Farming

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.

Farmers in Ely and East Cambridgeshire face the threats of flood and drought, which are made infinitely worse by the climate change that my right hon. Friend is talking about, in addition to all the other challenges that farmers are facing. Does he agree that the Government should invest in rural flood management and water storage, and work with farmers to help them manage water on their farms?

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?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent contribution to this debate. Do the points that he is making not underline the issue that is faced in my constituency? Given the value of land, it is being bought up by private equity firms and pension funds for use in industrial tree production or solar farms. Land is lost to food production as a result of such developments.

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.

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

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.

Order. After the next speech, I will be imposing a four-minute time limit, with the exception of Front-Bench speeches.

As the representative for North Somerset, I, like many in this debate, represent a rural constituency, and thus a great number of farmers, whom I have had the privilege of meeting on a number of occasions since July. The farmers of North Somerset have not shied away from expressing to me their wide range of concerns, going far beyond merely changes to the inheritance tax regime. From those meetings, I have grown increasingly concerned that the outcry over changes to inheritance tax in this House, and the time subsequently given to the topic, have distracted us from the more fundamental questions about the future of farming. That is why I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate, and for making it clear in his application that he wished to debate farming more widely than merely a discussion of the merits of the inheritance tax changes.

I start by recognising that farming is an issue that arouses great passion. We have seen that in our own constituencies during visits in the past six months, and even on the very roads that surround this building with the protests that seem to occur every other week. From conversations with farmers in my constituency, I have quickly gained an appreciation that we are talking about not just a profession, but a lifestyle and often a calling. The constituents I have met are often working the soil that their fathers, their grandfathers and the generations before them worked—in some cases, back even beyond the creation of this Chamber. It is thus understandable why there is a widespread feeling among farmers that too often this place, so distant to so many, does not listen to their needs, does not discuss the issues so pertinent to their livelihoods, and too often imposes its will arbitrarily on them. If we are being fair, I think all of us would admit that this is not a new sentiment since the autumn Budget; this goes back decades and has been directed at all parties in turn.

I want to use my speech to talk about an issue that may not be grabbing the headlines currently, but which, from discussions with farmers in my constituency, I believe constitutes the greatest impediment to a thriving farming sector. A concern I hear again and again, no matter the product a farmer may choose to specialise in, is the excessive power of supermarkets in contract negotiations and the raw deal farmers get as a consequence. Too often, farmers I have spoken to have been subject to a “take it or leave it” negotiating position from these mega-corporations, which are able to dictate price and impose unfair conditions on farmers. Many farmers I have spoken to have had perfectly edible crop rejected due to minor aesthetic defects, excessive delays in payments and indeed, as some have told me, even instances of entirely arbitrary cancellations of orders with no reason given. The fear of retaliation keeps many of these instances from seeing the light of day, and that fear has arisen due to the oligopolistic nature of the supermarket industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do the big six supermarkets not have the interests of farmers at heart, but two of them did not even pay corporation tax last year? It is critical to address that in this wider discussion.

I thank my hon. Friend for a worthy contribution to the debate, and I completely agree. It is fundamental that we fix some of the problems in the supermarket supply chain that are affecting farmers, and that companies pay their fair share to this country.

Farmers continue to feel the squeeze from rising prices, and I think we must strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator and give it real teeth, and thus empower farmers to fight back and get the fair deal they deserve. To do this, it will need to be properly resourced, and to that end I suggest that we look again at the levy supermarkets pay, which has not increased since 2018, despite a dramatic rise in prices and profits.

The farmers I have met do not shy away from telling me how much they love their profession, and how sad they are that their children do not see it as a viable future career. If we are to secure the future of farming, we must secure the future workforce, and to do that we must make farming a profitable business. Without fundamentally rebalancing the scales of power between those who grow our food and those who sell it, farming will continue to be an unprofitable venture and an unattractive career for young people. I note that the next review of the Groceries Code Adjudicator will start after this month, and like the farmers of North Somerset, I eagerly await to hear how my hon. Friends in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs intend to ensure that it is fit for the future.

The importance of farming cannot be overstated. It is vital not only for farmers, but for all our communities, our economy and our national security. Farming allows us to keep food prices as low as possible in shops and supermarkets. Farming is the foundation of the rural economy. It supports tens of thousands of jobs not only on farms, but all along the supply chain. There is no national security without the food security that home-grown farming provides.

I have known this for all my years because I grew up on a farm. I saw my family and friends work extremely hard to earn a living—getting up before dawn and sometimes working until after the sun went down—and toiling in difficult conditions away from the limelight in protecting the environment and the countryside, often with little thanks or reward. That is the story of so many family-run farms across our country. It is a story of the Borders, of Scotland and of British businesses up and down the United Kingdom.

The Labour Government are putting the huge benefits that farmers deliver at risk. The future of farming is under threat because of Labour’s family farm tax, which will only compound the damage that the SNP has already done to rural areas across Scotland. Family businesses, which have often been passed down from generation to generation, will be hit hardest by Labour’s vindictive family farm tax. These small family businesses are the lifeblood of entire communities. They support jobs in local shops, the workers who rely on their trade for their own business to survive, and the businesses that maintain their equipment and supply their farms. They are more than family farms; they are community farms, because they benefit everyone in the local area. These facts have been ignored by the SNP during its 18 years in power, and they have already been ignored by Labour within a year of its being in power.

What does the future of farming look like once Labour brings in its family farm tax? The National Farmers Union estimates that hundreds of farms will face collapse because of this tax, and future generations will be denied the chance to farm their family’s land. If their farms do not need to be sold, farmers will still be discouraged from investing in their properties because that would only increase the tax their children will have to pay, and they may feel the need to save cash to cover future tax bills.

Order. I have to introduce an immediate three-minute time limit, because I want to get everybody in on this important subject.

I am grateful to be able to contribute to this debate, given that I have 350 farmers in my constituency of Shrewsbury, which is famous for its food and drink sector, and not least for the nation’s favourite market. Shropshire overall has more farm holdings than any other county in the UK. I am very proud of some of our produce, and in particular I am proud of a new technology that is being used in our area of outstanding natural beauty, which is unlocking hilly and rocky terrain for new productive land use.

I have had the privilege to be invited to visit so many of our farms, and work alongside local support networks such as the Shropshire NFU, the Country Land and Business Association and our farmers support fund locally. Overwhelmingly, my farmers tell me one key message: farming is tough. Profit margins are so tight and they have struggled for years with high input costs—such as energy, fertiliser and animal feed, up by 44% since 2019—while food prices from the big six supermarkets have been decreasing since Brexit, leaving us with some of the lowest prices in Europe, further compounded by terrible trade deals with New Zealand and Australia.

Low productivity in farming is not just an academic description; it is a harsh reality for the 12,000 farm livelihoods that were forced out of business since 2010. To help us comprehend the scale of sectoral collapse under the previous Government: that means that more than 850 farms went under every year of their Government —16 farms closing every week. It has left farming with the lowest profitability of any sector in the UK. This has to change. For the sake of our hard-working farmers, and for the sake of our vital food security, we must revitalise farming with productivity, new technology and sustainability.

Given what the hon. Lady just said about the number of farm holdings, would she regard it as a sign of failure of this Government if that number is lower at the time of the next election?

I have just explained that it was 12,000 lower since the start of the previous Government, so by the hon. Gentleman’s own admission, presumably that is a catastrophic failure.

So let us support our farmers to deliver their high-quality food to high environmental and welfare standards into more markets, such as by the Government’s new procurement policy—

Does my hon. Friend agree that given some of the challenges that we have discussed today, university research farms like Henfaes in my constituency will play a vital role in the future of farming? Does she welcome some of the grants announced by the Secretary of State for farming innovation and technology?

That is most interesting. That is exactly the direction of travel—to make farming more productive and profitable, we must embrace innovation.

Let us take support measures, such as the Government’s new procurement policy to “back British farming” from DEFRA, which will promise that 50% of public-funded catering must come from local farms that meet our high welfare standards. That means that every meal in every hospital, on every Army camp and in every prison will be supplied with at least 50% local produce from British farmers. I cannot wait to see the impact that will have at Royal Shrewsbury hospital and Nesscliffe Army camp in my constituency.

I am sure that Opposition Members have questions about yesterday, because following yesterday’s announcement from DEFRA, several farmers got in touch with me with questions about the proposed changes to the SFI schemes. I was glad to reassure any farmer who has applied that their grant will be forthcoming, as all submissions will be honoured from the budget, which has now been completely maximised—in contrast to last year, when the previous Government were unable to distribute the funds to desperate farmers, wasting £350 million. Under this Government, the entire budget has been committed three weeks before the end of the financial year, helping over 57,000 farmers. Ministers have clearly set out their approach, which will take on board feedback from farmers on the complexity and inconsistency of the previous schemes, and aim to provide a more carefully managed programme.

The new, improved SFI scheme will reopen this summer with a larger budget and a more targeted approach, delivered in a fair and more orderly way, ensuring value for money for taxpayers and investing in food production and nature recovery projects.

In my professional career before coming to this place, I worked for over 20 years to design, develop and deliver EU grant funding schemes such as these. In my professional experience, the most impactful schemes are those with a robust strategic objective, that are multi-annual in nature and take regular opportunities to review and improve technical specifications with feedback from applicants. I welcome this review and launch—

Order.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this afternoon’s debate. I want to make three points.

Salisbury, my rural constituency, has farming at its heart. The universal feedback that we have had from farmers is that since this Government have come in they have been very, very disappointed. The changes to the APR and BPR have catastrophic implications for succession planning, and despite making really sensible suggestions the NFU has been completely rebuffed. Farmers are in absolute despair. That came before we had all the changes to national insurance and to the national living wage. The overall context for operating small businesses, which is what farms are, has been transformed. The level of exposure that farmers feel to these combined pressures is enormous.

Then yesterday we had the announcement of the suspension of the SFI—a key part of the environmental land management scheme. A number of farmers rang me up yesterday and said, “This is the end. What are we going to do?” One farmer I spoke to yesterday afternoon, who operates 27 farms, works with an agent to prepare documents to apply for grants, but those had not quite gone in, so he now faces grave uncertainty—a real black hole. This needs to be addressed urgently. The combined effect of the changes in the Budget and last night’s announcement has had a massive impact on the industry across the United Kingdom.

I want to use my remaining time to focus on where we need to go now. This is a debate about the future of farming, after all. I recognise that, post Brexit, we need serious thinking and leadership about reconciling food production incentives, environmental management and getting in place the right arrangements for trade. Transitioning from where we were before 2016 is not straightforward. But I urge the Minister to put some defined objectives into the public domain and make his officials accountable for delivering on them. That would help the Government to set a clear road map going forward and help famers know what food security really means from his perspective.

Farming is the lifeblood of our local communities in my constituency. I recognise that farmers are often the guardians of the countryside and our natural heritage—farmers like Richard Evans in my constituency, a brilliant sheep farmer at Larling whom I met earlier this year and a leading voice in the Breckland Farmers Wildlife Network. That network is a farmer-led group collaborating to support farming and the environment. With 52 members covering more than 44,000 hectares of farmland in the Brecks, they recognise not only that they are custodians of a very special area for agriculture and food production, but that it is home to a huge range of species, many of which are found nowhere else in the UK.

On my visit with Richard, I was joined by representatives from Norfolk Rivers Trust to talk about how we can work together to support our rivers locally, including rare chalk streams, because farming has a significant impact on our waterways. However, for farmers such as Richard to continue their excellent work, we must move towards a future for farming that prioritises such farms. We cannot allow megafarms to dominate the industry and the landscape. A Compassion in World Farming study showed that there are more than 1,000 large intensive pig and poultry farms across the UK, a 20% increase since 2016. Norfolk has, sadly, been dubbed the megafarm capital of Europe. Residents in my constituency are very concerned about the increasing number of intensive farms and how they are contributing to biodiversity loss, as well as climate change, and air and water pollution. Very often such farming practices adversely affect people living nearby, especially because of the health hazard posed by ammonia.

We have a further proposed megafarm to be built in my constituency at Methwold. If approved on 3 April, it would become one of the largest in Europe. That application has received over 15,000 objections, including from all local parish councils nearby, as well as the World Wide Fund for Nature and Compassion in World Farming. If the council were to make that decision early next month, it would be a disaster. As I have said: no ifs, no buts, it cannot be allowed to proceed. This is not farming, this is industrialisation.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate.

“The future of farming” seems an apt title for this debate, given the grave concerns held by the farming community the length and breadth of Scotland and beyond over the Government’s proposed tax reforms to APR and BPR, and the inheritance tax coming in next year. The arguments against the proposals have been well rehearsed in this place. They have been put to Ministers time and time again, here and in other forums. A consistent theme, however, seems to be their complete inability to listen to, hear and act on those concerns. I do not blame the Minister in his place today; I blame Treasury officials. I think the Minister is an honourable man who is trying to do a good job for farmers, but I do not think he is being listened to by others. Even on the Government Benches, I understand that around 40 MPs representing rural areas have made their concerns known to the Treasury, and are calling for the £1 million threshold to be raised to protect smaller family farms, and for an amnesty for older farmers and those with serious health problems. That seems a reasoned and reasonable approach to me. But as I say, I do not blame the Minister for any of those things.

Research by farming associations has already called into question the accuracy of the data from which the £1 million threshold was chosen. Surely it is not outwith the wit of Treasury officials to return to their numbers and think again. But rather than back the Treasury into a corner here, let me offer the Government a very sensible and reasonable way out of this impasse.

Farming representatives, including NFU Scotland, which I met recently, are suggesting a clawback mechanism as an alternative approach to generating the required tax revenue. The mechanism would allow 100% relief on qualifying assets, but suggests charging IHT on all those assets if subsequently sold by the beneficiary within an agreed timeframe—they suggest seven years. The NFU says the proposal will meet the UK Government’s aims of raising revenue; avoid penalising elderly farm owners and risking breaking up family farms; prevent stifling investment in food production and environmental stewardship; and take away the incentive to use APR and BPR solely as a way of avoiding tax liabilities. It would also target individuals and corporations who are gaming the tax system by using the land to shelter from their liabilities. The Government do not have to cave in on this—there is time. They should simply agree to enter a new round of consultation aimed at honing their proposals, engage with industry representatives and consider how there might be some compromise.

I want to start my contribution today by picking up where I left off this morning in my question to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). At the heart of the problem facing farming and profitability is an unfair supply chain. As we heard earlier, the big six supermarkets are in effect acting like a cartel, forcing unfair prices on farmers and pursuing unfair practices towards family farms. Last year alone, the big six made a combined pre-tax profit of more than £5 billion. Of those big six, two—Asda and Morrisons —did not pay a penny of corporation tax.

As we know, supermarkets are price setters seeking maximum profits to drive down on the cost they are prepared to pay for home-grown, quality produce. At the same time, the costs of running a farm continue to rise, with soaring fuel, fertiliser and equipment prices. In a world where farmers and producers are struggling to make a living, and are relying on Government grants and subsidies so that they can survive from one year to the next, that cannot be seen to be fair or right.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will continue, if I may.

We need to look properly, and with real scrutiny, at the supermarkets. Those practices need to change. We cannot allow farmers to bear the brunt of this system, while others in the supply chain benefit so disproportionately.

I want to address the issue of APR. Many, many farmers have raised their concerns with me directly. I have listened to those concerns in Suffolk Coastal and raised them directly with the Treasury and DEFRA. I remain committed to continuing to advocate for farmers in Suffolk Coastal over the months ahead.

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

I will continue.

However, it is important to reiterate that while the changes to APR are significant, they are not the root problem facing the farming industry. If farming was profitable, farmers would be less worried about paying a new tax bill. The focus must be on making farming more profitable. Without profitability, tax reliefs or Government support will provide only limited help. That includes ensuring fair prices for quality produce, protecting farmers from unfair competition and addressing rising costs, from fuel to fertilisers to equipment. I do not doubt that that will be a tough battle to fight when society often prioritises price over quality—people will happily spend more on a cappuccino than they will on a locally produced chicken—but if we want to protect British farming, we must change our approach.

The future of farming is essential, not only for the economy but for the very fabric of rural society itself. We must continue to put farmers first, ensuring they continue to feed and sustain us for generations to come.

I rise as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture, the deputy Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, and a former Minister for agritech and UK trade envoy. I am also from a farming family and I have no interests to declare other than a deep interest in my family’s ability to continue farming their farm in Suffolk.

Most of all, I am the Member of Parliament for Mid Norfolk, a fabulously rural constituency. I do not need to tell the Minister that, because he had the privilege of being the Labour party’s parliamentary candidate there three times. He knows what the House needs to know, which is that it is magnificently rural, with 130 villages and three towns. It is the absolute engine room of food, farming and food processing. From Banham Poultry to Cranswick, right through to the Goat Shed, Rosie and Alex Begg growing blackcurrants for Ribena, Carrick Farms, which supplies all the food to Darbys pub, and Novo Farina developing gluten-free flour, it is an engine of some of the most exciting activities and technologies in UK agriculture. It is that engine because for 50 or 60 years it has enjoyed a relatively stable framework of support. But history shows us, friends and colleagues, that if agriculture does not have that support, it is vulnerable. We had agricultural depressions at the end of the 19th century, in the 1920s and 1930s, and in the 1940s and 1950s.

We are at a most extraordinary moment for UK agriculture. We could be incubating a fabulous agritech industry. Across the world, there is a wall of money to invest in agricultural science and research. The world has to double food production in the next 25 years on the same land area, with half as much water and energy. We are home to 10 of the world’s top 30 research institutes—we are an engine room for those technologies. I say to the Minister that current policy will, overnight, massively reduce the market in the UK for those innovations. It will remove a great industry which is beginning to get off its feet and tackle the opportunity it has to be a global engine of innovation. If we are not careful, we will sleepwalk into it, despite the warnings of the pandemic, global supply chain shocks, the Ukraine war and now President Trump’s trade wars, as others have said. In the interests of food security, affordability and sustainability, we need to support our UK agricultural industry and show the world how to deliver more from less. That is why the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture, of which I am chair, has called for a tyre-screeching 180° U-turn to support the sustainable intensification of agricultural productivity. We need to produce more.

It is an honour to speak in this debate as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I thank our Chair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), for securing the debate.

The future of farming is not simply about keeping our fields green, livestock sheds full or supermarket shelves stocked, but about securing the future of our rural communities, protecting the environment and supporting the farmers who are the backbone of our nation’s food system. This Government inherited underspent farming schemes, resulting in hundreds of millions of pounds not reaching farmers’ pockets. A record 50,000 farms now use these schemes, and more money than ever before is being spent through the sustainable farming incentive and countryside stewardship.

The recent publication of the land use framework set out the changes and complementary use of land needed to achieve our environmental targets. Alongside support for the environmental land management schemes, the framework will help to drive improvements on food security, biodiversity, carbon emissions, water and air quality, and flood resilience. The Scottish land use strategy has shown that we also need clear policies to give certainty on how to deal with directly competing interests on land.

As we know, England is in the midst of a transition. If we are to make this transition successful, we must ensure that farmers are supported in this shift, ensuring new schemes are accessible, flexible and equitable. I welcome the progress the Government have made on freeing up bottlenecks in applications; as the MP for most of the Cannock Chase national landscape, I also welcome the extension of the farming in protected landscapes programme.

We know that any sector that does not have certainty in its workforce lacks certainty for the future. I commend the strides the Government have made on expanding apprenticeships across the UK, but our agricultural and land management sectors need to share in the benefits of that. Figures show that only 5% of the 285,000 people working in agriculture are under 35, and, with the twin pressures of climate change and global food insecurity, the next generation of farmers need to be equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Farming is the backbone of this country, not only providing us with the food we need to feed our families, but acting as a steward of the land that we hold dear. Farmers do so much more than grow our food: they protect the countryside, create jobs and contribute immensely to rural economies.

My constituency may not have as large a farming population as some others, but believe you me, Madam Deputy Speaker: the farmers we do have are vital to the national picture, as the shadow Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), recognised during his recent visit to some of my local farmers. Their efforts support local communities, provide employment and contribute to food security, and I pay tribute to each and every one of them. I also pay tribute to the farmers who took valuable time off the land today to bring their tractors down to Parliament and support us here in this debate. I suspect there may even be some sitting in the Gallery upstairs.

Changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026 will have a profound consequence for family farms, including those in my constituency. The removal of the 100% relief above the first £1 million in agricultural and business property could mean farmers are forced to pay inheritance tax at 20% on the value of their property above the threshold, which will push many of them out of business.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the changes to agricultural property relief are completely contrary to what the Prime Minister outlined in his initial speech on Downing Street, where he said he wanted the Government to tread more lightly on people’s lives? Does she also agree that this policy is a false economy and that it ultimately risks concentrating farming assets in the hands of very few, which will make the market much worse for British consumers, society and food security?

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I know he speaks and stands up for his local farmers very powerfully. Far from treading lightly, this Government are trampling over our farmers. This policy will lead to the break-up of long-established farms, with land being sold off to meet tax liabilities, which will, I fear, lead to the concreting over of our beautiful countryside.

Another topic that demands our attention is the use of agricultural land for the siting of battery energy storage systems. While I am fully supportive of the move to renewable energy, just as with solar farms, we must ensure that the siting of BESS, which are often large in scale, is done with care and consideration. In my constituency, a planning inspector has approved one of these battery storage facilities on green-belt agricultural land at Chapel Lane in Pheasey Park Farm ward against the will of the local council and the community.

Our land is finite, and we must balance the need for renewable energy with the need to safeguard land for agricultural use and food production. I urge the Government to take a more balanced approach to land use, ensuring that agricultural land remains available for farming and food production. I fear that the changes to the national planning policy framework and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will simply drive a coach and horses through our arable and green-belt land, disrespecting the views of local residents and risking our food security.

We can no longer take food security for granted. The war in Ukraine, global inflation, supply chain disruptions and extreme weather events are all contributing to rising food prices and shortages in some areas. Here in the UK, we currently produce just 61% of the food we need. We can no longer be complacent. It is time to stand up for our farmers. Just this week, the Government announced the closure of the SFI scheme—another kick to our farmers, who are leading the way on change.

Let me conclude—I could say more, and I would love to say more—by saying that farming is not just a job, but a way of life. No farmers means no food. It is time this Government axed the family farm tax.

The economic fundamentals of farming must be a priority, and I call on the Government to focus on the key determinants of farm operating profitability. There are many drivers of what makes a British farm successful, but structural pressures—buyer oligopolies, price input volatility, international trade challenges, differentials in welfare and environmental standards and even our consumer culture—continue to threaten their viability. As a result, we have seen increasing consolidation, with many farmers shifting to larger, more arable-focused operations.

When it comes to trade, livestock farming has been hit particularly hard. The deeply flawed trade deal with New Zealand was a hammer blow to sheep farmers and our great British land industry, undermining domestic producers and putting British farmers at a competitive disadvantage.

Then there are the standards themselves. Our farmers operate to world-leading standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental sustainability—standards of which we are rightly proud. Yet there is little recognition of the additional costs that those standards impose. Instead, we allow products from other countries with lower standards to flood our shelves, undercutting the British farmers who are doing the right thing. If we value high-quality British food, we must ensure that our policies reflect that through, for example, fairer trade deals, better labelling, financial support that compensates for those higher costs and being honest about the onshoring of emissions, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) outlined at the start of the debate.

Some farms are more profitable than others not just because of their scale and type of agriculture, but because of their operating environment—an operating environment that the Government play a crucial role in shaping. Access to targeted support for innovation and environmental land management can empower farms to thrive, yet, too often, the support fails to reach the farms that need it the most.

I welcome this Government’s successful deployment of SFI, which is something that the previous Government failed to do, but immediate visibility is needed for farms looking to implement the next wave of those initiatives. The power of supermarkets must also be addressed to ensure that farmers receive a fair return. Again, I must say that this is a massive cultural challenge and a shift that needs to take place regarding the value that we place on our food.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate.

I wish to follow on from what the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said about trade deals. We know that trade deals, particularly the potential ones with the US, threaten to undermine our high animal welfare standards that we have spent years working so hard to establish. If we allow products that are produced to lower standards—such as hormone-treated beef or chlorine-washed chicken—to become the norm, that will undercut our farmers. This is not about protectionism, but about fairness. Not only are vets and farmers proud of our high animal welfare standards, but the British public are, too. We should not in any way be looking to compromise those.

The UK has already made significant strides in reducing antibiotic use in livestock without compromising animal welfare. Our veterinary and farming sectors have worked together to promote the responsible use of antibiotics. We are setting an example for the rest of the world to follow.

As the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance report in 2024 highlighted, sales and usage of antibiotics in food-producing animals remain low. In fact, the past 10 years has seen a 59% decrease in the use of antibiotics in animals and livestock. Long-term antimicrobial resistance surveillance carried out by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate shows that multi-drug resistance in animals is at its lowest level in a decade. Such encouraging statistics are a product of years of work and dedication between scientists and the farming community. This is a huge public health issue, and we should be ensuring that trade deals do not force our farmers to compete with countries that do not have the same judicious use of antibiotics as we do.

On Saturday, I visited the NFU in Hampshire at Ben Robinson’s farm where, like many lowland farmers, they are about to start lambing. This is the hardest time of the year for sheep farms—I grew up on a sheep farm. Those farmers will be working all day and all night. In farming, the amount of effort, time and work that farmers put in does not always result in profit, because so many factors are out of their control—international disease outbreaks, geopolitical events that put up fertiliser prices, poor weather, changing Government policy, and potential trade deals. I pay tribute to the Farming Community Network, which works so hard to support the mental health of farmers.

On Friday, I found myself more than 1,000 metres under the North sea. I will explain why in just a moment, but before I do so, let me acknowledge the hard work that our farmers do across the country and acknowledge a point that hon. Members across the House have made, which is that, in recent years, farmers across Britain have faced a serious squeeze.

I have met local farmers and the NFU in my constituency and they put that squeeze down to a range of reasons, ranging from poor trade deals to poor policy. But one factor that I wish to focus on is the soaring cost of fertiliser, which is driven by global supply chain shocks, price volatility and an over-reliance on imports. These pressures are not just hitting farmers in their pockets, but threatening our food security and the resilience of our agricultural sector. But deep underground in North Yorkshire, there lies a potential solution.

Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the ICL Boulby facility in my constituency, which produces the crop nutrient fertiliser, polyhalite, and exports it around the world. Polyhalite contains four essential nutrients—potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulphur—which are vital for plant growth. Not only that, but it is super low carbon. It requires minimal processing and zero chemical additives, meaning that it leads to healthier, more resilient soils. In fact, studies have shown that it can boost crop yields by 3% to 5% compared with standard fertilisers.

If we are serious about supporting British agriculture, we must back British solutions. That means a clear strategy on fertiliser security, investment in research, and support for innovation that reduces costs for farmers while strengthening our food system.

The ICL Boulby facility is currently the only operational polyhalite mine in the world, although a second—the landmark Anglo American Woodsmith project, also in North Yorkshire—is on its way and has a strong future ahead. I have been down both facilities and am struck by their ingenuity. Above, the wild, unbroken heather of the North York moors and the beauty of the North sea coastline are untouched by the operations in the depths of the earth below. I pay tribute to those skilled teams working underground in tough conditions to produce these exports, which are boosting our food security.

Decisions made in London are risking the future of farming in Wales. Changing the funding model for agriculture from one that is needs-based to one based on the Barnett formula could lead to a cut in funding for Welsh farming of about 40%. That is despite Wales having a higher proportion of farmers than other parts of the UK. The changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will have a dramatic impact on the future of farming.

How can the UK Government justify those changes when they have no concrete data on their impact in Wales? That is why we need a Wales-specific impact assessment. It is crucial that the Government have accurate data to understand the real impact of the changes. How does this help economic growth in Wales? Ninety per cent of our land area is given over to farming. In 2020, gross agriculture output was worth £1.7 billion to the economy. The wider food foundation sector in Wales—businesses that produce, process, manufacture and wholesale food and drinks goods—turned over £9.3 billion in 2023, never mind the wider supply chain of agricultural mechanics, vets and animal feed producers.

Why are the UK Government undermining rather than supporting this industry and its growth potential? A Government who do not understand the agricultural economy risk the future of rural communities, too. Westminster policies that do not consider the particularities of the Welsh agriculture industry, in which 43% speak Welsh, trample over the future that we fought so hard for in Wales. Threatening the future of agricultural and food production further threatens the ability of families and young people to stay and work in their communities.

It is crucial that good-quality, fruitful farmland continues to be used for food security as land demand for non-agricultural purposes increases. The transfer of Welsh land to companies that do not have to worry about inheritance taxes is likely, if not inevitable. In my constituency of Ynys Môn, we are battling to keep valuable, fertile land away from developers’ plans for 3,700 acres of solar farm, which would have a negative impact on the local economy. This land has sustained us for generations in Ynys Môn, across Wales and further afield. There is a reason we are named Môn Mam Cymru—Môn, the mother of Wales.

I welcome this timely debate on the future of farming, in the week in which the SFI rug was pulled out from underneath farmers.

Surely the future of farming has to be young farmers. I have been in touch with some young farmers in my constituency to ask what they think I should talk about in this debate. I was sent a screenshot by Beth, who was partway through her SFI application. It said, “Thank you for doing your application. When you are ready, submit it. If we need to close applications, we will give you six weeks’ notice. We will publicise this on gov.uk and we will email you.” If that is not a broken promise, I do not know what is.

Louise, another farmer in my constituency, said that she was

“angry, disappointed, upset and exasperated…we have followed the Government’s advice to the letter, and been kicked in the teeth”.

Another farmer said:

“Pulling SFI is absolutely criminal—just more short-term thinking that forces us into decisions we don’t want to make.”

Ben said:

“yet another nail in the coffin for…family farms…with no warning environmental projects that had been in planning for months on our farm will have to be stopped….We cannot plan for the future when the rules keep changing.”

The future of farming needs to be S, F and I: S for sustainable, F for fair and I for in partnership.

I think the hon. Member will agree that the shutting down of the SFI with no notice on Tuesday night is an awful situation. DEFRA has been either disorganised or sneaky, but either way it diminishes the trust of our farming communities in the Government.

I could not agree more. This has diminished trust. It is vital to rebuild that trust because we need that sustainable, fair and in-partnership future for farming. It needs to be sustainable in environmental terms— we need to recognise the reality of the climate crisis and the nature crisis. We need to support our farmers to make the vital transition to nature-friendly farming. Farmers in North Herefordshire are at the forefront of that, but they need the Government to back them, not knock them off their feet with policy changes with zero notice.

We need farming to be sustainable environmentally, and sustainable economically. It is not acceptable that the rates of return on farming are so low for so many. The Government have a crucial role to play in tackling that. The Green party has long called for a doubling of the nature-friendly farming budget, because of all the extra benefits that farming provides socially, economically and environmentally. We need the Government to step up on that.

Farming needs to be fair, both internationally and locally. Internationally, our farmers must not be undercut by trade deals that let in products that undermine our animal welfare and environmental standards. We need to ensure that the Government stand firm on that. Farming needs to be fair locally, because access to farming support schemes has not been equal. It is hard for many farmers to access those schemes. Whatever replaces the SFI, I hope that the Minister will ensure that farmers have equal access, and the support that they need to access those schemes. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister is nodding.

Finally, the future of farming has to happen in partnership with farmers themselves—their voices have to be heard—and with the rest of Government. We need a fully joined-up approach to land use, food, farming and sustainability. It also needs to happen in partnership with nature, because without a thriving natural world, there is no sustainable future for farming.

I have often spoken about my deep connection to farming; it is in my DNA. I love the rural way of life and for 40 years, I have been part of a local farming community that values hard work, resilience and responsibility for the land. My granda always said,

“If the farmer isn’t doing well in this country, no one is.”

He is not a prophet, nor does he hold any of the grand titles or credentials so often revered in this place. What he is, is a farmer—one who understands all too well that agriculture is the cornerstone of our economy, and that when that cornerstone is broken, removed or chipped away at, the consequences are dire: our economy weakens, our rural communities suffer and our food security is placed at risk.

Trust in politics is hard-earned but easily broken, so when our farming community heard promises from the now Prime Minister at the National Farmers Union conference in 2023, they could have been forgiven for placing a certain degree of trust in this Government. Farmers could relate to the Prime Minister when he said,

“losing a farm is not like losing any other business—it can’t come back…You deserve better”.

He went on to say,

“We can’t have farmers struggling”

and he claimed that farmers

“deserve a government that listens”.

He talked about stability and certainty. Well, those words ring hollow, do they not?

The October Budget was a defining moment in this Parliament’s history, delivering the biggest hammer blow to farmers in a generation. The family farm tax grab, as it is now known, is an existential threat to the future of farming, and those who survive that blow will be strangled by the Government’s other disastrous policies. Let us consider the closure of the sustainable farming incentive this week and a new tax on double-cab pick-ups, which are a lifeline vehicle for many farmers. We can add to those a tax increase on fertilisers, a hike in national insurance contributions, cuts to business property relief and an ever-growing burden of environmental rules, regulations and requirements. To add insult to injury, while the Government speak about those things being needed to fill the black hole and rebalance the books, £536 million is going in UK aid to foreign farmers.

Our farmers find themselves in an increasingly precarious position. Politically, we see a drip-drip of punishing legislation eroding our agricultural sector. The family farms tax has seen regular protests here in Westminster and those farmers do not come here to pledge their fealty, much as the Government would like them to. I note that the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) mentioned how unprofitable farming is. I do not know how he hopes they will be able to square the inheritance tax issue with an unprofitable business.

We have recently seen the announcement of the suspension of the sustainable farming incentive with only 30 minutes’ notice and of new compulsory purchase powers that will see yet more farmland concreted over. Dozens and dozens of solar farms are in the pipeline, which will all be easily forced through as nationally significant infrastructure projects because of a laughably low qualifying threshold that is now nearly 20 years old. The future of farming under this Government looks bleak. Diversification appears to be one of the few options available to farmers, and innovation is another.

I visited Vantage in Great Staughton in my constituency to discuss how advances in agricultural technology can have a positive impact on farming techniques, particularly as farms face manpower shortages, fewer resources and increasingly fewer available experienced farm workers. Will Mumford, a fifth-generation local farmer and the managing director, took the time last year to meet me and talk me through some of the local challenges faced by farmers and to highlight the opportunities presented by developments in agricultural technology. That gave me an opportunity to see a demonstration of Will’s robot tractor, the AgXeed AgBot 5.115T2—not a particularly snappy name, I grant you, and surely a missed opportunity to call it “RoboCrop”.

The AgXeed tractor is a remotely controlled robot tractor that ploughs a pre-programmed route. It is smaller than a conventional tractor and does not look recognisably like one, but there are multiple benefits to using such technology. Being remotely piloted, the tractor does not require a driver or, therefore, a cockpit, which makes it significantly lighter. The benefit of that is a smaller footprint and therefore reduced soil compaction, which in turn improves drainage and reduces flooding. A further benefit is how the tractor can be used day or night without the need for a human operator. At busy times of the year, it allows work to continue when resources are stretched. Many of our generational farmers increasingly see older family members unable to work the hours they once did, and automation within the industry can benefit those small family farms by reducing the need for reliance on additional farm workers, given the struggle to guarantee that resource.

I declare an interest as the wife of a farmer and agricultural contractor. Farming is a difficult job—unbelievably long hours and physically hard work in all weathers every day of the year—but it is a true vocation and labour of love that farmers do to provide us with food eat and food security.

Lincolnshire farmers are particularly important for food security, providing 12% of the UK’s food, 30% of its veg, 18% of its poultry and 11% of its wheat. Jobs in the food chain make up 24% of jobs in the Greater Lincolnshire area, and farmers locally care for 13,500 acres of farmed woodland and 2,500 miles of public rights of way, but all that is under threat. Food production is less profitable and, in some cases, it is not profitable at all thanks to this Labour Government.

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Throughout the debate, I have struggled to understand the point put forward by Labour Members that while they rightly acknowledge that farming is not profitable, they support a policy that will take even more cash away from farming businesses. Does she, like me, find those two policies hard to reconcile?

I find them extremely difficult to reconcile. In early October, I went to the “Farmers Weekly” awards in London where the Minister, in his red bowtie, gave a speech in which he said that the Government would have the farmers’ backs. I am sure he believed it was true when he said it, but within a month, he was unfortunately proven wrong with this Government’s Budget.

Many Members have talked about the profitability of farming. How will the family farm tax make farms more profitable? How will the family business tax, the drastic drops in delinked payments, the rise in the minimum wage, rising national insurance contributions, or the tax on double cab pick-ups make farms more profitable? They will not. How will closing the SPI payment scheme early and without notice, despite having promised to give notice, make farms more profitable and businesses more secure? It will not. The Government now talk about taking land without proper due consideration. That has led many farmers in my constituency to ask, “Why does this Labour Government hate farmers so much?” Why do they want to hurt our farmers so much?

What does the hon. Member think that the largest farming budget in recent years will do if not make farming more profitable?

I do not support the hon. Gentleman’s figures or think the Government will make farming more profitable. It is the classic socialist trick of saying, “We’ll give you some money here, and we’ll take some money there.” We have seen it with hospices and the NHS, and we see it with farming as well. They are taking money away in taxes left, right and centre, then giving a few pence over there and saying, “Be grateful, why don’t you?” I am afraid that it does not wash with farmers. Farmers are clever people, and they can see straight through it.

The effects of the Government’s policy will be reduced food security, the collapse of small businesses and the purchase of that land by larger corporations, and an increase in food prices for consumers rich and poor across the country. This is a debate on the future of farming. Many farmers in my constituency feel that, thanks to this Labour Government, they have no future in farming.

We believe in a future in which farming thrives—one based on stability, growth and sustainability. Sadly, Labour’s policies jeopardise all three. Whether it is the disastrous last-minute overnight closure of the sustainable farming incentive, the relentless family death tax assault on family farms, or the negligence towards rural businesses, Labour’s agenda harms the heart of rural Britain, including my Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency.

Labour’s short-sightedness in deciding to stop accepting new applications for the sustainable farming incentive—with just half an hour’s notice given to the NFU despite the promise of six weeks’ notice—is a clear sign of its failure to understand the long-term needs of our farmers. While thousands of farmers were looking to the SFI for support, Labour has chosen short-term political convenience over long-term sustainability. Our farmers deserve consistency and trust in the future, not abrupt cuts to vital programmes. We will continue to back farmers.

Labour’s inheritance tax policies are a direct attack on the heart of family farms. The planned cuts to agricultural property relief and business property relief will make it impossible for farmers to pass on their livelihoods and their businesses—the farms that they have been farming for generations—to their children without facing huge tax burdens. According to the NFU, someone who inherits an average cereal farm from their parents faces 10 inheritance tax payments, with each one representing 1.5 times what they can expect to make in annual profits. They are running at a loss to fund the Government. That is serfdom, not farming.

My hon. Friend is making a great and impassioned speech. The Government are saying that one can avoid the tax, but one does not know who is going to die and when. In fact, the generations do not necessarily always occur 10 years apart, which could compound the tax even further, could it not?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly, the people who are best placed to avoid paying the tax are the very people who ought to be paying and contributing: the mega landowners. For the average cereal farmer, however, who could face inheritance tax bills of 1.5 times the value of their annual profits, the only recourse will be to sell land or machinery. That is so blatantly obvious that the fact that the Government do not see it makes it difficult to assume that the policy is down to incompetence rather than a deliberate strategy to dismantle family farms, particularly when combined with the compulsory purchase plans set out by the Deputy Prime Minister this week.

Labour’s policies threaten the future of farming, rural businesses and the communities that rely on them. The sustainable farming incentive, inheritance tax reliefs, biosecurity, and the damage caused to our high streets by Labour’s Budget—in each of those areas, Labour’s mismanagement is letting down farmers, their families and our rural communities. Rural Britain can thrive when farmers are supported, businesses are protected and communities grow stronger. We will continue to fight for that future, and I call on the Government to change course before it is too late for our rural way of life. We will continue to fight for our farming communities, including mine in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for leading it. I am always so proud to stand up in this place and represent farmers in Strangford and across Northern Ireland, who are nothing but dedicated to their trade. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union.

Farming is massively important in Northern Ireland, where it contributes £2.5 billion annually to the economy. Furthermore, we are pivotal to the agricultural output of the United Kingdom, accounting for growth of 5.6%, which is more than any other nation that contributes to this great United Kingdom. Northern Ireland exports large amounts of beef, dairy and poultry to GB, the Republic of Ireland and further afield. Lakeland Dairies in my Strangford constituency sends its milk products all over the world. That creates a sense of just how important our farmers are.

To state the obvious, it is no secret that I, my party colleagues and other Members across the House were shocked and saddened by the Chancellor’s decision in November to introduce inheritance tax for family-run farms. The fact is that 65% of farmers cannot and will not survive this. Living on a farm and having great relationships with my neighbours—every one of them spoke to me before this debate—and local farmers in my constituency, I know all too well the impact this will have.

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is in fact my neighbour, for giving way. He talks about the number of farms that will be affected by this. It is far higher than the Treasury tells us. We know that the Scotland Office is compiling its own figures, to push back against the Treasury figures, which will no doubt be trotted out here again today. Is there not a fundamental problem here, as the vast majority of farms will be affected by this?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he sums up our views.

The decision to introduce the farmers’ inheritance tax will destroy the very essence of what so many farmers have worked hard to achieve. I have called on numerous occasions for the Minister to support us. He is an honourable man. He could be a friend of the farmers—we will see just how much of a friend he is—if he contacted the Chancellor and suggested to her that one solution is to increase the threshold from £1 million to £5 million. If that is done, farms will be saved, as will the future of family farms in Northern Ireland. Does he want to be the farmers’ friend?

I am the farmers’ friend.

When the Minister approaches the Chancellor and persuades her to increase the threshold from £1 million to £5 million, he will be my friend forever, and he will be the friend of all the farmers in my constituency. He needs to do that. The National Farmers Union and the Ulster Farmers’ Union have the solution.

If I can digress slightly, Northern Ireland has one of the highest tuberculosis rates in Europe, with over 10% of our herds affected annually. What discussions has the Minister had with the farming Minister in Northern Ireland, Andrew Muir, in relation to TB and avian flu, to ensure that we can overcome these setbacks together?

Our food security and farming industry matter. It is the young farmers who we are fighting for—I am fighting for my neighbours’ sons who want to have a farm for the future. There are so many expectations on farmers. I am pleased to see that there has been a boost in the conversations surrounding the declining mental health of our farmers, which is another massive issue. There is no doubt that our farmers need to be supported, not torn down by a Government who are meant to represent them.

To conclude, I am proud of our farming industry and grateful for it, and I want it to succeed. For those who represent rural constituencies or those who do not, the importance of agriculture cannot be disregarded, and we must make it a goal to preserve, protect and progress the success of farming across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We need the Minister to stand up for farming; we all look to him to do that. Go to the Chancellor, tell her what we need—to increase the threshold from £1 million to £5 million—and things will be better.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on opening the debate and on the thoughtful and knowledgeable speech he made. I also compliment Members on both sides of the Chamber for what they have said.

I was brought up on a farm. I was the wee boy who shooed the cows home to the faraway field. I represent the biggest constituency in the UK. I have an awful lot of farms and crofts in my constituency. Farming is part of our way of life. It is about the food we eat. It is about the fight against climate change. It is about our heritage and, in constituencies such as mine, it is about the tourism economy. The change of Government has been difficult before. Brexit did not help—we all know that argument—and botched trade deals have not helped either.

Much has been said about the taxation, and I will not repeat it, but I will remark on one thing that has been said, which is that land prices in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland are much higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom, so the effect of the taxation will be rather larger there.

To compound this, cuts to DEFRA’s day-to-day spending mean that many family farms and rural businesses will struggle. That is why my party is saying that we should raise the farming budget by £1 billion. If we can do that, perhaps we can help. We want to see a renegotiation of trade agreements to protect British farmers and a strengthening of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

First, I should declare that my partner is a conservation farmer in Somerset.

Having been Parliamentary Private Secretary to Vince Cable, the then Business Secretary who set up the Groceries Code Adjudicator, I recall his frustrations that the then Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to grant the adjudicator the power she needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the adjudicator will never be able to exercise meaningful control over the big supermarkets, which fund its operations through a levy, if the cost of a single investigation is greater than its annual budget? May I ask the Minister through my hon. Friend to remedy this decade-old wrong?

My hon. Friend brings knowledge from the past, which is very valuable to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland is also a champion of this cause, and what he says strikes a chord among farmers in my constituency. Getting a fair deal is fundamental to making farms viable for the long term. It is not that we want to do everything, but I hope that the Government will engage constructively with my right hon. Friend on this. It is too important to let this one go, and it could be an easy win for the Government and for all of us.

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, but does he agree as a fellow Scottish MP that our farmers are facing a double whammy? Not only do we have to deal with the vindictive family farm tax being imposed by the Government opposite, but we face the hostile environment that the Scottish National party Government are creating towards our farming communities in Scotland.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and what a pity it is that our SNP colleagues are not with us at this point, because we both might have something to say about that. There has been a lack of knowledge north of the border—or a lack of understanding, I believe—of things that are fundamental to the way of life in the constituencies we represent at the different ends of Scotland.

Time is short, but I want to conclude by mentioning three things that are causing my constituents some anxiety. In particular, I spoke with farmers this week and there has been recent publicity about what is known as lab-grown meat, produced from cells in a laboratory environment. It is thought that this could be upon us within two years. Yes, it is a way of producing food, but what does that mean for our livestock farmers? That needs to be looked at very carefully indeed.

The second thing I am duty-bound to mention is the low price of malting barley. This is the highest-quality barley and is used to make whisky. It is low priced because not so much is being bought by the whisky distillers, a reflection of the fact that they are not selling so many bottles of whisky.

I am doing my best.

My right hon. Friend is indeed doing his bit and never ceases to do so, but this again goes back to an earlier point: that farming is intermingled throughout the entire economy. If we can have measures from the Government to increase whisky sales and to encourage exports, such as getting good-quality Scotch whisky into the Indian market, that will in the long term benefit the growers of malting barley, which will make farms more viable again. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) is not with us, because, in all fairness, he did make that point.

The hon. Gentleman also made a point about seed potatoes. I welcomed the Windsor framework at the time and was thanked by the then Prime Minister for doing so. It meant we could get our seed potatoes into Northern Ireland, but I know from talking to seed potato farmers that there are markets in Europe crying out to get hold of high-quality Scottish seed potatoes. They are the best, because they are some of the safest from virus, eelworm or whatever. I will be extremely grateful to the Government if they use every measure at their disposal to try to improve sales.

Finally, I want to make rather a strange point. A number of farmers have told me that people who have worked on the farm, sometimes for decades, are now moving on to other jobs. People who drove tractors or used implements to cultivate fields are sometimes taking the option of going off to drive a digger for a builder, and a labour shortage is beginning to occur on some of our farms. That should be a worry not just for way farms are run presently but for finding new entrants into farming.

I again commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland for his speech and for bringing this debate before us. Farming is absolutely fundamental to the country and the way we feed ourselves, and in a world that, as we have seen, is quite dangerous to say the least, the more we feed ourselves and the less we rely on imports, the better.

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

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.

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:

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and congratulate him on securing this very important debate on the future of farming. I will not say that I agreed with all his conclusions in his opening comments, although I listened to them closely, but I thank him and his fellow members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for their continuing work. I look forward to meeting his Committee in time.

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to talk about the very important role that farming plays in this country, because food security is national security, and our commitment to farmers is absolutely steadfast. It is the hard work of the UK’s farmers that puts food on our tables and stewards our beautiful countryside.

As we all know, though, the sector is facing high costs and tight margins. Farmers have struggled to get enough workers to pick fruit and veg, and frankly, they have been sold out in past trade deals. Farmland is increasingly at risk from severe flooding and drought, and this all comes as we face the biggest transition for farming in generations, moving away from the basic payment scheme towards more sustainable methods of farming. The underlying problem in the sector is that farmers do not make enough money for the hard work and commitment that they put in. We are absolutely committed to making farming more profitable, and that approach will underpin our 25-year farming road map and our food strategy, through which we will work in partnership with farmers to make farming and food production sustainable and profitable.

That road map stands on three principles, the first of which is a sector that has food production at its core. The role of farming will always be to produce the food that feeds our nation. The instability that we have seen, both relating to Ukraine and during covid, shows that food security truly is national security. The second principle is a sector in which farm businesses are more resilient and able to withstand the shocks that disrupt farming from time to time, whether it be severe flooding, drought or disease. We will help farmers who want to diversify their income to put more money into their business, so that they can survive those more difficult times when they come.

Will the Minister give way?

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.

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?

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.

I call Alistair Carmichael to quickly wind up.

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”.

That this House has considered the future of farming.