Land Use Change: Food Security

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a genuine joy to serve under your guidance, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) not just for her good speech, but for securing this important debate.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), as well as the hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), all of whom made excellent contributions and made this a really thoughtful, worthwhile debate. I hope I have not missed anybody out. I also welcome the Minister. It is possibly the first time she has addressed Westminster Hall in her current role as the new Minister; I welcome her and look forward to many exchanges.

Britain is not secure unless it is food secure. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made a really important point when she quoted the former MI5 director general Baroness Manningham-Buller. I have an additional quote from her:

“The more self-sufficient we are as a nation, the better our ability to withstand price spikes, geopolitical shocks and instability around the world. The truth is, we are moving in the wrong direction”.

She is sadly right, and that is horrific. Various figures have been bandied around, but DEFRA’s own figures show that in 1984, the UK was 78% self-sufficient, and none of the figures mentioned were better than 65%. The NFU’s figure is more like 60%, and I think that I am more likely to believe it. Either way, there is clearly a massive decline in our self-sufficiency. It is vital that our land use policy ensures that we produce the food that Britain needs.

Leaving the European Union perhaps held one single, solitary silver lining: that we would leave the common agricultural policy and be able to set out on our own with something a lot less counterproductive. Yet even that silver lining turned darker, and the last Conservative Government must take responsibility. They are singularly culpable for ignoring our farming communities, taking their votes for granted, and completely botching the transition to the new environmental land management scheme. Nobody knows—and I could not say—whether they did that harm to our farmers by accident or design, but outrageously, we now have an agricultural policy that actively disincentivises the production of food. That is madness. We must reverse that damage, because that figure for self-sufficiency will only further decrease unless we take radical action.

At the heart of the food security problem is the counterproductive transition from the old payment scheme. Conservative and now Labour Governments have persisted with the same flawed approach—a stop-start payment system that leaves farmers unable to plan even a year ahead, even though farming demands planning cycles over years or even generations. Farmers are being asked to make long-term decisions about land use, stock numbers, crop planting and environmental improvements based on schemes that change suddenly, launch late, or simply close with no warning. The sustainable farming incentive is a prime and awful example. In March this year, farmers were one day being encouraged to apply, then the next day, the door was slammed shut. It is still shut.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend for reflecting on the real and dangerous impact that the sudden closure of the SFI scheme had on farmers. One farm in my constituency was left in limbo by the announcement, having spent four months trying to switch to the SFI scheme. However, to do that, it needed to leave the community stewardship facilitation fund scheme—a process that took months, which meant that it could not complete its SFI application. It then found itself without SFI or the community stewardship facilitation fund. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a totally unacceptable situation for any farmer?

[Tim Farron]

It is completely unacceptable and the consequences have been huge. I had a public meeting with farmers, on the day after the SFI drawbridge was pulled up, I think, and there is huge anger and disillusionment. There are people who will now not even look at the schemes because they do not trust them anymore. I ask the Minister: when will SFI reopen, and will she ensure that it is accessible to the maximum number of people?

Of course, all that is happening at the same time as the Government’s choice to slash the basic payment scheme—what is left of it—by 76% this year alone. The BPS—the old farm payment scheme—has been phased out at sprint speed while its replacements have barely limped into existence, and with small, family farms at the back of the queue. Basically, if someone is wealthy enough to afford land agents and to have the luxury of being able to spend time off their farm, they can get into a scheme. However, if they are working for 90 hours a week to keep a roof over their head, they are outside it. It has been a redistribution of public money from the poor to the rich and away from food production. Now, for the first time since the 1940s, England has no universal option for farmers.

When farmers cannot rely on payments, access schemes or forecast their income, we run the risk of losing them altogether. That is a crushing blow for farming families—people who farmed their valley for generations and have realised that perhaps on their watch, they will lose that farm. Just imagine what that does to the wellbeing and mental health of the people on whom we depend for our food and for nature.

The impact is particularly acute for hill farmers, such as those around the lakes and dales of Cumbria, who maintain some of the most treasured landscapes that we have, and yet they endure some of the lowest farm incomes. The University of Cumbria’s figures show that by the end of next year, the average income for a hill farmer will be just 55% of the national minimum wage.

Of course, the proposed inheritance tax charges cause further damage. Those same hill farmers—who are earning, let us say, £15,000 to £16,000 a year—will be hit with a typical tax bill of around £20,000 a year over 10 years. Those hill farmers will have to sell, usually to bigger, less productive estates or a big city corporation seeking to use the land for offsetting, often leading to a monoculture, not a restoration of nature, and certainly not for producing food. The family farm tax is not just unfair; it further incentivises a reduction in Britain’s ability to feed itself. It is a strategic disaster as well as being unjust.

Secondly, the Government’s failure to publish the land use framework that they promised is causing huge uncertainty and damaging our ability to feed ourselves. Without a clear national strategy, decisions about land are being made in the dark. Farmers cannot know whether to prioritise food production, long-term environmental projects or diversification. Developers and investors act on speculation rather than strategy. A proper framework would give clarity about where food production must be protected. At present, the delay in publishing the land use framework is actively undermining food security.

Thirdly and finally, on top of all this instability we are still waiting for a national food security strategy from the Government. I always hear that the Government have acknowledged that food security and national security are linked, but they have not acted with seriousness or urgency to get an action plan in place. We cannot hope to secure our food supply without a plan that links food production, affordability, nutrition, public procurement, fairness in the marketplace, farming, nature and trade. For instance, about a quarter of the food grown in the United Kingdom, amounting to up to 5 million tonnes of edible food, is wasted every year. The proportion of the population in households experiencing food poverty is 11%, but for children the figure is 18%. Schools, hospitals and care homes rely too heavily on imported food that could be produced affordably and sustainably here at home. A national food security strategy would bring coherence to these challenges. Instead, we have delay.

Of course, food security is national security, but simply mouthing those words will not help us to rise to the challenge of ensuring that the UK’s vital food supplies are protected against various threats. The Liberal Democrats are determined to offer a plan for food security that encourages and rewards those who labour 365 days a year to feed us, and to whom we are enormously grateful. It is the role of the Government to back them and produce an overarching strategy, across every part of national and local government, to ensure that food security is a practical priority. The Liberal Democrats would ensure that ELM schemes are boosted with an additional £1 billion-worth of investment towards active farmers and would reverse the damaging family farm tax, which is killing investment in farming and will further suppress food production. We will ensure that food security is formally considered a public good through the ELM schemes.

We will also have an overarching food security strategy across every Government Department, because we declare that the fundamental error of this and the previous Government is that they have bought the lie that there is a contest between whether we produce food or whether we restore our natural environment. That is nonsense. Without farmers we will not eat, and the best environmental policies in the world will simply remain useless—bits of paper in a drawer—unless we have farmers putting them into practice. Farmers in Cumbria and across the whole United Kingdom are vital to food security and to our natural environment. It is time we listened to them and made Government their help and not a hindrance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State, and the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), to their roles. I look forward to working with them both.

Research from the University of Cumbria shows that, by this time next year, the average hill farmer will earn barely half the national minimum wage, yet the Government’s family farm tax means an annual tax bill of £20,000 a year for the typical hill farm. Those farmers will have to stop farming and sell up. To whom? To wealthy landowners and big city corporations. Is this policy not deeply socially unjust, robbing from the poor and giving to the rich, while betraying the people who care for our landscape and provide food for us?

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

We will publish the farming road map and the Batters review, and then talk about a strategy for making farming more productive, profitable and sustainable for the next generation. Upland farmers will play an important part in that review, and we will see what we can do to support them.

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Stuart. A massive thank you to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), who introduced the debate so eloquently, and to the more than 102,000 people who signed the petition, 239 of whom live in Westmorland and Lonsdale. We are a constituency with lots of skin in the game, so to speak. I am the MP for Tommy Brock, the badger of Beatrix Potter fame, and the Member for a large number of the farms that were dear to Beatrix Potter’s heart, many of which have been devastated by the threat of bovine TB over the last few years. This subject goes to the heart of two great passions for, I think, most of us in this room: the welfare of our animals, both wildlife and livestock, and the future of our farming communities.

Bovine TB is a serious issue. It has had a devastating impact on farmers emotionally and financially. It is an ongoing animal welfare emergency, causing huge numbers of livestock to suffer and die. In just a single year from June 2024 to June ’25, more than 21,000 cattle were slaughtered in England alone because of TB, and we know that over the 12-year period in question, close to 250,000 badgers have been culled, so I wonder whether we can start from a point of agreement. We all want to eradicate bovine TB. The question is how. How do we do that in a way that is humane, proportionate and grounded in science?

It is interesting to note that the Government are now committed to ending badger culling by the end of this Parliament—by 2029 specifically—yet at the same time the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill includes provision for the killing of badgers if they get in the way of housing development. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos)—

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

Go on: you can make my point for me.

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have been debating today badger culling to control TB, and I believe that badger culling should be phased out as quickly as possible, but the Planning and Infrastructure Bill provides for the killing of badgers not to control TB—not for public health purposes—but for general public purposes. I ask the Government to look again at why that is justified. Why do we need additional legislation to kill badgers?

[Tim Farron]

I did not give my hon. Friend any warning whatsoever, so I thank him for his eloquence and for immediate springing to his feet on this issue, which he cares about deeply, as do I. Is it not ludicrous to outlaw the culling of badgers for scientific purposes—to try to reduce the spread of a dangerous disease—yet permit it if developers want it? That seems outrageous and is certainly lacking any kind of scientific underpinning.

Farmers, rural communities and all of us who care about animal welfare, wherever we live, deserve a clear, evidence-based plan from DEFRA that sets out how England will achieve TB-free status by 2038, with milestones, accountability and fair support, including very fair compensation for those on the frontline. The lack of direction since the Godfray review in 2018—under both the Government in power now and the Conservative one that preceded it—has increased and created uncertainty and frustration right across the industry. As Liberal Democrats, we are calling on Government to publish a transparent, science-led evaluation of all disease control measures, including cost-benefit analyses, vaccination data and surveillance outcomes, to ensure that every action taken is effective, humane and sustainable.

I echo some of the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). We believe very much that the way forward must be safe, effective and firmly rooted in evidence. Running the risk of attempting to be reasonable on all this—a Liberal Democrat trait—the evidence on the science really is mixed.

To show my own long standing, I remember some time ago the last-but-one Labour DEFRA Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—who is a good and decent man, I ought to say—at the NFU conference back in 2009. When he was pressed by farmers on why he would not support even a limited form of badger cull, his answer was, “Well, we would, but public opinion would not let us.” It is really important that we make evidence-based decisions. That was maybe very honest of the right hon. Gentleman, but it underpinned what is often the problem with democratic Governments: sometimes we make the wrong decisions because we do not think we will get away with the right ones.

The current DEFRA review, published in August, found that culling may reduce infection quickly in some high-density and high-risk populations. There is a big “but” coming, and it is this: badger vaccination delivers a more consistent reduction in TB prevalence across both the core and surrounding buffer zones, if delivered properly. That is a massive “if”, is it not?

Farmers lack trust in the vaccination plan because they lack trust in this Government and in their posture towards farmers and farming in general. Clearly, vaccination would be the way forward, but we can surely understand why farmers lack trust in a Government that have damaged them through inheritance tax changes—the family farm tax—and botched the roll-out of the sustainable farming incentive, and opened and shut windows for the likes of stewardship schemes and what have you.

This is not a Government that farmers currently trust, and the difficulty of rolling out a vaccination programme against that lack of trust is massively scaled up.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising one of the most important points that is often lost in this debate: the enormous toll that this process takes on our farming community. That toll may be the constant culling or, more accurately, the constant cycle of testing, which is hugely expensive for farmers. Many of the those who signed the petition in West Dorset said, “I would forgo the ability to sell my livestock if it meant I no longer had to keep going through the cost of repeated cycles of testing.” We need to find a solution, whether it be through vaccination or anything else, that preserves the rights of farmers to make a living.

[Tim Farron]

One of the reasons for that suspicion is that farmers know that vaccination is not simple. It might be the most effective way of dealing with the disease if it is rolled out properly, but it is logistically challenging and resource intensive. That is why the Liberal Democrats are urging the Government to invest heavily in improving delivery, to fund more research into how vaccination can be scaled, and to work with conservationists and farmers to make it viable on the ground. It has to go hand in hand with the Government keeping their promises on investment, particularly in the Weybridge HQ of the Animal and Plant Health Agency.

We face threats not just from bovine tuberculosis, but from bluetongue and avian influenza, not to mention, as all those who experienced it at the time will feel, the constant threat of a return of foot and mouth. The failure of this Government and their predecessor to invest properly in the APHA leaves us open and at risk—and again, it leaves farmers deeply suspicious about the Government’s way forward. We also need better surveillance. The DEFRA review that I mentioned a moment ago recommended more systematic monitoring, including the routine testing of found dead badgers, so that we can map TB hotspots accurately and target control measures effectively.

We have talked about non-lethal ways of dealing with the disease. Again, I reiterate that 21,586 cattle were slaughtered last year because of bovine TB. That is not a non-lethal way of dealing with the disease. There was a decline in new cases of around 42% over the previous seven years, but recent data suggests that that welcome reduction may now be plateauing. It is vital that we renew our efforts with a strategy that is both effective and humane.

I am moved by the animal welfare cost of this terrible threat that we have faced for many years, but I am also moved by the human cost, which has been mentioned by others. The farmers who deal with this issue—not just those whose herds get infected, but those who live with the constant threat—are not just financially impacted; they are deeply emotionally impacted, and at the worst possible time. The backdrop to this situation is the anxiety among our farming community—again, because of the threat of the family farm tax, which is coming in on 1 April next year and is driving many to the depths of despair. At the same time, for the first time since 1945, we no longer have a readily available farm payment scheme, which is an absolute outrage. That is a result of the last Government’s botched introduction of the new scheme, but this Government have ramped it up and made things worse.

What do I mean by that? The sustainable farming incentive closed overnight earlier this year in March, and is not likely to be reopened again until maybe this time next year—if they can get the computer system to work properly. We have mid-tier stewardship schemes ending in just a few weeks’ time. The new stewardship schemes open and then shut, and grant schemes open and then shut. Who gets into those schemes? The big guys who have the resources to be there, with a finger on the mouse, ready to bid when that moment arises. The small family farmers—the ones who are best at animal welfare, by the way—are the ones locked out.

Therefore, as we talk about the threat to family farming, to animal welfare and to the mental health of our farmers, we cannot look at bovine tuberculosis on its own. It is against the backdrop of a systematic—whether intended or accidental—annihilation of family farming in this country.

I hear politicians of all political colours saying that British farming is the best in the world; they are right, but rarely do they know why they are right. They are right because of the culture of family farming in this country. Family farming means close attention to detail, to husbandry, to animal welfare, to environmental standards and to food standards. That is why, in tackling bovine tuberculosis, this Government need a plan that wins the trust of farmers and of those who care about animals, but also underpins the future of small family farms, which are essential to our country.

National Trails

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the opportunity that exists in leveraging national trails for the improvement of biodiversity and meeting the Government’s biodiversity goals. I will come on to that a bit later.

I am going to focus on the two trails in my constituency: the Thames Path and the Ridgeway. As we have heard, the Thames Path begins in the Cotswolds. It enters my constituency at Benson, before darting across the river into Wallingford, and then crossing the river again and coming into Henley and Thame at Goring. From there, it makes its way into the beautiful village of Whitchurch-on-Thames before paying a visit to Reading and then onwards to my home town of Henley-on-Thames.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

My hon. Friend makes a point about the urban settlements that the trails go through. I have three trails in my constituency—the Pennine Way, the Pennine Bridleway and the Coast to Coast Path. They go through beautiful countryside, of course, but places like Orton, Shap and Kirkby Stephen benefit hugely from people walking through them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that there should be good services and facilities in those places? I mention that in particular because of the current threat in Shap to close the public loos. Does he agree that local councils, both at parish and district level, should do everything in their power to maintain these services for local people and for all the walkers?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of services along these well-loved routes. He is also right to highlight that national trails are accessible from urban areas, which makes them particularly special compared with national parks and landscapes.

Walkers are currently forced to deviate from the Thames Path at both Benson and Henley. While the weir project is progressing in Benson, the Marsh Lock horse bridge between Henley and Shiplake has been closed for over three years. The current diversion requires crossing the dangerous A4155 twice and takes the walker well away from the water.

Since coming into office, I have been campaigning to reopen Marsh Lock bridge. With the help of an 11-year-old Brownie, Claudia, and her petition, access to a pot of £500,000 has been secured to begin plans for repairs. I continue to have conversations with the Environment Agency to ensure that repairs move forward. I am grateful to the Minister for Water for her engagement on that issue, but there is a long way to go, including to find the estimated £2.5 million needed to actually implement the repair.

Further north in my constituency, the Ridgeway national trail carves an impressive path from the iconic Goring Gap, through the village of Nuffield and the idyllic town of Watlington, before crossing the border into Buckinghamshire just after Chinnor. The Ridgeway is known as Britain’s oldest road. It is believed to have been in use over 5,000 years ago as a trading route. We know how important connection to our history and cultural heritage is. It is amazing to think that when we walk the Ridgeway, we are striking our feet on the same earth as our ancestors all those years ago.

The Ridgeway is also well known for the internationally renowned Uffington white horse, carved into chalk, but such chalk is vulnerable to damage and parts of the Ridgeway are classified as byway, meaning they are legally open to motorised traffic. The Ridgeway therefore suffers damage from recreational vehicles and off-road motorcycles. Local authorities and National Trails UK find it difficult to justify the regular repairs needed to maintain the trail to the correct standard. Ian, the project’s trail officer, is fighting to prohibit recreational motorised vehicles from the trail so that road users are limited to Trampers, off-road wheelchairs and road-legal pedal electric bicycles.

From just those two examples in my constituency, we begin to get an idea of how important protected national trails are for nature and our history. After speaking with representatives from National Trails UK, the Thames Path and the Ridgeway, I know that stark action is needed.

There are three main problems preventing the maintenance of national trails: legal status, underfunding and bureaucracy. National trails were originally designated by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The main goal was to provide public access to the countryside and establish protected landscapes. Trails, parks and landscapes were considered under that legislation. It gave powers to Natural England to survey, plan and propose long-distance routes that would subsequently be maintained.

Since that legislation, however, the legal status and protections of those routes have deteriorated. Although national parks and national landscapes have what is known as a statutory purpose, national trails do not. They are therefore not sufficiently protected by or referenced in key legislation alongside parks and landscapes, giving them a lower status. That lower level of protection puts people’s access to the outdoors at risk.

Furthermore, the current designation of national trails is mostly limited to the width of the path, which is particularly worrying given that they neighbour vast biodiversity. The Thames Path, in my constituency, runs along the edge of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust’s Hartslock nature reserve, which is one of the two remaining UK sites to have the monkey orchid. The Ridgeway passes through the Chinnor Hill and Oakley Hill nature reserves. Failure to recognise the paths’ interconnectedness with other nature means that BBOWT has reported damage to the surrounding nature due to ill-thought-through diversions or people straying from the paths, but without recognition of the surrounding nature, there is no allocation for renewal and maintenance.

The second main problem is funding. Considering how many economic benefits national trails bring, they have not received a meaningful funding increase since 2013.

Independent Water Commission

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and Sir Jon Cunliffe for his report and for his work in producing it. The Liberal Democrats have long argued for the abolition of Ofwat, and for the creation of a new, consolidated and powerful regulator. In fact, we put it to the Public Bill Committee and it was supported by neither the Labour party nor the Conservative party, but today’s proposal seems to include doing just that, so we strongly welcome the statement. It is a reminder to the wonderful volunteers and water campaigners across the country that their work is absolutely worth while and has made a huge difference. My message to them is: thank you so much and keep going, because we still do not know the details and the nature of the new regulator, and we still see no sign in the report of any plan to tackle the toxic nature of the water industry’s ownership structure.

Why is there no plan to change the structure of the industry itself? Even the best regulator in the world will fail if water companies are still owned by those who care nothing for the quality of the lakes, rivers and seas, and who care only about making as much profit as possible in return for very little investment. Is it really acceptable to ask bill payers for a 30% rise when there is no guarantee that the water company will not be siphoning off huge chunks of that money in dividends, pay rises or bonuses? Why is there nothing in the statement that will truly empower the volunteers, citizen scientists and water campaigners I just mentioned? Why are we not giving places on water company boards to the likes of the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Lakes Rivers Trust, Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent Campaign, Surfers Against Sewage and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, known as WASP? Why is there no mention of monitoring the volume of sewage spills as well as the number of incidences, and no mention of including legally binding pollution reduction targets?

Although the statement is welcome and we rightly celebrate the Liberal Democrat campaign wins that it is full of, our job as a constructive and effective Opposition is to scrutinise the detail and to carry on campaigning to clean up our waterways and our water industry too. That is exactly what we shall do.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I echo and endorse his comments about the volunteers and citizen scientists who carried out fantastic work to ensure that this issue remained where it needed to be, which was right at the top of the political agenda. I hope that they will join us in welcoming Sir Jon’s report.

There will be a White Paper and a consultation alongside it. We will launch the White Paper in the autumn, giving detailed Government responses to the 450-page report. With 88 recommendations, there is a lot to go through, but the report includes proposals about ownership, which will be consulted on as well. Volunteers and citizen scientists will be able to engage for the first time through the proposed regional structures. We accept that proposal in principle, and the detail of it will be worked through during the consultation. For the first time, there will be engagement on the catchment of entire river systems, and citizens, local authorities and businesses will all have a voice in that, as will members of the farming community operating within those catchments.

I believe that by reducing the number of spills we will also reduce the volume of spills. The hon. Gentleman will be able to monitor that, and he will be able to hold me to account, as will the House and the public, as we work towards the target that I have outlined for reducing sewage spills from water companies by 50% by 2030. He of course is lucky enough to represent one of the most beautiful parts of the country, including Windermere, and we are working with United Utilities to remove all sources of pollution from that beautiful, iconic lake, so that what became a story of decline can become a visible symbol of renewal with this Government.

Draft Marking of Retail Good Regulations 2025

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 General Committees

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a joy to serve under your guidance this evening, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister very much for his introductory remarks. I support the draft regulations, which will provide the Government with a power to introduce “not for EU” labelling across Great Britain should it be needed to protect the UK internal market and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. They make it clear that the Secretary of State can decide to apply such labelling only where there is evidence that the supply of the product is seriously adversely affected by business operators withdrawing from the Northern Ireland market. I am pleased to observe that small businesses will not be expected to adhere to this measure and that Northern Irish goods will not need to be labelled to be placed on the market in Great Britain. Food for special medical purposes will also be exempted.

Over the past several years, Liberal Democrats have raised concerns about the approach being taken to this issue. More recently, we have raised concerns about the risk that other British businesses will lose out on trade with Northern Ireland as a result of the additional burdens associated with labelling. Despite that, we appreciate that the Government have taken a more workable and phased-out approach than the blanket label system that the previous Government proposed.

The draft regulations will ensure that the requirements are applied in a more limited and intelligent way, rather than in the comprehensive way that would have done unnecessary damage economically not just to farmers and producers in Northern Ireland, but right across the island of Britain. This instrument takes a more sensible approach: it will allow discretion, limit damage to business and minimise red tape, bureaucracy and unnecessary business costs.

Of course, it will not end such costs altogether. That is a reminder that the deal cooked up in early 2020 has a lasting, damaging impact on the UK economy and on our farmers, and that non-tariff trade barriers with Europe create real friction and cause real harm to farmers right across the United Kingdom and to food producers of every kind. It is worth remembering that 17,000 businesses since January 2020 have stopped trading with the European Union, fundamentally because of non-tariff barriers to trade such as this, so I echo the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest: I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the extent to which the EU reset will affect the requirements of this agreement and whether there will be any easing in trade friction.

This is not an issue that can be considered on its own. The impact on food producers on both sides of the Irish sea is significant. That comes alongside the impact on farmers’ confidence and business planning as a result of the inheritance tax changes; the 76% cut in basic payments for farmers this financial year; the £100 million reduction in like-for-like farm funding announced in the spending review last week; the enduring impact on British farmers of the unfair and unbalanced trade deals negotiated by the previous Government; and the trade friction caused by the separation of our farmers and food producers from their biggest external market, which is of course the European Union. We believe that food security must be treated as a public good, which is why I was pleased that the Farming Minister has agreed to meet me and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in the coming weeks to discuss food security; I will be delighted to take advantage of that offer.

Nevertheless, the draft regulations are a significant improvement on what came before. It is right that discretion is being allowed. It is right that it is being done in a limited way, with small businesses exempted. The damage that will be done, both in Northern Ireland and on the island of Great Britain, will be mitigated by the draft regulations, but of course they will not entirely eradicate the damage that we have done by severing ourselves from our biggest market and our biggest international trading partner.

Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

Tim Farron Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 General Committees

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a joy to serve under your guidance this evening, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister very much for his introductory remarks. I support the draft regulations, which will provide the Government with a power to introduce “not for EU” labelling across Great Britain should it be needed to protect the UK internal market and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. They make it clear that the Secretary of State can decide to apply such labelling only where there is evidence that the supply of the product is seriously adversely affected by business operators withdrawing from the Northern Ireland market. I am pleased to observe that small businesses will not be expected to adhere to this measure and that Northern Irish goods will not need to be labelled to be placed on the market in Great Britain. Food for special medical purposes will also be exempted.

Over the past several years, Liberal Democrats have raised concerns about the approach being taken to this issue. More recently, we have raised concerns about the risk that other British businesses will lose out on trade with Northern Ireland as a result of the additional burdens associated with labelling. Despite that, we appreciate that the Government have taken a more workable and phased-out approach than the blanket label system that the previous Government proposed.

The draft regulations will ensure that the requirements are applied in a more limited and intelligent way, rather than in the comprehensive way that would have done unnecessary damage economically not just to farmers and producers in Northern Ireland, but right across the island of Britain. This instrument takes a more sensible approach: it will allow discretion, limit damage to business and minimise red tape, bureaucracy and unnecessary business costs.

Of course, it will not end such costs altogether. That is a reminder that the deal cooked up in early 2020 has a lasting, damaging impact on the UK economy and on our farmers, and that non-tariff trade barriers with Europe create real friction and cause real harm to farmers right across the United Kingdom and to food producers of every kind. It is worth remembering that 17,000 businesses since January 2020 have stopped trading with the European Union, fundamentally because of non-tariff barriers to trade such as this, so I echo the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest: I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the extent to which the EU reset will affect the requirements of this agreement and whether there will be any easing in trade friction.

This is not an issue that can be considered on its own. The impact on food producers on both sides of the Irish sea is significant. That comes alongside the impact on farmers’ confidence and business planning as a result of the inheritance tax changes; the 76% cut in basic payments for farmers this financial year; the £100 million reduction in like-for-like farm funding announced in the spending review last week; the enduring impact on British farmers of the unfair and unbalanced trade deals negotiated by the previous Government; and the trade friction caused by the separation of our farmers and food producers from their biggest external market, which is of course the European Union. We believe that food security must be treated as a public good, which is why I was pleased that the Farming Minister has agreed to meet me and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in the coming weeks to discuss food security; I will be delighted to take advantage of that offer.

Nevertheless, the draft regulations are a significant improvement on what came before. It is right that discretion is being allowed. It is right that it is being done in a limited way, with small businesses exempted. The damage that will be done, both in Northern Ireland and on the island of Great Britain, will be mitigated by the draft regulations, but of course they will not entirely eradicate the damage that we have done by severing ourselves from our biggest market and our biggest international trading partner.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tim Farron Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Lord Don Curry’s recent report on a sustainable farming model for the future was sent to the Secretary of State earlier this month. Have the Secretary of State and the Minister read it yet? Do they agree with me and Lord Curry that the UK is in a dangerously precarious position, given that we produce domestically only 55% of the food we need, and that we are therefore not food secure and need an urgent plan for food security? Will he meet me and the noble Lord to examine this industry-wide report, and start the process of putting Britain on the path to food security?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that when a report from Lord Curry arrives in my inbox, I read it. I did so, with great interest. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are not food secure—the food security report produced at the end of last year explained this very carefully—but I am always willing and happy to discuss these issues with him and Lord Curry.

Thames Water

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Under the Conservatives, Thames Water was allowed to pile up nearly £20 billion of debt while pumping sewage into rivers and lakes for 300,000 hours just last year, but rewarding its shareholders with £130 million of dividends. Today, Thames Water’s customers have been left in the lurch, and the Conservatives seem to think it is because we have all been a bit too mean about Thames Water.

The price must not be paid by the customers. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those who were responsible for making dreadful decisions rightly bear the cost instead? Is it not right for the company now to go into special administration, and to emerge from administration as a public interest company? Is it not also right that all water companies, including the likes of United Utilities in the north-west, move to a public interest model, so that caring for the environment matters more than profit?

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) has done more to hold Thames Water to account than Ofwat, this Government or their predecessor. Does that not prove that regulation has failed, and that Ofwat should be abolished, with a new, powerful clean water authority given the power to clean up our lakes and rivers, and our industry?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. There is a procedure to be followed for special administration, and we stand ready should that be required, in this case or any other case involving the regulated industries. He may have had a chance today to look at the interim report, on which Sir Jon Cunliffe is inviting comments ahead of the final report in about a month. That report will form the basis of future legislation to fix the regulatory mess we inherited from the Conservative party.

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and follow all the wonderful speeches in this important debate. I say a massive thank you to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing the debate and for introducing it with great style and knowledge, as always.

I think that my constituency is the wettest represented in this Chamber, certainly in England, although there is possible competition from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns).

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tim Farron]

Go for it—contest the space.

[Ms Minns]

Carlisle floods, as the hon. Member knows all too well, but it is not beyond the wit of responsible developers to build in a way that reduces the trauma of flooding. There is an excellent example in Carlisle, where Story Homes built townhouses with garages underneath that are designed to flood, but in a way that protects the residents. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to do more to encourage developers to be responsible and innovative in their design?

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Member is 100% correct. It is interesting that some of the older properties in my constituency are the ones that are most resilient. In many cases, they were built hundreds of years ago to resist flooding, or for it not to be the end of the world when it does flood. The design of the new buildings in Carlisle absolutely measures up, and we should do more of that.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I must contest my hon. Friend’s suggestion that he represents the wettest part of the country. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding. Part of my constituency lies in the levels and moors site of special scientific interest. The area is increasingly threatened by inappropriate planning applications. Locally elected officials are crucial to good decision making for local communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that they play an important role in making sure that the right decisions are made for local communities and our environment?

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his time is limited?

[Tim Farron]

I shall take no more interventions. I appear to have opened a very soggy can of worms, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is absolutely correct.

Looking at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and at the attitude of this Government and the previous Government towards planning, they seem to be seeking to centralise control of planning at a national level, yet to relax planning rules at a local level to give local planners, local councillors and national parks less power than they currently have. That is very dangerous. In the last Parliament, I served on the Bill Committee considering the very lengthy Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Among the amendments proposed was one that we referred to as the infrastructure-first amendment. It would have given local authorities and national parks the power to say no to developments unless the infrastructure —including drainage, correct sewage provision and sufficient capacity—was there in advance. That power is so important, and it is missing today.

Many hon. Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have talked about the severe housing crisis. Some 7,000 people in my district are on the council house waiting list. We need to build, yet we know that there are a million properties in this country with planning permission, so it is not that the rules are too tough; it is that the developers are not building. We need to make sure that we point the finger of responsibility in the right direction.

New clause 7 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), would bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Shamefully, I must admit that I was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for environment, food and rural affairs on the Bill that became that Act, 15 flippin’ years ago; I have been our EFRA spokesperson under every leader since Nick Clegg, including under myself, because there were only eight of us and someone had to do it. I remember the Bill very well. What a tragedy, and what an outrage, that schedule 3 to the Act has still not been brought into force, 15 years on. We aim to ensure that it is.

I am mindful of time, but this is a timely debate. Last week, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the deeply concerning issue of flood defence spending. At the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there would be a review after the 2025-26 financial year. We are into that financial year now, so we are getting close. It is deeply troubling. My communities in Cumbria were massively affected by Storm Desmond nearly 10 years ago. The cost of that flooding incident was £500 million.

I am watching the clock, so I will simply say this: cutting flood defence spending and taking shortcuts in development that allow flooding to happen are catastrophic false economies—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and especially the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for calling the debate and providing an opportunity for us to hear about and discuss how the planning system can best manage and mitigate flood risk. I am delighted to be here, obviously, as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, but I recognise that some of the points made were about amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so apologies if I cannot speak about amendments under a different brief. I will of course make sure that any points made are heard by the relevant Minister.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for raising the issue of surface water flooding. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about internal drainage boards, and I will address that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) talked about flooding and insurance and made important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) talked about flood action groups, and I want to take a moment to say thank you to all the flood action groups, wardens and volunteers in communities up and down our country for the work that they do. Helpfully, my hon. Friend addressed some of the concerns and questions around maps, so she saved a chunk of my speech, which is great, because I have not got much time to speak on that, although I will talk a little more about maps.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) said, when I arrived, “You will see the same faces as we do in all these debates.” But that is good, because it shows what a tireless champion he is, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), in every flooding debate. It would not be the same without them—that is all I can say—so I thank them very much for coming here and, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, raising their concerns.

I met the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk back in April to discuss his proposals, and it was a really informative and helpful discussion. He raises important topics, which I have taken incredibly seriously and gone away and had a look at, because as he rightly said, climate change is bringing more extreme rainfall and rising sea levels, and it is a priority for this Government to protect communities from the increased risk of flooding.

I am not sure where the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), got the idea that we were cutting funding for flooding. That is not the case. We have invested a record £2.65 billion over two years—2024-25 and 2025-26—for the construction of new flood schemes and the repair and maintenance of existing ones.

[Tim Farron]

I am asking the question because the Government and Chancellor have said that there is no commitment beyond the end of this financial year. We do not know whether the Government are cutting or increasing spending, and we want to know. Many flood-hit communities are desperate to hear what the Chancellor’s plans are beyond this financial year.