Rural Affairs

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

There are many issues I could raise in such an important debate on rural affairs, but in their Budget a couple of weeks ago, the Labour Government introduced a new threat on such a scale that it simply must be the topic on which I open my remarks. As I said in last week’s Budget debate, the changes to agricultural property relief are a threat to family farms and rural communities across the country, including in Mid Buckinghamshire. I cannot believe that Mid Buckinghamshire farmers are so different from the farmers found in Labour-held constituencies, but many of the farmers who have contacted me are absolutely petrified about what the change means for the future of their farm. They tell me that they may even have to sell up to a third of their farm to meet their inheritance tax bill. There is no way to sugar-coat this: it will be the end of British family farming if these changes are allowed to go through.

When I gave my maiden speech on Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament, the now Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, who was then a shadow Minister, kindly said in summing up that I was “every Cambridge leftie’s nightmare”, and I agree. I gently suggest that, if he does not talk to farmers, to the NFU and to the people who are petrified about what these changes will mean, he may well become the nightmare of every farmer in this country.

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

It may be that I am being generous, but I think this is happening because Labour Members have a patchy understanding of the issue. It is easy for those who do not understand rural Britain or agriculture to assume that assets and income are the same thing, but my hon. Friend will know that many farmers with considerable paper wealth do not actually make that much money.

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that British farming does not operate on mega margins. Our farmers do not have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds in the bank. They operate on such tight margins that, even if we play devil’s advocate and accept the Government’s argument—which, for the record, I do not—most farmers in this position will struggle to pay a tax bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds over a 10-year period. The margins simply are not there. Of course, there are many things that we can and should do to increase the profitability of farming, but it is fanciful to pretend that a 10-year payback period would be anywhere near enough. It would symbolise the end of British farming.

Of course, that was not the only threat to British farming in the Budget. There was the attack on basic equipment such as pick-up trucks, whereby farmers face paying an extra £5,000 simply for having the audacity to want back seats for their children. Then there is the carbon tax, which will see the cost of fertiliser rise by between £50 and £75 a tonne, which will have a detrimental impact on either farmers’ margins or food prices, or potentially both. Across the country, either outcome would be devastating.

Other Members have spoken about rural crime, about which I too am incredibly frustrated. I intervened to ask the Secretary of State about this subject. After being lucky enough to come quite high in the 2022 private Member’s Bill ballot, I spent two and a half years promoting my Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which requires immobilisers on quad bikes and high-standard forensic marking, including GPS units, on agricultural equipment. It requires the passage of a statutory instrument that the then Policing Minister and now shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), said was ready to go when the general election was called, but it was thwarted by the Dissolution of Parliament.

The Act was passed with the Labour party’s support. Labour Members did not howl it down or attack it on Second Reading, in Committee or on Third Reading in either House. It is not as if the Act is in any way controversial. We just need the statutory instrument to be passed to give the police the powers they need. Police officers like Superintendent Andy Huddleston, who is the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on rural crime, say that these powers will make a huge difference.

I have raised this matter with the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House. I doubt that this simple SI would cause any controversy for any party or any Member of this House. Why can the Government not introduce the statutory instrument? I take their desire to tackle rural crime at face value, so why do they not get the ball rolling on passing this legislation? Every time I meet a police officer from Thames Valley Police or anywhere I go in the country, the first thing they ask is, “What is happening with your Act?” I cannot answer that question, because I just do not know the reason for the Government’s delay. I appeal to the Minister to work with his Home Office colleagues to find a way to get the Act functioning.

Finally, this Government’s approach to planning and energy is causing devastation across our rural communities. My constituency has been plagued by so many ground-mounted solar applications—the largest one is Rosefield in the Claydons. These projects take away agricultural land, take away the ability to produce food and in many cases displace farmers, including tenant farmers. And what for? It is an inefficient technology that requires thousands of acres of agricultural land, when other technologies, such as small modular reactors, which require the equivalent of just two football pitches, can produce far more energy. I urge the farming Minister or the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to go into battle with the Energy Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister on these planning changes, so that we can have a sensible approach to our countryside and keep it for what it is best at: the production of food.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

We have had an excellent and varied debate that perfectly illustrates the variety and colour of rural life in our country today. I want to concentrate on one aspect of rural life that blights the lives of people who live in rural north Cumbria, in my constituency, and across all of the UK: rural crime. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) on his work on this issue. I will certainly support him in trying to ensure that that statutory instrument is brought forward.

Rural crime, be it sheep rustling, fly-tipping or the theft of vehicles or equipment, has exactly the same impact on the communities and individuals it affects: it has a huge financial repercussion on everyone whose livelihoods rely on livestock and machinery for the generation of their income. It leaves rural communities feeling vulnerable and fearful for their personal safety. However, despite that financial and personal cost, it is a fact that rural crime rose under the last Government.

NFU Mutual’s figures show that there was a 4.3% increase in crime in 2023, pushing the cost of rural crime to a shocking figure of over £52 million. In my own county of Cumbria, rural theft cost an estimated £815,000—a rise of 12% on the previous year. It is clear that criminal gangs have been able to take advantage of the holes left in rural frontline policing, as a direct result of cuts to rural police forces under the last Government, to target farmyards and fields across Britain.

Rural crime is no longer the preserve of the opportunist thief. Instead, we now see internationally organised criminal activity, with gangs that target high value farm machinery and GPS kits, knowing that they can be sold all over the world. That degree of serious organised crime demands a serious, organised response, and I am pleased that it is this Government that are delivering that response in the form of a cross-governmental rural crime strategy.

In Cumbria, our new Labour police, fire and crime commissioner is committed to building on the work of our dedicated rural crime team, which recently marked its first anniversary. During that year, the team recovered stolen property worth £820,000, cut quad bike thefts by 10% and made dozens of arrests. More importantly, that same team engaged directly with rural communities, making over 200 visits to victims of rural crime.

[Sir John Hayes]

If I can be helpful to the hon. Lady, the critical thing is to get the police funding formula reviewed. It disadvantages counties like Cumbria and Lincolnshire, and has done for years. No Government, Labour or Conservative, has dealt with that. Will she join me in writing to the Minister, and perhaps to the Treasury, to suggest that we do just that in order to prioritise rural areas like hers and mine?

[Ms Minns]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. As we have heard, funding for rural communities affects not just crime and policing, but the availability of GPs, healthcare and dentistry. If anyone on the Conservative Benches would like to explain to my constituents why they have to go on a 100 mile round trip to register with an NHS dentist, I would happily take that intervention.

On the point about personalised engagement with rural communities, I draw the House’s attention to the dedication of one particular rural police officer in my constituency: PC Susan Holliday. I should declare that Susan and I have been friends for over 50 years, and she has spent 37 of those years as a special constable in Cumbria constabulary, clocking up over 5,000 hours in her own time in the last decade alone, and exhausting every possible long-service award available to her as a special constable and that she is entitled to. Herself a farmer, Susan was integral to the setting up of Cumbria constabulary’s farm watch scheme, and she is well known to the rural communities across the north of my constituency.

Sadly, the excellent work of officers like Susan was too often undermined by the cuts to frontline policing that we saw in 14 years of chaotic Conservative Government. Those 14 years saw the closure of rural police stations and the diversion of officers away from their rural beats to plug the gaps in policing in our towns and city centres. It is not before time that we finally have a Government that will back our frontline rural police officers with a rural crime strategy. That strategy will increase police patrols in rural areas, has tougher measures to clamp down on antisocial behaviour and has stronger laws to prevent farm theft, fly-tipping and drug dealing. I am delighted that this Government will deliver the rural crime strategy that communities like mine in north Cumbria so desperately need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Rural communities form the backbone of our country. They grow the food that feeds British families, they are the custodians of our beautiful countryside, and they are home to fantastic village pubs such as the Knife & Cleaver in Houghton Conquest, the Crown in Shillington and the Anchor in Aspley Guise—a shameless plug for three of my fantastic pubs. We all know that fantastic British pubs are the heart of our villages, but I am concerned that they will now struggle to stand still, never mind invest and give youngsters the opportunity of their first job, given the Government’s choice to tax jobs and working people. Pubs across my constituency have told me of their concerns, and I told them that I would raise them today on the Floor of the House.

The problems that we face in rural communities are a world away from those faced by hon. Friends in urban areas. We suffer from similar crimes to urban areas, with particular problems around fly-tipping, wildlife crime and rural theft. Members throughout the House have spoken about those issues at length. I urge the Government to ensure that rural communities are not overlooked in favour of urban areas when they allocate police funding. That is certainly a concern of my constituents, who see police resources soaked up by the high demand in neighbouring large towns.

In parts of my constituency, the benefits of working from home are limited by poor-quality broadband, which limits the growth prospects of some of our brilliant local entrepreneurs and family businesses. Project Gigabit must be delivered at pace, and I will support any measures and efforts to do that.

Bus services are often infrequent and unreliable, and unfortunately under this Government they are getting more expensive. Inequalities extend beyond transport; access to healthcare is challenging, particularly if people cannot or do not drive. I am keen to ensure that my communities have better access to local healthcare, which is an ambition of the Government. We need to do more in this Parliament to ensure that primary care reaches into our villages and hamlets, and that no one is left without the healthcare they need because of where they live.

As the Government consider their plans to build the communities of the future, I hope they will learn from our villages. Decades—centuries, even—of sympathetic development have created communities: places that people want to live and spend time in. We must ensure that the legacy we leave for future generations includes sustainable and beautiful homes, with the right services and good access to the countryside.

[Sir John Hayes]

Such is my hon. Friend’s insight that he has drawn together two fundamental issues. Over-development in rural areas places immense pressure on infrastructure such as healthcare provision, as he described. Does he agree that development should be incremental, so that no community changes beyond recognition, or can no longer be served by the kind of public services that are critical to wellbeing?

[Blake Stephenson]

I entirely agree. A lot is said about sustainable development in planning rules. I know from my community that lots of people feel quite aggrieved by large new developments being built on the edge of villages, fundamentally changing their character. There is more work to do to ensure that our villages grow slowly and sustainably, alongside infrastructure. Lessons should be learned from the many decades of mistakes.

That brings me to another point. We must ensure that our villages are not overwhelmed by suburban dormitories. I am afraid that even though they are rural, some of my communities have been turned into dormitories by house building. People sleep there but head elsewhere to work, so they do not contribute to our local communities as they would have done in the past.

Often, at the heart of our rural communities is a group of unsung people—although they have been much mentioned today—who look after our countryside, employ local people and ensure that every single person in this country has food on their table. They are, of course, our farmers. British farmers might not always seek the spotlight—although sometimes they have shows on Amazon Prime—but without them we would be a much poorer country and our rural communities would be significantly worse off.

We should do all we can to support British farmers and nurture the next generation of them, but instead the Government are regrettably levying a spiteful family farm tax on them. I met farmers in Mid Bedfordshire recently. It is clear that the attack on family farms will force many families to sell up to developers or big international farming corporations, ripping the soul out of our rural communities. For the long-term sustainability of rural communities up and down the country, I urge the Government to reconsider the damaging family farm tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

My constituency and its neighbouring villages are defined by their green space and rurality, providing a sharp contrast to the urban west midlands next door. Our villages are home to rural enterprises and to farmers, and it is our farmers who are the lifeblood of our rural communities. Their role cannot be overstated: not only do they provide us with food security, but they contribute significantly to our local economy, and it is critical that we support them. Every single one of us relies on farmers three times a day. They are the guardians of our countryside, often working in isolated or harsh conditions, physically and in a competitive marketplace. I am delighted to be participating in the NFU’s MP fellowship scheme to better understand the pressures that farmers face.

The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State promised to protect farmers. They promised not to change inheritance rules, but then in the autumn Budget, among many other broken promises, Labour broke its pledge to farmers. It reduced reliefs and imposed inheritance tax rates on farmland, which will devastate family farms and pose a serious risk to domestic food security and food prices in our country. Not only do those changes hurt the agriculture sector and our economy, but they hurt individual farming families, with at least 249 farms affected across my constituency. I want the House to be aware of the specific concerns of two of my constituents. One wrote to me:

“This specifically targeted decision will eventually destroy family farms. It’s a mentally and physically hard industry to be in but for most has been passed on from previous generations and do it for the love. As an industry we feel we are no longer needed”.

The most impactful email I have received from a constituent came in late last night.

[Sir John Hayes]

Just before my hon. Friend comes to that impactful email, may I say that he makes a fundamentally important point about food security? Food security is vital to national economic resilience, as we have seen from the covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine and so on. Food security means maximising the productivity of land, so does my hon. Friend agree that another threat that farmers and rural communities face is the invasion of large-scale solar developments and other industrialisation of the countryside, which is taking productive farmland out of the business of producing food and thereby guaranteeing food security?

[Bradley Thomas]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. As he rightly points out, we are at risk of large-scale industrial energy production installations becoming the new cash crop, displacing valuable agricultural land across our constituencies.

I want the House to be aware of a comment from a constituent who wrote to me last night:

“I have never written a personal email to an MP before but feel so strongly about the recent changes announced in the budget that I couldn’t let them go. Although on paper we might appear ‘rich’ the reality is we only make enough money each year to support…2 families and don’t have ‘millions’ in the bank. We pay our taxes like every other working person does. Every spare penny we get we invest in the farm to make it better for the next generation but after the budget announcements last week feel that that was a waste of time. I am beginning to think that the best option for my family would to be to sell up and move abroad to a country that appreciates its farmers and food.”

That is devastating, and I want the Government to reflect on those words very carefully.

I recall the Prime Minister’s words in his first speech in Downing Street, where he said that he wanted the Government to “tread more lightly” on our lives. Sadly, the Government are doing anything but; they are ruthlessly bearing down on every facet of British society in the most ideological fashion. I call on them to scrap the family farm tax and instead support British farmers. I also call on the Government to reverse the changes to tax on pick-up trucks, which are the workhorses of the countryside and of tradesmen and women across the country.

Although much of the debate has focused on farms, it is important to highlight that there is more to the rural economy than just our farmers. The countryside makes up more than 90% of the UK’s land. It is home to millions of people in our country and it contributes more than £270 billion per annum to our economy, from farming and horticulture to stewardship of the land and countryside sports. For our rural economy to thrive there needs to be sufficient infrastructure to attract people and businesses to those areas, including further investment in rural connectivity and mobile coverage.

Finally, our rural economy cannot exist if our rural areas are developed over. New housing developments cannot come at the expense of our green belt. Some 89% of land in my constituency is formally designated as green belt, but the target being imposed by the Government will directly result in thousands more homes being built on high-quality green-belt land in my constituency, which will undermine food security and our rural identity.

We must stand up for our rural communities and for farmers, and we must protect our countryside. I will always defend farms, the rural economy and our rural areas during my time in the House.

Mental Health: Farming and Agricultural Communities

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Aphra Brandreth]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing that. The impact of APR will be felt across the community. Unfortunately, in a community that is struggling with mental health, it is an extra blow.

Later, I will offer some thoughts on how we might better prevent mental health problems, but I will briefly mention a few other reasons why mental health issues are disproportionately higher in rural areas. First, there is the issue of isolation, which is multifaceted. It can be attributed to literal isolation, because farmers live in sparsely populated areas far from the nearest village; digital isolation, as they are without broadband or mobile coverage; and physical isolation from a lack of transport links. That issue keenly felt in my constituency, where many rural areas have little or no public transport connections.

A mixture of those forms of isolation means that people in rural areas, such as farmers, often suffer from loneliness. It is not easy for people to go to the local pub or café to talk to friends and neighbours when they live in the countryside. It is harder to get to those places, and harder to make time to socialise due to the demands of farming.

There is also the issue of rural reticence. There has historically been a stigma surrounding mental health; sadly, although we have made good progress in breaking down barriers and encouraging people to talk, there remains a reticence in rural and agricultural communities to talk about problems or feelings. It is not because of hubris or arrogance. Rather, the “I’ll manage myself” culture comes from a desire not to burden neighbours and friends who are also in the community, and will no doubt be facing the same challenges. I am confident that we can do more as a society to break down this barrier and encourage farmers to talk honestly and openly with one another.

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

My hon. Friend personifies the Conservative commitment to farms and farming, and she does so with style and acumen. The fear that she has described is exacerbated by the way farmers now face their customers: supermarkets are ruthless in how they deal with farmers. It is the fear that dare not speak its name; our farmers cannot speak, for those are the people to whom they sell their goods. Will my hon. Friend implore the Government to take a tougher line on the sharp practice of the big retailers in the light of its effect on farmers?

[Aphra Brandreth]

My right hon. Friend always makes such pertinent points. I know the importance he places on issues surrounding food security: he works extremely hard to highlight the challenges that farmers face all around them, and to ensure that they get a fair price from suppliers.

Mental health problems are also more prevalent in agricultural communities because of the volatility of farming. Farmers do not enjoy the luxury of stability and are vulnerable to shocks such as adverse weather and flooding, health issues within herds, such as bovine tuberculosis, and economic problems. Agricultural policy ought to create stability for farmers, not more uncertainty. I will speak more about that issue shortly.

There are many reasons why rural mental health is disproportionately worse, but I hope that the three I have mentioned give the House an idea of why I secured this debate. I have three asks of the Government; I hope that the Minister will be receptive and will commit to working alongside colleagues across the House and within Government to make real progress.

My first request is that the Government take an integrated approach. I humbly suggest to the Minister that that has been an issue with recent Government policy, particularly in relation to agricultural property relief. Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should have been in the room when the decision was made to change APR. If they were in the room, their priority and their plea to the Treasury should have been the impact on family farms, food security and the local economy.

DEFRA Ministers should also be involved in many cross-governmental discussions. We need a joined-up approach whereby farmers and the rural community are consistently represented by Ministers who have their best interests at heart. Only then can we hope to see a policy that does not cause the agricultural community more concern, leading to further uncertainty and exacerbating the challenges. The decision on APR has once again brought rural mental health to the forefront. We have seen too many tragic stories in the papers. I hope that this is a wake-up call to the Government to start taking rural policy seriously, and not see farmers as a community to exploit.

My second ask of the Minister is that a specific strategy be put in place for young people who live in rural communities. Statistics show a significant uptick in mental health problems among young people, particularly after the pandemic, but many of the problems that I have outlined as compounding factors making rural mental health worse are even more prominent among younger people. Research conducted by Yellow Wellies shows that 95% of farmers under 40 believe that mental health is the biggest hidden problem facing farmers today. That is a shockingly high statistic.

We know that there is a shortage of young people entering the agricultural sector. That shortage is very often driven by the isolation of rural areas and by the lack of opportunity. If we want the countryside to thrive and farming to be a successful and attractive sector, we must do more to support young people. An important part of that is making sure that their mental health is in as good a place as it can be, so I ask the Minister to reassure the House that this will be a priority for him, and to meet me and representatives from the Cheshire Young Farmers’ Clubs to discuss how the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can better understand the mental health pressures on young people in rural areas.

My final ask is that we make sure that farmers are at the centre of policy decisions that relate to rural areas and the agricultural sector. The ask is simple but very necessary. When the Government are formulating policy, I urge them to think of its implications and consequences. I ask them to think about the motivations behind the policy, and to remind themselves of the motivations behind our farmers’ work. They are motivated by service to our country, by providing food and caring for our countryside, and by being part of their local community, supporting friends and family, and working to support the local economy.

Farmers are part of the fabric of our country, the backbone of local economies and stalwarts in our communities. When Ministers feed into policy, I ask that they remember that and reflect the values of the rural and agricultural communities. If Ministers do that, we can go a long way towards improving mental health in areas where that is so desperately needed.

Flooding: Bedfordshire

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson]

Certainly, one of the lessons that I have learned from the flooding in Mid Bedfordshire is that many statutory bodies are involved in flooding response and resilience. We need to work harder to ensure that those organisations work together. It is so important that the Government, local authorities and others learn the right lessons from those floods, and I hope that this debate can play a role in guiding that conversation.

First, let me reflect on the direct impact on constituents in Mid Bedfordshire. Hundreds of residents have taken the time to describe for me the huge losses that they have suffered, and I thank them for taking the time to do so while trying to recover from flood damage. Emma from Marston Moretaine, who filled in my recent flooding survey, told me:

“Our property was completely soaked front and back. We saw water rise, and beside the path at our house there was gushing water! We had to call for help. Water came in through the sides and foundations, and in the end there was nothing we could do.”

Caroline from Flitwick also took the time to share her experience:

“Severe flooding of my property requiring full water removal from my home and severe repairs. I am currently staying with family but having to relocate for a minimum of 6 months whilst repairs are done.”

Rita from Harlington explained that

“We had internal flooding start at 9.30 am with sewerage coming up from a manhole cover inside our garage. We contacted Anglian water by 10 am. We couldn’t shower or flush the toilet as it was gurgling back up! Then the rains came—the front drive was a deluge. We had neighbours helping with buckets and pumps trying to get the water off our property. It was a fighting battle—the water reached the front door and came into the property.”

Being flooded is not just an inconvenience: it is expensive, and it is heartbreaking for families to see their valuables—some of them irreplaceable—washed away. Shortly after the flooding, I took the time to visit dozens of local businesses, including Disco-licious in Gravenhurst, Maulden Garden Centre and The Dog House day care centre, which is also in Maulden. Those businesses, together with many others, have experienced severe financial losses, and in some cases have seen many years of hard work and investment washed away before their eyes.

Our farmers have been some of the worst hit, with severe and significant flooding reported at several local farms, including at Moreteyne’s Retreat, a smallholding that has been impacted hugely by floodwaters flowing from the A421. In the aftermath of that flooding, I have learned that 74% of the UK’s floodplain is agricultural land. Flooding can destroy whole crop yields, wasting months of work and threatening the livelihoods of our farmers, in many cases at the same time as they see their homes devastated by floodwaters.

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

My hon. Friend has mentioned landowners and farmers. He will be well aware of the internal drainage boards, which do such vital work to protect land and require the resources to do so. The previous Government committed £75 million to drainage boards, but we have yet to see that money delivered by the current Administration. We also need a long-term solution to the funding of IDBs, so that local authorities are not put under undue pressure by having to fund those drainage boards themselves.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. He has stolen my thunder, because I was going to make that exact point later in my speech, so I will skip over it when I get to that section.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing the debate on this important matter, and everyone who has contributed to the discussion.

I start by sincerely expressing my sympathy with all the individuals whose homes and businesses have been impacted by flooding. I may have previously shared with the House the impact on me when, in 2007, the city that I represent was flooded. It is a story for another day, but I was teaching at the time, and when the floodwater came in we had to evacuate. Flooding has a devastating impact on people for a long time afterwards, including on their mental health, so I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman as a victim of flooding himself. I realise it is not easy at all.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, more than 1,000 properties were flooded following recent heavy rain across central and southern England. The effects were felt particularly in communities in Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Buckinghamshire and north-west London, but more than 22,000 properties were protected by existing flood defences. As he said, I visited the Leighton Buzzard area in Bedfordshire on 26 September to meet volunteers and local residents and see at first hand the impact of the flooding there.

I know many people are now facing months of disruption and upset. I was particularly struck by one of the ladies I met, who was in tears when I went into her home. She showed me what had been her beautiful home, in which she had lived for over 20 years and on which she had spent a lot of time, and how it had just been ruined by the floodwater coming in, which she found absolutely devastating. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out how this impacts on vulnerable people. I heard stories of an elderly lady having to be rescued and taken away from her home. I absolutely pay tribute to Humberside fire and rescue service. Sorry, not just Humberside— I am so used to saying that—but all the fire and rescue services for their work in rescuing people.

I also thank the hon. Gentleman for joining the call that we had with the Environment Agency, which is something new that I have tried since becoming a Minister. It would simply be impossible for me to visit everywhere, so I want to find other ways to be as open and accessible as possible, which is why we tried this call. We had about 50 Members of Parliament on the call, and it was a way for hon. Members to get information directly from the Environment Agency, so I am grateful that he joined it.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister and I worked together when she was on this side of the House, so I know she is true to her word. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson)—very nobly, I thought—suggested that we ought to have a meeting about IDBs. This is a critically important issue for many parts of the country, and I am sure that a small delegation of colleagues could, in the spirit that the Minister has just described, have a very productive discussion. Would she agree to that?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman is so difficult to say no to. How infuriating—I have experienced this before. Yes, we will. That will be fine. I will be attending the internal drainage board conference, so after I have met people there, I am happy to meet a delegation to talk about IDBs. I can already hear my private office saying, “You’ve agreed to another meeting, Minister”, and telling me off.

Farming and Food Security

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I will make five points in three minutes—if I can pull that off, I trust I will go up even further in your estimation, Madam Deputy Speaker.

First, this Government, like all Governments, need to recognise that the food chain in this country is distorted by the power of a handful of huge corporate retailers. For far too long they have taken the lion’s share of the agricultural cake. It is critical that we rebalance the chain in favour of primary and secondary producers. Previous Governments have done some work on that, with the establishment of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I was in government when that was set up, but it needs more teeth to act on sharp practice by retailers who run ragged over primary producers.

Secondly, we need a strategy for food security. That means recognising that food security is as important as energy security; they must not be made competitors one with the other. We saw during covid and after the start of the war in Ukraine just what damage the unforeseen and unexpected can do to international markets and supply lines. It is critical that we grow more of what we consume, and shorten those supply lines to ensure that people will be fed by produce that is made here in the United Kingdom.

[Graham Stuart]

Is my right hon. Friend disappointed, as I am, that the Secretary of State did not say more about food security, and how we can make sure that a greater share of our food comes from this country?

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend has been a champion of these matters for a considerable period. I have hopes of the Secretary of State. I had a debate just before the recess in which the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs participated. I made the case for food security, and he gave me a fair hearing. I look forward to the meeting to which I know he is about to invite me; I can bring along a group of farmers and growers, to have that ongoing conversation. The core point is that food security matters. It not only helps with economic resilience but assists with traceability, quality, standards—all those things.

My third point was stimulated by the Secretary of State’s comments about investment and our need to think big. We do indeed. To maintain productivity and efficiency in farming and growing, we need to look to the future. That means greater automation and changing the way we go about the food production business. It means greater integration, but not at the expense of the small farmers and growers. An efficient system does not necessarily mean exclusively huge farm businesses, as we need an entry point to the industry. If we simply create a handful of very large corporate farmers, we will not allow the kind of fluidity necessary to maintain the health of the industry.

My fourth point is on procurement. The Government need to use procurement to support British produce. It is not that difficult, but no Government, of any party, have got it right. We have made some progress over time, as different Governments have launched different initiatives, but we need to use the public purse to support what we do in this country more effectively.

My final point is this: we can have a debate about the detail of policy but, as has been said by the shadow Secretary of State and others, we need to take a bigger view than the partisan knockabout that too often prevails in this kind of discussion. This is about the future good of our people through the production of food to feed the nation.

Food Security

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Pope Benedict said that

“food security is an authentically human requirement. Guaranteeing it for present and future generations also means safeguarding ourselves against the uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources.”

It will not have escaped your notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, or that of other Members of the House, that I represent a rural constituency with a preponderance of agricultural employment. Many of my constituents are employed in agriculture, horticulture, the food industry and related jobs. Lincolnshire boasts some of the best growing land in the country. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Lincolnshire is responsible for 30% of the nation’s vegetables, producing 19% of its poultry and 20% of its sugar beets, not to mention 90% of its ornamentals and flowers. I mention that last section because horticulture—the ornamental sector—is an important employer in my constituency. By the way, Lincolnshire, as hon. Friends from further north in the county will know, also processes 70% of the UK’s fish. Horticulture and potato crops use 6% of the farm area in greater Lincolnshire, and Lincolnshire has a total agricultural output of more than £2 billion, representing 12% of England’s total agricultural output.

The critical point in all this is the quality of the land. Again, it will not have escaped the notice of the House that much of that land is alluvial. The silt, and the peat further inland, makes it prime growing land. Grade 1, 2 or 3a land predominates in the Fens. Other Lincolnshire colleagues in the House tonight will recognise why that matters so much not only to the local economy and to local society, but to the national interest. Food security is not merely an indulgence; it is critically important to the common good.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for being such an eloquent champion on the issue of food security. My constituency, like his, has a large rural community, and when I speak to farmers it is clear that food security is national security. The previous Government did a great deal on this issue, from the farm to fork summit to the food security index. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to see more from this Government on food security—for instance, legally binding food security targets?

[Sir John Hayes]

With the perception for which my hon. Friend is already becoming known in the House, she anticipates the next part of my peroration. She represents an area that I know well; it is glorious, and I know now too that it has a glorious new Member of Parliament. The point she highlights is that over recent events, particularly the pandemic and the war in Europe, food security has gone from being a marginal matter—one that people like me raised regularly, but that was seen as rather self-indulgent, because people know I represent an area of the kind I describe and they felt I was merely championing those domestic interests—to a matter that goes well beyond the domestic to one of profound national importance.

Recent events have shown us the salience of economic resilience. We need to be sure that not only in times of crisis, but in other times, we can withstand the shocks that are the inevitable consequence of human circumstances and human frailties. Making our country more resilient in those circumstances has become a national imperative. I am delighted to say that, in what I hope we can all agree is a post-liberal age, the issue of food security, far from being marginal, has become mainstream. The Minister is an old parliamentary friend, having shadowed me—with great style, if I may say so—when I was a Transport Minister. I happen to know that he shares my view about salience; I therefore anticipate his response with enthusiasm bordering on glee.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to continue to share his insights into food security with the Labour party, which has no particular history in that respect? Indeed, its Front-Bench team consists of a Secretary of State from Croydon, a Minister of State from Cambridge and a couple of others from Hull and Coventry. They know little of country ways; they know little of the importance of food security. I hope that my right hon. Friend, in his charming and constructive way, will ensure that the Labour party, and particularly its Ministers, learn from his great knowledge.

[Sir John Hayes]

I will hear nothing negative said about Cambridge, given my connection with King’s College; I have never knowingly been to Croydon, so I cannot comment on it. What is certainly true is that this goes beyond party politics. My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise that any responsible Government would recognise that the salience of the matter has changed, as I have set out. We have been through some difficult times in recent years, and they have concentrated minds in a way that might not otherwise have happened.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I will happily give way so that the hon. Gentleman can make one of his rare interventions in the House.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The issues that he has outlined also apply in my constituency, where agriculture is really important: it creates some 3,500 jobs in the factories. I live on a farm—I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union—and I well understand farming issues.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the strategy that he hopes to see here at Westminster must encompass all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? If we work together with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we can make a food strategy that works for us all. Does he agree that that is the best way forward?

[Sir John Hayes]

This is a kingdom-wide priority, as I have made clear, so the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the issues in his part of our United Kingdom. However, I will return to Lincolnshire, if I may.

Over 90% of fens farmland is grade 1 or 2 quality. That is interesting in itself, given that grades 1 and 2 cover about 21% of all farmland nationally, while grade 3a covers a further 21%. Disturbingly, since 2010 my region has lost 3,232 hectares of best and most versatile farmland —the greatest absolute loss within a single region. Worse still, the county that I represent is being targeted for large-scale developments, which are invidious in the light of my point that the common good and the national interest are served by protecting our food security. In Lincolnshire alone there are currently applications for large-scale solar developments equivalent to the size of 62 Hyde Parks, totalling 9,109 hectares or 1.3% of the total land across the county.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I know that some of those proposed developments are in the constituency of my hon. Friend, to whom I am happy to give way.

[Gareth Davies]

In setting out our concerns, my right hon. Friend speaks not just for South Holland and The Deepings, but for the whole of Lincolnshire. Just before the general election, a written ministerial statement set out several provisions and thoughts about the problems that he describes. It specifically mentioned Lincolnshire and the issue of geographical clustering. Does he share my disappointment that the new Labour Government have not committed to those provisions and those statements?

[Sir John Hayes]

I anticipate disappointment, but I would not go so far as to say I share it. My hon. Friend has been a resolute champion for his constituents in respect of both food security and resisting developments that they simply do not want. If we believe in the devolution of power and in empowering communities to have a greater say in their futures, we cannot simultaneously snuff them out when they disagree with Government priorities—ignore them and disregard their perfectly proper concerns. That is something that my hon. Friend would never do. Where I disagree with him is that I have hope. There are those who will say that the new Minister is not up to the job, but I do not agree: I have worked with him previously, and I know that he is a diligent and decent man who will take these matters very seriously. I would not want to entirely write off the prospect that we will make an argument that is sufficiently persuasive to affect Government policy, even if we cannot change it entirely.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in a situation where there are competing priorities between environmental stewardship, food production and house building, there needs to be clarity from the Government about how they evaluate and prioritise the relative distribution of the high-quality land that my right hon. Friend has spoken about? Without some real teeth around what food security means through national security legislation, there is a wide range of interpretations that leave the cause he is speaking to in a vulnerable position.

[Sir John Hayes]

This is why the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) was so powerful, because, as my right hon. Friend has just said, there are competing imperatives. Energy security and food security must not be allowed to contradict one another; both can be pursued with the right approach and with a sensitive treatment of where different applications are located. My argument tonight is that that sensitivity—that precision—is not currently prevailing. Indeed, the scale of the applications we are talking about in Lincolnshire alone is over 2,000 acres in some cases, eating up vast swathes of highly productive agricultural land. Once that land is eaten up, one suspects it will never return to agricultural production.

There is a myth about wind turbines. Those who have been in this House for a long time and those who followed my career even before they became Members of this House, as I know many did, will remember that I have been campaigning against onshore wind since the time I got to this place. That is not only because of the aesthetics of onshore wind—as all men and women of taste would acknowledge, they are grim—but because the concrete used to anchor the wind turbines will never leave the ground, even when they have ceased to serve their purpose. Nobody seriously believes that there will be a commercial interest in removing that concrete, which will fill valuable growing land—spoil the soil, if I can turn a phrase that might last and make an impression on you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on others too.

The issue is the Government taking forward their priorities in a way that is consistent but, as I said before, also sensitive to the imperative of food security alongside that of energy security. There are 14 solar applications in Lincolnshire constituencies that are nationally significant infrastructure projects—by definition, those are large projects. In other words, more than 50% of nationally proposed solar plants are in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire or Rutland, which cannot be sensible. Of course we should be pursuing renewable technologies, but surely solar belongs on buildings. Every large commercial building, every warehouse—they are springing up everywhere —every office block and many more houses could accommodate solar panels and deliver solar power, yet we are allowing developers to make applications on the best growing land in our country, often for no better reason than their own self-interest. I cannot accept that this Minister believes in that, or that he is going to allow it. When he responds, I hope he will say that he will not.

There is another threat facing my constituency, and it has an effect on food security too. That is the immense number of pylons that are proposed—87 miles-worth of huge pylons, along the whole of the east coast, neither wanted nor needed by local people. I say “not wanted” for self-evident reasons, but they are not needed, either, because there are better ways of transmitting power. As Lincolnshire county council has argued, the offshore grid is a much more suitable way of transmitting power. Pylons are yesterday’s technology, yet we face the prospect of them filling the big skies of Lincolnshire. We either care about the glory of our landscape or we are careless of it.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I know that my hon. Friend cares about it deeply.

[Martin Vickers]

On pylons, my right hon. Friend will perhaps recall that on the final day before the election, I held an Adjournment debate on National Grid’s Grimsby to Walpole proposals, and the then Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, Justin Tomlinson, said he would like to see a review. Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that the new Government will follow that decision and instigate a review?

[Sir John Hayes]

I was in the Chamber when my hon. Friend held that debate; I rushed there when I saw his name on the screen, as I so often do. He was right to highlight the National Grid decision-making process, and to play his part in that discussion, as have I and other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne. I am more hopeful than many that we can persuade National Grid and Ministers to look at other options. Undergrounding is a possibility in the fens, for example, where tall structures have a disproportionate impact on the landscape, but as I said, I think the offshore grid proposed by the county council is perhaps the best way forward.

The last Government published for the first time in 2021 a UK food security report; I hope that this Government will take forward that type of work on a non-partisan basis. They committed to assessing our food security at least every three years, and hosted the Farm to Fork summit in 2023. I hope that this Government will continue in that vein.

The public procurement of UK food is also a pressing priority. I have never really thought that any Government of any colour—and I have been in quite a number of them—really got the issue of public procurement right. I was always told not to say this with civil servants in earshot, because it is like speaking in front of the children, in a way, and it is rather rude, and I had some very good civil servants, but I always felt that civil servants were putting impediments in the way of our using procurement as a tool to deliver national priorities.

Procurement could be used more intelligently to bring about better ends; food procurement is a really good example of that. Why on earth are public bodies not prioritising British food? Why is it that any number of public sector organisations, from the health service to the prisons, from schools to this place and local authorities, are not buying British? Surely we should be buying British to support our country and the jobs that go with food production. I do hope that my “Backing Britain, buying British” campaign will gain support across the Chamber, and when I produce the badges, which will be coming out shortly, I will ask the Minister to wear one with pride.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I see that the hon. Gentleman is gagging for a bite already. I give way to him.

[David Chadwick]

Last week I was privileged to attend the Royal Welsh show in my constituency of Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, one of the biggest constituencies in England and Wales. I spoke to many farmers, and top of their list of concerns was the power imbalance between producers and retailers. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Lib Dem manifesto, which called for a strengthening of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure fairness in the supply chain, thereby protecting producers and guaranteeing food security?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not make a habit of saying kind things about Liberals of any description, but I am going to say something quite kind to the hon. Gentleman because he is right to draw attention to that code. When I was a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as it was, I was instrumental in arguing the case for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I met the first adjudicator and brought the second, the current incumbent, to my constituency to meet a group of farmers and growers during the last Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is right about the strength of that role, which just proves something that not everyone here will know: even Liberal Democrats sometimes get it right.

In summary, I believe that now is the time for food security. Now is the time, building on the last Government’s beginning—it was a belated beginning—to make food security a central tenet of the new Government’s priorities. I know the Minister enjoyed good relations with farmers and growers during his period as a shadow Minister—that has been reported to me by my constituents and others—and he will have heard this argument made by them, and not only by us representatives in this place. It is really of vital importance, in the national interest and for the common good that we no longer allow our valuable agricultural land to be used for all kinds of other purposes, and so compromise this country’s food security, making us more dependent on imports, more vulnerable, increasing emissions, increasing food miles and damaging local economies. That is not the way forward. Let us make food security matter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is very good to see you in your place.

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) not only for his very kind words and warm welcome, but for his customarily thoughtful speech, and not least his very comprehensive account of his wonderful county of Lincolnshire and the huge contribution that it makes to our food production. I also thank the other hon. Members who made very thoughtful contributions to the debate.

I cannot tell the House how delighted I am to stand at the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the Chamber for the first time as Minister for food security and rural affairs. The very title is a clear statement of this Government’s commitment to rural areas, and as has been said, this Government absolutely recognise that food security is national security. That is why we need a resilient, secure and healthy food system that works with nature, but also supports British farmers. This Government are offering a new deal for farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen Britain’s food security, and we will set out more details in due course.

Frankly, climate change is one of the most significant threats to our food security. We have seen it this year in the extreme weather events that farmers are having to deal with. It is absolutely the case that taking the difficult decisions now to address climate change will enhance, rather than threaten, our food security. We have to face up to the challenge of an energy transition to achieve that, and in doing so must plan how we will use land in this country to ensure a proper balance between food security, restoring and preserving nature, and clean energy.

I was interested to hear the observations from Opposition Members after their 14 years of opportunity to do the things that they are now keen to do, but we will pick up on many of their suggestions. Certainly one of the key ones will be to publish a land use framework; that was promised by the previous Government, but there were many delays, and we are now picking that up. It will work in tandem with our spatial energy plan.

I can assure the House that communities will quite rightly continue to have a say on proposals for their area. It is important for this Government that where communities host clean energy infrastructure, they should directly benefit from it. However, we will not get into a position where the clean energy that we need does not get built and the British people end up paying the price.

Credible external estimates suggest that ground-mounted solar used just 0.1% of our land in 2022. The biggest threat to nature, food security and our rural communities is not solar panels or onshore wind; it is the major climate crisis, which itself threatens our best farmland, food production and, indeed, the livelihoods of farmers. The Government will absolutely proceed on the basis not of hearsay and conjecture, but of evidence.

One of the Government’s five missions, which I am sure people have heard much about, is our commitment to making Britain a clean energy superpower. That is part of a wider ambition to deliver on existing net zero emissions targets. Farming has a big role to play in contributing to net zero; 70% or so of UK land is used for agriculture, and farmers are custodians of the natural environment. They absolutely work hard to manage their land responsibly while providing the food we all need.

I am glad that there is now consensus around the need for farmers to produce food. There was a curious period a few years ago when it seemed as though food production had somehow been forgotten. I can see the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings nodding wisely because he knows to what I refer, and I am pleased that we have all moved on and can agree on the notion that food production is so important.

[Sir John Hayes]

The previous Government, albeit belatedly, changed planning guidance to give additional protection to grade 1, 2 and 3a land of the kind that I described. Furthermore, they said that when an energy developer expressed an interest in developing a site—of solar panels, for example—any assessment of the soil should be entirely independent. Those seem to be perfectly reasonable policies—reasonable enough for a reasonable man to accept.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Member tempts me into a level of detail that I am afraid I am not prepared to go into this evening. We are examining all these issues and will come to a considered position. We want to get the balance right and that is what we will do, because the transition to more climate-friendly practices does not need to come at the expense of food production or farm profitability. In our view, net zero can absolutely support economic growth, including by accelerating the uptake of innovative technologies to increase productivity and efficiency in the agriculture sector. That, in turn, will support net zero food production, the efficient use of land and nature recovery.

Our intention is to work closely on that necessary transition with not just the farming industry, but all stakeholders involved. We will work with farmers to ensure that we avoid imposing unnecessary costs, and—this, I hope, will be welcome to many in the sector—we absolutely guarantee that we will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals.

The right hon. Member, as I rather anticipated, mentioned solar in particular. As with all major infrastructure projects, there is a rigorous application process, and food production is rightly considered in it. I point hon. Members to the decision letters on these solar projects, which are available on the Planning Inspectorate website. That is the normal procedure in planning decisions. All the documentation will be found there, not just the final decision letters. I hope that makes it clear that all objections, relevant evidence and points raised throughout the planning inquiry are addressed and given weight in coming to a planning decision. I appreciate that the decision letter is a long, complex document, as indeed it should be, given the important issues raised. There is a limit to what I can say, as I am bound by the planning propriety guidance, which is clear that during the legal challenge period, planning Ministers and officials cannot comment on the decision, summarise it or interpret it.

Water Companies: Executive Bonuses

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

It is hard to know whether discipline has broken down in the Conservative party; its Members seem able to rebel with impunity. When the Minister speaks, I am sure she will enlighten the House about what happened.

Instead of acting on the warnings, the Government have turned a blind eye to what has been going on. Thanks to this Government’s wilful negligence, we see record levels of toxic sewage swilling through our rivers and lakes, pouring into our seas and lapping on to our beaches.

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

I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to make a partisan speech; he would want to make a balanced appraisal of the challenges, which we all regard with the seriousness that he has described. He mentioned beaches. Will he acknowledge that the proportion of bathing waters regarded as good or excellent has increased dramatically—from 76% to 93%, to be precise—since 2010, when his party was last in power?

[Steve Reed]

Heaven forfend that anyone would make a partisan speech in this place. I do not believe that the quality of water on our beaches is acceptable. Many campaign groups, such as Surfers Against Sewage, regularly point out the very low, even toxic, quality of the water that their families and they wish to enjoy. Many constituents of Members on both sides of the House will share those concerns. I hope that this debate is a time for us to come together to collectively identify the problems and move forward with proposals to tackle them. The right hon. Member, just like me and Members from all parts of the House, will share the concern that our once pristine waterways have been polluted by stinking, toxic filth. However, I hold the sewage party opposite responsible. The Prime Minister would not put up with raw sewage in his private swimming pool, so why is he happy to treat the British countryside as an open sewer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an accurate observation. People were promised one thing but the Government then tried to do the opposite.

[Sir John Hayes]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for wildlife. We need a diverse countryside of the kind that he describes and I make the case, as he does, for hedgerows, trees and so on. Among the things that blight the countryside, however, are onshore wind turbines, which kill bats and birds and which are anchored by hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete, and widespread onshore solar, which eats up agricultural land and turns the countryside into an industrial place. Would he oppose those things?

Support for British Farming

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) on securing this debate. We cannot speak enough about the need to support our farmers, who produce the food we need in a way that is good for the country and our health. We talk regularly about the need to support our farmers and landowners in producing more food. We also talk a lot about the need to protect and enhance our natural environment and countryside, which many of us are privileged to live in or represent; there does not need to be conflict between the two. Food production and biodiversity can complement each other; our mistake has been to give farmers the impression that they bear responsibility for our countryside and natural environment declining, and their job to fix it. I disagree, but there is no denying that consumers, driven by supermarkets and Government policy on inflation, hunger for ever cheaper food; they often want to pay less than the cost of producing it—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax).

Farmers face unparalleled challenges and are fighting fires, barely surviving each challenge as it rolls over them. They have little time to think, plan and change the way they produce the food we need. As a result, small farmers in Cornwall are handing over their land to large contractors to farm. I see a significant number of farmers reducing the amount of food they plan to produce this year and next, and lots of farmers are leaving dairy altogether. The production of potatoes and dairy, which are essential to our daily diet, has reduced enormously in Cornwall.

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

My hon. Friend makes the point that we need to build more national food resilience. It is preposterous that in the 1980s we were producing 78% of what we consumed, but now the figure has fallen to 60%. The grant funding discussed earlier would help farmers, particularly in respect of automation, and allow them, once they have become more productive and efficient, to challenge the power of the supermarkets, which have distorted the food chain. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to rebalance the food chain in favour of primary producers?

[Derek Thomas]

I do agree, and that was the subject of one of the first debates I ever secured in this place, back in 2015. Given how farmers’ plans have shifted in the last 18 months, I suspect that less than 60% of the food we consume is grown in the UK.

Urgent action is needed. I am glad to see the Minister in his place; I met him first thing this morning to discuss a similar issue. One thing that was said this morning, and with which I completely agree, is that food security should and must be adopted as a public good, so that we can focus Government funding and support for farmers in order to deliver food security across our nation.

As has been mentioned, we also need a determined effort to maximise high-quality food production—not just to feed our nation but to do so in a healthy way. We know that our NHS is not properly coping with the demands we place on it, and it will not get any better until we really look at our diet, the food we produce and our gut health. It is a massive issue, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, will be looking at soil quality and how it affects gut health.

We need to attract talent, especially in opening up the opportunity to embrace science and innovation, and to harvest the food we need. I go into schools all the time, and so much work needs to be done across the Department for Education, schools, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and other Government Departments to make farming and food production a key conversation in primary schools, secondary schools, colleges and our homes. Parents also have a real opportunity to talk to their children about jobs in the food and farming sector.

Finally, we need to restore the relationship between the state, Government agencies and non-governmental organisations, so that farmers know they are vital and that we recognise they are vital to our national security and health. They should be supported to transition to modern, sustainable and productive farming and food production. We will not be forgiven by those living in the countryside if we fail to support them and to enable them to play the role they want to play, and are keen to play, in feeding the nation and making the countryside a place that is both secure at home and generous to the world around us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Loder]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, which concur with my thoughts. I am afraid this is the beginning of a ticking time bomb. If ever there was a time that this House had to urge the Government to give the Groceries Code Adjudicator the teeth it needs to sort this mess out, it is now. If we think there is difficulty in the market today, I can assure this Chamber that in less than 12 months’ time we will not be in a situation where we have a reduction in eggs available for sale to consumers—we will be lucky if we have any eggs on the shelves at all.

[Sir John Hayes]

Before my hon. Friend concludes what is, as ever, a brilliant speech, I want to say that this does not just apply to eggs. The Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to intervene in respect of horticulture, cereals, livestock and a whole range of things in respect of which supermarkets are, as I said earlier, distorting the food chain. Will my hon. Friend ask this brilliant Minister —there is no one better in the House to do this—to use the powers that the Government already have to act in favour of farmers and growers?

[Chris Loder]

Yes, I will. The Minister has heard that request.

Finally, the NFU has called for a DEFRA investigation into the egg supply chain. The NFU is a bit late with that call, but I think it is right. I hope the Minister will take that on board. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) makes a very fair point: this is not just about eggs. Milk was 49p a pint maybe 18 months ago; it has gone up now to more than £1 a pint in most shops. Ask our dairy farmers if they have received that difference—no, they have not.

Sewage Discharges

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in my position in DEFRA, Ms Elliott. I thank all colleagues for showing such interest in and passion about a subject that I know we all care deeply about. Most of all, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing the debate.

I also pay tribute to the two Ministers who were unable to speak in the debate but have listened intently: the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). I am very grateful for support.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the two previous Ministers who have done so much in this area: my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and, of course, my wonderful predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebeccab Pow), to whom I pay particular thanks. They have not only taken up this issue professionally as Ministers, but campaigned pretty much their entire lives on it. That hard work has paid dividends: I am able to stand here today and talk about the improvements that this Government have made, and the pragmatic steps that enable monitoring. It is uncomfortable to hear the results of that monitoring, but without it we would not know where or how much we need to improve. To put some numbers on that monitoring, we have improved the systems from 5% in 2016 to 90% today—a tremendous improvement.

We are absolutely clear that we will not tolerate the failure of water companies to reduce the amount of storm sewage discharges. It is completely unacceptable. When it rains heavily, as has been discussed today, rainwater lands on roofs and impermeable surfaces. It is uncharacteristic of me to agree so much with the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), but he has experience in this particular sector. We recognise that combined sewers are part of the problem, particularly during heavy precipitation, when all of that run-off from non-permeable surfaces flows with the foul water into the sewage treatment plant. We hold water companies to account for improving that situation, for splitting those systems and for a whole raft of other infrastructure changes, but that will take time.

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

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) raised the possibility of water companies being statutory consultees when planning applications that add pressure to existing sewerage systems are made. Had they been so, developments in Weston, in my constituency, that will put unbearable pressure on the existing drainage and sewerage system would not have gone ahead.

[Trudy Harrison]

My right hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Reforms are taking place in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to look at the plethora of opportunities for speeding up some of those planning processes, with no regression in environmental protections. He raises the issue of nitrogen and phosphates in our water system. Nutrient neutrality has caused significant delays—in fact, entire blockages—for many house builders across the country. That is exactly why we are coming up with systems to ensure that those developers contribute to environmental processes that improve the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorous in water, and enable those developments to go ahead.

I have talked about the challenge of combined sewers. The options are both intolerable as long-term solutions: either to allow water, including foul water, to back up the system, flooding into people’s homes and businesses—I was flooded, and I agree with other Members that it is an incredibly unpleasant situation to be in—or to discharge sewage into watercourses. Neither of those options is acceptable or tolerable.

In August, the Government published the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which found that achieving complete elimination could cost up to £600 billion and increase annual water bills by up to £817 by 2049. It would also be, as suggested by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, highly disruptive and complex to deliver nationwide. Our storm overflow discharge reduction plan will see £56 billion in capital investment by 2050—the largest infrastructure programme in water company history. By 2035, water companies will have to improve all storm overflows discharging into or near every designated bathing water, and improve 75% of overflows discharging into high-priority nature sites. By 2050, that will apply to all remaining storm overflows covered by our targets regardless of their location.

There has been some talk about the Environment Agency being resourced to be able to carry out that role. DEFRA and its agencies received £4.3 billion in the 2021 spending review to do more to tackle climate change and protect our environment for future generations. In terms of the response to Ofwat, Ofwat’s investigations will consider how overall companies operate, manage their sewage treatment works and report on their performance where the investigations can find failings on obligations. Ofwat is responsible for enforcing; it will use its full range of powers accordingly to hold companies to account for their failures, and to require them to put things right in short order.

The subject of sewage also brought to the fore the Thames tideway tunnel, which is a £1.9 billion investment. Once operational and taken together with the other improvements, it will achieve a 95% reduction in the annual volume of untreated waste water entering the tidal Thames.

Government Food Strategy

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

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

The strategy is welcome inasmuch as it is a recognition that food security is as important as energy security. It is critical that we reduce the length of supply lines, so guaranteeing sustainability and traceability. Being that I know something about Government procurement, due to my ministerial jobs, will the Secretary of State make it clear that the desire for us to produce more food that is then consumed by the public sector is not merely an aspiration, but an obligation—not merely a hope, but an expectation?

[George Eustice]

We have different levers for different parts of the public sector. With core Government Departments, we can give exactly that kind of clear direction; indeed we do, through the agreements they have with organisations such as the Crown Commercial Service, they must pursue our policy. We want to work with the wider public sector on this, including schools and hospitals, but it is fair to say that they too want to support healthy, nutritious, locally produced food.

Draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022 Draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 Draft Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 General Committees

[Victoria Prentis]

As ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a great pleasure to be part of the Committee, and a particular honour to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, with whom it is always a pleasure to serve.

A draft of the Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations was laid before the House on 3 February. Although I do not directly benefit from agricultural support, I should say that I come from a farming family who very much benefit from agricultural support schemes. The matters in the statutory instruments are closely related. The instruments are being made under powers in the Agriculture Act 2020. They implement important aspects of our new agricultural policies, set out in the “Agricultural Transition Plan 2021 to 2024”, which was published in November 2020 and updated in June 2021.

The direct payment to farmers regulations apply progressive reductions to direct payments for the 2022 scheme year. The Government remain committed to phasing out direct payments—the basic payment scheme, as we used to call it—in England over the seven-year agricultural transition period. We are doing so because area-based payments obviously go, in the main, to larger landowners. Almost 50% of the total £3.7 billion budget goes to the largest landowners. Those payments artificially inflate land rents, stand in the way of new entrants to farming accessing land, and offer the taxpayer little environmental return.

To help farmers plan, we committed in 2018 to phasing out BPS direct payments. The specific reductions provided for in the statutory instrument were announced as far back as November 2020. As was the case last year, higher reductions will be applied to payment amounts in higher payment bands—that is, to people who own more land. Although direct payments are reducing, total funding to farmers is not reducing. We will make money from the reductions available for targeted schemes to increase farm productivity, improve the health and welfare of animals and deliver environmental gains.

In the coming year, much of the reallocated money will be used to meet the rising demand from farmers for the countryside stewardship scheme, which is our key environmental offer at the moment. My family’s farm also takes part in the scheme. We now have 52% of farmers enrolled in countryside stewardship, and the intention is very much that we farmers will transition automatically to the mid-tier of the new schemes.

Farmers today face significant challenges because of rapidly increasing input costs. The war in Ukraine has directly affected the price of food and fertiliser. I am very keen to target support at those who need it most. We will offer a new suite of opportunities to farmers, supply chains and researchers to enable them to collaborate on research and development, so that they can find practical solutions to the challenges and opportunities that farming faces.

The draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations update a similar instrument approved on 23 March 2021. They put in place requirements relating to financial data publication, and to enforcement and monitoring, for four new financial assistance schemes that we established under the Agriculture Act 2020. The amending statutory instrument extends the range of financial assistance schemes covered by the 2021 regulations to ensure that any new financial assistance schemes launched in 2022, and thereafter, will be subject to the same checking, monitoring and enforcement requirements that applied to the original schemes that we launched last year.

As we have set out for several years, as part of our wider agricultural reforms, we want to support farmers who wish to leave the industry, as well as those who want to stay. Some farmers would like to retire or leave farming but have found it difficult to do so for financial reasons. That is why the lump sum payment regulations allow a scheme to be introduced in 2022 that provides lump sum payments to farmers in England who want to leave the sector. Some who wish to retire can find it very difficult to do so, and the lack of finance is the barrier to retiring with dignity. We surveyed farmers during the planning for the Agriculture Act 2020 and found that about 6% wanted to leave but felt unable to, with financial reasons obviously being the biggest obstacle. The scheme in the regulations provides those farmers with a way out. More than 1,000 farmers have so far requested a forecast statement, showing the lump sum amount that they could receive if eligible. Obviously, that does not mean that they will take that sum, but it is an indication that there is a group of farmers who will find the new scheme useful. The payments will be in place of any further direct payments to the recipient during the remainder of the agricultural transition. It is not new money, and will not have an impact on the funding of other schemes.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. The direct payment instrument before the Committee is a consequence of the decision that was taken to incorporate into a new law in 2020 direct payments of the kind that my hon. Friend has described. It is uncontentious and this is the regulatory application of that change. She has spoken about farmers leaving the industry receiving direct payments. I do not imagine that she will be able to commit to it now, but will she think about direct payments to people entering the industry? It is very hard now for someone to become a farmer. The barriers to entry are very high—the price of land is prohibitive—but we need to get more people, young people in particular, drawn into agriculture and horticulture. Will my hon. Friend give that further consideration?

[Victoria Prentis]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a very valid point. I had a really useful meeting this morning with the National Farmers Union new entrants, who came to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They were full of ideas and practical solutions to the problems faced globally and by their farming businesses. Yes, DEFRA has very ambitious plans for new entrants; we are working them up in conjunction with those new entrants. We are approaching the agricultural transition hand in hand with farmers. We have 4,000 farmers testing things for us and checking that the new schemes actually work.

The new entrants policies will be rolled out next year. The exit lump sum is partially designed to enable the retirement of older farmers, but it is also envisaged that it will free up land that we hope may be made available for new entrants. The new entrants at the Department today had many other ideas, as do other groups, about how we can support new entrants to the sector generally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am not sure who chose me to serve on this Delegated Legislation Committee, but we do not often have the chance to discuss something in which we have a genuine interest. I represent a rural constituency, and it is a great pleasure to do so. The Minister has been fantastic in her engagement with my farmers, and she knows some of their concerns about many of the areas that have been discussed. I really appreciate her engagement.

I shall make a few short points. My very good friend, the Minister, has talked about the quantum staying the same with regard to what farmers will receive when moving from one system to another. Can she confirm that the amount that farmers receive overall will be the same? There is a worry that we are moving from a simple, stable system, as has been alluded to, to a much more complex system that must include lots of checks and balances, because we are looking at an outcome-based policy—people are paid for outcomes, rather than acreage. How much of that money will be absorbed by the administration and bureaucracy of the process? It is hugely important that farmers receive the right amount, and the amounts that they have been used to.

As has been said, the amount that farmers receive directly is reducing, and other schemes are supposed to compensate for that. I think that my hon. Friend has acknowledged that some of the pilot schemes are not particularly well explained, detailed or clear. A lot of farmers have seen a reduction in revenue—vital support—particularly hill farmers, and they have not seen a commensurate increase in revenue arising from other schemes that they might be in. As my hon. Friend knows, in the past the countryside stewardship scheme was hugely bureaucratic and often it felt like people gave more money to be involved in it than they received in compensation for running the scheme itself. I know that my farmers would very much like to see a delay in the proposed reduction and more development work on the pilots before we move to a system of reduced payments.

We all know that food security and energy security are really important. I am seeing an increasing amount of my productive farmland—the best and most versatile land—going under solar farm applications. That is equivalent to hundreds and hundreds of acres in what is a very productive part of the country. Our local authorities in their wisdom have declared climate emergencies, and they are using that as a way to get round any requirements to keep the best and most fertile land for farmland. They argue, “Actually, we have a climate emergency, and therefore that overrides the need to keep the best and most fertile land for growing food.” We have energy production imperatives and targets because of the race to net zero, and at the same time we have not got food production targets. Our self-sufficiency was 75% in 1985, but it is now 60%. If we had a target for self-sufficiency to grow to that higher amount, perhaps that would act as a check and balance against local authorities giving consent for solar farms.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. There was a debate in Westminster Hall about this last week, and the points he is making were amplified. The critical thing is that these two things are not unrelated. You can shorten the food chain, reduce the number of air miles and grow more of what we consume locally. Then one is both serving the objective of aiding the planet and making us more secure in food in these uncertain times. He is absolutely right that there is a need for an urgent review of Government policy, and a change in planning law, if necessary, to prevent monstrous solar parks from taking up valuable agricultural land.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was lucky enough to speak at the end of that debate, although I was able to be there only for the last few minutes of it. It is absolutely true. It seems perverse that we are putting solar farms on productive farmland and not putting solar panels on top of every commercial building, school, hospital and prison. There must be some reason why we are doing it that way, but it would make obvious sense to put panels in those locations rather than on farmland. It is a debate that we need to have. I have been to see the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is very supportive about the need for more clarity.

We are moving away from acreage payments, as the rest of Europe has, for example, to a system that is based on public goods. That means that we are putting our farmers at a competitive disadvantage. That is the reality, because they have to do stuff to get that money. That means investment and the cost of capital. We must maintain that fair and level playing field through trade agreements and through the system of payments that we make. I fear, and I know that the Minister has some sympathy with this thought, that we are potentially putting our farmers at a disadvantage. That is something we need to be very careful about.