Animal Welfare in Farming

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered animal welfare standards in farming.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate to give a voice to the voiceless here in Parliament.

The treatment of farm animals in the UK is a reflection of our values as a society, yet millions of animals endure lives of confinement, pain and neglect. I am proud to have convened this debate on an issue that has been very close to my heart since I was old enough to understand: animal welfare. The debate could not be more timely, with a number of grotesque infringements of legal and accepted norms exposed in recent undercover footage. From the mistreatment of piglets to the rampant impunity found in a few of Scotland’s salmon farms, shocking incidents have rightly caused public outrage.

However, we must be clear: these are sadly not isolated incidents, but a symptom of policy and enforcement failings in our food and farming systems. The way we treat farmed animals is not only the biggest animal protection issue we face here in the UK, but deeply entwined with the climate crisis, nature loss and the viability of our food systems. It speaks to a moral failing, a disconnection from the suffering hidden behind supermarket shelves. Ultimately, we need a food system that recognises the need to reduce demand, raise legal baselines and support better farming systems.

I am pleased to note that today’s debate has been linked to the petition titled “End the use of cages and crates for all farmed animals”, which has now surpassed 100,000 signatures and calls on the UK Government to

“ban all cages for laying hens as soon as possible”

and to extend the ban to all cages and crates “for all farmed animals”, including farrowing crates for sows, individual calf pens and cages for birds. Despite the ban on barren battery cages in 2012, about 10.6 million hens —28% of the UK laying flock—are still confined in so-called enriched cages, which severely restrict natural behaviours such as wing flapping, perching and dust bathing, and contribute to frustration, bone weakness and chronic protection issues.

I congratulate the petition sponsor, Dame Joanna Lumley, and commend her courage and compassion. Her lifelong dedication to humanitarian and environmental causes is matched in this case by her powerful advocacy for animals, who cannot speak for themselves. I also want to recognise the tireless work of the many non-governmental organisations, including Compassion in World Farming, the Humane League, World Animal Protection, FOUR PAWS and others, represented in the Chamber today, that have been campaigning for decades to end the cruelty of cages, crates and inhumane farming systems. Thanks to their persistence, these issues are finally being heard in Parliament with the seriousness they deserve.

However, accountability is woefully lacking. Prosecutions for animal welfare violations in farming are extremely rare. Between 2011 and 2021, only 28 such prosecutions were brought—fewer than three per year, despite tens of thousands of inspections and numerous breaches. The regulatory system is led by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is under-resourced and overly reliant on industry self-reporting. We need independent inspections and meaningful penalties for breaches.

Many people believe that labels such as “Red Tractor” or “RSPCA Assured” guarantee good welfare, and consumers want to trust that such schemes deliver in good faither. It is the Government’s job to ensure that those labels mean something. Sadly, far too often that is not the case, as we have seen from many investigations on certified farms that still use crates, cages and other cruel practices.

One such practice that must be urgently reviewed is the use of farrowing crates on pig farms. A recent poll commissioned by Humane World for Animals found that 73% of people in the UK had either never heard of farrowing crates or knew very little about them—a stark reminder of how this suffering is hidden from the public eye. Yet in the UK, approximately 50% of sows are confined in these small metal cages, which prevent them from turning around or expressing natural maternal behaviours. Compassion in World Farming describes farrowing as among the most extreme forms of confinement. Pigs are widely regarded to be highly sentient animals, but they are forced to give birth and nurse their young while virtually immobilised. The European Union has committed to phasing out cages for all farmed animals by 2027, but a recent letter from the National Pig Association suggested another 20 years of suffering to phase them out.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have already indicated this to you, Mr Vickers, but I apologise to colleagues now for the fact that I will have to leave before the end of the debate, which is why I will not make a speech—a constituent is coming to see me, and the votes in the House have screwed up the timing.

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I entirely share his view; I guess that probably everyone who will speak in this debate does. One of the supposed advantages of our leaving the European Union was that we would be able to control what came into the country in the form of food. It would be quite wrong, would it not, if, while seeking to drive up animal welfare standards in this country, we disadvantaged our own farmers and at the same time allowed into the country products from other countries where those standards are lower? Therefore, does he agree with me—I am the patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation—that we need to call upon the Minister to ensure that that does not happen, and that our farmers are not disadvantaged while we improve our standards?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I always enjoy hearing his thoughtful remarks and strongly agree with his words today, which show the cross-party concerns on this issue; I will come on to the issue of international trade later on.

On the issue of farrowing crates, I urge the Minister to set out a clear and swift timetable for the banning of farrowing crates; I hope he will address that issue specifically in his remarks at the end of the debate.

We must also speak to the plight of broiler chickens, which are the animals most intensively farmed in the UK today. Around 90% of chickens reared for meat in the UK—nearly 1 billion animals per year—are fast-growing breeds, often referred to as “Frankenchickens”. These birds have been selectively bred to grow up to 400% faster than chickens did in the 1950s, reaching slaughter weight in just 35 to 40 days. To put that in perspective, if a human baby grew at the same rate, they would weigh nearly 300 kg—the size of a fully grown tiger—by the time they were two months old.

Such rapid growth causes immense suffering, including chronic lameness, organ failure, respiratory problems and open burns, as these chickens spend their final days lying in their own waste, often with broken bones, too heavy to stand. That cannot be right and I hope the Minister directly addresses that point as well. There are alternatives—slower-growing breeds, with significantly improved protection outcomes—but without Government leadership, market incentives will continue to favour the cheapest and cruellest options.

On the subject of pigs and chickens, many campaigners will have rejoiced at the rejection of a new mega-farm at Methwold in Norfolk; I know the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) was heavily involved in campaigning against it. The sheer scale of the Methwold proposal was staggering—up to 870,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs, confined in barren indoor sheds. Chickens would have been packed into high-intensity units, with barely any space to move, no access to daylight and no environmental enrichment. Animal protection groups raised serious concerns about the dangerously low staff-to-animal ratio, which would have made it almost impossible to monitor suffering or to intervene in time.

Methwold is not an isolated case. There are many applications around the country, including a growing number in my constituency, for new or expanded intensive livestock units. That is deeply worrying for constituents, who are concerned not only about animal protection, but about air and water pollution, odour, and the long-term impact on communities and our countryside. The proposed Cranswick farm at Methwold was rightly opposed by the local council because of its cumulative environmental risks and wider ecological impact.

We should not be pursuing this model of farming, yet World Wide Fund and AGtivist.agency report that the number of US-style megafarms in the UK has increased by 21% in about a decade. That is going in the wrong direction, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government will address it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for enabling us to speak on this important topic.

I will start by sharing how valuable it was to spend a day of last week’s recess at Staffordshire’s county show. As always, I came away full of admiration for our farming community. I am a little biased, but Staffordshire is a shining example of some of the best of British farming, and everybody at the show seemed to agree. That is not just in terms of productivity and innovation but in the deep care many of our farmers have for animal welfare.

That brings me to the complex and often uncomfortable balance we are trying to strike in this debate between raising animal welfare standards and the environmental, financial and logistical realities of making that happen. When we talk about moving away from practices such as caged systems—a move that, for the record, I absolutely support—we are also talking about the need for more barn space, more land use and more infrastructure, all of which mean higher running costs for farmers and sometimes greater greenhouse gas emissions.

To be clear, those are not reasons for rejecting higher animal welfare standards, but they are reasons to approach the issue with farmers in mind. That must be our starting point, because farmers are not charities and, more than ever, they have to look at the bottom line, which all too often is dwindling. Let us be frank: supermarkets will always demand higher welfare, but they are not always willing to pay more for it. That is disingenuous to consumers and squeezes producers even further, pitting welfare against farm viability.

An area where we could make a real difference is animal welfare labelling, which is being looked at by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member; I am glad that the Committee’s Chair is present. For the average shopper, labelling is a minefield. Information on nutrition and the country of origin has been simplified in the past decade, but in the animal welfare space we have statutory minimum standards and the “Red Tractor”, “RSPCA Assured”, EU organic and Soil Association organic labels, all representing different standards.

Consumers need to understand what labelling means in practical terms and how to interpret it when they shop. That will not be easy, but I believe that is a challenge that we can and should take on. However, in doing so, we must make sure producers have a say, alongside consumers and animal welfare organisations, so that they can realise the benefits of clearer labelling too. The lack of coherent and clear information on welfare on the shelf is a concern for farmers who are producing to higher standards because they do not have a clear way of differentiating their products for consumers. They therefore do not reap the rewards from the quality of their goods that should incentivise higher welfare standards. Research indicates that the current systems of farm assurance, regardless of the label, are not working as best as they could for farmers, consumers and, most importantly, animals.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. Does he also agree that there is a significant error in not properly labelling animals subjected to non-stunned slaughter?

[Josh Newbury]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that that is a perfect example of where stronger, more consistent animal welfare labelling would give consumers that kind of information. In other countries, such as Germany, systems take that into account, and consumers should have access to that information.

On farm assurance, for example, the campaign group Animal Rising has uncovered failings in “RSPCA Assured” farms and abattoirs.

We also have to ensure that fairness for the farming sector is paramount. I raised that in Select Committee sessions and it has been raised today, but it bears repeating: we cannot ask our farmers to invest in higher standards and then leave them exposed to undercutting by imports. We are all in favour of better welfare. In fact, a 2022 poll revealed that 71% of the British public want the Government to pass more laws to improve animal welfare, but we cannot hold our farmers to a gold standard while turning a blind eye to imports that are produced to far lower standards. Trade deals without adequate safeguards will negatively impact the UK’s animal welfare standards for decades to come, undermining our farmers and the hard-won animal welfare improvements that we need to build on. That risks putting more farmers out of business, jeopardising our food security and offshoring animal cruelty.

To put it simply, if it is too cruel to produce here, it should be too cruel to import. If it is not good enough for our farms, it is not good enough for our shelves. Ultimately, we need to get the balance right by supporting our farmers to raise standards, making sure that consumers understand what they are buying and ensuring that the whole system—domestic or international—reflects our values as a nation of animal lovers.

Global Deforestation

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner)—in this case, he is a friend—on raising a matter of paramount importance that will affect the future of our children and grandchildren. I am fortunate enough to have five of the latter. I decided to participate in this debate having yesterday received a work of fiction, in the form of a briefing note from the Drax organisation. I also had the good fortune yesterday to meet two charming ladies, Dr Krystal Martin and Katherine Egland, both from the United State of Mississippi, where Drax has an operation that is hugely impacting their lives and their communities.

I am a simple man and I find long equations hard to follow, but it strikes me that if someone fells carbon-sequestering trees, using power to do so, and if they turn the wood into pellets, using power, transport those pellets across the United States, by either water or land, and then transport those pellets across the Atlantic in diesel-powered boats, the chances are that they are using quite a lot of carbon. It strikes me that Drax’s claim that its operation is somehow carbon-friendly has to be a myth.

One of my wiser colleagues reminded me that, for Drax, the clock starts ticking when the pellets arrive at the power station gates, and everything that goes before is written off. This is an absolute nonsense. It was subsidised by the British taxpayer to a considerable extent under the previous Government. To give credit where it is due, the current Government have secured a rather better deal than the previous one. Nevertheless, these practices are still being subsidised to a ridiculous extent.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

First, I would like to correct the record, because the right hon. Gentleman is anything but simple. He has always been a leading light in every debate he contributes to. In my constituency we reclaim wood that would have otherwise gone into landfill and turn it into pellets, but unfortunately the Government subsidy for that is about to end, making the situation the right hon. Gentleman describes ever more perverse.

[Sir Roger Gale]

The hon. Lady makes an unassailable point.

This should not be happening. Drax is felling trees in the southern states of the United States—in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana—and throughout Canada on an unimaginable scale. The people at Drax claim that they are using pulp wood from

“thinnings that help to open up the forest canopy and get light onto the forest floor”.

Oh no they are not! They are engaged in scorched-earth forestry. They are felling acres and acres of woodland in the southern United States and Canada, and that is not acceptable. And it is being subsidised by the British Government. Worse still, the health of the local populations in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi is being directly and adversely affected by Drax’s practices.

Drax has lied—there is no other word for it—to secure its contracts and licences. I shall do my damnedest to ensure that the renewal of those licences is contested in every way. I urge the Minister to go back to her Government, particularly the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, to expose the myth that is Drax, and to insist that we must find viable alternatives—not tomorrow, but now.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

If hon. Members restrict their speeches to four minutes, we will fit everyone in.

Farming

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

What the right hon. Gentleman refers to is the consequence of an agricultural policy that, despite aiming to do many worthy and worthwhile things, no longer has the concept of food production at its heart. Across this House and the different parties, we need to rebuild a consensus around getting food production back into agriculture. Climate change mitigation, nature restoration and the rest of it are all important parts of the context, but without food production at the heart of it, we will have the unintended consequences that he outlines.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I would like to take the right hon. Gentleman back to the point that he was making before he was interrupted. Earlier today, at Business and Trade questions, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) asked what the Government are doing to assist the rural economy, but answer came there none. Is it not the case that the rural economy is interlinked and that if we damage one part of that economy—farming—we damage all of it? On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the supply of goods and equipment to farmers, there will be so many other industries affected if this persecution is allowed to continue.

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It has to be properly understood that farming underpins everything in rural communities. To take the example of agricultural merchants and machinery dealers, these are successful businesspeople. They will be people who are part of the local Rotary club. They will have children in schools. They will be people who take on all sorts of leadership responsibilities within the community. If they cannot make their living in the countryside, we should not expect them just to sit around and wait for something to come along. Of course they will leave and the population will decrease, and we will be in a vicious downward cycle, which is the very opposite of what we need. It is also the very opposite of what a good, well-resourced and valued farming industry can provide for the country as a whole. If we are serious about the mission for growth, as the Government tell us, it has to be growth for everyone. It has to be growth across every sector and every part of the country, including rural areas and farming.

That allows me to come back to the point that I was about to make about the NFU’s confidence survey, which was published just this week. I am afraid it makes grim reading for anybody who cares about the countryside and agriculture. It tells us that 85% of landowners believe that the reforms to APR and BPR will increase their inheritance tax liability. Of those, 32% say they plan to reduce investment to mitigate the increase. The figure increases to 42% for mixed arable and livestock businesses, and to 49% for arable farms. Some 75% of employers expect to be impacted by the increase in employer national insurance contributions, 65% say they expect a reduction in profits because of the increase, and 43% expect to reduce investment to offset the additional costs. Again, that is on top of this week’s changes to the SFI and the basic payment scheme.

I would like to say quite a lot more about other aspects of the Budget, particularly the removal of the ringfence for devolved budgets, but I am reluctant to do so, given the pressure on our time this afternoon and the number of people who want to contribute to the debate. However, I have spoken about those issues before, so those who are interested in my views can refer to my previous contributions.

A small silver lining is to be found in the debate on APR and BPR, because it has forced us to think about the extent to which farming produces such a spectacularly poor return on capital. This is something we have all known for years, but now we have been forced to ask ourselves why it is the case. The hard fact of the matter is that 80 years of Government interference in the food market through agricultural subsidies has had the unintended consequence of keeping farmers poor and making supermarkets rich. I have a ten-minute rule motion next week to encourage the Government to introduce meaningful regulation in the food supply chain, and the Minister and his colleagues have recently spoken about their intention to see farm incomes increase. That is to be welcomed, but it will need a much more comprehensive and coherent strategy than we have seen thus far.

Not all confidence is about finances. We have seen a lot of doubt thrown into every sector of agricultural production in recent months because of the biosecurity threats that face this country. The poultry sector has been hit hard as a consequence of avian influenza. We have seen foot and mouth outbreaks on the continent. We see African swine fever moving across the continent, and it seems likely that we will see bluetongue disease back in this country soon. The vets on the frontline—those in the Animal and Plant Health Agency—do a remarkable job, and we owe them all a debt of gratitude, but so much more needs to be done.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has heard evidence on this issue from port health authorities, local authorities and the APHA itself. We have asked the Department about the point at which Government software systems were updated to stop animal products coming from Germany, following the identification of a foot and mouth outbreak there. Despite getting answers to our letters, we have still not been told by the Department whether IPAFFS—the import of products, animals, food and feed system—was updated on 10 or 16 January. That is something that the Government should be able to tell us.

I have sympathy for the Government, because they are dealing with a brand new system. Essentially, we should be able to see this as a pressure test on it. If the system did not work perfectly everywhere, let us identify those parts where the pressure escaped. But in order to do that, we need more transparency and more candour from Government Departments. If the Minister can answer that question when he responds to the debate, I will be enormously grateful. If he cannot, it would assist the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee greatly if we were able to get that answer in correspondence.

Time really is against us this afternoon. I would have loved to have the rest of the afternoon, but we do not. I will conclude my remarks, but let me say on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that I very much hope that Members from across the House will continue to engage with our inquiry, because if food security is national security, as the Prime Minister keeps telling us, then our Committee is one of the most important Committees in this House.

Climate and Nature Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend and will say that the era of grown-up government is thoroughly back in town.

We are showing our support for nature-friendly farming by introducing a new deal for farmers, supported by £5 billion of funding that will boost Britain’s food security, restore nature and support rural economic growth.

On flooding—the greatest risk our country faces from climate change—we have invested £2.5 billion over two years. It is not just about building the defences, because once built, they have to be looked after. Maintenance under the previous Government fell behind, leaving 80,000 properties at risk. In York, the Foss flood defence barrier gave way; it is just not acceptable to have flood defences that can be overtopped in a severe weather event. We have set up a flood resilience taskforce to deal with the increasing challenge of flood defence problems.

[Sir Roger Gale]

As one of few who can remember when the dinosaurs became extinct, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generous remarks earlier.

Is this not about the future of our children and our grandchildren, and about the kind of world we grow up in? Let me take her back to her remarks about farming, as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is present. We will not save our agriculture if we smother our fields in so-called solar farms and things such as the converter station that the National Grid wants to build on farmland in east Kent. We must strike a balance between the need to get to net zero and protecting our natural environment. It is quite clear that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are not talking to each other properly.

[Mary Creagh]

Having had an outbreak of consensus, I am afraid I have to gently disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Across Government we are in the process of putting together a land use framework—something long promised by his Government, but sadly not delivered. According to the most ambitious estimates of solar energy, less than 1% of current farmland would be used for electricity. Of course, for many farmers who are suffering the effects of climate change, solar farms are an important alternative income stream. The land use framework will set out our approach and be part of a national consultation on how we measure the competing pressures on our land and environment.

We have pledged up to £400 million across the next two years for tree planting and peatland restoration, and £70 million to support nature’s recovery while delivering much-needed infrastructure and housing. We have finalised the criteria for land to contribute to 30by30 in England, and we are developing a strategy to accelerate progress towards that target.

In the area of circular economy, we are taking a number of steps to make recycling easier and to ban single-use vapes, as has been mentioned. This week, the Conservative party voted against the deposit return scheme, which they formulated when in government—what an extraordinary position to find themselves in. We will continue to work at pace to restore and protect our natural world, achieve clean power by 2030, boost our energy security, and create jobs and sustainable, clean growth across the country. But we cannot do it alone. Nature, birds, fish and weather systems go where they want, as do diseases, viruses and pollution. We saw that with ash dieback and we see it with global plastic pollution, where we are negotiating to get an ambitious global plastic pollution treaty.

I attended the COP16 conference on biodiversity in Colombia and the climate COP29 in Azerbaijan. There, we set out a range of new commitments, including £45 million for the global biodiversity framework fund. We set up the Cali fund, a new international fund for nature, which will give businesses using online genetic sequence data from plants and animals the opportunity to contribute to global nature recovery. I encourage people to work with businesses in their constituencies and to spread the word on that.

We are looking at innovative funding mechanisms for nature, such as the independent advisory panel on biodiversity credits, co-sponsored by the UK and France, which wants to scale up high-integrity credit markets and generate more finance for nature. At COP29, the Prime Minister confirmed that our nationally determined contribution would be an 81% reduction on 1990 carbon emissions by 2035. That excludes international aviation and shipping, but, following the advice of the Climate Change Committee, I believe that those two areas will be introduced into our sixth carbon budget from 2033. We confirmed at the conference that at least £3 billion between 2020-21 and 2025-26 will be spent on nature.

I am also pleased to inform the House that the UK has been selected to host the next meeting of IPBES, the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. This is the science panel for nature—the IPCC for nature. IPBES 12, in early 2026, will focus on the agreement and publication of a business and biodiversity assessment. We will maximise that moment in our calendar to have a national conversation about the UK’s leadership on the science in this area. It is a real joy for me and my hon. Friend the Climate Minister to work alongside our special international representatives for nature, Ruth Davis, and for climate, Rachel Kyte, who are driving leadership, ambition and delivery on nature and climate internationally as we move towards COP30 in Brazil this year.

Future of Farming

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. We have 13 Members wishing to participate and about 24 minutes. I will put on an immediate time limit of two minutes. If you do the maths, you will find that that does not work. There will be a Division at around 5 o’clock, and injury time will be added on. We will see how many Members come back after the Division, and I will reassess the situation, but for the moment, there is a two-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The hon. Lady says that 50% of those affected are people who invest in land not for farming; is not the answer to put 40% inheritance tax on them and 0% on the real farmers?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I should have said—I did not, but I will now—that if any Member chooses to intervene, which they are quite entitled to do, I shall treat that as a speech, so they will not get called later in the debate.

[Sarah Smith]

A farming survey shows that the farmers we are speaking about make an average profit of £96,000 per year, which means that even those who are impacted will not be subject to the same level of inheritance tax as many people on similar incomes. They face half the rate of inheritance tax, and through gifting they can avoid that if they undertake the necessary planning. They can of course still protect their farmhouse—that concern is sometimes raised—through the way the system operates. We have to keep coming back to the point that at least 75% of farmers will not be impacted by the measure.

Our Government have an ambitious plan for our farmers. They will invest £2.4 billion in farming next year to focus on sustainable food production and protecting nature. They are getting £60 million out the door through the farming recovery fund and have committed to providing a further £208 million to prevent the collapse of our defences against disease threats—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Well done to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate.

I should be able to set out a vision of optimism and resilience for the future of farming in Northern Ireland today, but sadly that is not the case. It appears that, with the proposed inheritance tax, the Government know neither the price that farming families will have to pay nor the value of their industry. Our UK agricultural heritage is a cornerstone of our economy, culture and communities, and it is critical for our future. The 26,000 farmers and their families in Northern Ireland deserve better. When we take into account the food and drinks processing sector, the proposed measure will affect 70,000 jobs in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland’s fertile lands and valuable climate have long supported diverse farming activities, ranging from dairy and beef to crops such as our world-famous potatoes. As we look to the future, the potential for growth and innovation in our agricultural sector is immense. We should be looking at enhancing cutting-edge technologies, such as precision agriculture, drones and sensors, to increase productivity and ensure environmental sustainability. Our hard-working farming community wants to enhance efficiency in order to protect our natural resources for future generations. Our farmers are the true guardians of the countryside, and sustainability is central to their vision. They are dedicated stewards of the land, committed to adopting eco-friendly practices such as crop rotation and organic farming. They are also committed to sustainability.

Farmers’ efforts not only safeguard our environment but open new markets for our produce, meeting the growing global demand for environmentally responsible products. Farming is more than an economic activity: it is the backbone of our communities. The proposed tax will place an undue burden on families, making it difficult for them to pass down their farms to the next generations—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

British farmers play a significant role in keeping the nation fed, and they are the custodians of our beautiful countryside. In recognition of their vital role, the Budget is steadfast in its commitment to supporting them. More than £5 billion will be allocated to the farming budget over the next two years to bolster sustainable food production and promote nature’s recovery.

Food security is national security, which is why supporting farmers to feed our nation remains a top priority. To achieve that goal, the Government will leverage their purchasing power to ensure that at least half the food procured for hospitals, military bases and prisons is locally sourced and certified to meet high environmental standards. We have provided £60 million through the farming recovery fund and allocated an additional £208 million to strengthen defences against disease threats. Those are clear examples of a commitment to safeguard farming in the UK. That is what tangible support for British farmers looks like.

Opposition Members can moan, but let us remember that since 2010 more than 12,000 farmers and agriculture companies have been forced out of business. Moreover, trade deals with New Zealand and Australia, brokered by the Conservatives, opened up the UK to meat imports produced to standards so low that they would be illegal in Britain. That is their legacy on British farming. Non-farming investors have dominated land purchases, with over half the farms and estates sold being acquired by non-farmers. Meanwhile, a small number of wealthy landowners have disproportionately benefited—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that what happened to the British farming industry was one of the great betrayals of the previous Government. Those trade deals did no credit to our country, but we will take a different approach and develop a much more constructive relationship with our near neighbours. Therefore, the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

There will be small point in protecting farmers in international trade agreements if Government policy is undermining those same farmers domestically. How many thousands of farmers will it take to clog up Parliament Square next Tuesday before the Government realise that their inheritance tax policy is very deeply flawed?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I direct right the hon. Gentleman back to the figures from the Treasury, which show that the numbers affected are under 500. That is the answer to his question.

Rural Affairs

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

rose—

[Steve Reed]

I will take one more intervention and then make some progress.

[Sir Roger Gale]

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the amount of money being made available for flooding. The devastation caused by flooding pales into insignificance compared with the damage that will be done by inheritance tax. This weekend a farmer in my constituency has cancelled the building of a new barn because of it. Park home owners in my area are in despair as a result of what the Budget is doing to them. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that?

[Steve Reed]

The vast majority of farmers will not be affected by the changes to inheritance tax, and I implore the right hon. Gentleman not to underplay the damage caused by flooding. Many farms were absolutely devastated last year, and it will be immensely welcome that we have released £60 million to help farmers to deal with that problem, as well as setting up a flood resilience taskforce to ensure far better co-ordination between the centre and the agencies on the ground, to protect farmers from the devastation of flooding in years to come.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I find it hard to respond to a question like that. I spoke earlier about using language carefully, and I would just reiterate that point.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In the rural England that I am privileged to represent part of, they say that you should live as if you are going to die tomorrow and farm as if you are going to live forever. Do the Government not understand that if we inheritance-tax our farms out of existence, there will be no forever, and there will be no food from what was once the garden of England?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about these issues. I just gently ask him to look closely at the detail and the figures, which show that the numbers are low. I do not recognise his characterisation of the future.