neither a forecast nor a prediction. It is a forward-looking assessment designed to help the Government to plan for potential shocks, such as disruption to food systems, supply chains and economic stability, that are credible enough to warrant preparation. Its purpose is to help us to anticipate those risks, test our resilience and take appropriate action. That is exactly what the assessment does: it looks around corners rather than relying on the rear-view mirror. It is worth stressing that, via the assessment, the UK is doing something important that other countries are not. By creating, publishing and debating the assessment, we are a global frontrunner in discussing nature security.
Our assessment is the first published national security assessment of its kind in the world. After we published it, the UK’s presentations at the OECD resulted in several global partners using our approach to understand and consider how ecosystem-related risks affect their own resilience and national security. Later this month, the Foreign Secretary will bring Foreign Ministers together at the United Nations to discuss how to respond to climate and nature security threats. The assessment will provide an important evidence base for those conversations.
I recognise that this is a critical juncture for nature. We will continue to use upcoming international opportunities to make the case that protecting nature and tackling climate change must go hand in hand, because healthy ecosystems underpin resilience, security and prosperity.
Turning to this Government’s response, we have launched the first ever taskforce on the national security and resilience risks of a changing climate and nature loss, bringing together leading security, military and academic experts to help us to identify and prioritise risks, strengthen cross-Government co-ordination and turn evidence into practical action. The taskforce, launched in June this year, provides independent challenge and recommendations to ensure that climate and nature risks are considered more systemically across national security and resilience planning.
Separately, we have commissioned a three-year nature security research and development programme to improve indicators, early warning capability and analytical tools. That will help the Government to identify emerging risks earlier, stress-test resilience and take preventive action before disruption escalates.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke about the importance of the food sector to national security and the functioning of the UK, which the Government have recognised by designating it as critical national infrastructure. DEFRA works closely with the Cabinet Office and other Government Departments to strengthen preparedness and resilience across the food system and supply chains. We are also investing more than £2.7 billion a year in farming and nature recovery, supporting resilient domestic food production, healthier soils, pollinators and nature-friendly farming.
The nature security assessment makes it clear that severe ecosystem degradation can contribute to the emergence of novel zoonotic diseases. We are acting to bring down the risks that that poses, strengthening resilience to those risks through the UK biological security strategy, enhanced disease surveillance and a one-health approach that recognises the links between environmental, animal and human health. That improves our ability to identify, assess and respond to emerging biological threats.
This Government are also addressing nature-related risks at source through the international climate finance programme. Climate markets and green finance were mentioned by several hon. Members during the debate. The UK’s international climate finance strategy places nature at its core, investing in the protection and restoration of forests, oceans, freshwater and other critical ecosystems that support global stability.
It was mentioned right at the beginning, but I am delighted to confirm that today the Government have announced that they intend to invest £400 million in the Tropical Forest Forever facility. The TFFF represents a critical evolution in forest finance, providing long-term support for tropical forest protection. I am sure hon. Members recognise that investing in forests is one of the most effective ways to tackle the climate and nature crisis and to support UK growth and security.
As hon. Members across the House have acknowledged, the nature security assessment has made it clear that nature loss can impact food security, water security, economic resilience and national security. We are taking those findings seriously. There is no single Department that can address them alone, and that is why we are working across Government to ensure a co-ordinated response. These are global challenges, but they are being felt close to home. The recent wildfire at Dunwich Heath in Suffolk was in my constituency, and it was a stark reminder to me that the environmental risks are no longer distant or abstract, and that we must build resilience here in the UK as well as overseas.
We have restored nearly 23,000 hectares of peatland since 2020 to store carbon. I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) recently to look at the work that the UK is doing to restore and invest in our peatlands. That work plays a vital role not just in managing and restoring nature but in helping to tackle the threat of wildfires. Such work, which is in addition to supporting farmers through nature-friendly farming schemes and delivering our environmental improvement plans, means we are taking practical action at home alongside our international efforts abroad.
I again thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley for securing this important debate and the continued interest of the House in this agenda.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published in January 2026.
Gamebirds: Call for Evidence
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Lords (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) has made the following written statement:
As set out in the land use framework and the animal welfare strategy for England, the Government committed to strengthening the evidence base on gamebird rearing, release and shooting in England.
I am today announcing that a call for evidence will launch on 4 September 2026 as the next step in delivering that commitment.
Gamebird rearing, release and shooting are established activities within rural land use and management. They can contribute to rural economies and land management, but their environmental, animal health, animal welfare and wider impacts are not yet fully understood. The call for evidence will gather information and evidence to improve understanding of both the positive and negative impacts associated with these activities.
The call for evidence will consider the rearing of gamebirds, the release of reared birds from captivity, associated shooting and land management activities, and impacts at local, regional and national level. It will seek evidence on biodiversity, protected sites and habitats, biosecurity and disease, bird of prey crime, animal welfare, use of natural resources, and other relevant environmental or social impacts.
Evidence gathered through this exercise will be carefully reviewed, including by independent external reviewers for information on release and shooting. This will support DEFRA’s understanding of these activities and their impacts and inform any future policy development. No decisions have been taken at this stage on whether to introduce any changes, and any future proposals would be subject to public consultation.
The call for evidence will be published on gov.uk and will be open for responses until 1 November 2026.
[HCWS308]
Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, and thank the Minister for her work. She has rightly observed that people are more likely to be at risk of flooding because of climate change, and that also brings with it a greater risk from coastal erosion. As she will know, my constituency lost 11 homes over the winter because of coastal erosion, which is set to put even more homes at risk over the years and decades ahead. In our report, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended the extension of Flood Re to Coastal Re. Will the Minister comment on that recommendation, and commit herself to looking at it further?
Emma Hardy
I know how difficult the loss of those homes has been for the hon. Lady and her constituents. Losing one’s home because of coastal erosion must be devastating. There are no current plans to consider Coastal Re, but, of course, Flood Re keeps eligibility criteria under review.
Farming Road Map and Profitability Review
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds
As we set out in our land use framework, our intention in working with the sector is to ensure that we have more productive and profitable farms and multifunctional land use so that we maintain, if not increase, food production levels, alongside the land use changes that we need to secure a sustainable farming transition.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Over the next 20 years we are set to see a 30% reduction in water availability for farms and producers across the country, much of which will affect Suffolk Coastal. I was glad to see that the road map talks about applying lessons from water management pilot schemes to help farmers to manage those water challenges. I want to flag the managed aquifer recharge trial in Suffolk Coastal, which has recharged for irrigation 20,000 cubic metres while complying with stringent Environment Agency conditions. I know that the Minister responsible for water and flooding is keen to visit my constituency to learn more about the scheme. I hope that the Department will look at these examples as an opportunity that could help to deliver water ambitions as set out in this very welcome farming road map.
Farming: Financial Sustainability
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Excerpts(4 months, 1 week 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
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this timely debate and welcome the Minister to his place.
I asked local farmers in Ribble Valley what they would like to highlight in this debate about profitability. As hon. Members would expect, the responses included the increasing tax on fertiliser, energy prices, the short-sighted farming vision, the public’s understanding of where our food comes from and its value and quality, seasonal staff and many other things, so I am really grateful that the Government today outlined their farming vision to 2050.
In the interests of time, I want to highlight a broader question about who we what to be as British society. We could choose just to import most of our food, but to me, farming is core to our Britishness. We value our local farm cheese brands, we value our rolling green hills, and we value the role farmers play in maintaining our walkways and gritting our paths in winter.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. It is not just about identity; we also cannot be reliant on food imports if we are going to be food secure as a nation.
Maya Ellis
I completely agree. The main point I want to make, alongside all the powerful financial and security arguments that have been made, is that we need farming to be financially sustainable because we want it to be sustainable. We want it to be part of what we prioritise as this country. A More In Common poll found that, after the NHS, our British countryside is what British people value most about this country, so please, let’s not take it for granted. With no farmers, the countryside is not sustainable either.
Rural Communities
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I am delighted to be the first ever Labour MP for Suffolk Coastal, an incredibly rural constituency. Many of our previous MPs were helicoptered in from cities to represent the constituency, so I am even more delighted to be able to stand in this House and say that I am the first ever MP for Suffolk Coastal to have been born and raised there.
Back in 2004, when I was 17, the foxhunting debate was playing out. It has been incredibly interesting to hear so many Conservatives talk about Labour MPs not understanding rural issues or the foxhunting debate. I can tell the House that one reason I became a Labour member—let alone a Labour MP—was foxhunting. I remember how furious I was, aged 17, that Conservative Members were so angry about the foxhunting ban but did not care about lifting children out of poverty. I could not comprehend that world. That is what drove me to Labour. Those were my values, having grown up in a rural area. Now, I am incredibly proud to stand here representing a rural seat. I continue to stand on that ticket and I defend the Labour manifesto.
We need to separate the issues of conservation and shooting from hunting, as they are separate. I will continue to have those conversations with this Labour Government. Some of—well, all of—the elements in the motion before us are beyond ridiculous, particularly the point about net zero targets and energy infrastructure. If approval is granted, Suffolk Coastal is set to host Sea Link and LionLink. Sizewell C has just been approved, and so many other schemes were approved or proposed not just under the Conservative Government, but under the Conservative-led county council. There are many energy infrastructure issues in my constituency that need to be considered, but they relate to co-ordination and cumulative impact.
Terry Jermy
Does my hon. Friend agree that in places like Suffolk, and next door in Norfolk, hundreds and hundreds of good, well-paying green jobs are tied up in the renewable energy sector, and that the rhetoric from the Opposition, particularly the Conservatives and Reform, puts those vital jobs in our constituencies at risk?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I could not agree more. Some of the things we hear from the Conservatives are really dangerous.
If we are to have sensible conversations about our renewable energy infrastructure, they need to focus on co-ordination. In my constituency, there are seven nationally significant infrastructure projects in a 10-mile radius, but there has never been any attempt to co-ordinate them. I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make it a legal duty for NSIPs to be co-ordinated when they are being built at the same time in a small geographical area. It seems crazy that that has never been seriously considered. I will continue to work with the Government to see how we can bring such proposals forward. I would be keen on the introduction of an energy infrastructure levy in order to promote co-ordination.
I urge the Government to go further on farming profitability. I was delighted about the changes to the thresholds, which many of my Back-Bench colleagues and I worked hard to secure, but there is more to do. Baroness Batters’ review addressed key issues, which I know the Government are taking seriously, and I am delighted about many of its recommendations and with the conversations that I have had about them. The Government have my commitment to continued work on those matters, on which I am delighted to support them.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Too often, rural Britain has been spoken about and taken for granted, no more so than by the Conservative party, which over 14 years left many rural businesses—including family farms such as my own—operating on life support, including through its harmful pursuit of Brexit. As the Food and Drink Federation’s 2024 trade snapshot notes,
“The UK’s global food export volumes have declined significantly more than other major European countries, demonstrating that the UK’s challenges aren’t part of a global trend but rather unique to the UK’s post-Brexit circumstances.”
That is why I welcome this Government’s work towards a SPS agreement that will help food and drink producers in my constituency of Rushcliffe.
Doing things differently is extremely important. In government, we must think, talk and act differently in relation to rural Britain if we are to break long-standing cycles of poverty and under-investment. Rural Britain cannot be treated as an afterthought, not only because this risks the urban-rural divide growing even further, but because rural Britain is central to everything we do. Yes, food security, nature restoration, flooding adaptation and animal welfare all clearly depend on partnership with rural communities—everyone in the Chamber knows that—but the role of rural Britain goes much further. New homes, new energy infrastructure, new transport routes, new critical mineral extraction, and national security planning and preparation will all depend on rural space and resources.
That is why, in my view and that of many of my Labour colleagues, rural Britain offers a vital route—arguably the only route—to national renewal. However, that will happen only if its unique values, needs and potential are properly understood and acted on. For that reason, I will set aside the Opposition motion, which simply lists a set of things that the previous Conservative Government did not necessarily resolve, and focus on the amendment’s mention of a “joined-up approach”.
I will continue to push the Government to commit to developing a proper rural strategy. The last one was in 2004, under the last Labour Government. I hope we will commit to a rural strategy that puts rural Britain at the centre of economic growth, meaning that we can finally ditch overused slogans about nimbys and yimbys and stop trivialising our rural communities, which are so important.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of time. I call Harriet Cross.
Farming
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
As the representative for North Somerset, I, like many in this debate, represent a rural constituency, and thus a great number of farmers, whom I have had the privilege of meeting on a number of occasions since July. The farmers of North Somerset have not shied away from expressing to me their wide range of concerns, going far beyond merely changes to the inheritance tax regime. From those meetings, I have grown increasingly concerned that the outcry over changes to inheritance tax in this House, and the time subsequently given to the topic, have distracted us from the more fundamental questions about the future of farming. That is why I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate, and for making it clear in his application that he wished to debate farming more widely than merely a discussion of the merits of the inheritance tax changes.
I start by recognising that farming is an issue that arouses great passion. We have seen that in our own constituencies during visits in the past six months, and even on the very roads that surround this building with the protests that seem to occur every other week. From conversations with farmers in my constituency, I have quickly gained an appreciation that we are talking about not just a profession, but a lifestyle and often a calling. The constituents I have met are often working the soil that their fathers, their grandfathers and the generations before them worked—in some cases, back even beyond the creation of this Chamber. It is thus understandable why there is a widespread feeling among farmers that too often this place, so distant to so many, does not listen to their needs, does not discuss the issues so pertinent to their livelihoods, and too often imposes its will arbitrarily on them. If we are being fair, I think all of us would admit that this is not a new sentiment since the autumn Budget; this goes back decades and has been directed at all parties in turn.
I want to use my speech to talk about an issue that may not be grabbing the headlines currently, but which, from discussions with farmers in my constituency, I believe constitutes the greatest impediment to a thriving farming sector. A concern I hear again and again, no matter the product a farmer may choose to specialise in, is the excessive power of supermarkets in contract negotiations and the raw deal farmers get as a consequence. Too often, farmers I have spoken to have been subject to a “take it or leave it” negotiating position from these mega-corporations, which are able to dictate price and impose unfair conditions on farmers. Many farmers I have spoken to have had perfectly edible crop rejected due to minor aesthetic defects, excessive delays in payments and indeed, as some have told me, even instances of entirely arbitrary cancellations of orders with no reason given. The fear of retaliation keeps many of these instances from seeing the light of day, and that fear has arisen due to the oligopolistic nature of the supermarket industry.
In the flow from farm to fork, the supermarkets act as a great gatekeeper, siphoning a cut from the passing traffic. While this issue is not unique to the UK—after all, a mere five companies control 80% of the global trade in grain—I think it fair to say that in recent years our constituents have become increasingly aware of the greedflation they see reflected every day in the increases in the prices they pay for food in supermarkets. These increases in prices are not benefiting the hard-working farmers who produce that food, but rather the shareholders, which are often not even based in the UK. Last year alone, we saw the big four supermarkets increase their profits by 97%, while farmers felt the continued squeeze from rising energy prices, rising fertiliser costs and rising labour costs—to name but a few things. If we are serious about improving the lot of farmers in this country, I think this is where we need to focus our attention and our efforts.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do the big six supermarkets not have the interests of farmers at heart, but two of them did not even pay corporation tax last year? It is critical to address that in this wider discussion.
Sadik Al-Hassan
I thank my hon. Friend for a worthy contribution to the debate, and I completely agree. It is fundamental that we fix some of the problems in the supermarket supply chain that are affecting farmers, and that companies pay their fair share to this country.
Farmers continue to feel the squeeze from rising prices, and I think we must strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator and give it real teeth, and thus empower farmers to fight back and get the fair deal they deserve. To do this, it will need to be properly resourced, and to that end I suggest that we look again at the levy supermarkets pay, which has not increased since 2018, despite a dramatic rise in prices and profits.
The farmers I have met do not shy away from telling me how much they love their profession, and how sad they are that their children do not see it as a viable future career. If we are to secure the future of farming, we must secure the future workforce, and to do that we must make farming a profitable business. Without fundamentally rebalancing the scales of power between those who grow our food and those who sell it, farming will continue to be an unprofitable venture and an unattractive career for young people. I note that the next review of the Groceries Code Adjudicator will start after this month, and like the farmers of North Somerset, I eagerly await to hear how my hon. Friends in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs intend to ensure that it is fit for the future.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I want to start my contribution today by picking up where I left off this morning in my question to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). At the heart of the problem facing farming and profitability is an unfair supply chain. As we heard earlier, the big six supermarkets are in effect acting like a cartel, forcing unfair prices on farmers and pursuing unfair practices towards family farms. Last year alone, the big six made a combined pre-tax profit of more than £5 billion. Of those big six, two—Asda and Morrisons —did not pay a penny of corporation tax.
As we know, supermarkets are price setters seeking maximum profits to drive down on the cost they are prepared to pay for home-grown, quality produce. At the same time, the costs of running a farm continue to rise, with soaring fuel, fertiliser and equipment prices. In a world where farmers and producers are struggling to make a living, and are relying on Government grants and subsidies so that they can survive from one year to the next, that cannot be seen to be fair or right.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will continue, if I may.
We need to look properly, and with real scrutiny, at the supermarkets. Those practices need to change. We cannot allow farmers to bear the brunt of this system, while others in the supply chain benefit so disproportionately.
I want to address the issue of APR. Many, many farmers have raised their concerns with me directly. I have listened to those concerns in Suffolk Coastal and raised them directly with the Treasury and DEFRA. I remain committed to continuing to advocate for farmers in Suffolk Coastal over the months ahead.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will continue.
However, it is important to reiterate that while the changes to APR are significant, they are not the root problem facing the farming industry. If farming was profitable, farmers would be less worried about paying a new tax bill. The focus must be on making farming more profitable. Without profitability, tax reliefs or Government support will provide only limited help. That includes ensuring fair prices for quality produce, protecting farmers from unfair competition and addressing rising costs, from fuel to fertilisers to equipment. I do not doubt that that will be a tough battle to fight when society often prioritises price over quality—people will happily spend more on a cappuccino than they will on a locally produced chicken—but if we want to protect British farming, we must change our approach.
The future of farming is essential, not only for the economy but for the very fabric of rural society itself. We must continue to put farmers first, ensuring they continue to feed and sustain us for generations to come.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Reed
There will be an opportunity for Members to engage with Sir Jon Cunliffe’s commission in January, and I am sure that the right hon. Member’s Committee will want to do precisely that. The Water (Special Measures) Bill, which is going through Parliament right now, is intended to make quick changes to the system. Sir Jon’s review will give us the chance to reform regulation and governance for the long term.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I recently met the Alde and Ore Estuary Trust, which has long been campaigning and fundraising to refurbish and secure flood defences on the Alde and Ore estuary. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the trust’s projects and the barriers to progress?
Emma Hardy
Each time I come here for questions, I promise that I will not arrange to meet as many Members, and each time I fail. I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend.