Thames Water: Government Support

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I am sure the hon. Member is wondering why a Scottish MP is speaking in a debate about Thames Water. I absolutely agree with his concerns about Thames Water, but the model he seems to be proposing is very close to what we have with Scottish Water, which I am sure he has done a lot of research on. He will know that sewage was dumped into Scotland’s rivers and lochs for over 600 hours a day in 2023, and we do not monitor our water discharges anywhere near as closely as England. I therefore urge caution. The model he is proposing does not work in Scotland. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, despite having the powers, does not use them in the way he might want.

[Luke Taylor]

I genuinely thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It highlights that there is no silver bullet. The solutions that we propose are complex and difficult; they require monitoring and oversight of infrastructure plans, and properly phased, long-term planning and investment to prevent the discharges that we see under the current system. Only through the proper process—upgrading holding tanks, for example, or upgrading the technologies used to filter and clean the water before the effluence is put back into the river—can we see improvement. His challenge is fair and welcome; the solution not a silver bullet.

To conclude, a utility company, working in collaboration with Government, can be a force for good governance and good management of our environment, and give good value to bill payers. Imagine looking at a water bill and thinking, “This is good value!” I promise that there is a future like that, but that is what is at stake. The Government must act now to sort out the mess and establish that in this country, utility companies can thrive only when they take seriously their responsibilities to the environment and to us, rather than solely the pursuit of profit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this really important debate. It was good to listen to all the contributions. As we all know, water is vital and we use it every single day, so it is deeply concerning that we have such great challenges in our water industry, particularly those that have been highlighted with Thames Water.

Under the last Government, we uncovered the true extent of the issues with our water system by increasing the monitoring of storm overflows, which no political party or Administration had previously attempted. Back in 2010, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored, but when we left office, 100% were monitored. That gave the Government and our regulators a proper and true understanding of the way in which those storm overflows were being used by our water companies.

[John Lamont]

I pay tribute to all the work that my hon. Friend did as a Minister. He has highlighted the percentage of overflows that are now being monitored in England. I am sure he is aware of research by Surfers Against Sewage confirming that 100% of storm overflows in England are now being monitored. In Scotland, the figure is only 4%. Does that not show the huge difference between what is happening here in England, which is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination, and what is happening in Scotland, which is far, far worse?

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, that is the point: for any Government, regardless of political colour or make-up, to deal with the challenge, they need to understand the true extent of what they are dealing with.

It is frustrating that north of the border only 4% of storm overflows are being monitored. In reference to what is happening with Scottish Water, and to what the devolved Administration north of the border are doing in the Scottish Parliament to tackle challenges of pollution, how can any proper strategy be put in place with no reference point? That is why it is important to get to the 100% level of monitoring that we now have in England, which resulted in the last Administration being able to roll out the plan for water, which was about stronger regulation, tougher enforcement and more investment.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the Thames tideway, which has 25 km of underground capacity that has now been extended from Acton to Abbey Mills. A £5 billion investment has been put into the project, which is now fully operational, having opened in February; I was lucky enough to visit and to go down into it before it was opened. The great thing about the project is that it is now draining about 34 of the most polluting combined sewer overflows in the Thames area, which will help to improve the quality of the water in the Thames.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam rightly raised the concerns about increasing water bills, the lack of trust in Thames Water and the poor level of service that his constituents are experiencing. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) picked up on the same issues and referred to the meeting that I had with her and with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in the short period for which I was lucky enough to be a Minister in the Department, about the challenges with the Teddington project. I urge the Minister to address those concerns, because challenges arise when there is no proper environmental impact assessment. Concern about the project is rightly being raised—it was certainly a concern that I had—so I urge the Minister to continue to put pressure on Thames Water.

The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) rightly raised the concerns of constituents on Clarence Avenue and in Brixton, relating to water shortages resulting from Thames Water not carrying out its duty to the level of quality that her constituents expect. She also raised concerns about the bill increases of approximately 30% or 31% for some of her constituents.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned the statutory duties that a water company is bound to meet and referred to the poor satisfaction levels that Thames Water is delivering. The hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) rightly raised the challenges that his constituents are experiencing with flooding, and Thames Water’s refusal to take responsibility. Finally, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned challenges relating to Thames Water’s bill increases and the poor service that his constituents experience.

Thames Water is probably the most distressing example of our water system going wrong. Bills are rising by about 33% this year, but unfortunately the Government have failed to take serious action and consumers are paying for it. That comes in addition to the pressures of the cost of living, council tax rises and so on. Rightly, there is huge frustration that Thames Water shareholders have simply wrung the business dry of capital, failed to invest to expand its supply, and failed to invest to clean up sewage spills. Thames Water’s exceptionally poor level of service deliverability has already been mentioned.

The last Administration took steps to address the challenges that constituents and residents face not only in the Thames Water area, but across England. We blocked bosses’ bonuses for water company executives, we ensured that dividends had to be linked specifically to environmental performance and we introduced unlimited civil fines by removing the £250,000 cap. More power was awarded to Ofwat so that it could impose levies on water companies in the circumstances. In August last year, Thames Water was fined £104 million for its failure to avoid sewage overflows. In other instances Thames Water was put under a cash lock-up, which prevents any dividends from being paid out without Ofwat’s approval.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

With respect, I think that we have different interpretations of the truth. We are saying that the company can enter SA if it is insolvent. Thames Water is not at the point of insolvency. My message to the public and to people working in the company is that the company remains stable at the moment; however, as a responsible Government, we are preparing for every eventuality.

I want to talk about broader commitments to financial stability and the independent commission. For me, this debate highlights how important it is to address the financial resilience of the water sector. We are talking specifically about Thames Water, but that does not mean that everything else is a bed of roses. Some historical decisions made by companies on debt levels have left them badly financially exposed. Those decisions often coincided with moves towards more complex ownership structures and the involvement of firms with shorter-term horizons.

We recognise that the Government have an important role to play in setting a regulatory framework that encourages a stable water sector. In hindsight, many might question the 2014 changes to make Ofwat a lighter-touch regulator. The Independent Water Commission is exploring how the Government could provide the regulatory structure that most people in the Chamber recognise that we need. The call for evidence is currently live, seeking views from stakeholders on improvements that could be made to economic regulation across a number of areas. As always, we welcome contributions from everybody across the House. The call for evidence closes on 23 April, and I encourage all interested parties to respond to the commission’s questions on these topics via DEFRA’s online consultation tool, Citizen Space.

I conclude by reiterating that both the Government and Ofwat are carefully monitoring the situation with Thames Water.

[John Lamont]

I want to pick up on my point about Scotland. Some Members have been advocating for nationalisation. Does the Minister have any thoughts on that, and have the current Government looked at what is happening in Scotland? Scottish Water, by many standards, is performing even less well than Thames Water. But Scottish Water is state-owned. Its chief executive is paid £290,000. The model in Scotland is not something that I would encourage the Minister to look at—I am not saying that she is—but I would be keen to have her reflections.

[Emma Hardy]

Water is devolved, and I completely respect the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament to make those decisions. The Government have been clear that we are not looking at nationalisation, simply because of the cost, the time it would take and the legal complications. My focus is quite simply on what I can do to improve the situation that we currently face. There is a lot of consensus around looking at regulation and how effective, or not, it is at the moment, and what can be changed. That is where I have put all my focus. Nationalisation was ruled out of the Independent Water Commission; however, all other forms of ownership are allowed within the terms of reference.

It is for the companies to resolve their financial resilience issues within the context of their licence and broader statutory obligations. However, I must be clear: the Government are prepared for all scenarios across our regulated industries, as any responsible Government would be. This new Government are committed to turning around the water sector—I refer back to my 10 reasons for hope before Easter—which will be achieved through practical measures to clean up illegal sewage dumping and attracting major private sector investment to upgrade infrastructure while prioritising the interests, as we have mentioned, of customers and our beautiful environment.

Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

These negotiations are difficult at the best of times. We need to make sure these decisions are made on the basis of merit. Of course, we wish to re-establish UK fishing entitlement out to the 12 mile limit and to ensure that foreign vessels are not able to use their historic entitlements to fish within the 6 to 12 mile zone. Relative stability within the common fisheries policy left the UK, particularly in the western approaches, with a significantly poorer deal in comparison with many European countries, and that is the basis of a great deal of disquiet within the industry.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Member is being generous with his time. I am fortunate to represent the fishing fleet off the Berwickshire coast, which is relatively small but very active, together with the fish processing industry. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation produced a very helpful briefing note ahead of today’s debate. One of the points it makes is that, since the UK left the EU in 2020, the UK and Scotland’s opportunities have increased greatly, and those opportunities would not have been there had we remained in the EU. Does the hon. Member agree with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation?

[Andrew George]

No, I disagree. I think that overall, the impact on the fishing industry has been a net negative, certainly for people in my own region, who depend substantially on the export of fish to other European countries. In the past, the majority of the fish landed in Newlyn, which is a very substantial port in my constituency—at least 80%—went to France, Spain and other European countries. The impact that that and other things, including veterinary inspections, vivier export requirements and licences, have had on the industry has been significantly detrimental, so I do not accept that. That is a conversation that I would be very happy to have with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, but by no means can one say that Brexit has been a great success, because that is certainly not the case.

The fishermen in my area do not feel that they have been well treated as a result of those negotiations. As a passionate remainer, I was prepared to accept that on the face of it, there was a potential benefit. There should have been—fishing was the only industry in which it was possible to make an argument that there could be a potential benefit as a result of Brexit—but that has not happened, so I reject the basis of that intervention and the point made.

I hope that in time, the Minister will look at the opportunities, rather than taking the sort of stop-start approach that I am going to refer to today—I will get to that point after all the interventions. I hope he will look instead at a medium and longer-term setting of quotas, with rolling multi-annual quotas, perhaps of up to five years. That should be the Government’s objective, and they should work with scientists so that the industry can see a way forward, rather than having to adjust its business plans at very short notice, which is the case at present.

I will be adding a few small points about the small-scale, low-impact fishing industry; indeed, I come to this debate as someone with a limited amount of experience within the industry itself. When I was younger, our family had a boat at Mullion, in the south of the constituency, which used to supplement our income from the smallholding that we had. It was very low-impact, outboard motor and oar-based fishing activity that involved the setting of lobster and crab pots—very little of it was mechanised; it was all pulled by hand—and mackerel hand lining. It was low-impact fishing that we could only undertake during the summer months because of the storms that came into the coast in Mullion over the winter period. I have that experience, and many members of my family are engaged in the industry.

The Cornish fishing fleet has a value to the Cornish economy of £174 million, and 8,000 people are employed in the industry, so I particularly wanted to address the impact of the 2025 quota settlement on choke species. It is going to have a detrimental impact on the significant amount of fishing that takes place around the western approaches. The headline impact is that on pollack, which is very much bycatch fishing only. Boats under 10 metres are allowed just 75 kg per month. We have to remember that this is an ultra-mixed fishery, so even though those fishermen target other species, such as hake, it is hard for them not to catch pollack. Because pollack is healthier than the science seems to indicate, fishermen end up catching a lot more of it and, under the regulations, are obliged to land it.

When the long-term ban was announced last year, the previous Government provided financial support for only one year, and the Minister and the new Government have not announced any other compensation for those affected by the pollack ban. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has anything to say about that. The industry asked for management measures for the recreational industry. At present, there is no management in place for the recreation fleet. The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation estimates that up to 50% of the total pollack catch around our waters is taken by the recreational angling industry.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice for pollack is currently being benchmarked, as the Minister knows, and that formal review of the available science will lead to new advice in June. The House and I would be interested to know what power and influence the Minister has in that regard before June and over any decisions taken after June when the benchmarking process has been completed. Will he commit to introducing new management of the pollack stock on or before the completion of the benchmarking process? The industry cannot wait until next January.

There are similar problems with Dover sole. Our fleet is targeting megrims and monkfish, but Dover sole are known to be abundant in many areas. In areas VIIe, VIIf and VIIg, Dover sole are relatively abundant, and therefore the total allowable catch for those areas is relatively good, but data is lacking for areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk, which has led to a much lower total allowable catch as a precaution. For example, each boat can catch 400 kg of Dover sole per month in area VIIe, but in VIIh it is limited to just 30 kg per month. Because of the catches that have been experienced, that is a significant diminution in the activity that the industry can pursue.

In 2023-24, the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation fleet worked with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science to collect genetic samples of sole in VIIe and VIIh areas to provide evidence of the genetic links between the two stocks. Unsurprisingly, they saw that Dover sole swim between those areas. If that is proven and accepted, there will be greater confidence in setting fishing opportunities for the fleet to target monkfish and megrim in those other areas. I hope the Minister will prioritise the review of the scientific evidence at the UK-EU Specialised Committee on Fisheries, with a view to making a joint request to ICES to amend the total allowable catch for Dover sole in that area.

Similarly, the industry is working with scientists, CEFAS and environmentalist non-governmental organisations to aid the recovery of the stock of spurdog—a slender shark found in our waters—by providing bycatch and discard data. The spurdog fishery reopened in 2023 with a 1 metre maximum landing size as a precautionary management measure. Spurdog is a non-target species in a mixed fishery, so its increasing abundance is leading to increased unavoidable bycatch, forcing vessels to discard fish over 1 metre in length. In December the written record agreed that that rule should be reviewed in 2024 and 2025, but so far no meaningful adjustment has been made. Will the Minister promise to follow through on the commitment to review the 1 metre rule and work with the industry to develop more sustainable management measures?

There has been a dramatic recovery of bluefin tuna in our waters over recent decades. In the past, the Atlantic bluefin tuna saw drastic cuts in catch limits, and a crackdown on illegal and unreported catches across its whole range. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas has taken that action over the last 20 years to reach a tipping point. Over the last decade the recovery has benefited that fishery, and has reached the shores of Cornwall, where sightings of bluefin tuna have increased by a factor of 60 since just a decade ago. The total allowable catch set by the International Commission is over 40,000 tonnes, more than half of which is allocated to the EU. In 2021 the UK received 50 tonnes of quota, initially for bycatch. In 2025, the UK quota is 66 tonnes, with 45 tonnes for commercial hook-and-line vessels.

Sixteen tonnes, almost a quarter of the entire quota, is set aside for accidental mortality from recreational catch-and-release permits. Tuna are vulnerable to unintended mortality due to the long fights they often endure with anglers, so mandatory training and strict handling procedures have been applied to some vessels, and 1,700 tuna have been released with minimal mortality. But in 2024 recreational catch-and-release permits were introduced, with a voluntary code of conduct and training. Will the Minister join a roundtable meeting of MPs, fishers and scientists to look at how the UK tuna industry can be managed more sustainably?

I will not detain the House for much longer, but there are other issues that I know the Minister is aware of, and which I have spoken to him about—particularly the impact of regulations on the small-scale fishing industry: day boats, under 7 metres, that fish around our coast and take less than 1% of the annual catch. Last summer I met Jof Hicks on the island of St Agnes in the Isles of Scilly. Over the last five years, he has gone out of his way to develop a fishery that has the lowest possible impact because there is no plastic or fuel involved: he uses sail and oar, and he makes his own crab pots entirely from natural materials—growing his own withies and tamarisk to make the pots. He is sustaining a living from that. Admittedly, some of the restaurants on the Isles of Scilly are able to provide him with relatively healthy prices for his produce, but he is nevertheless demonstrating that it can work. However, he complained to me that all the same regulations that apply to supertrawlers apply to him with his home-made boat and locally made lobster and crab pots. I urge the Minister to have a close look at that, perhaps with me. I am not arguing that this is the future for the fishing industry, or that we can feed the nation by this method, but it can make a measurable difference and provide an alternative way of catching fish in areas such as mine, and no doubt in other places. We could forge a different approach. If we could take unnecessary burdens from the shoulders of people such as Jof Hicks, that would be enormously appreciated.

I will bring my remarks to a close, because many others wish to speak. I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions raised. I believe that politicians and the fishing industry are all pushing in the same direction—towards a sustainable industry based on the best available science—but we need to ensure that the regulations that are informed by that science do not create unintended consequences that have a detrimental impact on fish stocks and the fishing industry.

Things have changed. The culture has changed, and the industry is much more engaged with a science-based approach than perhaps it was when I first engaged in these debates nearly 30 years ago. I hope that we will continue with openness and dialogue, and that we will push for efficiency in the way we update the regulations this year. The pressures on the fisheries I mentioned earlier, which are being affected by choke stocks such as pollack and Dover sole, need to be addressed before the end of the year.

Farming

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The importance of farming cannot be overstated. It is vital not only for farmers, but for all our communities, our economy and our national security. Farming allows us to keep food prices as low as possible in shops and supermarkets. Farming is the foundation of the rural economy. It supports tens of thousands of jobs not only on farms, but all along the supply chain. There is no national security without the food security that home-grown farming provides.

I have known this for all my years because I grew up on a farm. I saw my family and friends work extremely hard to earn a living—getting up before dawn and sometimes working until after the sun went down—and toiling in difficult conditions away from the limelight in protecting the environment and the countryside, often with little thanks or reward. That is the story of so many family-run farms across our country. It is a story of the Borders, of Scotland and of British businesses up and down the United Kingdom.

The Labour Government are putting the huge benefits that farmers deliver at risk. The future of farming is under threat because of Labour’s family farm tax, which will only compound the damage that the SNP has already done to rural areas across Scotland. Family businesses, which have often been passed down from generation to generation, will be hit hardest by Labour’s vindictive family farm tax. These small family businesses are the lifeblood of entire communities. They support jobs in local shops, the workers who rely on their trade for their own business to survive, and the businesses that maintain their equipment and supply their farms. They are more than family farms; they are community farms, because they benefit everyone in the local area. These facts have been ignored by the SNP during its 18 years in power, and they have already been ignored by Labour within a year of its being in power.

What does the future of farming look like once Labour brings in its family farm tax? The National Farmers Union estimates that hundreds of farms will face collapse because of this tax, and future generations will be denied the chance to farm their family’s land. If their farms do not need to be sold, farmers will still be discouraged from investing in their properties because that would only increase the tax their children will have to pay, and they may feel the need to save cash to cover future tax bills.

What will happen is that Labour will force farmers to sell their family businesses, our countryside will not be maintained to the same standards, the same volumes of high-quality food will not be produced, our environment will suffer as more foreign food has to be imported, other rural businesses in the supply chain will suffer from the decline in investment and ongoing trade, and food prices in shops and supermarkets will rise. In the end, Labour’s family farm tax will not just harm the future of farming, but the future of the economy and the cost of living for us all.

In conclusion, if the Labour Government were serious about supporting farms, they would listen properly to farming communities. They would listen to the single biggest thing that farmers in our country are demanding, which is to scrap the family farm tax, and restore the exemptions of APR and BPR. That is the only way to secure the future of farming. The Government should do the right thing, and scrap the family farm tax.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I want to start my contribution today by picking up where I left off this morning in my question to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). At the heart of the problem facing farming and profitability is an unfair supply chain. As we heard earlier, the big six supermarkets are in effect acting like a cartel, forcing unfair prices on farmers and pursuing unfair practices towards family farms. Last year alone, the big six made a combined pre-tax profit of more than £5 billion. Of those big six, two—Asda and Morrisons —did not pay a penny of corporation tax.

As we know, supermarkets are price setters seeking maximum profits to drive down on the cost they are prepared to pay for home-grown, quality produce. At the same time, the costs of running a farm continue to rise, with soaring fuel, fertiliser and equipment prices. In a world where farmers and producers are struggling to make a living, and are relying on Government grants and subsidies so that they can survive from one year to the next, that cannot be seen to be fair or right.

[John Lamont]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I will continue, if I may.

We need to look properly, and with real scrutiny, at the supermarkets. Those practices need to change. We cannot allow farmers to bear the brunt of this system, while others in the supply chain benefit so disproportionately.

I want to address the issue of APR. Many, many farmers have raised their concerns with me directly. I have listened to those concerns in Suffolk Coastal and raised them directly with the Treasury and DEFRA. I remain committed to continuing to advocate for farmers in Suffolk Coastal over the months ahead.

[John Lamont]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I will continue.

However, it is important to reiterate that while the changes to APR are significant, they are not the root problem facing the farming industry. If farming was profitable, farmers would be less worried about paying a new tax bill. The focus must be on making farming more profitable. Without profitability, tax reliefs or Government support will provide only limited help. That includes ensuring fair prices for quality produce, protecting farmers from unfair competition and addressing rising costs, from fuel to fertilisers to equipment. I do not doubt that that will be a tough battle to fight when society often prioritises price over quality—people will happily spend more on a cappuccino than they will on a locally produced chicken—but if we want to protect British farming, we must change our approach.

The future of farming is essential, not only for the economy but for the very fabric of rural society itself. We must continue to put farmers first, ensuring they continue to feed and sustain us for generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Throughout the debate, I have struggled to understand the point put forward by Labour Members that while they rightly acknowledge that farming is not profitable, they support a policy that will take even more cash away from farming businesses. Does she, like me, find those two policies hard to reconcile?

[Dr Johnson]

I find them extremely difficult to reconcile. In early October, I went to the “Farmers Weekly” awards in London where the Minister, in his red bowtie, gave a speech in which he said that the Government would have the farmers’ backs. I am sure he believed it was true when he said it, but within a month, he was unfortunately proven wrong with this Government’s Budget.

Many Members have talked about the profitability of farming. How will the family farm tax make farms more profitable? How will the family business tax, the drastic drops in delinked payments, the rise in the minimum wage, rising national insurance contributions, or the tax on double cab pick-ups make farms more profitable? They will not. How will closing the SPI payment scheme early and without notice, despite having promised to give notice, make farms more profitable and businesses more secure? It will not. The Government now talk about taking land without proper due consideration. That has led many farmers in my constituency to ask, “Why does this Labour Government hate farmers so much?” Why do they want to hurt our farmers so much?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone]

My hon. Friend brings knowledge from the past, which is very valuable to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland is also a champion of this cause, and what he says strikes a chord among farmers in my constituency. Getting a fair deal is fundamental to making farms viable for the long term. It is not that we want to do everything, but I hope that the Government will engage constructively with my right hon. Friend on this. It is too important to let this one go, and it could be an easy win for the Government and for all of us.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, but does he agree as a fellow Scottish MP that our farmers are facing a double whammy? Not only do we have to deal with the vindictive family farm tax being imposed by the Government opposite, but we face the hostile environment that the Scottish National party Government are creating towards our farming communities in Scotland.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and what a pity it is that our SNP colleagues are not with us at this point, because we both might have something to say about that. There has been a lack of knowledge north of the border—or a lack of understanding, I believe—of things that are fundamental to the way of life in the constituencies we represent at the different ends of Scotland.

Time is short, but I want to conclude by mentioning three things that are causing my constituents some anxiety. In particular, I spoke with farmers this week and there has been recent publicity about what is known as lab-grown meat, produced from cells in a laboratory environment. It is thought that this could be upon us within two years. Yes, it is a way of producing food, but what does that mean for our livestock farmers? That needs to be looked at very carefully indeed.

The second thing I am duty-bound to mention is the low price of malting barley. This is the highest-quality barley and is used to make whisky. It is low priced because not so much is being bought by the whisky distillers, a reflection of the fact that they are not selling so many bottles of whisky.

Rural Communities: Government Support

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to the delivery of services and the costs later on.

Higher than average house prices coupled with lower than average wages is a toxic combination. The median full-time salary in South Devon is significantly below the national average, but the average house price—at £337,185 —is significantly above the national average. Newly built homes regularly go on the market for around £1 million. That means the house price to full-time salary ratio in Devon is 10:6, well above the English average of 8:7. Devon as a whole has the highest ratio in the south-west.

On top of all that, we must also look at the issue of deprivation. Deprivation in rural areas tends to be dispersed, which means it is much less well identified. However, south-west England is one of the rural areas where deprivation is more prevalent. In small communities, just one or two very wealthy residents can skew the figures for the whole settlement, meaning pockets of deprivation can be even more hidden. The index of multiple deprivation, used to capture need for core local authority services, is a relative measure of deprivation based on data from 2019. The index is urban centric and it misses small, dispersed rural pockets of acute deprivation. It is simply not specific enough to capture need—especially in social care.

In Devon, most sub-domains are less deprived than the national average. However, Devon is considerably more deprived compared to the national profile, when looking at housing quality and barriers to housing and services. Of the total Devon population, 47% fall into the most-deprived fifth nationally for the indoor environment quality measure. In rural areas, one in four households do not have a mains gas supply, and are more likely to be reliant on oil or solid fuels for domestic heating, which are less efficient and more expensive.

In 2022, the average fuel poverty in rural villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings was nearly three times as high as the average for England as a whole, and 25% of the Devon population were also in the most deprived fifth nationally for the housing services sector, which measures distance from services such as GPs, food shops, post offices and primary schools, along with measures of housing overcrowding and affordability and homelessness. It is not all thatched cottages from the front of chocolate boxes.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned that using deprivation as an indicator of demand for services does not consider local authorities with a higher number of elderly or vulnerable residents, and the additional demands those residents place on our services. Under the previous Government, DEFRA and the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities commissioned a piece of work to investigate rural deprivation as part of an update to the English indices of deprivation. It was anticipated to complete this year, so I ask the Minister for an update on when this work will be completed and published.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech about the challenges that her constituents in South Devon are facing. Many of those challenges are similar to those in my own constituency in the Scottish Borders. Does she agree that all decision makers, whether in the Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities or banks, need to do much more rural-proofing of their policymaking process? Before they announce these policies, they need to understand more clearly the impact they will have on those in constituencies such as the hon. Lady’s and my own in the Borders.

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member’s point comes back to what I am saying about having people at the top table who really understand how these economies work, because so often those smaller communities are lost under the larger voice of the big cities.

In peripheral rural and coastal communities, which have higher levels of high occupational risk groups—for example, farmers and vets—social isolation and loneliness is a cause for concern, with higher levels of suicide and self-harm admissions and lower levels of referral to psychological therapies.

Rural isolation is particularly acute for older people who do not drive. With every pub, café or post office that closes, the opportunity to socialise with others, or even just have a conversation, disappears. It is also damaging for younger people; rural living means fewer opportunities for leisure, sport, socialising and part-time work, embedding disadvantage through a lack of opportunity to gain vital employment skills.

That all sets the scene for the challenges of living in and providing services to rural areas, and I am sure that colleagues will elaborate on many of them, such as buses, banks and broadband, but I would like to finish by looking at funding, because that has a real-world impact on rural communities such as mine, and the figures are—quite frankly—shocking.

Under the 2025-26 local government finance settlement, Government-funded spending power in predominantly urban areas will be £573 per head, compared with £407 in predominantly rural areas. Urban councils will get a huge 41% more per head than rural councils. Over 10,000 people, that equates to £1.66 million a year. Council tax per head will, on average, be 20% higher in rural areas than in urban areas. And, now, predominantly urban areas are to receive over seven times more of the proposed £600 million recovery grant than predominantly rural areas.

Last week, the Government announced continued funding for the rural England prosperity fund, with up to £33 million directed to the fund to

“improve local infrastructure and essential services that benefit rural communities and help businesses…to expand, creating jobs and kickstarting the rural economy.”

From 2023 to 2025, that fund was £110 million, so, while £33 million is welcome, it does equate to a 36% cut in annual funding.

We welcome DEFRA’s announcement of up to £5 million to go towards the continuation of important services for rural communities, such as capital funding for the refurbishment and development of much-needed community-owned assets, such as village halls and community centres. I have seen several of these projects in my own patch, with upgraded community centres doing vital work in bringing the community together.

However, the Liberal Democrats are concerned by the Government’s decision to allocate additional funding within the local government finance settlement on a need and demand basis. The new system of allocation will not recognise that the sparse and isolated nature of rural areas drives higher costs for the delivery of essential services, creates challenges in recruitment of staff for key services, and requires local authorities to provide a greater subsidy for the provision of public transport. We know that the challenges of recruitment are having a direct impact on inward investment into rural areas, because companies who want to invest in South Devon are anxious about doing so because they know that workers cannot afford houses in the area, so where will the workforce come from?

Likewise, the Government’s suggestion is that funding previously allocated to rural local authorities under the rural services delivery grant will be repurposed under the need and demand basis that jeopardises rural local authority funding. That is despite the grant providing rural local authorities with £100 million for the roll-out of essential public services, including emergency services and the provision of social care in 2024-25. We therefore urge the Government to provide rural councils with a funding settlement that reflects the impact of the rurality and sparsity of the areas they serve, through the application of the fair funding formula.

There is a lot to unpack here, but I have secured this debate to urge the Government to think about working more across Departments, and to bring people together to really consider the impact of departmental spending decisions, not only on that Department, but on each other. How do Transport decisions affect Education, and, with it, the wider skills agenda? How do the Health decisions that are made impact the economy in a rural area? How does the closure of hospitality businesses affect rural isolation, loneliness and mental health outcomes? I could go on, but will leave it to colleagues to give examples from their constituencies to highlight many of these issues.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is past 10.30 am and we need to get through some more questions.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

5. Whether she has had meetings with her counterparts in the devolved Administrations since taking office.

[The Solicitor General]

This Government are committed to strengthening relations with devolved Governments and fostering greater collaboration, built on mutual respect and trust. As the hon. Member would expect, the Law Officers very regularly meet our counterparts to discuss our shared priorities.

[John Lamont]

The Scottish National party’s deposit return scheme was a complete shambles, which the last Conservative Government stopped, preventing it from hurting Scottish businesses with more regulation and higher costs. The SNP Government are now facing legal action over the scheme, with businesses seeking hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation. I appreciate that the Solicitor General cannot comment on a live case, but will she confirm that the SNP Government will be solely responsible for any costs that may be incurred in handling the case?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member is right that I cannot comment on the specific matter that he raises, but I am happy to look at it and to write to him.

Foot and Mouth Disease

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I recognise the hurt that the hon. Lady recollects from that dreadful time. A great deal of work was done in the light of those events, and lessons have been learnt; for instance, technology has changed and improved. I will not go into all those lessons, which are probably worthy of a longer debate, but it is important for us to act on them, because we do not want a repeat of what happened in 2001.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Like many other Members, I clearly remember the events of 2001, not least because all the cattle and sheep on our family farm—my father’s farm in Berwickshire—were slaughtered. The emotional trauma will stay with farming communities for many years to come. I am reassured that this Government are engaging with the Scottish Government, but is the Minister also speaking to NFU Scotland and to local authorities, to ensure that they are able to support farming communities in the best way possible?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken with passion and conviction about that dreadful time, and I fully respect that. We were notified of the outbreak on Friday; today is Wednesday. Of course we are ready to move to the next stage should it be necessary, but at this point the key priority must be ensuring that we keep the disease out of our country, and that is where the attention is currently focused. In the dismal eventuality that we have to move to measures within our country, we will of course work very closely with everyone who needs to be involved.

Storm Bert

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I echo the condolences for the loss of life and state my gratitude to those volunteers who have been engaged in supporting communities at this very difficult time. We will of course stay in regular contact with the Government and other authorities in Wales, to make sure that if they require further assistance it is made available to them as quickly as it can be provided.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Storm Bert affected many parts of my constituency in the Scottish Borders, and I pay tribute to the volunteers and emergency services who kept local residents safe. Many farmers have been particularly badly affected. Have the Government made an assessment on crop yields, not just in Scotland but across the UK, as a direct result of Storm Bert?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Appropriate assessments will be made once we have had time to consider exactly what has gone on, but I am sure that, like me, he will welcome the allocation of £60 million through the farm recovery fund to support farms that were devastated by flooding earlier in the year.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2024 on farming communities.

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

The Labour Government have committed £5 billion to the agricultural budget over the next two years—the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in our history. It is good for British farming, it is good for the country, and it should be welcomed by the Opposition.

[John Lamont]

This week, the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Martin Kennedy, said:

“The new UK Government’s first budget…hammered hard-working family farms and crofts with crippling tax bills”.

The Minister has accused the Conservatives of scare- mongering about Labour’s family farm tax. Is the National Farmers Union of Scotland also scaremongering?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I talk regularly to the National Farmers Union of Scotland. I respect it fully, but I genuinely say, as I have said on many occasions, that we need to look closely at the figures and look at the detail. We will find that the vast majority of farmers in this country will be fine.

Rural Affairs

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the maiden speech of the new hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane). I am sure he will make a significant contribution to this place, and as a fellow Scot I wish him well.

I am lucky to represent the Scottish Borders, the place I call home. We have wonderful towns in the borders, but it is one of the most rural constituencies in the whole United Kingdom. There is a strong sense of community spirit among local people, but there is also a deep and growing concern that the Governments in Edinburgh and London do not get what is important to our communities. There is a widening disconnect between people and politicians, and a growing feeling that the needs and concerns of rural areas are not important to Scotland’s two Governments.

For 17 years, rural areas in Scotland have been overlooked, and even ignored, by the SNP Government, who do not understand what is important to our communities—an SNP Government who are distracted and focused on their own selfish and often divisive obsessions. They spend time on fringe issues, such as gender reform, that do not matter to the everyday lives of people in the borders. With a new Government in London, local people are now feeling the same way about Labour. Labour clearly does not value rural areas and does not care about farmers or listen to our communities. The Labour Government are bad news for the borders and for rural areas across Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Let us look at what the Labour Government are already doing to rural communities. In their first Budget they changed inheritance tax, and business and agricultural property relief, despite warnings of the impact on rural areas. Their family farm tax will rip apart rural businesses and prevent farmers from passing on the family farm to the next generation. It is cruel, bitter and divisive. It is also the opposite of what Labour said it would do—another broken promise from the Labour Government.

Let us listen to what Labour said before the election. The Secretary of State said in December 2023 that the Labour party had no plans to change inheritance tax, including agricultural property relief, so it is shameful that he now claims to be proud of Labour’s family farm tax. He was not the only one to make that pledge. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, repeatedly promised not to raise taxes on working people, but that is exactly what they have done.

I have news for Labour: farmers are working people. In fact, they are some of the hardest-working people of any industry. They get up before dawn and put in a hard shift every single day of the week, 365 days of the year. Labour should be ashamed of raising tax on farmers and preventing them from passing on the family farm. This shameful betrayal will not be forgotten by rural areas or in my borders constituency.

Let me share with the Labour party what local farmers are saying, because it is clearly not listening. I recently spoke to Colin and Jill McGregor of McGregor Farms near Coldstream, who said:

“The autumn Budget that Labour broadcast last week will affect every family farming business across the country. We have been digesting the details over the last couple of days and can see a substantial financial impact on our farming business. The Government seems to have no idea of the costs involved in agriculture. The tax that would have to be paid on death will cripple many family farms, with a huge proportion having to sell land to pay the tax and breaking up family businesses that have been working the land for many generations.”

Labour does not seem to care about the damage it is doing to farming.

Farming is not just a job but a way of life. We cannot overlook the immense contribution that our farmers and food producers make towards the rural economy and protecting our natural environment. They supply supermarkets and local shops, provide for housing in our towns and villages, invest in infrastructure, create jobs, employ workers, and much more. It is crucial that the Government take the right steps and measures to protect the industry and ensure its longevity for many years to come.

Labour and the SNP must provide certainty and stability to our farmers. If they do not, farmers and landowners will no longer invest or provide those important services. We should not forget: no farmers means no food. Labour’s family farm tax will not just break up family farms, but limit food production, damage our food security and drive up the cost of our weekly food shop in supermarkets. Labour must drop the tax and keep its word to farmers.

But that is not all: Labour must start listening to rural areas. As it stands, Labour’s plans will do great damage to local transport plans. Labour has announced plans to drop the dualling of the A1 road, which is a vital transport link for my constituency in the Scottish Borders and for cross-border connections between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and it has halted progress on the borders railway, which is crucial for commuters and anyone looking to get around in the borders. How is the borders economy supposed to grow, and how are businesses supposed to create jobs, when Labour is cutting investment in our communities?

I will always stand up for rural areas, especially those in the Scottish Borders. It would be nice if, just once, the Labour party did the same.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call David Taylor to make his maiden speech.

Farming and Food Security

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow my constituency neighbour across the border, the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris).

Today’s debate is on a topic that interests me greatly as the son of a farmer, and also as a proud MP for a rural constituency where farmers, land managers and workers in the rural economy deliver some of the finest produce anywhere in the United Kingdom. We have so many outstanding farmers and food producers in the Scottish Borders it is impossible to name even half of them.

We should be immensely proud of the food and drink produced here on our doorstep, but too often the concerns and the needs of farmers are taken for granted. They are overlooked by the SNP Government at Holyrood and now they seem to be ignored by the Labour Government here at Westminster. Politicians in those parties talk freely of the need for food security, but they do not seem to understand who delivers that food security. They speak of the need for great and high-quality produce without properly recognising the hard work that goes into producing it. They talk of the benefits of reaching net zero targets by managing land effectively and reducing the air miles for food, but do not give enough credit to the farmers who are achieving that.

If Members wonder what I mean, they should look no further than this Labour Government. The Labour party manifesto for the recent general election made no mention of its plan for funding for farming.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I know that many farmers in my constituency of Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge are deeply worried about some of the talk about changes to the tax regime, not just to inheritance tax, but to capital gains tax, and how that will impact the future viability of their business and the ability for farms to be farmed by families.

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about both the funding arrangements and the tax changes that have been speculated about in the press.

Farmers are in the dark about what comes next. There may be budget cuts and there may be financial pain, but they do not really know. The Government should be listening to NFU Scotland, which recently submitted a detailed budget submission to the United Kingdom Government. Let me put on record what that submission said. It underlined the need for an increased, multi-annual, ringfenced agriculture and rural economy funding commitment in the Budget. Labour must also pay attention to the warning from NFU Scotland that, without adequate funding from the UK Government, the majority of farmers in Scotland would cease to be viable.

This Labour Government cannot do to farmers what they have done to pensioners by cutting their winter fuel payment. The change they promised in the election is already looking hollow to the Scottish and British public. If they go on to cut farmers’ funding, that will reveal again that Labour is not on the side of businesses and workers. It will show that all its priorities are wrong. I do hope that it will see sense, listen to our farmers and do the right thing.