Support for Farmers

Samantha Niblett Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Terry Jermy]

The vast majority of farms in my constituency are small family farms. It was campaigning from constituency MPs like myself and others that got the changes to that policy so that it now works for the vast majority of those impacted.

Over the past decade or so, farmers have been at the sharp end of changing political landscapes, with Brexit and its fundamental change to farming policy being the most profound, because farming is an industry that plans years ahead. Decisions made today on investment, machinery, water infrastructure, environmental delivery and succession have consequences that last decades. Farmers can adapt to change and seize new opportunities when there is a clear direction of travel, but it becomes difficult for businesses to plan with confidence when there is a lack of certainty.

In countless conversations, farmers have told me they are desperate for that clarity, consistency and long-term thinking from Government. I hope that the farming roadmap developed under this Labour Government is the start of that approach. One of the biggest issues raised has been around profitability. The fundamental challenge that remains is in ensuring that farming businesses can generate sustainable returns. While discussions often focus on environmental schemes or regulation—this scheme or that scheme—as is the case with the Lib Dem motion before the House, neither environmental ambition nor long-term investment can be achieved if a farm business itself is not financially viable.

Farming continues to be treated as a political football. Cosplay Reform Members may have a Barbour jacket and a flat cap, but do they actually have a single farming policy? I note their absence from today’s debate. And what of the Tories, desperate as ever to be the face of rural Britain like it is some divine right, while completely ignoring the demise of farming under their watch? It was their withdrawal from the common agricultural policy that left our farmers exposed with no plan in place. It will be some years before many farmers will forgive that level of betrayal by the Conservatives.

Many farmers tell me that despite producing world-class food, margins are often squeezed by factors beyond their control. That limited agency over their destiny feeds into their frustration and the poor mental health of many farmers, which is a real concern.

Looking forward, I remain optimistic about the future of British farming. There are many significant challenges, but there are opportunities too. We have some of the most productive farmland to be found anywhere in the world, we have farmers who are innovative, entrepreneurial and committed to producing high-quality food, and we have growing opportunities around technology, precision agriculture, water management and sustainable food production. However, success is not guaranteed. It will require a recognition that food production and environmental improvements are not competing objectives. Done properly, they can and must go hand in hand.

To conclude, I have three main asks of the Government. First, with the Budget looming, we must raise the annual investment allowance and consider what I have called the green investment allowance, because incentivising investment in rural areas into things like reservoirs and revamping poultry sheds will deliver greater environmental benefits than many SFI schemes.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Yesterday I had the great delight of meeting with members of Derbyshire National Farmers’ Union. They agreed with my hon. Friend about making it easier for them to access capital, not just to invest in items like tractors, but in buildings and things such as reservoirs, to help them manage the change in climate. Does he agree that meeting regularly with our NFU members is a fantastic use of our time, and that they help to shape the recommendations we make to Government?

[Terry Jermy]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Government cannot pay for everything, but we can and should create an investment framework that encourages famers.

Secondly, we must significantly improve the availability of on-farm water collection and storage through amending planning laws and providing capital grants. Without that, land currently farmed will become unviable, with increasing drought and water scarcity. Thirdly, we must also focus on supply chain fairness, turbocharging a more co-operative model, such as that in New Zealand, using public procurement powers and tackling imports that have lower environmental and animal welfare standards than those that we permit here in the UK.

I could go on, but if food security really does mean national security, there needs to be tangible action and we need it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

To start off, we need to talk about the SFI scheme, which has been a painful subject in conversations I have had with my farming community. There is no way of sugaring this issue. I know that the Minister will diligently look at the process going forward, but I fear that this debate will focus on the symptoms, not the cause. The overapplication that we have seen is because profitability does not exist in the system of farming. We have so few schemes available that ensure that our farmers can get that profitability back, and we need to solve that problem.

I put it to the House that one thing we should consider is removing as many financial and regulatory burdens as we can from our farming community. Let us look at our Australian colleagues, for example. The Labour Government of Australia set themselves a farm gate value of 100 billion Australian dollars by 2030, and they have hit that figure three years in advance, because they have the farming resilience fund, which they have expanded over recent years. That ensures that in good years, farmers can put aside a tax-deductible lump sum. I believe we should be pursuing that on a greater level within the United Kingdom—maybe up to £500,000 a year—but there is something that we should do differently from our Australian cousins. We should ensure that if a farmer draws down on that scheme for reservoirs, new silos and grain stores, or investment in their livestock, for example, that remains tax-deductible. I estimate that would cost the Treasury about £100 million, and it would allow us to show our farming community, in good faith, that we are giving them a leg up, not trying to cut them down.

I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) that we need to streamline the planning process, and not just for on-farm reservoirs; we also need to look at how we can support diversification of our farming sector. However, this debate is not just about financial issues—it is bigger. We have the veterinary reform Bill coming up as well, about which I have had quite a few conversations with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson). It cannot just be about domestic animals; we also need to look at how we support our veterinary practices to ensure that we can get profitability into the farming sector, because if we do not have a secure veterinary sector, the farming sector will fall apart very quickly.

The other aspect that flows from that point is biosecurity. I welcome the investment that the Government have made in our biosecurity systems over the past two years, but I still have concerns, especially about the port of Dover. A 27-mile gap until the inspection of meat and produce takes place is dangerous. When I visited the Agriculture Minister in Australia, I heard about the Australians’ concerns regarding the first flight of bird influenza to their country. They have been able to solve such problems because they take biosecurity so seriously. African swine fever is the real concern for us, and I would like it if the Minister could, in his winding-up remarks, expand on what we will be doing on that.

Beyond that, we also need to look at our trade arrangements, which are addressed in today’s motion. The motion mentions the Australian and New Zealand trade deal secured by the previous Government—which has been disastrous, especially to our upland farmers—but there have been good trade deals secured by this Government, such as the Indian trade deal. To be honest with the House, as a Member representing a huge sugar beet production area of the United Kingdom, I was extremely worried that a free-for-all on Indian sugar would fundamentally undermine our market. However, the Government took the right action and ensured that there was a carve-out. They have also taken the right action with the US trade deal, giving access to the beef market but not flooding our market. I do, though, politely recommend to Government Front Benchers that we ban Brazilian beef within the UK market; that would also be a gesture of good will to our European partners, who have done exactly the same. As we approach the sanitary and phytosanitary trade agreement, which will be vital to expanding our food sector, that sort of action would be extremely helpful to the UK.

[Samantha Niblett]

My hon. Friend is making an incredible speech without any notes, demonstrating his knowledge of this space. It is super impressive.

I met representatives of Derbyshire NFU yesterday. One of the things they talked about, as well as their concerns about Brazilian beef, was how often a consumer can go to the shop and think they are doing the right thing because they are buying something that has the Union Jack on the front—our proud British label—but if they turned over the label, they would find that the product is not from this country. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), who has done a huge amount of work on fair labelling, that we in this country should be doing more to let people know where their food comes from, so that they can make the right decision and buy British?

[Ben Goldsborough]

My hon. Friend makes an impassioned plea against the flag-washing that we see in the United Kingdom. One of my concerns is that we are getting into a very easy situation of exporting our morality when it comes to food production. We cannot continue down this alley of increasing our standards to a certain level while other nations are undermining theirs. All that does is put our farming communities in a situation where they cannot fight against that race to the bottom. I would appreciate it if, when the Minister winds up, he would say what discussions he and his colleagues have had with our European partners, especially on the SPS agreement, to ensure that there will be a level playing field—when, for example, neonicotinoids are used in Hungary. Also, vitally, what are they doing to ensure that there will be a long transition period in the United Kingdom? We have an issue with black-grass, and if we lose our herbicides from our market, our yields will be harmed hugely.

In conclusion, today’s debate looks at the symptoms, not the causes. I urge the Minister to explain in his winding-up remarks what we are going to do to fix the underlying profitability issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks from a position of expertise. He is right that the more complicated we make a system, the more expensive it is to administer. I know that Ministers are looking into how a system that is not “first come, first served” might work; there are risks with that, and we should acknowledge that in this place. It is not a silver bullet by any stretch of the imagination.

I notice that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), did not mention the word “profitability” in his contribution. However, that is an essential point in any debate on farming. Baroness Batters’ “Farming Profitability Review” notes that the farming budget in England has hovered around that £2.4 billion figure since 2007, but the input costs are forecast to be 30% higher this year than in 2020. We need to be clear about the essential mission for farming. The aim is a countryside where farms are less dependent on subsidy and scheme windows, and more independent, resilient and sustainable—for people, profit and our planet. That is the thread that ran through the Batters review, and it is also the thread that ran through the Labour Rural Research Group’s report on the rural economy.

[Samantha Niblett]

My hon. Friend is talking about recommendations for the SFI going forward. When I met Derbyshire NFU yesterday, there was some concern about a proportion of SFI that was not accounted for—I am sorry, I do not have my notes to confirm the figure. Derbyshire NFU said that one of the key challenges was that when we were part of the EU, there had to be clarity about what money was spent where, whereas now it finds it much harder to get transparency on money that has been invested. Does my hon. Friend agree that this might also be a recommendation to Government?

[James Naish]

Absolutely. There is a lot of muttering from the Lib Dem Benches, but I am sure that the Minister heard that point.

I will conclude, because plenty of people want to speak. We should be clear that we need to fix the SFI system, and I am pleased that the Government have given indications of how they plan to do that. We must end “first come, first served”, so that the system works more fairly, but we must also collectively recognise that we must do better on the issue of profitability. I welcome the work that the Government have done to date, but we must accelerate the implementation of the Batters profitability review. I hope that we can work across this House to put those points into practice.