Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Holden and Luke Pollard

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

20. What steps the Government are taking to improve recruitment and retention in the armed forces.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

This Government have already begun to modernise and refine our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talent in our armed forces. We are delivering for defence, with a 35% pay increase for new recruits and one of the largest pay increases in the last 20 years for existing personnel. We are scrapping over 100 outdated medical policies and setting an ambition to make a conditional offer of employment to candidates within 10 days and a provisional training start date within 30 days.

[Luke Pollard]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the announcement by the Ministry of Defence that more than 700 applications have been reconsidered following the removal of 100 outdated medical policies, such as those blocking some sufferers of hay fever, eczema and acne. That is a perfect example of how we are fixing the foundations and delivering for defence.

[Mr Holden]

I welcome the Government’s commitment in this area. Since 1999, there have been only six years when the regular forces have grown in size, and all three armed forces are currently below target. Does the Minister believe there will be any year between now and 2030 when there will be a net increase in numbers? Does he have a target for the overall increase in those years? Or is it a bit like 2.5% of GDP, and we will just have to wait and see—“Make me good, but not yet”?

[Luke Pollard]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s passion for recruitment. The recruitment target was missed in every single year of the last Conservative Government. It will take us time to fix the process, but we have already made announcements about improving retention and recruitment. We will make further such announcements in the months ahead to ensure that we are dealing with the gaps in our capabilities and improving morale, and that we have forces that are able to deter and defeat aggressors, if necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Holden and Luke Pollard

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

23. What assessment he has made of the impact of reductions to bus services on local communities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

Covid-19 resulted in significant reductions to bus service levels and passenger numbers. To mitigate that, the Government have provided more than £2 billion in emergency and recovery funding to keep vital bus services running. On 17 February, we announced a further extension to that support until 30 June. As a result, bus service provision in England outside London remained at more than 85% of pre-covid levels in 2021-22, despite patronage and commercial fare revenue remaining significantly lower.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government know how important bus services are to local communities across the country, which is why we recently announced additional investment of £155 million not only to continue protecting those services but to ensure a three-month extension to the £2 cap on bus fares to help working people in places such as Blyth Valley who are getting out there every day. We want to help to address the cost of living crisis and encourage people back on to our network. We are committed to working with the sector to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of communities and deliver our ambition for everyone with access everywhere.

[Luke Pollard]

I do not expect the Minister to know about the 31 bus route in Plymouth, but I do expect him to care about the people who can no longer get that bus because it has been axed—the older people who cannot get to their GP or hospital appointments as easily or bring back their shopping from town. Will the Minister agree to adopt Labour’s policy of handing power over bus routes back to communities? Will he finally give the south-west its fair share of bus funding?

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. Plymouth City Council receives £85,000 a year through the bus service operators grant and has been allocated a total of £599,000 in emergency and recovery funding for bus services since March 2020. I would be delighted to look at that further, and look forward to visiting Plymouth in the near future.

Environmental Land Management Scheme: Food Production

Debate between Richard Holden and Luke Pollard

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a farm mask made by my little sister, who is a farmer. I declare an interest in that my two little sisters are farmers in north Cornwall; I am very proud of them and what they do. I thank the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for introducing the debate so well, with his fervent focus on the future of British farming, which is not as secure as it once was. On one hand, the changes being made by Government could be positive, but, on the other, they could be disastrous. The problem is that very few people in this room, including probably the Minister, know which way it will go. That is why it is so important to have parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals and for Ministers to bring forward more information.

The spirit behind the environmental land management scheme is good. It enjoys cross-party support and I welcome it. Even as a remainer, I was not a fan of the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy. Frankly, they were rubbish, but we need to replace them with something better—not just better soundbites, but better detail and support for our long-term objectives. As ever, the devil is in the detail, and the problem is that we cannot see the detail because so little has been published. We need to convince the Minister to accelerate the publication of the detail of the scheme, so that farmers can make better decisions about how to farm in the future, and so that parliamentarians can scrutinise the proposals to ensure that they deliver what we need.

There is simply too much uncertainty around future funding for farmers, and particularly for south-west farmers, whose farms tend to be smaller than those on the east coast. Those farmers are worried that the direction of travel favours fewer smaller farms and fewer farmers; that it favours larger farms, more technology-intensive farming methods and more equipment and machinery, which cannot fit down smaller lanes in the west country; and that it will mean greater reliance on food imports to sustain our food needs—with many imports produced to lower standards than those for UK farmers—and less food security.

On top of that, one of the key aims of the environmental land management scheme is to reduce carbon impacts. Yet having supply chains that span the world and relying on food from Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, Canada and America, rather than farms in England, seems an odd way to reduce our carbon impact. The carbon in that maritime shipping is not yet counted, but it will be. What is the point of investing and locking ourselves into an import system whereby the carbon intensity of that food—and, therefore, the future cost—is not counted now, but will be hugely costly down the line?

There is often a sense that the Government’s strategy of larger farms and fewer farmers—in particular, fewer small and tenant farmers—is because of lack of interest, or because Ministers have not quite thought it through. However, in my view, that is not right. It is a deliberate strategy. Hon. Members present from every party need to make it clear that that deliberate strategy is not right. It has the potential to devastate UK farming. Ministers should think again about that high-level strategy.

The hon. Member for The Cotswolds raised one issue with the scheme: the funding. Since we left the European Union, the Treasury has taken large chunks out of the farm support budget. As of December, farms that previously received £150,000 a year in direct support have seen their support cut by a quarter, while those receiving between £50,000 and £150,000 have seen it cut by 20%. I suspect that will continue. Farmers cannot see what ELMS will do to replace it, so they cannot invest in that method of farming to ensure they receive that subsidy in the future. That matters. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds very effectively described it as the effect on the sustainability of farm businesses, and he is right. It has the ability to undermine small farming in England in a way that no Government have done since medieval times.

It also undermines the character and spirit of our farming. I worry about the impact on the mental health of our farmers, in particular. We know that farming is a tough business. New figures from the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution show that 47% of farmers are experiencing some kind of anxiety at the moment, while some 36% are probably or possibly depressed. We must consider the mental health of our farmers in these policy changes. The uncertainty that is created around this area is not just for policy wonks, but applies to farm businesses up and down the country, with people worried about how they will pay the bills; how they will make rent, if they are a tenant farmer; and how to ensure that their business will be there to pass on to their children. As parliamentarians, we need to take that much more seriously.

I would like to see funding addressed, but it is not the only hole in the ELMS proposals. The scope of the schemes is not ambitious enough. Of particular concern are tenant farmers, whom I would like the Minister to pay a bit more attention to in the proposals she is looking at. I am not certain what role they will be able to play in all the schemes, and that is a problem Ministers should address early. In many cases, tenant farmers are more at risk because they do not own the freehold on their land and are subject to rent charges. They are at risk from absent landlords who might see the benefits of getting more support by using their land for forestry or rewilding schemes and using that to grow the rental income on those lands, putting further pressure on tenant farmers.

Finally, I want to turn to food production. We need to be much clearer that Britain should grow more of its food in Britain. This is not just an argument about jobs in rural areas—although it is about that—or supporting our rural communities, and the fact that smaller farms are more likely than larger farmers to employ people in the local area. It is about our national security. The 1945 Labour Government classed food security as part of national security. A lot has changed in the intervening period, but the privatisation of thinking about food to supermarkets, in particular, that we have seen over the past few decades has done a disservice to our food security. We need to support an agenda to buy, make and sell more in Britain, but that means growing more in Britain. It is not about an outdated “dig for Britain” nostalgia, but protecting our supply chains and jobs and, importantly, taking the risk out of a future economy that will be much more reliant on the carbon intensity of production. If we get rid of our lower carbon production farmers, to rely on imported food produced with lower standards but often with greater carbon intensity, we need to build into that a massive allowance for the increased carbon cost, which will have a pound, shilling and pence effect in the future—at the moment it does not, but it will do.

[Mr Holden]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is absolutely no point trying to do some of those things if all we are doing is offshoring our carbon emissions elsewhere? All that potential benefit is then eaten up in transportation costs, especially in sectors such as shipping and aviation, at the back end of decarbonisation at the moment.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for his point. Whether it is a farmer in North West Durham, in Gedling or in the south-west, this matters. The Government are making a strategic error in their trade policy. I realise the Minister is not responsible for trade policy, and is merely the recipient of all the silage coming from the Department for International Trade in this matter, but the lack of a joined-up Government policy on food is part of the problem. We need to make sure that future trade deals match our agricultural policies, environmental policies and policies on rural employment.

All that speaks to what type of country we want to be. I think Britain should be a force for good. We should maintain high standards, support people entering those sectors, decarbonise and support nature recovery. We cannot do all those things if we do not have the information about what an ELM scheme will look like, if we rely imports produced at lower standards and if we lock ourselves into the risk of a supply chain spanning the world at a time of greater international instability. This is a really important debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds on bringing it to the Chamber and I hope the Minister listens carefully to the speeches.