Future of Farming

Lee Dillon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this important debate. Farmers are the very foundation of rural communities the length and breadth of the country. They put food on our tables, steward our countryside and sustain rural communities. Farming is more than a profession; it is part of Britain’s identity and, as the hon. Member said when opening the debate, something that is worth protecting.

I have the privilege of representing many farmers in my Newbury constituency, who are vital to our local community and our way of life. Farming is a uniquely slow-moving industry, heavily influenced by seasonal uncertainties. In such an unpredictable landscape, scaling up operations becomes essential for achieving profitability. Yet, despite those mounting pressures, successive Governments have failed to support our farmers. I am sure that Labour Members—

[Sarah Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Dillon]

I will not give way.

I am sure that Labour Members never expected to vote for small farms to close or to be swallowed up by large landowners, but that is what will happen as a result of this policy. In 2022-23, the Conservatives underspent the promised funding to farmers by £227 million and failed to adjust England’s farming budget to keep pace with inflation. Labour’s manifesto made no mention of the agricultural budget, signalling from the outset that this Government do not prioritise protecting our farming industry.

The changes to agricultural taxation in the recent Budget represent yet another blow, threatening the future of small-scale farms and rural communities across the country. While I understand the challenges that the Government face due to the black hole left by the previous Government, they do not excuse the recent decisions to impose such harsh tax burdens on vital industries.

The Government claim that only 27% of farms will be affected by the changes. That equates to 55 farms in Newbury, similar to the number for my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), but that figure is based on His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data from 2021-22 and risks significantly under-representing the true impact. The NFU warns that, in reality, around 75% of commercial family farms will exceed the £1 million threshold, making them subject to this tax change. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that this will impact family-run farms, pricing out young farmers from the industry, as well as other rural businesses that rely on the farming economy.

Additionally, over the last week, the Government abruptly paused the capital grant scheme, a crucial resource for funding sustainable farming projects. It is vital to allow farmers to carry on their work, which is essential to public safety, including managing floodwater and storing slurry safely. It is incredibly concerning that the Government have decided to freeze that scheme without warning, and even more concerning given that the Government have made cuts to the basic payment scheme on the basis of expanding environmental grants to farmers. On top of those cuts, farmers have seen their input costs rise sharply in recent years, yet the price they get for their produce at the farm gate has fallen.

I too recently met with farmers in my constituency; during that meeting, one farmer shared that he has worked his land for many years and was looking forward to this year’s being the first ever where he was able to make a profit. He calculated that, effectively, his hourly wage as a farmer is just £6.22 an hour—half the national minimum wage. Another farmer shared that only 15p of every £1 spent on agricultural products actually goes back to farmers, which highlights the tight margins in which they operate. According to Riverford Organic Farmers, 61% of farmers in the United Kingdom fear that they could be out of business in the next 18 months as a result of this Labour Government’s proposal.

Farmers are at the forefront of protecting our natural environment, but it is extremely important that we provide them with the support they need to ensure that they can continue their work. We look to the future of farming; it is vital that the Government do not make the same mistakes as their predecessors and undervalue rural communities.

In conclusion, I urge the Government to raise the farming budget by £1 billion, as outlined in the Lib Dem manifesto, to renegotiate those trade agreements to protect British farmers and to strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure that farmers can keep farming in fair circumstances. It is essential to our country—it is vital—that we protect farmers at all costs. The Government’s proposed changes threaten the future of farming and place undue pressure on this critical industry.

I am proud to represent so many hard-working farmers in Newbury. I, and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, will continue to fight tirelessly to ensure their survival and success for generations to come.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I call Dr Neil Hudson for the Opposition. You have five minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lee Dillon Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Protecting communities from flooding is a top priority. That is why we have launched the flood resilience taskforce and are investing £2.4 billion over this year and the next to improve flood resilience. We have also announced another £50 million investment into the internal drainage boards. I commend my hon. Friend for his work with local flood action groups, and I am keen to hear how the matter progresses throughout this Parliament.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

T6. Last year, the River Lambourn suffered 266 sewage spills from storm overflows, causing irreversible harm to a rare chalk stream. Will the relevant Minister meet me urgently to discuss plans to address that in Newbury?

[Steve Reed]

I can certainly ensure that the relevant Minister meets the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will also feed his views into Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review, as Sir Jon will be considering catchment-wide approaches that will better protect chalk streams.

Environmental Protection

Lee Dillon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

I understand the hon. Member’s point, but the party responsible for putting an item in the bin is not the council, but the person who has it in their hand. People who drop litter should take responsibility. They should not be doing so in the first place. When I worked with the River Slea clean-up project a year ago, we picked up a lot of these devices from the riverside and the river itself. They are clearly a danger to the environment and should not be discarded.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) talked about his dog Poppy. He has recounted that story to me before, and it horrified me, as a dog owner, that any animal could hurt themselves so badly with a vape. We also heard the Minister talk about tyres exploding; goodness knows what would happen if a poor dog or another animal crushed one of these things in their mouth, so I am pleased that they are being banned.

One of the challenges with this legislation was defining disposable vapes. The Government have defined them as ones that are not refillable and rechargeable. In an ideal world, the industry would accept that, produce the refillable vapes it currently produces and move on. However, there is a great financial interest in these products, and I am concerned that the industry will try to find workarounds and get-arounds to create a nominally reusable, but practically not terribly reusable, product at a price point that means it will be discarded. That would continue the problem, so I ask the Minister to keep these products under review, look carefully for signs of these issues in the way that vapes are manufactured, and legislate if necessary.

The Minister talked about those involved in enforcement being given the resources they need, so will she tell us how much has been budgeted and allocated for enforcement of the new rules?

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

Enforcement often falls to local councils’ public protection departments. As a councillor in West Berkshire, I led on public protection, and our cupboards were full of illegal vapes that we had seized. I absolutely support the call for resources, but we must make sure that they are delivered to local councils, so that they can employ more enforcement officers. Those officers can get into shops, and into the back of those shops, which is where the illegal vapes are often stored, while the legal vapes are in the shop window. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important to get that funding to local enforcement teams?

[Dr Johnson]

I certainly do. One benefit of the ban on disposable vapes is that regardless of whether or not a disposable vape is currently illegal on the basis of its constitution and content, it will now be illegal. It will be much easier to identify illegal vapes, because all disposable versions will be illegal. I also agree that we must get the money to councils to do these things, but employing a new enforcement officer will of course now cost more money. The Government’s raising of national insurance contributions and lowering of the threshold at which they are paid will affect councils up and down the country. I do not think the Government have really considered the direct cost to public sector employers, or the knock-on effects where services are contracted out and provided by a third party—a private company or a charity. That third party will, no doubt, pass the costs on to the councils. That is a huge concern.

This legislation is the start of creating an overall package to control vaping and protect our children and our natural environment. I welcome it, and I will support it today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

There is already vaping among children. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) said, children cannot buy vapes and should not be using them, but if children are going to choose between vaping and smoking, it is better that they should go for vaping rather than smoking. One of the unintended consequences that may flow from the regulations is that, instead of using vaping products, an increasing number of children will go back to smoking behind the bike sheds, or whatever the modern equivalent is.

[Mr Dillon]

I should declare an interest as a vaper. I smoked until my wife was due to have our first son and used vapes to give up cigarettes. I have made my own vape juice—I knew exactly what was going into it—and have also used disposable vapes. I now use a reusable vape. A disposable vape is about £6.99 a unit—or two for a tenner; something like that—whereas my monthly bill with my reusable vape is about £35, so it is cheaper for me to use a reusable vape than disposables, and I can now get the same flavours in a reusable vape as I could in a disposable vape. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Member on the correlation between removing disposable vapes and the prevalence of children smoking, because nowadays they could use a reusable vape and get the same flavours as in a disposable vape.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

As I understand it, a reusable vape may cost as little as £10, so let us see what happens. However, the Government’s own impact assessment on page 40 expects that 26% of current smokers will revert to smoking or alternative non-vaping products. The figure for recent ex-smokers is that 3% will revert to smoking or alternative non-vaping products. Those two added together show that 29% of current vapers will not transition to reusable vapes. The figures say that 24% of current smokers will transition to reusable vapes. Slightly fewer will do so, therefore, than will revert to smoking or alternative non-vaping products. It is encouraging that 7% of recent ex-smokers will transition to reusable vapes, whereas only 3% will revert to smoking or alternative non-vaping products. That is significant, but I am concerned about the 29% of current vapers who will be driven back to smoking. Is that a good thing for them or for public health? I do not think that it is.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) referred to his background as a smoker and now a vaper. I have to admit to having never smoked or vaped, so I come to this debate with an enormous amount of wisdom and experience on the subject. I am driven by the fact that both my parents smoked very heavily as a result of their experiences in the war—when people were not fighting the Germans, there was not much else to do other than smoke. That was very bad for my parents’ health, as it was for so many people of that generation. I do not wish to encourage people to smoke, but the impact assessment makes no reference to the benefits that will accrue to the tobacco companies and the Exchequer from the increased number of people who will smoke as a direct result of the implementation of the regulations. That is a serious omission.

Earlier, some people said that there is a shortage of information available on this subject. I think that this debate is inhibited, as the one that we are to have on the Bill that will come forward in the next fortnight will be, by the Government’s extraordinary interpretation of the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control, particularly article 5.3, which seeks to ensure that interactions between the tobacco industry and policymakers are conducted transparently. We are all in favour of that, but the article does not apply to interactions between the vaping industry and policymakers regarding vape regulation. I have been told, however, by Imperial Brands, I think British American Tobacco and others that they have been unable to access Government Ministers or officials because Ministers and officials are falsely interpreting the framework convention as prohibiting such engagement. It specifically does not inhibit or prevent such engagement.

I think that it is probably the fault of the Government that, as a consequence, they are not as well informed about the issues as they could and should be. Article 5.3 does not preclude policymakers, elected or unelected, from engaging with the tobacco industry or associated parties. Let us have open dialogue about this, instead of a situation where, as I understand it from talking to somebody from Imperial Brands, efforts by that company to engage with Government officials and Ministers are rejected on the grounds that such engagement would be inconsistent with the WHO framework convention. It would not be inconsistent with it. I hope that one positive thing to come out of the debate will be that the Government will rethink their total lack of engagement with the manufacturers of vaping products. We have some really good manufacturers of vaping products based in this country. Why are we trying to put them out of business and encouraging Chinese manufacturers to run rampant in our marketplace, as they are doing with increasing effect? My plea to the Government, which I hope the Minister will address, is to engage with tobacco manufacturers and companies such as Imperial Brands that are interested in promoting smoking alternatives and vaping.

All the projections are that the amount of vaping going on in this country will increase significantly. That is fine, but please can we try to ensure that we do not drive people back to smoking? That would be really bad for our public health and the national health service. I despair that no one from any of the three Front Benches has addressed the unintended consequences of these regulations on public health.

Chalk Streams: Sewage Discharge

Lee Dillon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely. Many of my constituents are horrified at the local state of rivers and frustrated by the lack of progress, and feel compelled to attend the march for clean water on Sunday 3 November. Sewage pumping in our rivers is hugely damaging for the local environment, contaminating the water with unacceptably high levels of phosphates and nitrates, and poses a major health risk.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree with me, and with Action for the River Kennet, that the requirement for sewage treatment works should be based not only on the population size they support, but the importance of the waterways they protect, such as the Lambourn and Kennet chalk streams that flow through my constituency of Newbury?

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely. We have to do all we can.

After the thousands of hours of pollution into the River Ver, the Ver Valley Society found worrying levels of E. coli in the water. This has been blamed on high groundwater levels, but it still contains sewage and the fine sediment can lay in the river bed. That incident has been raised with Thames Water and their planned scheme to resolve the issue by upgrading the overflow will not be complete until 2026. We need action sooner. In the meantime, the rapid polluting of this waterway and the threat to public health and the local environment continues. That is, of course, by no means an isolated incident.

[Victoria Collins]

I will be calling for a lot in holding water companies to account.

Analysis completed by the Liberal Democrats found that almost 50,000 hours of sewage was discharged into chalk streams in 2023. That is more than double the previous year. The dire situation speaks to the 2022 report, which found that only 14% of England’s rivers had “good” ecological status. Compared with several other countries such as Austria, Greece and Malta, where 95% of bathing sites are classified as excellent, it is clear that we are letting down our rivers and streams. That must change. Despite the situation, the Conservatives stood by and let us down again and again, failing to regulate water companies properly.

[Mr Dillon]

Where are they?

[Victoria Collins]

Exactly.

I call on the Minister to provide proper protection, regulation and enforcement. Although Ofwat has finally taken action, ordering water companies to return £158 million to customers via lower bills, that is just a drop in the ocean—or, should I say, a drop in the chalk stream. We must go further. I call on the Minister for a blue flag status to protect our precious waterways, such as chalk streams, to replace Ofwat with a stronger regulator—a clean water authority—and to enforce tougher restrictions on water companies. A blue flag status for rivers and lakes would enshrine their protection, and our precious chalk streams would be ripe contenders to get such a status. Indeed, given their rarity in this world, it is worrying to know that only a dozen have sites of special scientific interest status that currently protects them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I am very pleased that one of the hon. Member’s first debates is on such an important issue. I do not want to get into a competition over who has the best chalk stream, but I must mention that the one near to where I live featured in “Mortimer & Whitehouse: Gone Fishing” the other day. They were at Driffield beck. We get not only to share stories here about who has the most beautiful chalk streams, but to see them on national television. I share the hon. Member’s love of them: they are England’s equivalent of the Great Barrier Reef. They are amazing things to have and to be able to say are held within our own country. They are so precious to us. They are the rarest freshwater habitat on earth, and in England we are home to 85% of them. That is a remarkable achievement.

The hon. Member is absolutely right to feel outraged and upset about the levels of river pollution. I am sure there are more enjoyable things that she would like to do on a Friday night than go and examine a sewage discharge into the water, but it is good that she was there and able to document it, because where we have evidence of illegal sewage discharges, of course we wish to prosecute.

[Mr Dillon]

The Minister mentioned in her opening remarks the fishing programme. I wonder whether she would support an 8-metre buffer zone around rivers to stop the run-off of topsoil into chalk streams, which stops wild brown trout, for example, from being able to spawn.

[Emma Hardy]

I will move on to talk a little bit about run-off and other issues involved. I join the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted in praising her local community groups and organisations. One of the pleasures I have had since taking on this brief is meeting many committed environmentalists, environmental non-governmental organisations and people who care so much about the area. I liked the tale of people going picnicking by the edge of her chalk stream; I am tempted now to go and visit it when I am next on holiday. However, she is also right to point out that England’s chalk streams face pressure on their water quality, with pollution coming from different point sources—especially from sewage treatment works, as she discovered on that Friday evening—and diffuse sources such as phosphorus and road run-off mean that chalk streams suffer from higher levels of nutrients, sediment and toxic chemicals such as pesticides.

I will go on to explain some of the actions that the Government are taking with regard to addressing those concerns. However, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), it is not water quality alone that affects the chalk streams flowing in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, as they face pressures affecting the quantity and physical habitat quality too. On the quantity, we have seen excessive removal of water from its original source, which can lower the natural river flow of these streams.