Rural Communities
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(4 days, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets that the Government’s policies have resulted in taxes forecast to rise to the highest proportion of GDP on record, record closures of agriculture, forestry and fishing businesses in the last 12 months, the closure of two pubs or restaurants every day and falling levels of business investment; further regrets the Government’s changes to funding for rural areas; also regrets the Government’s plans to build more energy infrastructure in the countryside to meet its net zero targets; believes that these changes are likely to affect the rural way of life; additionally regrets the Government’s chaotic approach to its plans to change Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief; and calls on the Government to scrap all its planned changes to those reliefs.
Rural people feel betrayed by this Labour Government of the urban elite. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that a Labour party under his leadership would form a
“new relationship with the countryside…based on respect”,
yet after a year and a half, his Government have shown nothing but contempt, arrogance and, on occasion, cruelty to rural people. It is a great pity that the Secretary of State is missing in action from this debate, but she does not seem to like scrutiny.
The Government’s decisions have resulted in a cost of living crisis; we have rising food prices, rising unemployment and the highest taxes on record, while business investment and confidence have plummeted, and growth has flatlined. The consequences can be seen and felt in the very fabric of our rural communities. Shops, pubs, hairdressers and post offices in market towns are closing because employers cannot afford Labour’s hikes to national insurance, the minimum wage and business rates. Agricultural suppliers are disappearing as farming investment plummets, and a record number of farms have closed in the last 12 months, with more to follow, because Labour’s chaotic farming decisions and its failure to launch a new sustainable farming incentive scheme have undermined people’s livelihoods at every turn.
These businesses are not just buildings or land. They used to employ people, giving young people their first job, bringing mothers back into the workforce after maternity leave, enabling people to have good careers near their families, encouraging others to start their own businesses, and bringing prosperity and vibrancy to our market towns and villages. However, as a direct result of Labour’s taxes and business cost rises, these jobs are going. As a successful small business owner in one of my market towns said to me before Christmas, “Reeves has cost me an extra £12,000 this year, which I simply don’t have. My business will not survive this Government.”
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is quite rightly talking about what really matters in the countryside, namely the family farm tax. Does it say much about the priorities of this Government that they think it is really important to waste Parliament’s time by banning people from getting on a horse and chasing after a rag soaked in linseed oil?
Victoria Atkins
My right hon. Friend and county neighbour of course understands all the challenges facing our rural communities, and I think we are all wondering why, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, when very worrying events are happening overseas, food prices for all our constituents are continuing to rise, and jobs are being lost in all our constituencies because of the policies of this Government, they appear to be prioritising a lawful hobby, but I will come on to that in a minute.
In the midst of all this socialist misery, Labour is killing off pubs with their business rate hikes of up to 78%. [Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but they are not getting a drink out of this, are they? Two pubs and restaurants are closing every single day under this Government, so Members should support our pubs and pop into their local for a drink. The good news is that they will not meet a Labour MP there, as they have all been barred. [Interruption.] They don’t like it up ’em!
In contrast, the Conservatives have fully costed plans to scrap business rates entirely for a quarter of a million high-street businesses and pubs, paid for by welfare reforms that the Prime Minister is too weak to push through. We Conservatives care, we get it, and we have people’s backs.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Does that not speak to a wider point? I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the shocking statistics out this week on just how few young people are able to get Saturday jobs show that if we cut business rates and allow businesses to employ people, we stand a much better chance of keeping them off welfare in the first place.
Victoria Atkins
That is exactly right, and the difference is that Conservative Members are used to running businesses and working in the private sector, whereas Labour Members have no idea and no clue.
It is not just our market towns and villages that are being hurt by this Government; our public services are, too. Labour has scrapped the rural services delivery grant. They have imposed a local government finance settlement that delivers a three-year punishment beating to shire districts, while their urban counterparts do better, and they have made cynical changes to funding formulas so that rural areas lose out. These choices will have a real impact on the delivery of public services—from health and social care to schools, vital infrastructure and transport. Scrapping the £2 bus fare has increased the cost of living for rural residents, and increased fuel duty will take even more money from our pockets later this year.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Victoria Atkins
I will make some progress, because I know how popular this debate is.
Labour’s choices will scar our landscapes and nature forever. The Government are reversing our bold commitments to nature with another U-turn on biodiversity net gains. The chief executive officer of the London Wildlife Trust has said of this U-turn:
“It’s a farce, a disgrace. It’s desperate.”
Well, that is Labour party policy for you. That U-turn has particular poignancy because of the industrialisation of our countryside, where pylons, substations, solar estates and wind turbines are set up, though local opinion is against them—all to meet the unachievable net zero targets set by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. My constituents are the victims of that in Lincolnshire, where Labour’s plans will destroy people’s homes, our cherished landscape and nature, as well as prime agricultural land that feeds the nation. We will fight those plans.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a salient point. When local people face the impositions that she mentions, it is prime land that is taken out of production, compromising our food security, making us less economically resilient, and costing jobs and livelihoods in the countryside.
Victoria Atkins
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend and county neighbour. What Labour does not seem to understand is that rural areas are not against building more homes and infrastructure. They just want them in the right places, and for them to go with the grain of the community, not against it. At least the Prime Minister is being consistent in this one instance. In the election campaign, he said that he was happy to make enemies of the people who oppose his plans. Well, that is a rare example of an election promise that he has kept. Just as Ministers do not understand business because none of them has ever run one, they do not understand the quintessential quality of rural life—that sense of belonging, of being part of a community. It is about people coming together, be it at the parish church, the local riding stables or our local pubs.
Rural sports, which were mentioned, are an example. They are a key part of the rural way of life for participants and non-participants alike. They are responsible for 26,000 full-time equivalent jobs, and perform vital conservation work across the countryside. Wander down a rural high street and you will see shops selling clothing and equipment for rural sports, as well as farriers, gun makers and saddlers, and there are others dotted around the countryside. A careless policy on rural sports will have wide-reaching impacts across our rural communities.
We rightly have some of the strongest gun laws in the world. The intent to strengthen those safeguards further is understandable, but we urge the Government to pause and work with the shooting community on their serious concerns that current proposals will have grave and unintended consequences, including causing further delays in vital medical assessments for licence holders.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Is the shadow Secretary of State aware of the great concern in Shropshire among the rural community, in particular farmers, that the Government are conflating lethal firearms with shotguns? Of course, shotguns should be controlled, but they are already strictly controlled, and they are a vital part of rural life, especially for farmers controlling vermin, or those undertaking other rural pursuits. I appeal, through the shadow Secretary of State, to the Minister to look again and disregard the consultation. The changes have not been called for and are unnecessary.
Victoria Atkins
As I say, we urge the Government to pause and work with the shooting community. We all understand the intent behind the proposals, but the Government have to get them right, because they could have grave ramifications.
Trail hunting, which we will hear about this afternoon, is long-established, and was specifically permitted by the previous Labour Government under the Hunting Act 2004 as a humane alternative to fox hunting. It is rightly a criminal offence to break the terms of the Hunting Act, and any such criminal offences should be enforced rigorously. Indeed, there have been 416 convictions in the past 15 years. Labour MPs need to be able to say why they propose imposing a blanket ban instead of tackling those who actually break the law. If there is to be intellectual consistency, do they advocate banning driving, on the basis that some people speed? Of course not. There should be effective enforcement of the criminal law brought in by their predecessor Labour Government. I wish, for example, that the Government would prioritise stopping the egregious crime of hare coursing, which we suffer from very badly in Lincolnshire, or organised rural crime or fly-tipping—all terrible crimes that seem to be increasing. Under this Government, sadly, police numbers are falling, including in rural areas. Rather than tackle the issues of policing and enforcement, the Government want to impose a blanket ban. Let us be clear-eyed as to why they are doing this: their Prime Minister is weak, his Cabinet is circling and his Back Benchers are revolting. [Laughter.] The Government need to throw them some red meat, so they are coming after lawful rural sports.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way from her humorous speech. She has just listed a series of changes that she would like this Labour Government to make. Can she tell the House whether, in a 15th year of Conservative Government, those changes would have been made?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. If the hon. Gentleman comes to the county of Lincolnshire, he will see the superb operation that Lincolnshire police did throughout that time to tackle hare coursing, with the support of Home Office Ministers. We have to be clear-eyed about the impact of organised rural crime, because theft of high-value farm machinery is having a terrible impact across farms. In short, this Government cannot let people live and let live.
The final example I will give is the Government’s arrogance and contempt over the infamous family farm and family business tax fiasco—what a complete and utter mess by the Secretary of State, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. I have some advice for the next Labour Prime Minister, later this year: this is a textbook example of how not to govern. The Government betrayed at the first opportunity an election promise not to touch agricultural property relief and business property relief, and spent 14 months marching junior Ministers and Back Benchers up the hill to defend their policy, telling the rural community that they were wrong and that Ministers knew better; they recommitted to this tax at the Budget on 26 November and at oral questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 18 December, and then they had a mystical revelation. Five days later, they U-turned on their hated tax. It was a Christmas miracle—and it is an absolute miracle that any Minister can look at themselves in the mirror after this chaotic and shameful episode.
The Government’s mess of a partial U-turn will raise only enough money to pay for an afternoon in the NHS, yet, as the Country Land and Business Association points out, it will condemn the families operating on the slimmest of margins—who have invested in expensive machinery or who live in expensive parts of the country—to selling the family farm to pay this vindictive tax. That is why the tax must be axed.
We Conservatives have forced four votes on this issue in the past 14 months. Labour MPs toed the party line until the Budget vote in December, and that made the difference. They have the chance tonight to axe the family farm and family business tax completely, and their constituents will be watching.
This year we Conservatives will continue to fight for rural communities, for the shops, pubs and small businesses that are the backbone of the rural economy, for better funding for our vital public services, for rural people and sports to have the freedom to live and let live and, of course, for our farmers to thrive, not just survive. We Conservatives care about our market towns, our villages, our neighbours and our families. I say to them: we get it, and we have your backs.
Oral Answers to Questions
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
On Monday, the Prime Minister admitted that farmers are considering taking their own lives for fear of the family farm tax—a tax that he described as a “sensible reform”. The next day, I was given a letter for the Prime Minister from 90-year-old farmer and grandmother Mrs Denton. It contains one chilling question that I expect the farming Minister to be able to answer. Mrs Denton asks:
“My husband and I now need to know as soon as possible the date we need to die by to avoid the totally unfair inheritance tax that will be forcibly put on our offspring to have to sell or split up a food-producing farm—and do what?”
Dame Angela Eagle
This is a highly sensitive issue. The reasons for someone contemplating taking their own life are often very complex. My heart goes out to every family who is devastated by such events. I understand the pressures that farmers are under, but I have to say that the right hon. Lady’s way of making her point is very distasteful indeed.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, the House staff and Members across the House a very merry Christmas? I thank the farmers, the food producers, and the pubs, restaurants, hotels and others that will look after us all and ensure that we enjoy a very merry Christmas.
We are in a food and farming emergency, with rising food prices, record farm closures and two pubs or restaurants closing every single day. A month ago, the Conservatives held an emergency summit to ask farmers, fishermen and food producers for the urgent solutions they need to survive the next 12 months. Those included launching their sustainable farming incentive scheme, rolling over the fruit and veg scheme, and setting up a scheme to ensure that livestock farmers can afford to feed their animals over winter, as well as axing the family farm tax. I sent those solutions to the Secretary of State hoping that she would do something, but I have still heard nothing back a month later. There has been no action or response from her to that letter.
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] One of us is going to sit down, and it is not going to me, is it? We are in topical questions, and I have let the session run a little bit to get everybody in. We must have short questions. If you are going to come in on topicals, your question has to be short; it cannot be a long list. Please finish your question now.
Victoria Atkins
This is a quick question. Does the Secretary of State think that she is capable of organising a knees-up in a brewery this Christmas?
Oral Answers to Questions
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Lady and the Minister with responsibility for farming to their new roles. We Conservative Members genuinely wish them well in this food and farming emergency. The seriousness of that emergency was made clear to me last night by the agricultural chaplain of Suffolk. He told me about the devastating impact that he sees the family farm tax having: the father of two small children who took his life because of fears about the tax, the 92-year-old grandmother who has told her family calmly that she will not be here in April because she wants to beat the tax deadline, and the teenager who walked in to find his father’s body. The chaplain said to me, “This tax will live with that poor boy for the rest of his life.” All that has happened since the Secretary of State took office, and it is happening across the country. Why does she support this tax?
Emma Reynolds
This is a highly sensitive issue. The reasons for somebody taking their life are often very complex, and my heart goes out to every family devastated by these events. I am not willing to make political points on this issue.
Victoria Atkins
I am not making political points; I am telling the right hon. Lady the reality of her policy. Farmers will have heard no answer, no reason and no understanding. It is shameful. With 13 days to go until the Budget, let me point out that there are enormous economic costs, too. Millions of advisers, businesses and constituents, the 10 largest supermarket chains, multiple food manufacturers, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee think that this is a bad tax, badly done. The Conservatives will axe this tax. Given that the Secretary of State has admitted this week that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have “made mistakes” this year, will she finally admit that the family farm and family business taxes are some of those mistakes?
Oral Answers to Questions
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I join the Secretary of State and everyone across the Chamber in thanking the fire services, farmers and rural communities for their hard work and bravery in tackling the wildfires that we have seen this summer?
I am heartened to discover the Secretary of State’s new fondness for farmers. We will all be listening carefully to his answer to the next question. With 89% of farmers saying that they have paused or delayed investment because of the Budget, and with food prices rising, record farm closures under his watch, and Labour’s own think-tank admitting that the family farm tax needs changing, will he finally do the right thing, put rural communities above his own ambitions and axe the family farm tax?
Steve Reed
First, may I welcome the shadow Secretary of State back to the Chamber? It was disappointing that she did not bother to turn up for the water statement; I can only assume that she does not care much about the pollution that her party is responsible for across the country.
When it comes to farming, we are working with the farming sector on a road map to bring it back to profitability. That is the route to ensure that those businesses remain financially viable and successful into the future. It was her Government who left so many farmers on the brink of bankruptcy, so it takes only small problems to push them over the edge. Some 12,000 farms closed under the previous Government. We are working with the sector to make it profitable for the future.
Victoria Atkins
I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but I suspect I have spoken to far more farmers than he has in the past 12 months. They do not believe a word he says, because he betrayed what he said to them before the election about the family farm tax. As for this road map, if farms continue to close—more than half of farmers are thinking of giving up in the next five years because of this Government’s plan—it will be a road map to nowhere. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Committee that the rise in food prices was due in part to measures in the last Budget placing higher costs on food businesses. In light of that and the terrible summer harvest, will the Secretary of State do farmers a favour for once and rule out a new wealth tax on farmland in the next Budget—yes or no?
Steve Reed
The causes of food price inflation include rising global energy prices, extreme weather events that have been affecting harvests, as we have already heard, and global supply chain problems, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Those things are affecting food prices right across the country. As part of the road map, we are working with farmers to ensure more supply chain fairness, so that the producer of origin gets a fairer share of the money that is made through the system for the food that they grow. That is the best way in which we can support farms to get their fair share of the revenue that comes in for the food they produce.
Thames Water
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on Thames Water’s financial situation.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
I thank the right hon. Lady for securing this urgent question. I want to begin by making clear that Thames Water remains stable, and the Government are carefully monitoring the situation. Customers can be assured that there will be no disruption to water supply.
Thames Water is a commercial entity currently engaged in an equity raise, and KKR pulled out of that process earlier today. As Thames Water has said, the company will continue to work with its creditors as part of the equity raise to improve its financial position. There remains a market-led solution on the table, and we expect the company and its directors to continue the process that is under way and fix the financial resilience of the company in the interests of its customers. I want to be clear that the Government are prepared for all eventualities across our regulated industries and stand ready to intervene through the use of a special administration regime, should this be required to ensure the continued provision of vital public services.
The situation facing Thames is taking place within a wider context. Only last year, we saw record levels of pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas. It is clear that our water system is broken. We have already passed legislation so that the regulator can ban the undeserved multimillion-pound bonuses that so outraged the public, and we have further strengthened accountability through the introduction of up to two years in prison for polluting water bosses who break the law. We have increased the regulator’s resources and launched a record 81 criminal investigations into water companies, and we have followed the “polluter pays” principle, meaning that companies that are successfully prosecuted will pay for the cost of that prosecution so that further prosecutions can follow. We have worked with the water companies to secure £104 billion of private sector investment to rebuild our broken water infrastructure. That means new sewage pipes, fewer leaking pipes, and new reservoirs across the country, as we work to end the sewage scandal that we inherited from the previous Government.
I launched the Independent Water Commission, under Sir Jon Cunliffe, so that it could outline recommendations for a once-in-a generation opportunity to transform our water industry and ensure that it delivers the service that the public deserve and our environment needs, and today Sir Jon published an interim report setting out the commission’s preliminary conclusions. The Government will respond in full to the commission’s final report in due course, and will outline further steps to benefit customers, attract investment and clean up our waterways.
Whether we are talking about Thames Water or about other companies serving other parts of the country, the era of profiting from pollution is over. This Government will clean up our waterways for good.
Victoria Atkins
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I begin by correcting the Secretary of State? When he refers to private sector investment, he is in fact referring to the bill increases that each and every one of us will pay—£31 a year—so when he talks about private sector investment, he means bill payers’ investment.
Some 16 million residents and bill payers will have been concerned by this morning’s news that the private equity firm KKR has pulled out of its rescue deal with Thames Water. According to a source close to KKR, one of the reasons it pulled out was its concern about negative rhetoric directed at Thames Water and the rest of the industry in recent weeks by the Secretary of State and other Ministers. In other words, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have talked themselves out of this rescue deal. I am bound to say, if only they could do the same thing with the Chagos islands deal.
On which date did the Secretary of State discover that KKR was thinking of pulling out of this deal, and what involvement did he have in the phone calls over the weekend between KKR and No. 10 spads to try to rescue it? I ask because in recent weeks there have been briefings to the press that he is considering temporary renationalisation. The Treasury has apparently instructed him that he will need to find up to £4 billion from the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to cover the cost of this manoeuvre. Let me put that in context: the entire farming budget for this year is roughly £2.5 billion.
Can the Secretary of State therefore explain the options to which he has just referred, and do they include a plan for temporary renationalisation? From which budget would a temporary renationalisation come: DEFRA or central funds? That question is particularly relevant in view of the upcoming spending review, on which there has been detailed briefing, including the suggestion that the DEFRA budget is to be slashed.
The Secretary of State referred to the Cunliffe report, which we will of course look at very carefully, but can he confirm—this recalls yesterday’s shambolic defence review announcement—that there is no funding for this latest review, and that it will do nothing to resolve the immediate issue of Thames Water’s solvency, which he has mishandled, just as he has mishandled the family farm tax, the fishing industry and the sustainable farming incentive?
Steve Reed
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for making it clear to the House that she does not understand the principles of private sector investment, and neither is it particularly clever to stand at the Opposition Dispatch Box and make up figures to attack.
This Government stand ready for all eventualities, but I will make no apology for tackling the poor behaviour of water companies and water company executives that took place under the previous Government and that we are correcting. We even heard stories, which have been confirmed to me by water companies, of previous Conservative Secretaries of State shouting and screaming at water company bosses but not actually changing the law to do anything about the bonuses that they were able to pay themselves. This Government are taking action, working with customers, water companies and investors to ensure that we have a successful water sector that works for the environment, customers and investors in a way that it completely failed to do under the previous Conservative Government.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are ready for every eventuality, and there are teams in place to carry this out. Let me reassure him that I have no intention of using public money to bail out this company; we are looking for a market-led solution to its challenges. I thank him for his kind personal words—we will all keep persevering until we have cleaned up our waterways for good.
Mr Speaker
Okay, shadow Secretary of State. Let us see if it is a point of order.
Victoria Atkins
It is just to correct the record, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has given the impression in his answers—without, I am sure, intending to—that the investigations of which he is very proud, from July last year, were a direct result of Labour winning the election in July. That is simply incorrect. As I have drawn to his attention on Twitter, courtesy of a press release on 20 February last year, we in fact invested some £55 million in further investigations, which is the—
Oral Answers to Questions
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call Diane Abbott—not here. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
As we mark the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe, I remember the great role that my constituency played, including 617 Squadron, flying from RAF Woodhall Spa; we must also remember and thank those women and men who formed the Land Army in order to feed our troops and our nation. Many of their descendants still farm the same fields that their ancestors farmed in the war, but that tradition is under threat from this Government.
Before Christmas, I warned the Secretary of State that a farmer had taken their life because they were so worried about the family farm tax. The Secretary of State responded with anger, and later stopped the farming resilience fund, which helped farmers with mental ill health. This week, I have received the devastating news that several more farmers have taken their life because of the family farm tax. That is the Secretary of State’s legacy, but he can change it, because this change is not yet law. Will he set out these tragedies to the Prime Minister and demand that Labour policy be changed, or offer, on a point of principle, his resignation?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very important matter, but I am bothered that nobody else is going to get in, so I hope the shadow Secretary of State’s second question is shorter.
Steve Reed
I express my regret that the shadow Secretary of State would seek to politicise personal tragedy in this way. It is immensely regrettable that she would seek to do that; none of us can know for sure what happens in matters of personal tragedy. It is beneath her to try to weaponise the issue in the way that she has done. This Government take issues of mental health very seriously indeed. We are setting up mental health hubs in every community, so that we can support farmers and others who are suffering from mental ill health. I gently remind her that this was a problem that escalated during her time in office as Secretary of State for Health, when she failed to address the problems that people are facing.
Victoria Atkins
I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but I am simply confronting the Secretary of State with the realities of his policy. Another policy is distressing farmers and other people: the removal of our ancient property rights, first enshrined in the Magna Carta. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill gives a quango, Natural England, powers to seize private land, not for house building but for undefined environmental reasons. It can seize not just agricultural land, but our constituents’ gardens, and it does not even have to pay market value for that land. Will the Secretary of State now commit to an amendment to the Bill to save our constituents’ gardens, or is this Labour’s garden grab?
Sewage
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I respect the fact that this is the Liberal Democrats’ Opposition day debate, so I have been cutting parts out of my speech. I therefore hope the House will forgive me if I do not take every intervention that is offered to me.
I thank the Liberal Democrats for choosing to debate this important issue. We all know and agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry. A drainage and sewerage system that was first built in the Victorian era does not meet the needs of the population it must now serve, or the pressures of more frequent and severe weather events. To fix the problem, we must first diagnose it and measure it. That is why the previous Government took the essential step of radically overhauling the monitoring of storm overflows.
On previous occasions, the Secretary of State has dismissed the significance of that data collection and monitoring. That is unfair, because when we came into government in 2010, the Labour Government had left us and the Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government with a water system that was out of control; just 7% of storm overflows were monitored. In other words, people across the country were swimming and playing in water without knowing that it had been contaminated with raw sewage. I had the pleasure of going to school in Blackpool, and there were certain times of the summer season when locals would not venture into the sea, because we knew the consequences of daring to do so.
The point I would make to everyone in this Chamber is that this is a long-standing set of problems. To pretend otherwise—I know some people get a little carried away with their advocacy—does not do the public, our constituents or, indeed, our waterways the justice that they deserve. We are proud of the fact that by the time we left government we had met our ambitious target to ensure that 100% of storm overflows were monitored. The importance of that is emphasised—
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Victoria Atkins
I will just finish this point, and then I will take the intervention.
The importance of that is emphasised by the interventions we have already had, because Members across this House have been citing the very stark and shocking statistics on storm overflows, sewage overflows and so on in their constituencies. They have rightly relied on those figures already in this debate, and I have no doubt that they will rely on them in their speeches as well. In the dark days before 2010, their predecessors would not have had that information. [Laughter.] I see a Labour Member—the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove)—laughing about that. I do not know why she is laughing at knowing more through data collection so that we can correct the situation.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. Monitoring sewage overflows does not immediately improve the health of our environment or of the public. It is the first minimum step to be able to take meaningful action, but I am sorry to say that the previous Government failed to take meaningful action. Between 2021 and 2023, Dewsbury and Batley experienced a massive number of sewage spills, totalling 4,604 incidents with a total duration of a staggering 28,383 hours or approximately three and a quarter years. Does the right hon. Member agree with me and my constituents that the privatisation of the water industry has been a total and abject failure, causing significant harm to our environment, public health and wildlife, and—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member will know that interventions need to be brief, and should not be prepared and read out from a script.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has in fact lined up the next paragraph my speech—it is extraordinary—because this improved knowledge must lead to action.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Victoria Atkins
No. I will come to the hon. Gentleman in due course. I have said that this is the Liberal Democrats’ Opposition day debate, and I will give them the respect that they deserve.
The improved knowledge must lead to action. As I am delighted the Secretary of State acknowledged, one of the most tangible improvements in the past decade is just a few metres away under our feet—the Thames tideway tunnel. Sadly, he did not have the generosity of spirit to acknowledge the role that the Conservative Government played in that. This multibillion-pound infrastructure project, announced and delivered by the Conservative Government, has already stopped 500,000 tonnes of sewage flowing into the River Thames since it started operating in February. Over time, the 16 mile pipe is expected to stop 95% of sewage spills that would previously have polluted the River Thames. That meaningful action is already making a real difference to our nation’s capital—built on the data that some laugh at—and I ask genuinely: where is Labour’s plan for more?
In government, we also wanted to clear up the water industry and our environment. It was the Environment Act 2021, passed by the last Government, that gave stronger powers to regulators and imposed strict demands for tackling pollution. We set legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability, and to reduce nutrient pollution. We rolled out catchment-sensitive farming to all farms in England. We stepped up the requirements for investment, including investment from water companies, and storm overflow improvements.
After 14 years in opposition, the Labour party should have come into office with a plan of what more needs to be done to fix this century-old problem and, what is more, have set that plan in action last summer with energy and gusto. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering from a sedentary position, but may I say what a delight it is to see him in the Chamber? Normally, he is running frit from farmers. Instead of a plan, we have had an underwhelming trickle—a review, yet another talking shop forum that has done nothing other than have a meeting, and a Bill which, as we said during its passage, sets out much of what was already happening. As with every other part of this Government, Ministers had no plan, and they are now trying to come up with one.
Victoria Atkins
I will give way in a moment.
For example, the Secretary of State recently pledged to clean up Lake Windermere so that only rainwater flows into it. It was a laudable ambition. Who can disagree with that ambition? However, he gave no timeframe and no plan for delivering this vision. I have also visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I met local residents and farmers—something I do not think the Secretary of State managed to do—and business owners recently. [Interruption.] Well, they do notice. They are not holding their breath for action because, rather like his no farming policy, it is all talk and no action.
A significant amount of the Government’s supposedly groundbreaking water legislation, including the measures on monitoring, blocking bonuses, and fines, was already brought in by the previous Government. Sadly, they rejected our amendment to maintain the important water restoration fund to protect waterways, including chalk streams, many of which are in my constituency. I genuinely hope that they will reconsider that.
Victoria Atkins
I am very happy to give way if the hon. Lady is going to support and carry on our work—delighted, in fact.
Emma Hardy
I would never wish to be impolite and I will not be now, but I think the right hon. Lady will find that our argument on the water restoration fund was that it did not need primary legislation to happen. What has happened since then, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that everyone who has been successful in applying for the water restoration fund has been contacted and the money has already been offered, so I think the right hon. Lady’s information might be slightly out of date.
Victoria Atkins
I am delighted to hear that. I gently suggest that that was not the response the hon. Lady gave when we were debating it and pressing her to put it in the Bill. It is precisely because we did our job of scrutinising the Bill and trying to improve it that, I am delighted to hear, she has now put that into action.
Another example—I am happy to take another intervention from her—is that we tabled an amendment to limit the amount of debt that water companies could accumulate, as well as an amendment to protect bill payers. Sadly, both were rejected. The hon. Lady is welcome to intervene. Is she doing that? No intervention. Well, we have not got that commitment. I am genuinely happy to give way to her, because I want to improve her legislation.
Emma Hardy
The right hon. Lady is rather keen to hear from me and I am happy to offer to intervene. The water commission is looking at levels of debt. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), will know, because we had the conversation many times in Committee, that that is part of what the commission is looking at. I gently remind the right hon. Lady that, as much as I accept that she is super keen for us to have achieved everything she failed to do in nine months, she had 14 years to do it.
Victoria Atkins
Wow! Where is the energy? Where is the gusto? Rewriting history seems to be a theme this week for the Government, but there we go. That is a little bit delicate for Labour Back Benchers, given the discussions this week.
We banned bonuses for the bosses of water companies that have committed criminal breaches and water companies that illegally pollute our rivers can be prosecuted, making it clear that polluters will pay for damage to our natural environment. I hope that in her wind-up, the Minister will answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) about fines being ringfenced for local areas, and the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) about the amendment she tabled to the Water (Special Measures) Act.
The Secretary of State, as is his nervous tic, merely fell back on whatever they say about the past, rather than setting out his vision for the future. I can always tell when I am getting to him, bless him. We quadrupled water company inspections and set in place a plan to have 4,000 inspections a year by April 2025, increasing to 10,000 a year from April 2026. Will the Government commit to that vital work, or will the Chancellor cut the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budget so starkly that they are cancelled?
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
We have the stunning River Derwent running through Derby, but it was polluted by sewage 2,675 times in 2024, lasting over 15,000 hours. I invite the right hon. Member to take responsibility for cutting the Environment Agency budget by half, leaving it without the powers and resources to combat this kind of sewage.
Victoria Atkins
It is a brave rural constituency MP who defends the activities of the Environment Agency. With some of the disappointments that local residents have had with the Environment Agency, particularly in my part of the world, there is real work to do there.
Victoria Atkins
I am still answering the hon. Lady’s first intervention. Of course, she is relying on the data—that is exactly the point. Again, I come back to the point—I am trying to be constructive and collegiate in the way I am dealing with this. [Laughter.] The public will hear the laughter; that is what Government Members do not understand. I am trying to be constructive. We managed to collect that data and we had significant infrastructure investment in the Thames tideway tunnel, as I have explained.
However, as I have always said at this Dispatch Box, there is more to do, so we genuinely will support constructive efforts by the Government. That is why we scrutinise their legislation so carefully and why we put forward perfectly proper amendments to the Water (Special Measures) Act. I am delighted that the Government have taken our suggestion on the water restoration fund so seriously and have enacted that. However, we must not conduct this conversation with quite the emotional distress that the Secretary of State seems to be in at the moment.
Of course, the Liberal Democrats know the scale of the challenge, as there was a Liberal Democrat Water Minister for a large part of the coalition Government. That fact seems to have been missed in their motion today—I am sure it was just an oversight. The Liberal Democrats want to see even more progress with the blue flag scheme, and we agree with them on that. Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased, and we have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more water rated as excellent or good, and an increase in blue flag beaches. As a proud coastal MP, I want to see many more blue flag beaches like Mablethorpe and Sutton on Sea on our glorious Lincolnshire coastline, and I will, of course, support meaningful efforts to achieve that.
If I may, I will just ask for a point of clarity from the Liberal Democrats. In 2023, they called for a ban on bank holiday sewage discharges—again, a laudable ambition. However, it was pointed out to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) that this policy would result in burst water pipes and sewage backing up into people’s homes. When these laudable ambitions are put forward—indeed, we all want to see them—will the Liberal Democrats ensure that their own policymaking would not have unintended consequences, including, as I say, sewage flowing back up into people’s homes?
I will finish on this point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I emphasise again that we all care about the quality of our waterways. As we showed with the Water (Special Measures) Act, we will work constructively across the House to improve our waterways and the legislation put forward by the Government. I am proud to be leading the policy renewal work for farming, food, fishing, environment and water for the Conservative party with my excellent shadow ministerial team, my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). We will be watching and scrutinising the Government’s work on water carefully. The promises the Secretary of State is making now will be remembered by our constituents, by colleagues across the House and by voters, as, I am afraid, his promises are remembered by our farmers.
Sean Woodcock
We heard the shadow Secretary of State bemoaning the laughter from Labour Members. I think the laughter was at the idea that people in this country should be grateful to the Conservatives for the condition in which they left our waterways. Does my hon. Friend share our amusement at that ridiculous thought?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The shadow Secretary of State will know that she cannot intervene on an intervention, which, by the way, was far too long. I think we will go back to Julia Buckley.
Julia Buckley
I thank my hon. Friend for his amusing intervention, but more important is the measure in the 2025 Act that bans bonuses when the high standards of our environmental protections are not met.
Victoria Atkins
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour Back Benchers should know this by now. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) fell into error—I will be kind to him—by mischaracterising the comment that I made about him and the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) laughing during the course of my speech, when I was talking about the importance of data monitoring. It was not in any way—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The shadow Secretary of State will know that that was not a point of order, but a point of debate. Perhaps we had best return to Julia Buckley.
Oral Answers to Questions
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Chamber. He has been in hiding for a week. We were so worried about him that we were going to start a “Where’s Wally?” competition. The reason he has been in hiding is that he is ducking scrutiny of his dreadful decision to stop the sustainable farming incentive farm payment scheme immediately, without warning. Conservative Members have been inundated with messages from farmers saying that businesses will not survive this latest assault by the Government. How many farmers will be bankrupted as a result of the SFI stoppage?
Steve Reed
There were, unfortunately, record levels of bankruptcies of farm businesses under the previous Government, in which the right hon. Lady was a member of the Cabinet. Under this Government, we have more money in the hands of more farmers through SFI than at any point under the previous Conservative Government. This Government understand that when a budget has been fully allocated, you stop spending. The party of Liz Truss prefers instead to keep spending, bankrupting the economy and sending mortgages spiralling. That is not good for farmers, for the economy or for anyone.
Victoria Atkins
The Secretary of State cannot find his way around a farmyard; he is certainly not speaking to farmers. We Conservatives know that if the Government continue to tax, tax, tax businesses, they will break. His answers show why we have seen cold fury in the countryside at his impotence in standing up to the Chancellor on compulsory purchase orders, the massive cuts to de-linked payments, the stopping of capital grants and SFI and, of course, the family farm fax. Ahead of next week’s emergency Budget and spending review, and given that The Guardian seems to know more than he does, will the Secretary of State guarantee that his Government’s Budget will not face further swingeing cuts?
Farming
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. I thank him for bringing his expertise as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to the discussion. May I welcome, although I am not supposed to, the farmers in the Public Gallery who have been known making their views, not all of them terribly happy, about various contributions during the debate, and the tractors outside? We cannot hear the tractors in the Chamber, but they have been tooting as loudly as they possibly can. I am not sure the tooting is to welcome the SFI scandal that emerged on Tuesday, but no doubt the farming Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), will be able to help us with that.
This debate should have been filled with positivity and confidence about the future of British farming. Instead, it has been overshadowed by this Labour Government’s farming fiasco. In just a few short months, this city-dwelling Government have destroyed families’ ambitions for the future, put at risk generations of expertise and custodianship and, less than 48 hours ago, ripped the rug out from underneath businesses immediately. This Government have treated farmers and the countryside with unashamed contempt, and that contempt has consequences.
The NFU announced this week that farm business confidence has reached historically low levels, and that was before the SFI scandal on Tuesday night. New tractor registrations are at the lowest level since 1998. When I visited the Lincolnshire Agricultural Machinery Manufacturers Association in January—the farming Minister apparently could not make it—manufacturers were telling me how people are not investing in new machinery as a direct result of the Budget. I am afraid RoboCrop will have to wait for the next Conservative Government.
Just as the Chancellor inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and has ground it down into stagflation, so too the Secretary of State inherited a growing farming sector that had gone through massive change since Brexit, but was seizing the new farming and environmental opportunities available. After a few months of this city-centric Government, farming families are feeling “ignored, alienated and disrespected”, to use the Secretary of State’s own words. But where is the Secretary of State? I have been hunting high and low for him, but nowhere is he to be found. He had a major announcement yesterday, but he sent his poor junior Minister out to take the flak because the Secretary of State is missing in action.
Where are rural Labour MPs? [Hon. Members: “Here!”] We have heard about a rebel force—
Several hon. Members rose—
Victoria Atkins
Oh, I would not do that if I were you. We have heard about a rebel force of Labour MPs who are going to stand up to the Government on the family farm tax. This debate is their chance to show their support for their farmers, but where are they? A total of 10 Labour MPs have turned up and six have spoken—that is 1.4% of the parliamentary party.
The Labour Government’s farming fiasco policy can be summarised in three points: they will remove, without warning, farming and environmental schemes that help farms thrive and on which farms build their business cases; they will permit the state to seize farmland without consent or market value; and, if family farms manage to cling on despite that, Labour will tax farmers for dying.
Let us deal with the first point: the abrupt halting of the sustainable farming incentive and the massive cut to delinked payments. The Government sneaked the SFI decision out late on Tuesday night, before being dragged to the Dispatch Box by us yesterday. That is a chaotic and inept way for a Government to treat taxpayers, businesses and families. Yesterday, the Minister kept using the figure of £5 billion for farming over two years—2024-25 and 2025-26. Of course, the funding for the first year, 2024-25, was set by the previous Government, including the £300 million that was rolled over from the previous year. It is for Labour Ministers to set the budget for 2025-26 after the spending review. Will the Minister confirm that the DEFRA budget will not face substantial cuts in the spending review, given he has relied on that figure so much? If he cannot confirm that, then those figures are meaningless, as Ministers are counting money for 2025-26 that could be removed at a stroke by the Chancellor.
The decision on SFI has consequences, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) have made clear. David from Gloucestershire, a farmer, asks the Minister whether he should simply plough up his farm and turn his back on 25 years of farming with an environmental focus. He says:
“We are a small family farm…I won’t be able to afford environmental principles, everyone loses but the environment mostly.”
We have heard from hon. Members about how farmers have contacted them because they face a financial crisis as a result of this decision, yet the no-farming Minister told them that they should be celebrating—well, the tractors outside do not seem to be tooting in celebration at his announcement yesterday.
Let us move on to delinked payments, which were cut in the Budget. Tens of thousands of farmers who are not signed up to SFI in any of its iterations are still being subjected to a 76% cut in their delinked direct payments, leaving many in cash flow crisis, including tenant farmers. That was not mentioned at all by the hon. Members for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) or for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer).
An urgent issue facing the industry is the importance of biosecurity to the future of farming. The second case of foot and mouth disease in Europe is alarming, but we have heard nothing from the Government on that. Will the Minister confirm whether funding for Dover Port Health Authority has now been agreed, outline how he is preventing the rising trend of bushmeat being sold over social media platforms and explain why the Government continue to ignore our calls to increase funding for the redevelopment of Weybridge? I can reveal what the Secretary of State and the Farming Minister have been prioritising this week. They have issued a consultation not on SFI, the family farm tax or cuts to delinked payments, but on how to carry a chicken. I am sure everybody thinks that really is the national priority for farming at the moment.
Let us turn to the Government’s plans to undercut property rights and force farmers to sell their land at below market value. This is a policy that goes against the fundamental British principle of land ownership and puts food security and prices at risk—my hon. Friends set out the case on that.
We then move on to the points made about the family farm tax, which the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) criticised as being a distraction. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal seemed to be arguing for more taxes on farmers, but at least those Labour Members mentioned the family farm tax. The hon. Members for Shrewsbury, for South West Norfolk, for Cannock Chase, for St Austell and Newquay and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland did not see fit to mention it, because they are ignoring the facts of life on this.
As Conservative Members know, this policy is having a genuine emotional and economic toll on farmers throughout the United Kingdom. One farmer told me:
“I’ve stopped encouraging my daughter to spend time on the farm so I don’t have to have the conversation of why she can’t take over in the future.”
This Government are robbing the next generation of farmers of their future, and this is also having a devastating impact on elderly farmers. It was shared in the Senedd this week that a farmer declined cancer treatment months before his death as he wanted to make sure that he died before these changes came into effect. That is desperately harrowing, yet we are being told this week in, week out by farming organisations, all because the Chancellor—who, by the way, refuses to meet farmers—is destroying British farming with her taxation policy. This is not just about the family farm tax: it is about the family business tax, the national insurance hike, the fertiliser tax and the double cab pick-up tax, which were all set out by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. You name it, the Government will tax it. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said that farmers see no future in farming under this Government. In the words of one mid Devon farmer:
“At no time in all these years have I felt so deflated with the job.”
To the farmers despairing at this city-dwelling Government: please know that we Conservatives hear you, support you and will work with you to mend the outright assault on the countryside that this Labour Government are carrying out. Together, we will build a bright future for farming.
Daniel Zeichner
I am going to make some progress, because I know that time is short. The third principle is a sector that recognises that restoring nature is not in competition with sustainable food production, but is essential to it.
On our first strand—food production—our new deal for farmers is supporting them to produce food sustainably and profitably, and we are making progress. Statistics released earlier this week show that average farm business incomes across the country are forecast to rise in the first year of this Government. That is welcome news, but we recognise that there is more to do. That certainly will not happen overnight, but over recent weeks, we have announced a series of new policies. We are extending the seasonal worker visas for five years, and we are making the supply chain fairer, an issue raised by my hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter). In the next few weeks, we will see new regulations for the pig sector, making sure that contracts clearly set out expectations and only allow changes if they are agreed by all parties. Of course, we are also introducing a new regulator alongside the Groceries Code Adjudicator, building on the work of the existing regulator—the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, which is already in place.
We are using the Government’s own purchasing power to back British produce, working with the Cabinet Office to create new requirements for Government catering contracts to favour high-quality, high-welfare products that British producers are well placed to provide, as was outlined very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley). That will mean that British farmers and producers can compete for a fairer share of the £5 billion a year that the public sector spends on food, with that money going straight into farmers’ bank accounts to boost turnover and profits. We will never lower our food standards in trade agreements, but will promote robust standards nationally and internationally, and will always consider whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and by others.
We are investing in the UK agri-technology sector, and I listened closely to the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—there is always much that we agree on. As we announced last month, we are looking to put in a further £110 million in farming grants, and we are also strengthening the wider British tech sector, a point that was made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). These reforms will support farmers to make more money from the food they produce.
On the second strand, diversification, farmers must be resilient against future challenges if they are to remain financially viable and strengthen food security. We know the threat from flooding, drought and animal disease, as well as the geopolitical tensions that increase demands on our land for energy generation. We are investing to help farm businesses build resilience against animal diseases that can devastate livelihoods and threaten our entire economy—we are all mindful of the issues with bluetongue and avian flu. On the recent case of foot and mouth that we saw in Germany and the one in Hungary, I spoke to the Hungarian Minister earlier this week, and we have put in place all the appropriate precautions. As ever, though, if the shadow Secretary of State wants a briefing with the chief vet, that is always available in these cases.
We are investing over £200 million to set up a new national biosecurity centre, modernising the Animal and Plant Health Agency facilities in Weybridge, which will be vital for protecting farmers, food producers and exporters from disease outbreaks that we know can be devastating to businesses. We are helping keepers of cattle, sheep and pigs in England to improve the health, welfare and productivity of their animals by expanding the fully funded farm visits offer. We have also announced new ways to help farmers to remain profitable and viable, even in a challenging harvest.
We will consult on national planning reforms this spring to make it quicker for farmers to build new buildings, barns and other infrastructure to boost food production, and we will ensure that permitted development rights work for farms to convert larger barns into whatever is required or suits their business planning, whether that is a farm shop, a holiday let or a sports facility. We are working with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero so that more farm businesses can connect their own electricity generation to the grid more quickly, so that farmers can sell surplus energy and diversify income.
The third element is nature. Restoring nature is vital to food production; it is not in competition with it. Healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water are the foundations that farm businesses rely on to produce high crop yields and turn a profit. Without nature thriving, there can be no long-term food security. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). We now have more than half of all farmers in environmental schemes. That includes 37,000 live SFI agreements, meaning that 800,000 hectares of arable land is being farmed without insecticides, 300,000 hectares of low-impact grassland is managed sustainably and 75,000 km of hedgerows are being protected and restored. That is important for nature.
We have already had a discussion about the SFI cap. It is set at £1.05 billion for 2024-25 and 2025-26. As we discussed yesterday, that cap was reached this week with a record number of farmers in the scheme and 37,000 live agreements. Every penny is now paid to farmers or committed for payment through existing agreements or submitted applications. We will continue to support farmers to transition to more sustainable farming models, and we will announce details of the revised scheme after the spending review.
Victoria Atkins
The clarification that everybody wants is this: we saw the figures last night, and they cut across two years, so what is the money for this financial year—2024-25—that the Minister describes as a cap? What is the value that he reached on Tuesday night that led to that announcement?
Daniel Zeichner
We have been far more transparent in disclosing how the budgets work than the previous Government. The figure was disclosed last night, and the shadow Secretary of State can look closely at that. As she will know, we have to monitor things closely over multiple years. What we cannot and will not do is play fast and loose with the nation’s finances. We are taking no lessons from the Conservatives about how to manage public money in this country. This is about using public money in a way that supports food production, restores nature and respects farmers for the effective business people that they are, while ensuring that we stick to our budgets.
We are also improving other farming schemes. The Government have announced an increase in higher level stewardship payment rates across a range of options for this year. We will reopen the ELM capital grant scheme and open the rolling application window for the countryside stewardship higher tier later this year. We are continuing with the important landscape recovery projects that were awarded funding in rounds 1 and 2, as well as some of the other funds referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury).
It is those three strands that will create a resilient, profitable sector for decades to come. I look forward to continuing this important discussion with Members from all parts of the House.
Points of Order
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has been asked repeatedly why no notice was given to farmers of the closure of the SFI scheme. He has given a range of answers, including that “people have known for weeks and weeks—months”. He even stretched it to five years ago. This is important, not least because business decisions are having to be made on the fly today, but also because there may be legal consequences to the answer that the Minister has given. How can we encourage the Minister to correct the record and state the fact that no notice was given to farmers?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of Ministers’ statements in the House, but she has put her point of order on the record. I do not believe that the Minister wishes to respond—