Alistair Carmichael MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Apr 2025 · Horizon Redress and Post Office Update · Hansard source

  More

  Where a post office branch that is currently directly managed is not staying in its current premises, will there be a proper formal scheme of community engagement to give the community some control over ensuring that what is provided in its place will be at least as good? Communities simply do not trust the Post Office at the moment to make that judgment for itself.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Farmers: Tax Reliefs · Hansard source

  More

  6. If she will meet farming representatives to discuss the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on farmers. [R]

• 8 Apr 2025 · Farmers: Tax Reliefs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chancellor’s human shield for that answer, but the fact that the Chancellor—who is sitting on the Front Bench—was not prepared to stand up and answer for herself demonstrates a distinct lack of respect for farmers, bordering on contempt. Will she not meet the farming unions, the banks, the professional organisations, and even the supermarkets themselves to hear why they all think her calculations are wrong? If the Minister wants to ask her before he stands up, I am sure we will all allow him a second or two.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Radio Teleswitch Service Switch-off: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government preparations for the radio teleswitch service switch-off in Scotland. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I welcome the Minister to her place. It is a truth universally acknowledged that when things go wrong, Governments get the blame—whether it is their fault or not. That is just one of the unfairnesses of politics with which we all have to live. In opening my remarks, therefore, I will say something very unusual—I struggle to think of another occasion when I have said this in almost 24 years as a Member of Parliament—if the radio teleswitch service switch-off goes badly, it will not be the Minister’s fault. In the relatively short period that the Minister has been in the job, she has demonstrated a willingness to take hold of the issue and to make things happen in a way that I wish we had seen two or three years ago, because we all knew that the switch-off would be a problem. It is only now, when we are just over two months away from the final switch-off, that people who should have been alive to it long ago are finally waking up to the reality. I genuinely welcome the Minister’s engagement, and I hope that her energy will drive a less bad outcome than we might have had otherwise. It might still be possible to rescue the situation, even at this late stage—who knows? The basic facts of the challenge with the radio teleswitch service are well rehearsed—this is not the first time that the Minister has been in one of these debates. RTS is a technology that allowed for automatic tariff switching for customers and enabled tariffs such as “total heating with total control”, which have been valuable to households in rural communities, particularly those that are off the gas grid. That includes most of the highlands and islands, and certainly the entirety of Orkney and Shetland. RTS is planned to be switched off on 30 June this year, less than three months from now. A number of extensions have been made to the deadline previously, but the switch-off cannot be delayed indefinitely due to the system being obsolete and increasingly unreliable—quite apart from the fact that it relies on the BBC to commission it. It would be helpful if the Minister in her response could offer some explanation for the exact reasons for the hard deadline that we now face. Despite being aware of the need to move away from RTS meters for years, Ofgem and the energy companies have not done enough to prepare—candidly, they have been asleep at the wheel. At some future date, we might want to revisit that to look at what should have been done earlier and why it was not but, frankly, for today’s purposes, that is an unhelpful distraction. I just put the energy companies, Energy UK and Ofgem on notice that they may yet have to account for something that visits a serious impact on my constituents and constituents who rely on RTS throughout the whole United Kingdom. The first challenge is to get as many RTS meters as possible replaced with smart meters before 30 June. Across the United Kingdom, hundreds of thousands of RTS meters remain; perhaps the Minister can give us an update on the exact figure. I know from my frequent engagement with her that the numbers are going in the right direction, but not as fast as she would want. A disproportionate number are in rural communities in Scotland, such as my own in the isles. I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on how the Government propose to drive faster meter replacement in places such as Orkney and Shetland. I have heard that some energy suppliers intend to make a concerted push to replace meters first in Orkney and then in Shetland in the coming weeks. I would be grateful if she could clarify whether the spring sprint, as we are hearing it called, is being driven from the centre and whether all companies are going to be part of that surge effort. In Orkney and Shetland, customers were historically served by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, or the hydro board as it was called. That then became Scottish and Southern Energy, which then hived off its retail business to OVO Energy. I would therefore guess that OVO is still the dominant supplier in the local market, but in this age of switching, there are several other companies as well. Will everybody be expected to put their shoulder to the wheel in the spring sprint? If there is a co-ordinated surge plan for our communities, the more information we can receive on that plan and how it will work on the ground, the better. I do not believe that many people are still unaware of the RTS switch-off, at least not in Orkney and Shetland, but we can still build momentum and maximise the number of people who replace their meters if people are fully aware of when and how they can get a replacement. Simply put, if we make this surge work in Orkney and Shetland, we have the opportunity to build momentum for work in other island rural communities, and indeed for those on the mainland. Getting it right for us is an opportunity for everyone. The second critical issue is customers’ right to be no worse off under their replacement meter tariff. The Minister held a roundtable with me, other MPs and Ofgem on the state of play at the start of February. That meeting clearly had some effect as, a week later, Ofgem announced its consultation on new rules to protect customers. I note in passing that the consultation has since closed, and we are awaiting the results. Although that is not the only lever that can be pulled to drive progress, I hope we might soon have word on the results of that consultation, as we are not exactly flush with time. That would be a welcome practical signal from Ofgem—not just what its representatives say when they are sitting in the Minister’s office—that it has genuinely woken up to the need to approach this issue with greater urgency. Central to Ofgem’s proposals under consultation was a commitment that energy suppliers must give consumers tariffs that leave them no worse off than their existing tariff arrangement when their meter is replaced. That promise is critical and it has to be delivered, both as a matter of fairness and for the practical success of the project. We need to give families the confidence that they can replace their meter in the knowledge that they will not be left worse off. I have some concerns about how that proposal is being interpreted by energy suppliers in practice. I have been contacted by constituents who, having been offered a meter replacement by EDF, for example, have been told that they are not allowed to have an Economy 10 tariff but must take a more expensive and inferior Economy 7 tariff instead. That would leave them worse off than they were on the RTS tariff, which seems to be a prima facie breach of Ofgem’s rule and undertaking. It also suggests that EDF, perhaps because it is not the biggest player in some of those markets, has not fully appreciated the scale of what will be required of it. When I publicised in the local media that this debate was going to take place, I was contacted by another constituent, who said: “On Saturday 5th April, my old RTS meter was replaced. I am with OVO and was with SSE before”— a fairly classic Orkney and Shetland customer— “I previously paid around £5 per day on average...In just over two days since the new meter was installed I have spent almost exactly £30 on electricity. Quite an increase, I’m sure you will agree.” I certainly do agree and if such stories continue to appear, they will make a mockery of the rule that people will be no worse off. As the energy companies are among those who have to push hard and play catch-up here, it would assist everybody—including them—if they demonstrated a better understanding of the no detriment rule that Ofgem is seeking to enforce. As the regulator, Ofgem is responsible for judging whether such a breach has occurred and what sort of penalty or remedy must be applied if it has, but I would be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees with that assessment, and to hear the Government’s view on what seems to be a basic matter of fairness. That matters because I have heard other such cases from constituents. In such communities, it does not take much for a narrative to set in that Ofgem’s rule—or guidance or whatever it will be called—does not hold water. There are also concerns about the consequences for people who, for whatever reason, are not upgraded by the end of June. Ofgem has stated that there will be no interruption of the electricity supply to homes as a result of the switch-off. That is essential, because, apart from anything else, our communities are entirely off the gas grid. It would also be helpful for my constituents if they received clarification from the Minister about the exact process of the switch-off in June and what it will mean for individual customers. One of the defining features of RTS is the use of “total heating with total control”, which turns heating on and off automatically according to the radio signal. If heating is stuck on at the point of signal shutdown, that will be a significant problem for households, which will incur significant costs. It could even be dangerous for older and more vulnerable people. We should remember that we are talking about what might be euphemistically called some of the most windswept and interesting parts of Scotland; RTS being switched off in June is no guarantee that people will not still have their heating going. If the Minister has any answers about what is being done to avoid such issues, that information would again be welcome for my constituents. Beyond these specific technical questions, my worry is that safety nets for the remaining customers will be weakened once the numbers start to come down. Bluntly, Ofgem and the electricity companies have shown little interest in or concern about our communities thus far. They may be coming to the table now, when there is political and public pressure on them, but once the numbers are down to the hard core of hard-to-shift cases, I worry that their interest may wane again. There is a natural risk that isolated homes, and isolated and vulnerable people, will make up a disproportionate number of the remaining cases. Even if they are small in number, each one of them matters and no one should be left behind. There are also specific challenges around connectivity for rural and island communities in Scotland. Smart meters may be the solution for most people who are replacing their RTS meter, but many areas in the isles do not have the signal required for smart meters—indeed, they likely never will. I understand through correspondence with energy suppliers that technical solutions are being sought for those cases. Again, however, I remind the House that there are just weeks to go. If the Minister can give further updates about what the energy companies intend for those hard-to-reach cases, that would again be a source of useful information and reassurance for my constituents. I suggest that such challenges further reinforce why Ofgem’s commitment that tariffs must be no worse than they were under RTS must be delivered, so that there is no backsliding to inferior meters and tariffs. Hitherto, the overall communication and consistency from Ofgem and energy suppliers have been pitiful. Constituents continue to be given poor or conflicting advice about their appointments, their eligibility for smart meters and much more besides. Even now, some constituents find themselves unable to book any appointment, regardless of date. Just last week, I was contacted by a constituent who was offered an appointment in April, only for that appointment to be cancelled and replaced with one in August. Taken individually, those may be minor issues, but each one risks adding to the sense of confusion or suspicion about the way that suppliers are going about their business, precisely when we really need confidence. This is a matter that we have been fighting on for years. I am afraid it illustrates on the part of the big corporates and regulators such as Ofgem a shameful indifference to the fact that they need to provide a different service to people in the highlands and islands, and in island and rural communities such as mine. It has left our communities in a place where, frankly, they should not be. We are grateful to the Minister for that understanding and for doing what she can to push them on, but sometime in the future I think we will have to return to this matter and see why we have been left swinging in the wind in the way that we have been.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This delegation was organised by the Council for Arab-British Understanding, and it is my enormous privilege to serve as the chair of that organisation. CABU has organised dozens of delegations of this sort over the years, and with the support of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, if it is necessary, we hope to continue to do so in the future. The attack on the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) is an attack on us all. I regret to say that that is why the position of the Opposition Front Benchers is so utterly regrettable. We know that Israel has closed off Gaza in recent years; if the treatment of the hon. Members is anything to go by, it now looks like it will do the same thing for the west bank. What will the Minister do to ensure that it is not allowed to do that?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Secretary of State offer us any guarantee that the Government will not enter into a trade deal with America that will allow the importation and sale in this country of food produced to lower environmental and animal welfare standards than those that we demand from United Kingdom farmers?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Non-disclosure Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  What the right hon. Lady is saying is very important and the overall thrust of her case is absolutely on point. Is it not the case, though, that NDAs are the symptom, and that the underlying disease is the inability of ordinary people to get access to justice through the courts? That is why people enter into non-disclosure agreements: they fear that there is no other way that they will get proper recognition of their case.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Political Donations · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member hits on an important point. It is surely up to us all to judge the value of what we are told by any particular lobbyist. We listen to constituents who lobby us all the time, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is the lack of transparency about lobbying, not just of parliamentarians but of officials in government. Does he agree that a much more open and transparency register of lobbyists would be a big step forward?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Fishing Quota Negotiations: Impact on UK Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has spoken about political intervention. Fishery quota negotiations are difficult and nuanced at the best of times and understanding the granular detail of advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, for example, is never straightforward. It always goes badly wrong when we bring in other considerations. Does he agree that both our national security and our fishing industry deserve better treatment than the sort the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) just outlined, if indeed what is reported is true?

• 26 Mar 2025 · UK Space Launch · Hansard source

  More

  If that first space launch happens, and I believe it will, it will happen at SaxaVord in Unst, and the Secretary of State will be very welcome to join us when it does. For the UK space sector as a whole to recognise the full opportunities we have, we need to get serious about the delivery of the Government’s space strategy. Last year, the National Audit Office identified a number of challenges that the strategy faces. When will we hear the Government’s response?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Coastal Communities · Hansard source

  More

  For the industry to be sustainable, it must have access to labour. The inshore fleet in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, like the one in mine, will doubtless be crying out for labour to come in from foreign countries. It is not able to because of the way the visa rules are structured.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Prioritising British Produce: Public Bodies · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State, in her speech to the Oxford farming conference, spoke about the plan for change, which was going to include a commitment to public sector procurement, but that was in January, and we are now in March. With the closure of the basic payment scheme and the ending of the sustainable farming incentive, farm incomes are under real cash pressure in the here and now, so when will we hear more detail about the very welcome commitments that the Secretary of State made at the Oxford farming conference in January?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Conflict in Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  The language that we use in this conflict matters. We know what has happened and the Foreign Secretary has reminded us today: for weeks, supplies of basic goods and electricity have been blocked. To say that Israel “risks” breaching international law for having done that is to say that this country does not see those acts as a prima facie breach of international law—that is how it will be heard in Tel Aviv. Is that really the Government’s position?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Food Products (Market Regulation and Public Procurement) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the Groceries Code Adjudicator; to require co-ordination between the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator; to make provision about public procurement in respect of British food products; to make provision about the labelling of food products; and for connected purposes. I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In March 1917, at the height of the first world war, the then Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, sent a letter to an Orkney farmer, Charles Paterson. He wrote: “In the nation’s interest I urge you, at whatever personal sacrifice, to overcome all obstacles, to throw your fullest energies into the work, and to influence and encourage all who assist you, so that every possible acre shall be sown.” At that time, there was no question at the heart of Government about the vital importance of farmers in the isles and across the country. In the century since, farmers have continued to play their part in supplying the nation’s table, but their incomes have stagnated. The market for agricultural produce in the UK has not been a free market since at least the end of the second world war. Successive Governments have intervened through the payment of public subsidies to farmers, initially in the name of food security and more recently in the name of cheap food for consumers. That intervention has, over the years, distorted the market and allowed a range of unfair practices to be hardwired into the system. As a consequence, the market today has a handful of behemoth retailers—the supermarkets—at the top, hundreds of thousands of farmers at the bottom and a variety of processors, distributors and others in the middle. Everyone takes their cut and then, at the end of it all, the farmers get whatever is left. The power imbalance between the supermarkets at the top and the farmers at the bottom is more pronounced than any other market I can think of, and it is well documented that those at the top who have the power wield it to their own advantage. The extensive debate that we have had in this House in recent months has laid bare the shocking truth about the lack of profitability in farming. Just last week a new report from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission found that real incomes for farmers had stayed stock-still for the past 50 years. Shortly after the autumn Budget, a group of younger farmers in my constituency came to see me and brought with them their farm accounts. They were despondent in pointing out to me that their businesses earned a net profit of 0.7% on their capital. They were not much cheered when I pointed out that they were doing better than many of their contemporaries, as figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that the average return is as low as 0.5%. One of those farmers was the great-grandson of Charles Paterson, a seventh-generation farmer who works the same land as his great-grandfather. We really could not ask for a better illustration of the shift in priorities of our Governments over the past 100 years. This cannot go on. Farmers are seeing a rapid withdrawal of funding support. In England, the accelerated withdrawal of basic payments, followed by the closure without notice last week of the sustainable farming incentives, has left many farmers desperately worried about the viability of their businesses. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the removal of the ringfencing of money given to devolved Administrations for agricultural payments leaves farmers there feeling vulnerable to adverse change. That is why this market now needs direct and meaningful intervention. Without it, we risk losing domestic food production and any notion of food security. If, as the Prime Minister says, food security is national security, his Government should act urgently to allow our farmers to get a fair price for the food they produce. I was in government when the Groceries Code Adjudicator was set up. I do not think anyone believed that the GCA would be the last word in the regulation of the food supply chain, but we all took the view that it was better to have something than to have nothing. Twelve years on from its creation, the limitations of the adjudicator are apparent for all to see. The office has fewer than 10 staff, all seconded from other public bodies, and it is funded by a levy on supermarkets. To expect an operation of that size to take on some of the largest retail businesses in the country is laughable. It is hardly surprising, then, that businesses supplying supermarkets are reluctant to make complaints, especially when the office has not issued a single fine in its entire existence. Cases that are pursued end up with settlements and non-disclosure agreements. Since publicising my Bill, I have spoken to a number of producers who have told me about their experience at the hands of supermarkets. Just yesterday, I spoke to a businessman who had been a supplier of Brussels sprouts to a large supermarket. His company had, on the basis of undertakings made to it by the retailer, invested significantly, borrowing £400,000 to build a state-of-the-art packing facility. In 2022-23, that one supermarket accounted for 47% of its business. Then, in February 2023, the company was told by the supermarket that its supply was no longer wanted for that season. For that business, the news was a hammer blow, and despite it being a prima facie breach of the groceries supply code of practice, the GCA initially declined to intervene. I would love to say that this was an isolated incident, but the GCA annual survey conducted by YouGov suggests that it is not. It found that 42% of suppliers would not raise issues because they believed the retailer would find out and that there would be consequences. The experiences they described included de-listing without reasonable notice, undisputed invoices not being paid according to agreed terms, retrospective changes to supply agreements, running a promotional activity at the supplier’s expense, and much more. Practice among supermarkets shows a wide variety of behaviours. Seven of the retailers were judged to have improved or at least stayed the same, with Sainsbury’s coming out on top with a net improvement score of 10.34%. Unfortunately, seven others—Home Bargains, ASDA, Tesco, Ocado, Iceland, Morrisons and Amazon— were scored as having worsened by varying degrees, with Amazon’s performance being judged to have worsened by a whopping 21.38%. Amazon was also scored as having complied with the code “consistently” or “mostly” only 46.96% of the time. Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph reported that ASDA was threatening a “price war” to regain the market share it had lost in recent years. For farmers, that is a chilling prospect. If supermarkets are about to embark on a race to the bottom, we can be pretty sure that it will be farmers, not company executives or shareholders, who will be expected to take the hit. It is not for us in Parliament to pick a winner in a fight between supermarkets, but they should know that we are watching. Any supermarket that thinks it can rebuild its balance sheet on the back of Britain’s farmers might find itself in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and it better have some good answers when it gets here. My Bill has support from MPs across political parties; it is sponsored by Liberal Democrat, Labour, Conservative, Plaid Cymru, SNP, Green and Democratic Unionist Members. It also has wide geographical support, with sponsors from Shetland to Cornwall and across the four nations that make up the United Kingdom. I am grateful for the support I have received from the farming unions, the Country Land and Business Association, Scottish Land and Estates, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Countryside Alliance. That is a remarkable coalition of people who all understand that if we fail to act now, before too long there may be no industry left to protect. Charles Paterson’s family in Orkney still works the same land to this day. If we want to keep farming communities alive for generations to come, however, we need to act now to make it happen. That is why the Bill is necessary and why I seek the leave of the House today to introduce it. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Mr Alistair Carmichael, Jayne Kirkham, Sarah Bool, Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, Charlie Dewhirst, Sarah Dyke, Ann Davies, Seamus Logan, Ellie Chowns, Jim Shannon, David Chadwick and Tim Farron present the Bill. Mr Alistair Carmichael accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 J une , and to be printed (Bill 203 ). National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill (Programme) (No. 2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7) , That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 3 December 2024 (National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill: Programme): Consideration of Lords Amendments (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. Subsequent stages (2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. (3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— (Gen Kitchen.) Question agreed to.

• 13 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  The impact I hear from SMEs in my constituency, predominantly in the visitor economy, is that they are anticipating cutting the hours of part-time staff or laying them off and reducing the number of seasonal employees that they will take on. Will the Minister take those concerns seriously and work with Ministers in the Scottish Government to ensure that the legitimate concerns of SMEs in my constituency do not blossom into a full blown crisis of confidence?

• 13 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  13. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to employer national insurance contributions on small and medium-sized enterprises.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  Since I opened this debate, Douglas Paterson, a seventh-generation farmer in my constituency, has sent me a copy of a letter addressed to his great-grandfather from 10 Downing Street, dated 5 March 1917. It states: “Dear Sir, We have now reached a crisis in the war when to ensure victory, the heroism of our armies at the Front must be backed by the self-sacrifice and tireless labour of everyone at home. To this end the production of each quarter of wheat and oats, and of each bushel of potatoes is of vital importance.” The letter finishes by saying that “the Government is confident that Farmers will at once step forward and do all in their power to utilise their services to the best advantage. The farmers of this country can defeat the German submarine and when they do so they destroy the last hope of the Prussian.” It is signed “D. Lloyd George”. The fact that we can stand in this Chamber today and debate this matter is a testament to the fact that Charles Paterson and his generation did step forward, and it is why we have a solemn and historic duty to ensure that his great-grandson can continue to do the same. I can think of no better definition of what is meant by “national interest”. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of farming.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It has to be properly understood that farming underpins everything in rural communities. To take the example of agricultural merchants and machinery dealers, these are successful businesspeople. They will be people who are part of the local Rotary club. They will have children in schools. They will be people who take on all sorts of leadership responsibilities within the community. If they cannot make their living in the countryside, we should not expect them just to sit around and wait for something to come along. Of course they will leave and the population will decrease, and we will be in a vicious downward cycle, which is the very opposite of what we need. It is also the very opposite of what a good, well-resourced and valued farming industry can provide for the country as a whole. If we are serious about the mission for growth, as the Government tell us, it has to be growth for everyone. It has to be growth across every sector and every part of the country, including rural areas and farming. That allows me to come back to the point that I was about to make about the NFU’s confidence survey, which was published just this week. I am afraid it makes grim reading for anybody who cares about the countryside and agriculture. It tells us that 85% of landowners believe that the reforms to APR and BPR will increase their inheritance tax liability. Of those, 32% say they plan to reduce investment to mitigate the increase. The figure increases to 42% for mixed arable and livestock businesses, and to 49% for arable farms. Some 75% of employers expect to be impacted by the increase in employer national insurance contributions, 65% say they expect a reduction in profits because of the increase, and 43% expect to reduce investment to offset the additional costs. Again, that is on top of this week’s changes to the SFI and the basic payment scheme. I would like to say quite a lot more about other aspects of the Budget, particularly the removal of the ringfence for devolved budgets, but I am reluctant to do so, given the pressure on our time this afternoon and the number of people who want to contribute to the debate. However, I have spoken about those issues before, so those who are interested in my views can refer to my previous contributions. A small silver lining is to be found in the debate on APR and BPR, because it has forced us to think about the extent to which farming produces such a spectacularly poor return on capital. This is something we have all known for years, but now we have been forced to ask ourselves why it is the case. The hard fact of the matter is that 80 years of Government interference in the food market through agricultural subsidies has had the unintended consequence of keeping farmers poor and making supermarkets rich. I have a ten-minute rule motion next week to encourage the Government to introduce meaningful regulation in the food supply chain, and the Minister and his colleagues have recently spoken about their intention to see farm incomes increase. That is to be welcomed, but it will need a much more comprehensive and coherent strategy than we have seen thus far. Not all confidence is about finances. We have seen a lot of doubt thrown into every sector of agricultural production in recent months because of the biosecurity threats that face this country. The poultry sector has been hit hard as a consequence of avian influenza. We have seen foot and mouth outbreaks on the continent. We see African swine fever moving across the continent, and it seems likely that we will see bluetongue disease back in this country soon. The vets on the frontline—those in the Animal and Plant Health Agency—do a remarkable job, and we owe them all a debt of gratitude, but so much more needs to be done. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has heard evidence on this issue from port health authorities, local authorities and the APHA itself. We have asked the Department about the point at which Government software systems were updated to stop animal products coming from Germany, following the identification of a foot and mouth outbreak there. Despite getting answers to our letters, we have still not been told by the Department whether IPAFFS—the import of products, animals, food and feed system—was updated on 10 or 16 January. That is something that the Government should be able to tell us. I have sympathy for the Government, because they are dealing with a brand new system. Essentially, we should be able to see this as a pressure test on it. If the system did not work perfectly everywhere, let us identify those parts where the pressure escaped. But in order to do that, we need more transparency and more candour from Government Departments. If the Minister can answer that question when he responds to the debate, I will be enormously grateful. If he cannot, it would assist the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee greatly if we were able to get that answer in correspondence. Time really is against us this afternoon. I would have loved to have the rest of the afternoon, but we do not. I will conclude my remarks, but let me say on behalf of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that I very much hope that Members from across the House will continue to engage with our inquiry, because if food security is national security, as the Prime Minister keeps telling us, then our Committee is one of the most important Committees in this House.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I am doing my best.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely do, and my hon. Friend puts it perfectly when she talks about working with farmers. It seems that—this is as true for Governments north of the border as it is for those south of it—so much of what passes for agricultural policy is something that is done to farmers, rather than in partnership with them. To get to the bright future that I believe farming can have, we have to get past the present. The decision to close the sustainable farming incentive scheme on Tuesday without any notice has provoked predictable and justifiable fury, but doing it with a press release that sought to present it as some sort of triumph added insult to injury. It was almost like a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union, when the Politburo would boast about their advances in meeting their targets in the five-year plan for tractor production. The Government have pulled the rug out from under farmers across England, and that comes on the back of the accelerated removal of the basic payment scheme in the Budget. I am afraid that the Minister’s defence in the House yesterday around an uncapped budget is not adequate and does not tell the whole story. On 14 January this year, the director general for food, biosecurity and trade told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that they had had almost 11,000 applications to the SFI, with 7,000 contracts offered. She said: “If that continues at that scale there may come a point where the budget comes under pressure and we have to consider taking action.” What has been happening in DEFRA since that time? The permanent secretary was open with the Select Committee. She said that future funding hinged on the spending review. How did we get from that point, where officials seemed to be warning us, to the point we got to on Tuesday, when we saw the scheme closed without notice? The press notice announcing the closure of the SFI specified the budget as £1.05 billion capped. That is the first time I have been able to discover that that figure has been put into the public domain. Without that transparency, how on earth can farmers and their representatives possibly hope to regulate their behaviour, or know when the money will be running down and when they should be getting their applications in? The frustration is that for some, this situation did not come out of a clear blue sky. It had been rumoured for some time, and it is well known that land agents, consultants and others had been quietly advising clients to get applications in to beat the deadline and the exhaustion of the pot. That is fine if a farm is big enough to employ a land agent or a consultant, but this is a busy time of year for small family farms, upland farmers and others. Those are the people who deserve and need the assistance more than ever, and they are the ones who have again been left behind. Tom Bradshaw described DEFRA as “a failing Department”. That is strong language from a man not given to hyperbole, but the Minister would do well to take heed. In that evidence session on 14 January, we heard evidence from the permanent secretary, the director general for food, biosecurity and trade and the deputy director of policy, engagement and strategy. The Committee has not formally expressed an opinion, but it is fair to say from the informal discussions that followed that that session left few of us, if any, with the impression that it was an impressive leadership team entirely in command of their brief. It was clear that the team understood the target and where they wanted to get to, but it was unclear how they would achieve their targets. We saw that with the various false starts and missteps on the road to the environmental land management schemes, although I acknowledge that much of the responsibility for that lies with Ministers from the previous Government. The permanent secretary called it an iterative process, which to my mind just seems to be another way for people to say that it is okay to get things wrong and to make it up as they go along. I am afraid that in the minds and eyes of farmers across the country, Tuesday’s announcement on the SFI simply reinforces that impression. The future of farming could be bright, but we have to give farmers the confidence to invest and banks the confidence to lend. The Government have to acknowledge the damage that was done to that confidence by the Budget changes, especially in relation to agricultural property relief and business property relief. Anecdotal evidence has been growing for months. We have seen the closure of agricultural merchants and machinery dealers, and we have seen the number of first registrations of tractors fall. This week, we have the publication of the National Farmers Union’s confidence survey.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

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

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of farming. First, I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and place on record my appreciation for the Backbench Business Committee in allowing us this time in the Chamber. It might be helpful first just to explain to the House why I thought this was an important time to have a debate of this sort, and that was before I knew anything about what happened earlier in the week. The Select Committee that I chair has an inquiry titled “The future of farming”, and I had thought that this would be an opportunity for Members and others to shape the course of that debate and to contribute to the work of the inquiry. I still very much hope that is the case. I had also privately hoped that this might be an occasion when we could look beyond some of the changes that have occupied so much of the bandwidth in our political debate since the Budget, including the removal of the basic payment scheme and the changes to inheritance tax, double cab pick-ups and the ringfencing of agricultural budgets for devolved nations. This debate is an opportunity for us to remind people just what we have got going with British farming, because there are some tremendous positives. We have the farmers here again today in Westminster, demonstrating how much they care about their industry and their community. For those who see this debate, whether in the Gallery or outside, I hope the message will go to them loud and clear that there are those of us in this House who want to see them stick at their efforts, because we are on their side, and it is worth it. Agriculture has one of the most resilient and resourceful workforces to be found anywhere. There is apparently an active debate within Government on how we make work pay and what the value of work is. If anybody wants to see the work ethic in action, they should go and spend a few days on a farm, because that is where they will see it clearer than anything. We have heard a lot of concern in recent years about the balance to be struck between imported food and food produced domestically. Some of the trade deals were apparently underpinned by a thinking or an agenda that we did not need to produce as much or indeed any of our food domestically, and that we could rely on imports. Then, of course, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine and we had a rather rude wake-up call. Since then, we have seen Donald Trump back in the White House talking about trade and tariff changes. Surely those things alone should make us understand the importance of a healthy, home-grown agricultural sector. We should not be offshoring to other parts of the world our standards of animal welfare or environmental protection. Climate change is so often held up as some sort of stick with which to beat our farmers, but there is a real opportunity. Those areas of the world from which we are importing food are also undergoing the changes that come from climate change, and they will not be as able to produce the food that they would wish to export to us in years to come. In this country, we still have a good temperate climate, which is absolutely suited to that.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May we have an early debate in Government time on the ending of the radio teleswitch, upon which many people who rely on electric heating and storage heating depend? It was last debated in an Adjournment debate on 4 December. That spawned a ministerial roundtable on 5 February, which promised further updates, but none have been forthcoming. With just over 100 days to go, it would be good to know that there is a sense of urgency in Government.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Farming Incentive · Hansard source

  More

  I note the Minister’s complaint that he inherited an uncapped budget. Can he tell the House whether that was something that he just noticed on Monday, which meant that he had to close the scheme without warning on Tuesday? On 14 January, the director general from his Department in charge of food biosecurity and trade told my Select Committee: “I do not think we can expect that every single farm will be viable but if we are talking about 92%, 93% having the opportunity of productivity improvement, that is what we are aiming for.” In other words, the Government’s aim is to lose 7% to 8% of our farms. What will that figure be after today’s announcements?

• 11 Mar 2025 · North Sea Vessel Collision · Hansard source

  More

  It is just over 32 years now since the MV Braer was grounded off Shetland, but for us the memories are still very fresh. We know exactly how those communities on the east coast of England who are braced for what may be coming will feel. We might not know what happened, but we can be pretty certain that at some time, somewhere, something of this sort was going to happen, such is the nature of shipping and how it is regulated and owned across the world. In Shetland we have been warning for years of the dangers of tankers anchored right by our shoreline and of others entering areas that are marked on the chart as to be avoided, but it is next to impossible to get any agency to take ownership of that. I know that the Minister is concerned about this, so can we use this moment to take a serious look at how we protect our coastal and island communities?