Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Legislation: Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill: All Stages Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)

- -

Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And let me be clear from the outset that His Majesty's official opposition welcomes the government's recognition that this anomaly needs correcting, and we will not be opposing the bill today. We fully support the principle that no Prime Minister should be legally prevented from discharging all of their constitutional duties on account of their faith. The restrictions contained within the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 are, as the Minister said, plainly outdated and have no place in the modern democratic society. The idea that someone should be prevented from exercising the full responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister simply because of their religious belief, is clearly not fit for the 21st century.

Indeed, it is remarkable that almost two centuries after those acts were passed, provisions remain on our statute book that distinguish between those who are permitted to advise the sovereign on church appointments and those who are not purely on the grounds of their faith. But when one looks at the specific provisions of this bill, repeals both their severity and their inconsistency are striking. The law, as it stands, prevents persons of the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths from being involved, either directly or indirectly, in advising the Crown on appointments in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland.

Moreover, the punishments written into those laws are severe. Under the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, a Catholic advising the sovereign on a church appointment is deemed guilty of a high misdemeanour and disabled forever from holding any office, civil or military under the crown. The Jews Relief Act 1858 contains a similar threat, and because the existing laws only discriminate against Jewish people and Roman Catholics, they have created the glaring inconsistency that the Minister referred to that my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, the Member for Richmond and Northallerton as a practising Hindu, and his successor, Keir Starmer, an atheist, were not legally prevented from advising on Church of England appointments.

As the current Prime Minister who is a Catholic, has been. And at a time when we rightly celebrate religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law, it cannot be right that the holder of the highest political office in our country should face a legislative bar based upon whether they are Roman, Catholic or Jewish. Have. Madam Deputy Speaker, while we agree with the Prime Minister that these laws are an archaic anomaly, in my capacity as shadow Minister, I cannot let the occasion pass without having gentle reminder that the government's rather sudden conversion to treating this bill as an urgent priority.

On the 5th of March last year, the Lord Privy Seal wrote to members of the other House stating that the government was considering how to address historic restrictions on Roman Catholics and Jews advising the Crown on appointments in the Anglican Church. But when asked about progress in parliamentary questions last autumn, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office said that while the government would keep the matter under review, given other pressing issues, it was not a current priority. It is hard to notice that removing this statutory bar remained not a current priority for the Cabinet Office, right up until a Roman Catholic Prime Minister took office.

And as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough observed last week, there will be some people looking at the challenges facing the country today who may well feel that they may be more important things for the government to do. Although when he rose to make his point of order at the start of this debate, I did wonder whether he was perhaps going to declare an interest with perhaps ambitions for number ten that might be affected by by this legislation. Nonetheless, the Bill is rightly before us today, and as with any constitutional change, it is important that the government proceeds with clarity and with care and in scrutinising the legislation constructively.

I'd be grateful if the Minister could clarify three points for the House. Firstly, can the Minister confirm that the effect of the Bill is narrowly focussed strictly on removing these discriminatory restrictions, without unintended knock on effects elsewhere in statute? Secondly, after becoming Prime Minister, the the right hon. Member for Macclesfield transferred responsibility for church appointments to the Lords, to the Lord Chancellor to ensure that appointments could continue. Can the Minister confirm that this arrangement is temporary and will remain in place only until this legislation has received Royal Assent and has come into force? And thirdly, can the Minister reassure the House that this legislation will not alter the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown, the government and the established church?

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, while we support removing the statutory bar, we also believe it is important to maintain sensible constitutional practice. And so it is. The opposition is clear recommendation that it would be sensible for Prime Ministers who do not consider themselves to be part of the congregation of the Church of England, to delegate the active delegation decision making process on appointments to others, as recent prime Ministers have done, while retaining their formal constitutional role in advising the monarch. On that basis, His Majesty's official opposition looks forward to scrutinising the Bill in the Committee stage ahead and its later stages, but will be supporting it at Second Reading.

15:51

Sam Carling MP (North West Cambridgeshire, Labour)

- -

Sam Carling thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to put on record, first of all, my put on record, first of all, my strong support for this bill, which, as we have heard, removes existing discriminatory provisions preventing people specifically of preventing people specifically of the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths from being able to advise the monarch on certain Crown monarch on certain Crown appointments. The bill is based on the rightful principle that everyone in society, regardless of what faith they follow or whether they follow a faith at all, should be treated equally in public life.

It is unconscionable that anyone, be they the Prime Minister or otherwise, who is of a certain religion, should face legislation which gives them inferior treatment. Or, on the flip side, preferential treatment to those of different faiths or indeed those of no faith at all. Once we've accepted this principle, however, it's clear in my view that there are other areas where work needs to be done to remove differences in treatment in our society based on religion, and I would welcome a broader bill from the government on these topics. Between 2011 and 2021, census data shows that we are now an exceptionally, religiously diverse country, largely due to the rise in those who report having no religion, up 8.5 million to 22.5 million.

Overall, over a third of the population of England and Wales. I am a secularist and while I'm not religious, many religious people are secularists too. I believe that politicians with a faith should be free to speak from the perspective that faith gives them, but no faith should be privileged. This bill firmly aligns with that secularist principle. And so, in my view, the logic of the bill forces us to ask some other questions about religion in public life. Why, for example, do we have guaranteed seats for clergy of a certain faith in the House of Lords?

Well, I have no doubt that many of them are knowledgeable and dutiful in their work, and I know many. Personally. I do not believe that their religious position should warrant a seat in Parliament, and I would ask the House how that can be seen any differently to the discriminatory provisions in the Bill before us, which the Bill before us rightfully seeks to repeal. It's also not unlike certain other aspects, such as collective worship and state funded schools, where children may be forced into religious ceremonies such as class prayers or singing Christian hymns in the morning, regardless of their faith.

That's a matter of law at present. Another position I would arise, I would argue, arises naturally in discussion after accepting the principles of the bill before us today, challenging religious discrimination in the public sphere. So I wanted to make a couple of very brief points on that subject, Madam Deputy Speaker and I just want to make it clear that secularist principles are not opposed to religion in any way. I believe, as I'm sure we all do, in the religious freedom to have whatever faith or lack thereof, that one might choose freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.

But for that principle to be fully realised, we need a level playing field. This bill is based on an idea, and I would welcome further discussion of what logically follows from that. In public life as a whole.

15:54

Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Liberal Democrat spokesperson >> Liberal Democrat spokesperson Lisa Smart, thank. >> You very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Liberal Democrats have long advocated for modernisation long advocated for modernisation and improvement across the Houses of Parliament, and we continue to support legislation that modernises and hope to see many more moves towards ensuring Westminster is representative of the country as a whole. For almost 200 years, the law has said that a Roman Catholic Minister, or later a Jewish Minister, may not advise the monarch on appointments in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland. Those restrictions never apply to people of other faiths or no faith at all.

They were aimed squarely at two communities, and they are rooted in the anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism of the age in which they were written. The Prime Minister has called this an antiquated and archaic anomaly, and of course, he is right to do so. It cannot be acceptable in 2026 that someone who holds the confidence of this House should be barred from part of their job because of their faith. Now we're told that church House is content with the change, and the National Secular Society has said that the ban is increasingly difficult to justify. In a modern liberal democracy.

It is rare to find that much agreement on a question involving church and state, and the government is right to make this change in the law. Liberal Democrats believe in freedom of belief. Everyone should be able to practice their faith, or none, without fear of discrimination or state interference. That principle should apply at the very top of public life as much as anywhere else. Removing this bar sends a message that the highest offices in our country are open to people of every background. But I would note that this is the very first bill brought under this Prime Minister.

Now, it's a sensible fix to a problem he faces personally. But there are more widespread problems with how our democracy works, problems that affect every one of our constituents, and they are still waiting for action. Take the Other place. Liberal Democrats have long called for a House of Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with a Democratic mandate order. I would urge the hon. Lady to stay within the scope of this bill. The previous speaker might have escaped me, leaping to my feet by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

escaped me, leaping to my feet by very carefully tying his comments to the provisions of this bill. Trust she'll do likewise. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. I'm always grateful to the to Madam Deputy Speaker for her guidance on what remains in and out guidance on what remains in and out of scope. And I'm always encouraged when we're able to talk about the modernisation, as this bill does, and I encourage the government to go further and faster, as Liberal Democrats always do when they're on their feet. And we're talking about political and constitutional reform and in keeping in the scope of prime ministerial advice and appointments. Madam Deputy Speaker, which I hope you'll agree is very much in scope of this bill.

They often ingrain patronage and reinforce elitism that caused many people to lose faith in politics. And so things like the Burns report, historically looking at cutting the House of Lords to 600 peers would be something we'd encourage the government to get to. We think the government could do far more, but that's for another debate, probably on another day. And because none of the things that we Liberal Democrats would encourage, whether it's the ministerial code in law or a fairer voting system, a terribly. Com all they do is restore trust in politics. We support this bill.

Discrimination on grounds of faith has no place in our law. And I am glad to see the change coming today. But I hope the Minister will treat this as very much a starting point, rather than the limit of his ambitions for political and constitutional reform. Because if the government is serious about modernising our institutions, they should be going further and faster, and the Lib Dems will keep pressing them to do exactly that.

15:58

Jonathan Davies MP (Mid Derbyshire, Labour)

- -

Jonathan Davis. >> You very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. As an Anglican myself, there's a little bit of me that would always like to see an Anglican as Prime Minister, but I Anglican as Prime Minister, but I recognise that that is not always desirable or possible. In fact, despite the historical measures that we've discussed today about Catholic emancipation, of course Roman Catholicism never did go away. They practised their faith in in private, often with fear of their lives. And the secret of the success of the Church of England is that it is. It is the original broad church.

Even within the Anglican Communion, there are people who hold a whole variety of views, and allowing our Prime Minister as a Roman Catholic to provide his constitutional function. Advising the monarchy is very much in keeping within that tradition. A week last Sunday, Madam Deputy Speaker, I attended the High Sheriffs Legal Service at Derby Cathedral. It was for Doctor Sayed Yousef Iftikhar, an NHS consultant who came from Pakistan but has served over 40 years in the NHS and it was a service which brought together people of all sorts of different faith communities. LED by the Dean of Derby, the Very Reverend Peter Robinson.

But we had representatives from the Muslim faith from from the Sikhs and from from the Hindus, and that is the Church of England at its best, particularly at a time when we see in our society divisions. We talked about anti-Semitism in Parliament today, but we've seen recently, unfortunately, racist aspects of, of, of our political parties here. And the Church of England has an excellent role to play in bringing these communities together. And many of us will see that on Remembrance Sunday next month. So I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do, yes, I will give way. Making an important speech. Does he agree with me that the value of he agree with me that the value of this bill actually is that it could strengthen the Church of England and reconnect it with the political community that it is properly part community that it is properly part of? And as I intervened on the Minister, does he agree with me? It's not right just to leave the appointment of bishops purely to appointment of bishops purely to the to the to the bureaucrats at church House and to committees there.

It is a proper subject for politics and the suggestion that this is a sort of a second order priority will. I recognise that there are more pressing concerns for the country. But, you know, Gladstone thought this was the most important part of his job as Prime Minister was appointing bishops. This, this, this stuff matters. And does he agree with me that I my concern about the debate so far is that it's being interpreted as some great step of progressive modernisation, which clearly ends with the the exclusion of of Christianity from the political life altogether. And actually what we need to do is to strengthen the role of the Church of England in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the political community and remind the Prime Minister of this very job. Jonathan Davies yes, I do agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jonathan Davies yes, I do agree with the hon. Gentleman from East Wiltshire. The Church of England is strengthened by bringing in more voices. It often does that already voices. It often does that already through the use of ecumenical canons in some cathedrals, and I think this is a step forward which will ensure that the Church of will ensure that the Church of England brings in those perspectives, which will strengthen its hand in the future and bring our communities together in the way our communities together in the way which it does so well. So I thank the Minister for bringing this legislation to the House today.

I think it is an important step forward, and I do wish the Prime Minister well, from an Anglican to a Catholic, as he takes forward this important constitutional role, advising the monarch on the future leaders of the Church of England. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

16:01

Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)

- -

16:12

Martin Vickers MP (Brigg and Immingham, Conservative)

- -

Martin Vickers thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow the Father of the House, but I. I fear I might not be able to provide such an entertaining and provide such an entertaining and historical perspective. I had intended to speak in this debate as I thought I might be the only Anglican to do so, but the member from Mid Derbyshire has beaten me to that. As a member of the established church, I, unlike my right hon. Friend, I actually think I agree for once with the reform that I would actually like some political input into appointments to the bishops bench and to 1 or 2 other church appointments.

I like to think that whoever we elect to be Prime Minister, that he or she would take a very serious view of making appointments to an organisation, an institution that not only has a vast historical perspective, but also plays a major part in, for example, education. The Church of England has, I can't remember the number, but many schools up and down the country in virtually every constituency and the. The bishops can often play a major part in that. I can see the Deputy Speaker asking me to move on, to say more in scope, I. To take the argument about appointments of bishops, I actually think that we should return to the system, like the Member for East Wiltshire, that we should.

The Prime Minister should be offered a choice and that there should be taken into consideration the points that I've made some contribution towards that. I know that my right hon. Friend, the Father of the House, loves the established church. Indeed, when I was his constituency agent, I used to build in visits to Choral Evensong and Lincoln as often as I could. But coming back to the substance of the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, I fully support the fact that the Prime Minister of whatever faith should have an input into the senior appointments in the Church of England.

16:15

Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

- -

Yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, look, I have to say from the start, this has been one of the most interesting, wide ranging, perhaps unexpected debates I've had the pleasure to to listen to in this House with fascinating contributions from the Member for North West Cambridgeshire Mid Derbyshire, the Father of the House from Gainsborough and Brigg and Immingham. And I thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon as we conclude proceedings on the Second Reading of this bill, I'm pleased to reaffirm our support from these benches for the changes before us. The provisions being repealed go against our principles of religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law to single out Roman Catholics and Jews and prevent them from carrying out responsibilities of public office solely because of their faith.

That is not a distinction which has any place in modern Britain. As a Roman Catholic myself, I find it extraordinary that such a restriction has remained on the statute book for so long. But this is not ultimately about any one faith. It's about the fundamental principle that a person's religious beliefs should not prevent them from discharging the responsibilities of public office. As an opposition, we are also clear that constitutional change, however sensible, should be approached carefully and we therefore welcome the narrow scope of the legislation and look forward to the confirmation from the Minister regarding the preservation of the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown Government and the established church.

We believe there remains a sensible distinction between the Prime Minister retaining their for their formal constitutional responsibility for advising the sovereign and, where appropriate, delegating active involvement in the appointments process that respects both equality before the law and the constitutional position of the established church. Madam Deputy Speaker, we can respect the traditions and institutions which have shaped our country while ensuring they updated to ensure discriminatory or outdated practices are removed. 200 years ago, I would not have been permitted to enter this chamber or speak from this Dispatch Box progress towards equality has been made for our history, and I welcome this latest step today on behalf of His Majesty's loyal opposition.

I am therefore pleased to support Bill

16:17

Mark Ferguson MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Gateshead Central and Whickham, Labour)

- -

Mark Ferguson Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, It's a pleasure to close what has been a genuinely fascinating debate. I give my thanks to honourable and right hon. thanks to honourable and right hon. Members from all sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions, in addition to their support for in addition to their support for this worthwhile and historic piece of legislation, as we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, this important Minister of State, this important bill will facilitate the removal of an outdated 19th century restriction, and we spent a lot of restriction, and we spent a lot of time today talking about history and who doesn't enjoy a little conversation about history?

I certainly and I know the Minister of State would agree it's very enjoyable to be involved in preparing yourself for a debate where someone uses a phrase like, not since the Reformation. It really does remind you of the scale and scope of what we do in this place. But really, we're here today to talk about where we are in 2026. This bill ensures that any Prime Minister, regardless of their religious beliefs, is able to advise the sovereign on church appointments. We have heard in this debate a number of views and contributions from hon. Members across the House.

I welcome support from across the House, including from the official opposition and the Liberal Democrats for this bill. It is important, as has been said, that religious freedom, religious freedom and tolerance of faith before the law is a crucial principle that we must uphold. With regard to why we are bringing forward this legislation at this time, when there are undoubtedly more important issues. I would simply say two things. One, the government is handling this in a pragmatic way, tackling minor constitutional issues as and when they arise. This is an obvious problem with an obvious solution.

It is pragmatic, it is quick, and it won't detain the house long. Despite the enjoyable history lesson that we have had today. Secondly, I am a strong believer that we can walk and chew gum at the same time and our ambition is a matter of public record. It is to rewire the state. It is to deliver the largest reindustrialization of our nations and regions in at least a generation, and the biggest redistribution of power our country has ever seen. With regard to the specific issues raised by the official opposition, this is a narrowly focussed Bill without knock on consequences.

The temporary arrangement will be brought to an end with regard to the Lord Chancellor once this Bill has passed, and there are no wider constitutional changes. Happy to give a firm commitment on that. This is not a wider constitutional change, and the existing arrangements between the Crown, the government and the established church will remain. Turning to points from hon. Members, the Member for North West Cambridgeshire talked about the wider role of religion in public life. It was an interesting contribution, but this is a tightly focussed bill on this issue and this issue alone. The Member for Mid Derbyshire also entertained the House, although I would say I do not express any particular preference for any particular religion in number ten.

And I say that myself as a lapsed Methodist. If one can even be such a thing. I'm very happy to have a Catholic Prime Minister once, once a Methodist, always a Methodist, very much once a whip, always a whip. In that sense. The Father of the House, particularly, I know, entertained us with a historical tour de force. I'm afraid I do not have any historical forebears such as his, to call upon in my remarks. I would simply say that his right and proper. That the senior advisor to the sovereign, the Prime Minister, should be able to advise the sovereign.

And finally, to the Member for Brigg Immingham, who talked about political input. That is not what we are talking about today. In a sense, we may differ on that point, but it was nonetheless a thoughtful contribution to the debate today has indicated there is clear support for this legislation across the House. And if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I speak to my constituents, whether at Gateshead Jewish Kehillah or Cardinal Hume School, I want the students there to know that they can play a full role in democratic life, where their faith is no barrier. And I know that view is shared across the House today.

I look forward to hearing further from hon. Members during the remaining stages due to follow shortly. And with that, I commend this bill to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be now read a second time. As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order under the allocation of time order of. the allocation of time order of. Today we now move to Committee of Today we now move to Committee of the whole House. Order church appointments. Repeal of discriminatory provisions. Bill. Committee. Can I remind members that in. Committee members should address the chair not as Deputy Speaker, but either.

Use our names. Madam chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable. We begin with the question that clause one stand part of the Bill with which it will be convenient to consider clause two stand part. The question is that clause one stand part of the bill. I call the

16:22

Legislation: Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill: Committee Mark Ferguson MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Gateshead Central and Whickham, Labour)

- -

Minister. >> Madam chair, I hope I will not detain the committee for long in dealing with the two clauses. dealing with the two clauses. Clause one is the only operative clause of the Bill. Its purpose is to remove the restrictions which prevent a person who professes prevent a person who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths advising the sovereign on church appointments. It also church appointments. It also removes parallel restrictions which prevent a person of those faiths from making church appointments, where they have a right to do so by where they have a right to do so by virtue of their office.

Some officeholders appointed by the sovereign, such as the Lord Chancellor, have the right to directly nominate someone to a benefice. For example, the right to nominate the local vicar of a parish. The sovereign has no involvement in these appointments. Clause one achieves this by repealing section 17 and section 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 in their entirety. The clause also contains some consequential repeals to church legislation, which cross-referenced to some of those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provisions. Finally, clause one provides that Once it comes into force, no person can be convicted under the person can be convicted under the provisions of section eight, section 18 of the 1829 act, or section 18 of the 1829 act, or section four of the 1858 act. Clause two sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the commencement and short title of the Bill. The Bill extends to and applies UK wide. It will come into force upon royal assent, the Prime force upon royal assent, the Prime Minister can assume his constitutional duty to advise the sovereign on church appointments without delay.

And there we are, Madam Chair. It is clear this Bill commands broad consensus, and I am grateful to colleagues for their approach to this legislation. I very much look forward to the rest of today's debate and seeing the bill on the statute.

16:24

Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)

- -

Boot shadow Minister Mike Wood. I rise briefly on behalf of His Majesty's official opposition to confirm our support for clause one standing part of this bill. Clause one is the operative part of this legislation repealing the remaining provisions that the Ministers referred to. In some ways, it feels rather fitting that the Committee is considering this clause today. On the 21st of October, Trafalgar Day, because while the nation rightly remembers Lord Nelson today, it was, of course, another great hero of the Napoleonic Wars, the Duke of Wellington, who was Prime Minister together with Sir Robert Peel in this House, drove Catholic emancipation onto the statute book through the Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1829.

At the time, that act was seen as a radically progressive measure. Indeed, such was the strength of feeling that Wellington was only able to overcome the fierce opposition of King George the Fourth and peers in the House of Lords by threatening that his Tory government would resign, and warning the King and their lordships that an incoming administration would be immeasurably worse. As students of parliamentary history will know, the resulting split in Wellington's party ushered in a decade and a half of Whig dominance. And, Madam Chairman, I'm bound to say that I'm rather pleased that there is considerably more cross-party consensus around today.

Reform. There is, however, an important historical lesson in how we view the statutes. The clause one amends today both the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the subsequent Jews Relief Act 1858, were seen in their own day as wildly progressive steps forward, tearing down centuries old barriers to public life. The restrictions they left behind on advising the sovereign on church appointments with the political compromises of the 19th century. But nearly 200 years on, what was introduced as a 19th century compromise is now an archaic anomaly and unacceptable discrimination. Over the decades, Parliament has rightly repealed or amended many of the other restrictive measures originally contained in both the 18291858 acts and clause one simply finishes that long historical journey by removing these final statutory prohibitions and their draconian penalties.

It ensures that the legal bar on a Roman, Catholic or Jewish Prime Minister fulfilling their constitutional constitutional duties by advising the monarch on church appointments, is similarly consigned to history. His Majesty's opposition therefore supports both clause one and clause two. Standing part of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If there are no further contributions, the question is that clause one stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause two The question is that clause two stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order! Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for coming.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order! Report that the Committee has gone through the bill and has directed me to report the same.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Without amendment. Third Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now.

16:28

Legislation: Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill: Third Reading Rt Hon Hamish Falconer MP, Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)

- -

>> Now. >> King's consent. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third Reading. Mr. Faulkner. I beg to move that the bill now be read a third time. Madam Deputy be read a third time. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will keep my remarks brief. As we've heard, this bill is purpose. Purpose is to lift archaic historic restrictions which prevent an individual of the Roman, Catholic or Jewish faiths from Catholic or Jewish faiths from advising the sovereign on church appointments, or from making church appointments, where their office gives them the right to directly nominate someone. This bill will therefore ensure that the current Prime Minister, and indeed any future Prime Minister who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths, can perform their constitutional responsibility to advise the sovereign on these matters without risking disbarment from public office.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to particularly heartfelt thank the insightful contributions of members honourable and Right honourable, in particular the Father of the House and my constituency neighbour. I would like to thank the opposition for the spirit with which they have approached this bill. Today's debates were, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, both historical but very thoughtful in the development of our constitutional arrangements. I'm grateful for the support of members, right hon. Members, right across the House, for the approach that we have taken. I know that the House will therefore agree with me when I say that, although the Bill is modest, it is an important step forward in ensuring that our laws reflect our belief that the Prime Minister's faith should not restrict their ability to undertake their role.

And I commend this bill to the House.

16:30

Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)

- -

The question is that the bill be >> The question is that the bill be now read the third time. Shadow Minister Mike Wood. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And as we reach Third Reading, I'm pleased to again reaffirm our support for this measure as we work support for this measure as we work to ensure that this particular anachronism will soon be consigned to history. Our constitutional arrangements are the product of centuries of history, and on these benches we believe we should always approach changes to them with appropriate care. Our Constitution has evolved considerably since the 19th century, reflecting the changing character of our country and the diversity of the people who serve it. And it is entirely reasonable that our laws should evolve with it.

Respect for our history does not require us to preserve every historical anomaly. There is a clear distinction between respecting our constitutional traditions and allowing outdated 19th century restrictions to remain on the statute book, simply because they have always been there. At the same time, the established church occupies a distinctive place within our constitutional settlement, and the relationship between church and state is one that has developed over centuries. So in correcting the historical injustice, it is vital that we preserve both our established constitutional arrangement and the independence and integrity of the church appointments process. In practical terms, when appointing bishops and archbishops, the Church of England presents a candidate to the Prime Minister, who then advises the monarch on who to install in that role.

And for nearly 20 years, the Prime Minister has not had much of a role in the selection of Church of England bishops. In Downing Street's involvement in the process has become largely a formality. That is why, alongside supporting this bill with the repeal of these discriminatory criminal provisions today, His Majesty's Opposition has suggested the clear and respectful convention for the future. Following recent precedent, the Prime Ministers, who are not members of the Church of England, should retain their formal constitutional role in advising the sovereign while continuing to delegate any active decision making process to others.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the ability to serve as Prime Minister and to exercise the full responsibility that office should depend on the confidence of this House and the ability of the individual concerned, not their religious belief. On that fundamental principle, the whole House can unite today. And so we support the Third Reading of this bill and wish it well as it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proceeds to the other place. The question is that the Bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the Bill be now read the third time, As many as of that opinion say aye. I. Of the of that opinion say aye. I. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I will allow a few moments for the front a few moments for the front To To the motion in the name of Tim Farron on support for British farmers. I can inform the House that Mr.

Speaker has not selected the amendment. I call Tim Farron to move the motion.

16:33

Tim Farron MP (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat)

- -

16:48

Jenny Riddell-Carpenter MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Suffolk Coastal, Labour)

- -

17:03

Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)

- -

17:16

Terry Jermy MP (South West Norfolk, Labour)

- -

17:23

Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP (Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

- -

her time in the Select Committee that she does have a knowledge and a concern for the industry, and a concern for the industry, and it's in everybody's interest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the government should be successful. So we wish her and her colleagues well. I am her and her colleagues well. I am not going to say a great deal about the sustainable farming incentive. The Minister is coming to the The Minister is coming to the committee next week and will doubtless spend some time on it doubtless spend some time on it then, but I think it would be worth him and others just reflecting on the full extent of the damage and the nature of the damage that has been done by that particular episode, because we are seeing already an unpicking of land that has been managed in a way that was beneficial for nature, sometimes for decades, and farmers have found themselves overnight with massive holes in their Budget.

And it is not simply tenable for any of us now to turn around to them, as they say, well, what's going to happen next? To say, well, it's OK, just trust Defra. They'll come up with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something in the next Financial year. I think what most. I'm pretty sure what most farmers would say if you turn round farmers would say if you turn round to them and said that. So the real impact is the nail. Another nail in impact is the nail. Another nail in the coffin of financial investor confidence in the industry. And it comes at a time when this really is something of a perfect for British farming. We have seen the price spike in input costs from earlier in the year, as a consequence of what was happening in the Straits of Hormuz, particularly in relation to urea for the production of fertiliser and for diesel.

The Food and Drink Federation told the Select Committee in May that that would take another ten months to feed through into price inflation. So we've still got the worst of that to come in the new year. Since then we have had a long, hot summer where many of our arable farmers have been through the third bad harvest in succession, with yields down, many of them. In fact, let us not forget, having chosen not to plant in the spring in the first place, because it was made more economic sense actually, just to sell fertiliser and not plant the seed for the usual sources of replacements at the time of a bad harvest in continental Europe.

They are going through exactly the same things as we are at the moment. Our livestock farms are already feeding winter forage because they have not had the grass available for their cattle and for their sheep. Not, parenthetically, I would say in Orkney, where the problem we have with our winter harvest winter forage is getting it off the fields at the moment. After a long, wet summer, the red meat sector, our livestock numbers continue to decline in a way that now risks threatening the critical mass of the industry that, if it were to fall over, would then have a massive ripple effect through the rural economy, through the march, the hauliers, the abattoirs, the vets, the merchants of all sorts, the chicken and pork sectors are under serious pressure.

I had a conversation with Cranswick, one of the biggest operators in just last week, who told me that between them and I think two sisters, there is something in the region of £1.5 billion of planned investment held up in the planning system. That in many ways, to me, just sums up the frustration of the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment, despite this perfect storm. There are people in every sector of this industry who continue to want to farm, and who continue to want to invest, and really, it's very you know, we've spoken about all the different agricultural policies that have an impact on it.

There are policies right across every department of government, just about especially in relation to the planning system, that could free up the investment opportunities that would generate the growth. The Prime Minister speaks about growth in every postcode. Well, a lot of those postcodes are in farming communities. The rural economy presents a real opportunity to generate the economic growth that we all know that we need. And for all the downsides that there are in this industry at the moment. I remain optimistic for it and for optimistic for one reason only. It's nothing to do with anybody in this chamber or in government.

It is because our farmers continue, despite everything that happens to them, to want to produce food to feed our nation, and they are better than almost anybody else in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the world at doing it. Salisbury thank you very much, Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. I refer the House to my register of Members interests. Obviously, we need to talk about the SFI scheme need to talk about the SFI scheme to start off with in this debate and with the conversations that I've had with my farming community, it has been painful. There is no other way of sugaring this issue, and I know that the Minister is going to be diligently looking at this process going forward. However, I fear that this debate will be focussed on the symptoms and not the cause.

The overapplication that we have seen is because

17:28

Ben Goldsborough MP (South Norfolk, Labour)

- -

profitability does not exist within the system of farming. We have so few schemes available which ensure few schemes available which ensure that our farmers can get that profitability back in. That is the profitability back in. That is the problem we need to solve. I would put forward to the House that one of the things that we should look at is trying to take as many financial burdens and also regulatory burdens out of the way of our farming community. One of of our farming community. One of the things that strikes me is if we look at our Australian colleagues, for example, they set themselves a Labour government of Australia, set themselves a farm gate value of $100 billion by 2030.

They have hit it three years in advance. The reason why is they have the Farming Resilience Fund, which they have expanded over recent years, which ensures in those good years that those farmers can put aside a tax deductible lump sum. I believe that is something that we should be pursuing on a greater level within the United Kingdom, maybe up to £500,000 a year. But I think what we should do different to the Australian cousins of ours is ensure that when you draw down on that scheme, if you're drawing down on that scheme for reservoirs, for example, for new silos and grain stores, and also investment into your livestock, that should remain tax deductible.

That, I estimate would be a cost of around about £100 million to the Treasury. I think that is something that we can show in good faith to our farming community, that we are giving them the leg up and not trying to cut them down. I also believe that changes which my right hon. My hon. Friend for South West Norfolk. I gave him a promotion then. My hon. Friend for South West Norfolk said, in terms of we need to streamline the planning process as well, and it's not just for on farm reservoirs. We also need to look at the aspect of how we can support that diversification of our farming sector as well.

But this goes bigger than this single issue of what comes through financial issues. We also need to look at we have got the veterinary reform Bill coming up as well. I know the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, we've had quite a few conversations about this. It cannot just be about domestic animals. We also need to look at how we can support our veterinary practices going forward into the future, to again, ensure that we can get profitability into the farming sector, because if we don't have a secure veterinary sector, it will fall apart very, very quickly.

The other aspect which flows from that is biosecurity. I welcome what the government has done in the last two years in terms of investing into our biosecurity systems. However, there are still issues and concerns that I have, especially when it comes to the Port of Dover, a 27 mile gap until inspection of meat and produce is dangerous. When I was visiting to the Agriculture Ministry in Australia and speaking to her, there are concerns in issues that they have in terms of the first flight of bird influenza to their country, which they've been able to solve because of the way that they take biosecurity so seriously.

African swine fever is the real concern for us. And I would like if the Minister could expand in his wind up remarks, what we will be doing on that aspect there. I think going outside of that, we also need to look at our trade arrangements, which is in this motion before us today. Obviously, it raises the Australian and New Zealand trade deal secured by the previous government, which has been disastrous, especially to our upland farmers. But there has been good trade deals secured by this government, for example, the Indian trade deal. I will be honest with the House.

I was extremely worried about as a huge sugar beet production area of the United Kingdom, that if we had a free for all on Indian sugar, that would fundamentally undermine our market. But the government took the right action and ensured there was a carve out. And also the government has taken the right action with the US trade deal in terms of giving access to the beef market, but not flooding our market. However, I would politely recommend to the government Frontbenches that we should ban Brazilian beef within the UK market. I think as well, it's a gesture of goodwill to our European partners who have done exactly the same.

And as we are approaching the CSPS trade agreement, which will be vitally important to expanding our food sector, that sort of action would be extremely helpful to the UK, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member. He's making. An incredible. Speech without any notes. It's super impressive demonstrating his super impressive demonstrating his knowledge in this space. I met with Derbyshire NFU yesterday and one of the things that they were talking about, as well as the concerns with the Brazilian beef, was how much a consumer can go to the shop and consumer can go to the shop and think they're doing the right thing because they're buying something which has got the Union Jack, like our proud British label on the our proud British label on the front of it.

But actually, if you turn over the label, you'll find that actually the, the, the meat is not from this country. The product is not from this country. Does the hon. Member agree with me and the Member for. Oh gosh, I hope I've got that right. It's done a huge amount of work on fair labelling that we should be absolutely be doing more in this country to let people know where their food is coming from, so that they can make British.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend gives an extremely impassioned plea against the issue of flag washing that we the issue of flag washing that we have within the United Kingdom, and one of my concerns that flows from that is we are getting into a very that is we are getting into a very easy situation of exporting our morality when it comes to food production in the United Kingdom. production in the United Kingdom. We cannot continue down this alley of increasing our standards to a certain level, where other nations certain level, where other nations are undermining their standards. All that does is that puts our farming communities into a situation where they cannot fight that race to the bottom.

So I'd really appreciate from my hon. Friend the Minister, in his wind up remarks to expand on, especially with the SPS agreement, what discussions has he had and his colleagues had with our European partners to ensure that when neonicotinoids, for example, are used in Hungary, that there will be an even playing field and also, vitally, a long transition period between the United Kingdom, because we have an issue with black grass, and if we lose our herbicides within our UK market, that will harm our yields hugely. In conclusion, this debate today looks at the symptoms, not the causes.

And I really urge the Minister and his wind up remarks to explain what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we're going to do to fix the underlying profitability issues. John Lamont after which we'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John Lamont after which we'll Lamont. Thank you very much. I'm very pleased to be able to speak in this pleased to be able to speak in this important debate. Many parts of my constituency in the Scottish Borders. Farming is not just part Borders. Farming is not just part of the local economy. It is the backbone of the communities that I represent across the Scottish represent across the Scottish Borders. Farming families produce the food we eat, they look after the countryside and we keep our

17:35

John Lamont MP (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative)

- -

towns going. Today they are being squeezed from both ends by a Labour government here at Westminster and an SNP government in Edinburgh. Let me be clear from the outset the me be clear from the outset the sustainable farming incentive applies only to England. Farm support is devolved and farmers in support is devolved and farmers in my constituency could not apply for it. But how a government treats it. But how a government treats farmers in one part of the country reveals a great deal about how it regards farmers everywhere. And in the two issues that hit every farm in the United Kingdom the family farm tax and the fertiliser tax borders, farmers are being hit hard, just as hard as farmers here in England.

On SFI, the facts speak for themselves. In March 2025, Ministers shut the scheme overnight without warning. Then, after more than a year of uncertainty, the new application window opened at 10:00 on the 22nd of September. By 4:00 that afternoon, the entire Budget, around a quarter of £1 billion, was gone. Thousands of farmers lost out, including around 12,500 who already had agreements in place. Months of preparation, advisers, advisers, fees and business plans wasted in just under six hours. Farmers cannot run their businesses around a government lottery. Decisions on cropping, stocking and investment are taken years in advance, not between ten in the morning and four in the afternoon.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this Labour Labour government's record on farming has been appalling. They created one of the biggest threats facing family farms in recent years, with the family farm tax. Even after last December's partial climbdown, which raised the threshold to £2.5 million, farms above that level, including many in my own constituency, still face an effective 20% inheritance tax bills. Farmers are asset rich and cash poor. The value of their land does not pay a tax bill. Selling the land does. Families in my constituency are still asking whether they will be able to hand the family farm on to the next generation.

A conservative government will restore agricultural property relief and business property relief in full. Madam Deputy Speaker, Farmers in Scotland are being let down by the SNP too. Just last week, NFU Scotland warned that the agricultural support Budget around £677 million a year, has lost some 20% of its purchasing power since 2014. The union is calling for an increase of around £183 million in the next Scottish Budget, and NFU Scotland has also made it clear that a Budget that is being eaten away by inflation is simply not good enough. Farmers in the borders are sick of consultations and complicated new frameworks being dished out by Holyrood.

They need a properly funded scheme that backs food production, encourages investment in their businesses, make a profit. That brings me to Labour's fertiliser tax. From January, the carbon border adjustment mechanism known as Cbam, will impose a new charge on imported fertiliser. Now, some have suggested during this debate already that a carbon border carbon mechanism was first proposed under a conservative government. Its purpose, though, was was to stop British the British industry being undercut by high carbon imports. But there is no British ammonia

**** Possible New Speaker ****

industry left to protect. Yes, absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on this point, and he giving way on this point, and he and I were in the committee that discussed this carbon border mechanism. And I wonder if he, like mechanism. And I wonder if he, like me, shared surprise that the government did not seem to realise it was going to affect fertiliser. There was much focus on cement. There was much focus on cement. There was much focus on steel. It seemed to come as a shock to them that it was going to put as much as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that it was going to put as much as 70 or £80 on a tonne of fertiliser. My friend is absolutely right. I mean, the Labour Government did not seem to understand. The Labour Minister did not seem to understand the impact that it was going to have. I was even more shocked that the Liberal Democrats decided not to vote against this proposal. Unlike the members on this side, as I was saying earlier, the ammonia or fertiliser depends on is now just about all imported. So for farmers, this is not about protection. It is simply a further tax on growing food.

Now, as NFU has warned, food growing overseas with exactly the same fertiliser will come into this country. Without paying this tax. British farmers will be put at a disadvantage in their own market by their own government. This tax will hit every farm in the United Kingdom, including the farms of the Scottish Borders. The SFI never reached. Now the Conservatives, as we have heard already, try to stop this fertiliser tax. But where will the Liberal Democrats sitting on the fence now, when I challenge the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who I do not think is in her place but was on the committee that was considering this regulation last week.

She accepted there were concerns about this uncertainty and the additional costs. Yet the Liberal Democrats, when it came to the vote, when it came to the vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, they sat on their hands. They refused to oppose this measure, imposing this additional tax on our farmers. The hon. Member has had his had his time to give his say, but he refused to do with us. The Liberal Democrats have had their say, but have refused to justify why they fail to stand up with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

farmers to try and stop them. Order. The member is obviously not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giving way. John Lamont today's motion. Lib dem motion now says that farmers are deeply concerned about the impact of cbam and fertiliser costs. Too right they are. I welcome the Liberal Democrats late conversion, but noting concerns and emotion is but noting concerns and emotion is no substitute to standing up for farmers when it counts. And that is when we vote the party that tells farmers it is on their side. And one on the one hand then does not stand up to sort those extra costs and just walked away. You cannot champion farmers in this chamber and then abandon them when they.

17:41

Josh Newbury MP (Cannock Chase, Labour)

- -

Order. >> Order. Newbury. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Farmers should be able to make a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Farmers should be able to make a decent living producing excellent food while being properly rewarded for stewarding the land on which we all depend. And those things should all depend. And those things should not be in competition with one another. Farming sits at the heart of our rural economy, our national security and Britain's identity. Farmers put in incredibly long hours, often with no respite. They carry considerable financial risk and take decisions that can affect their families livelihood for generations. This has been an exceptionally hard year, with drought and fertiliser and fuel costs driven up by the war in Iran, which has compounded all of that.

The government has offered some respite through flexibilities in Elms agreements 15 million for on farm reservoirs, a cut to duty on red diesel and an extra 70 million for this year's sustainable farming incentive. The SFI supports farming in harmony with nature, from enriching soils to. One of my loves supporting our wonderful farmland birds. I want to first share a hopeful, positive story from my constituency. The Oak Tree Farm Smallholding started a few years ago by Sarah and Jay Taylor, just outside Slitting Mill near Rugeley. Secured funding in the first SFI 26 window. They are excited new entrants and plan to plant fruit trees and establish new hedgerows.

I had the chance to visit recently and their love of their animals and the brilliant relationships they have with their loyal customers was so uplifting. We should remember that the first window did succeed in allowing farmers like Sarah and Jas to get in for the first time. There are, however, many lessons to learn. After closing within six hours. The second £233 million SFI 26 window demonstrates the sheer level of demand from farmers wanting to participate. But also, let's be frank. Desperately needing government support to tide them over after a series of torrid growing seasons, the window opened at 10 a.m.

For many farmers, that is well into the working day. Many will have been tending livestock or out in the field. So the reality that the timing and IT system were unnecessary barriers needs to be faced up to. I welcome the government's commitment to reopen SFI as early as possible in 2027, and to scrap the first come, first served approach. I hope Ministers will consider assessing applications on clear criteria, including environmental benefits, value for money and fair access. As the chair of the Public Sector Efficiency APPG, I would be keen to be involved in those discussions alongside, of course, the sector

**** Possible New Speaker ****

itself, which needs to be heard first and foremost. Yes, I'll give. I agree. With me that one thing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With me that one thing the government could do to make the SFI system more accessible to farmers is by publishing a timetable of is by publishing a timetable of when things will open well in advance, and circulating that so farmers can be ready to apply when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

farmers can be ready to apply when the next rounds come around. I agree with my friend. I, I, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with my friend. I, I, I wonder if there was a hesitance to kind of create too much demand on the pretty inadequate IT system in one go, but the reality is that will always be the case as long as people know the date. So I do think that we should have much, much further notice, and it should really take account of the realities of farming, which I'm afraid this year's scheme didn't. A farmer should should not have to be the quickest with a keyboard and a mouse to secure vital cash for margins or pastures.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to SFI, but we also mustn't shy away from asking fundamental questions about its structure and communication. In the interest of time, I'm afraid because I know many of the Liberal Democrat colleagues want to get in. I also want to raise the wider contribution that farmers make to rural communities during severe weather. They are often the first to spring into action. I admire the example set by the last Welsh Labour Government in financially recognising what farmers do for our communities, particularly during heavy snow fires or other emergencies.

As we set out to improve the SFI. I hope we will place a greater emphasis on measures that promote resilience to extreme weather, and maybe even flag those to farmers in badly affected parts of the country. There are also other measures the government could take to support farmers of all shapes and sizes ahead of SFI 27. Like the Treasury backed loans the National Farmers Union is calling for in next week's Budget. I hope that the DEFRA team is making the case for rapid, flexible assistance, given the myriad of pressures that have come this year. But I am optimistic, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the future of British farming because of the ingenuity, determination and passion of the people who work in it who I will continue to listen to and champion.

We will have our differences in this place, but I believe as a consensus in the House on much of what needs to happen to support our brilliant British farmers. I hope that that is what we can bear in mind in the months ahead, because they are getting on with their job, and it's time for us to find common ground so we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get on with ours. Thank you. Rachel Gilmour. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased to be speaking in my party's opposition day debate. I am less pleased about the context in less pleased about the context in which it takes place. Both Conservative and Labour governments Conservative and Labour governments have failed to deliver an effective post-Brexit farm payment system. The consequences have been severe, The consequences have been severe, not only for the viability of British farms, but ultimately for our nation's food security. The most recent example is the farce of

17:46

Rachel Gilmour MP (Tiverton and Minehead, Liberal Democrat)

- -

17:52

Markus Campbell-Savours MP (Penrith and Solway, Labour)

- -

government was the greatest gift to farming since Jethro Tull's seed drill. I noted the way my vote was drill. I noted the way my vote was being reported by members of the on the benches opposite. One said I'd misled the chamber and I voted to misled the chamber and I voted to impose the family farm tax. Now, as all members know, opposition day motions do not enact change their motions do not enact change their expressions of opinion, not. Instruments that alter policy or law or. As Erskine May says, they law or. As Erskine May says, they do not bind the government.

Last week was the same in a debate where the Conservatives tried out their new theory that sticking the word family in front of a tax makes it unpalatable and ripe for scrapping. I objected to the idea that a £175 million penthouse flat could be exempt from tax. For this, I was accused by conservatives on social media of nitpicking, being spineless and also of toadying to get my whip back, which I've had back. By the way, the post was accompanied by a meme that only made reference to the family farmers. I'd like to be explicit. I want to see the end to the family farm tax, and I urge the Chancellor to do so in the Budget.

But I do not believe the plight of my farmers should be conflated and used by politicians who want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give tax breaks to the mega-rich. Yes. Now let me turn my attention to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now let me turn my attention to today's word salad. I like tomatoes and I agree that April changes should be scrapped. I like olives should be scrapped. I like olives and I agree that SFI has been a disaster. Madam Deputy Speaker, lots of members like olives. Even lots of members like olives. Even on these benches, the end of universal payments seems like a missed opportunity. Farmers are missed opportunity. Farmers are perfectly candid that many in the industry that receive the basic payment were doing very little for it. But I am increasingly of the view that a universal offer linked to delivering key public goods as a baseline with a top up Elm style offer would be preferable.

It would give all fans a chance and provide a buffer that they may rely on when times are hard. The farmers I've engaged with since my election have described how they take risks with every investment decision, bad weather or market conditions can change and do change. A universal payment could not only provide a cushion, but also help reassure those considering an investment that they are safe to do so. Now. Last week I read an article in the Ft. The article described issues faced by some farmers accessing SFE quotes one Cambridge farmer saying I will literally take a plough to everything and we will have to go back to farming more intensively than the 1950s.

It worries me. We may see a position where farmers reaching the end of existing schemes, simply plough up the good work they have done and look for what is commercially best for them. I believe a universal offer could, if implemented properly, prevent this from happening. So I don't object to everything in this salad and I'm quite pleased it's been served. But everyone has something they don't want in a salad. It's fennel, just in case you're wondering, Madam Deputy Speaker. But in the case of this motion, it's the Liberal Democrats inclusion of a commitment of an additional 1 billion a year to fund Elms.

It sounds tasty, but having sat through a large number of debates in this House, I know at the heart of their Budget plans is their claim that re-entering Europe would pay for everything. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is as silly as claiming we could pay using lithium mined on Mars. Its presence does not preclude the fact that there's one hell of a journey before we get there. These motions are a con, a word salad full of things that members across the house love, but ultimately containing an ingredient which makes them only edible to the author.

17:55

Wendy Chamberlain MP (North East Fife, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Mr. Gareth Snell, changing your >> Mr. Gareth Snell, changing your seating in the chamber does not me. I cannot hear or see you. Wendy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chamberlain. Agriculture accounts. For around 15% of. Economic activity. In my constituency of North East

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my constituency of North East Fife. From the. How the breadbasket of Fife to the coastal farms of the East Neuk and down towards Leven, as well as the banks of the Tay. Despite its relative proximity to the central belt of Scotland, it is very much a rural constituency. It hosts both single family farms but also larger producers such as kettle produce specialists and prepared vegetables for major retailers, and Quaker Oats and Cooper, which is supplied by arable farmers across the area. And I regularly visit and engage with people across the sector in north east Fife, and I want to take a minute.

Madam Deputy Speaker, to remember the Earl of Lindsay lately of the other place, who passed away earlier this month and was a constituent of mine, a Fife farmer, landscape gardener and conservationist, and also a Scotland office Minister under George Minister George. John Major for the three F's farming, fishing and forestry, as well as a dedicated person in the industry post 1997. My thoughts are with his widow Diana and family at this time and I commend the local Mid Scotland and Fife Nfus for organising regular sessions with MPs and MSPs to keep us up to date.

And just last week I was at Balbirnie Home Farms, learning about their low input farming approach and before our recent recess I visited South Straiton Farm in Balmoral, meeting with Duncan Pickard. He was very keen that I could say in this chamber that I had met a happy farmer, and now I have. But the reality is, is that farming is in many respects a precarious endeavour, and for some it is increasingly hard to make the numbers work. Back in 2024, I secured a Westminster Hall debate on the barriers farmers face and accessing Universal Credit. It should concern us all that the very people who put the food on our tables are often forced to rely on a welfare system that seems stacked against them.

I look forward to the Tims report with interest having engaged with him. If anything, the challenges facing farmers have become more acute. And I would say to the shadow Minister that we both stood outside Parliament during farmers protests with signs saying family farm tax. And I think we all knew what we meant. Both the changes to inheritance tax, as well as the PR changes. And there is no doubt that those things have left families worrying about the future of their businesses. I also want to highlight recruit the recruitment of seasonal workers, which is badly needed to harvest the excellent produce grown in North East Fife, and I would like assurances from the Minister that Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme will extend beyond 2029.

Farmers cannot invest in the future if they do not have certainty that they will have the workforce that they need to get food out of the fields now. Now in Scotland, we have the Future Farming Investment Scheme, which is intended to provide certainty for farmers through to 2030. But Scottish Ministers do need to set out how the proposed four tier system will deliver fair, accessible and adequately funded assistance. Yes, it should reward positive action on nature restoration and climate resilience. That matters, of course, but it is vital that it sustains food production, rural livelihoods and smaller or remote farming businesses.

Farmers across my constituency continue to face significant financial pressures, and it is clear that both the UK and Scottish governments need to do more. And sometimes, frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker, that means getting out of the way and encouraging innovation and expertise to develop organically. I have not met a farmer yet who does not care about the land and the animals they rear, or is unaware of their role in mitigating against climate changes. And on that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to invite everybody in this chamber the conclusion of the debate to attend the 25th anniversary of the voluntary initiative, which meets in the Churchill Room this evening.

Thank you.

17:59

James Naish MP (Rushcliffe, Labour)

- -

18:06

Sarah Gibson MP (Chippenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

businesses plan years in ahead, not months in ahead. And when support schemes change without warning, schemes change without warning, farmers can't make decisions about the environmental improvements because they simply don't know what because they simply don't know what resources they will have available. And Madam Deputy Speaker Wiltshire's mixed agricultural Wiltshire's mixed agricultural landscape, which combines arable farming, dairy and livestock business, is exactly the sort of environment where sustainable farming practices thrive. However, if a farm does not know what support will be available, they cannot confidently plan for the future. And in Wiltshire we have already seen what can be achieved when farmers support work alongside nature.

The Bramhill Vale Farmers Group brings together 50 farms covering 5000 hectares between Chippenham Khan and Lyneham, and they work with the Environment Agency and Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, and those farmers are working to improve water quality, reduce flood risk and natural management. But they know that productivity and being productive can work alongside environmental stewardship, but only with the right tailored support. But I'd like to just raise a couple of other things, as well as the FFI debacle that are affecting my farmers. One of them is things like the rigidity around the machinery grants that government application windows are so tight.

The other was to do with how complex and difficult the guidance can be. Even veterinary professionals who deal with these programmes on a regular basis struggle to navigate the guidance and the application programme with a local vet. I looked through the Welfare Pathway website recently. I found the forms difficult to locate. The timelines were unclear and minor administrative errors meant that you lost access to support entirely. And if the experts struggle to navigate the system, Ministers should ask themselves how easy these are and how accessible they are. For a busy family farm. So Wiltshire's farmers are ready to play their part.

They deserve a government that's ready to play its part. Two. So I have two questions for the Minister. Can the Minister tell those farmers in my constituency of Chippenham today what assurance he can give when they commit to long term environmental improvements? Is this government willing to provide the long term funding certainty they need to support their work that they are doing? And will the Minister commit to publishing a clear, single page timeline that sets out the application windows, the eligibility criteria and the payment timelines for the farming schemes well in advance, so that farmers can make the long term

**** Possible New Speaker ****

business decisions that modern agriculture requires. Thank you Sarah Bool. Yay!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yay! Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now, I think this is a really important debate about support for important debate about support for our farmers, and I was absolutely delighted a few weeks ago that I was able to go and speak to the Towcester Young Farmers, and that Towcester Young Farmers, and that was a room full of our best and our brightest, our custodians for the future. And we talk about

18:10

Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)

- -

future. And we talk about supporting them, which I want to, but I also just want to recognise the support that they already, at their young age, give back to us, whether that is Rosie Burt, who ran a gruelling 50 K ultramarathon in aid of Macmillan cancer, or the fact that the young farmers are organising their charity Halloween Tractor Run on the 1st of November to raise money for the Cynthia Spencer Hospice. They give so much back to our community already and I think that is very important. We recognise that, but that is why I'm so hurt and saddened that in the face of such optimism from this younger generation, they are.

We are having to fight so hard against the government to make them realise the impact of the choices that this government has made. We've already rehearsed the family farm tax, the family business tax, the issues with SFI, the increase in National Insurance contributions, the fertiliser tax now rather, Madam Deputy Speaker, than speaking all about. As the Prime Minister is rejoining the EU or EU options on the table or electoral reform, why not prioritise these decisions that can make a massive difference to our farmers here and now? And I urge the Minister to please take this message back to the Prime Minister that this is what should be focussed on, because this, as we said, for farming is a vocation and it needs long term planning, and they need certainty for the future.

Now the PM, even in Prime Minister's Questions today, talked about the EU summit bringing a better deal for farmers. But the proof ultimately will be in the pudding. Now we've had zero details about the upcoming SPS agreement. Numerous times we have asked the Minister, the relevant Minister, to come before the EFRA Select Committee to answer questions, and this has been refused on numerous occasions. Now, this is very important about this SPS agreement because we will be moving potentially to a system of dynamic alignment now that will have a massive impact. We are well ahead in this country on matters like precision breeding and our animal welfare standards.

And I think and we all want to understand exactly what will this deal mean? And I don't think it is right that we cannot be given the full scrutiny before this comes around. And the market is also talking about the importance of implementation periods. Our farmers need to know about what is happening and when. So again, I urge the Minister, please, will we have some more transparency on this future SPS agreement? And forgive me if I am slightly concerned about these debates, given they have sold out on our fishing rights and we couldn't even agree safe funding.

Now, I do want to again finish on a more positive point. Whilst many farmers are struggling against the government's decisions and they are nonetheless very industrious, and they want to come up with different measures so that they can help support themselves. And one very good measure, which I think we can all agree on and support, is that of a Ben Evening of Radmore farm in my constituency, who is trying to encourage supporting farmers by bringing back the Sunday roast. It is an idea of making sure that we all can sit together to buy British products and chat as a family, and I think that should be full heartedly supported.

So if I can final and one element, please can we recognise that lover?

18:13

Olly Glover MP (Didcot and Wantage, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Food, good land stewardship for nature and environment protection and indeed our enjoyment are not luxuries. They are essential. luxuries. They are essential. Agriculture also has enormous economic potential. The industry

18:13

Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)

- -

supports 334,000 jobs in the agriculture agricultural labour force alone, and that sits at the centre of the wider agri food

18:13

Olly Glover MP (Didcot and Wantage, Liberal Democrat)

- -

centre of the wider agri food industry, worth more than £153 billion. Agriculture also supports many other industries such as feed, energy, fertiliser, chemicals, logistics and professional services. logistics and professional services. With £20.9 billion of intermediate inputs. Yet the sector seems to be treated as a luxury rather than treated as a luxury rather than something totally essential to everything that we need in our country to succeed. And they don't get the attention and consistent and coherent support from government that they deserve. Now, even before the latest sustainable farming incentive farce, from speaking with farmers in my Oxfordshire constituency, they face so many challenges and headwinds.

Now, it's rather concerning that the Conservatives seem to be suffering from more amnesia than in Christopher Nolan's memento. Given their role in many of those problems, agricultural and business property tax relief changes by the current Labour government, the uncertainty and impact of Brexit trade deals based on proving the so-called benefits of Brexit, no matter the impact on our farmers, constantly changing government incentive and payment regimes. And of course, now the impact of recent worldwide inflation on fertiliser prices and equipment costs and in fuel now made even worse as a result of Trump's idiotic Middle East war.

Labour shortages also as a result of Brexit, pressures from the supply chain, driving down prices for produce and the worsening impact of climate change, which we have seen particularly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gravely this year. I will give way to my hon. Friend. I thank. My hon. Friend for giving way,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend for giving way, and I'd just like to add one more thing to that list of conservative disasters, which is the underspending of the farming Budget underspending of the farming Budget by more than £350 million, which has led to this disgraceful has led to this disgraceful situation where the SFI has had a huge demand because our farmers are quite literally scared that will happen again. Does my hon. Friend happen again. Does my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to commit today that the Budget won't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be underspent by this government? I thank. My hon. Friend for his intervention, and I do join him in intervention, and I do join him in calling for that. And it was a shame that that, too, was missing from the conservative spokesperson's speech. Now, in designing Sustainable Finance initiative and the system for allocating it, it would appear that Ministers and officials concerned may have been spending too much may have been spending too much time here in Parliament, where members wanting to get slots for some types of bills have to become some types of bills have to become proficient in efficient use of Microsoft Outlook.

That is similar to the bidding contest for SFI, which becomes as much about mastering process. It savviness and a race against the clock than about the substance. This is a particular problem for smaller farms, where farmers will often have to be out on their land and not sat at their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

computer at a time convenient for DEFRA rather than for them. Well. I will give way to my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way to my. Very grateful to my hon. Friend from Oxfordshire for giving way. He's making a good case about the shortcomings of the SFI system, but shortcomings of the SFI system, but speaking to one of my farmers this week, he told me that he is facing a choice between seeking SFI for a choice between seeking SFI for direct drilling and seeking SFI for preserving waterways by having a grass verge before we get to the grass verge before we get to the waterway. Would he agree with me that pitting carbon sequestration against the protection of our waterways from nitrate is not a good way to proceed, and we should instead be supporting both of these environmental objectives through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the allocation of the SFI funds and future rounds. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He's clearly been intervention. He's clearly been listening carefully to farmers in his constituency and make some very strong points. Now, the government has said that SFI will be offered again in 2027, and that it will work with farming organisations on potential changes to the scheme. potential changes to the scheme. However, a timetable, Budget and detailed arrangements for SFI 2027 have yet to be announced. As well have yet to be announced. As well as ending the bidding war process for SFI, it needs to move beyond an annual settlement.

Investment in farms and agriculture isn't an annual exercise. It is a multiyear and often multi-decade labour of love, requiring hard work, forward planning, and long term thinking. This is why the government should look at some good practice they have implemented elsewhere by moving to multi-year local government funding settlements, and embrace the same approach for SFI. Now, the government has an opportunity, in part to make amends in the forthcoming Budget, and I hope that it is one that they will seize. Now, there are many requests from the sector for the Budget, and I'm just going to talk very briefly so I don't take up too much time.

One is to increase the annual investment allowance a IAIA to at least £5 million and extend its scope to include assets qualifying for the structures and buildings allowance. This would support longer term investments in efficiency and productivity improvements, including with regards to energy and water usage. The annual investment allowance allows businesses to reduce their tax bill by deducting the full cost of qualifying purchases. Plant and machinery from their profits. Currently, such buildings and fixed structures do not qualify for a I A and instead generally qualify for Structures and Buildings allowance, which provides relief at 3% per annum on qualifying expenditure.

This does not incentivise the kind of investment in farm buildings. When other forms of investment are relieved at a much faster rate. Similar reliefs are offered in competitor countries. For example, in Ireland, such farm buildings can be written off over a period of seven years, and in the US, a 100% relief is currently available for five year periods. The second is our request. Regarding what we've already said about the approach to the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Introduction The National Farmers Union estimates that fertiliser inclusion in UK cbam will add up to £70 per metric tonne in extra costs.

And finally, the government could provide or underwrite the capital required for a temporary programme of interest free farm loans. This would really help the sector, as they're suffering from current crises to do with inflation. It could be delivered through accredited commercial lenders and targeted at viable agricultural businesses that are suffering temporary cash flow cash flow pressure because of the current situation. So I hope that the government will listen to some of those requests and use the Budget to help our farmers and get SFI in a much better state for 2027.

18:19

Mr Lee Dillon MP (Newbury, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Dylan Lee. Dylan. >> Dylan Lee. Dylan. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Since being. >> Elected, I have stood up for my farmers. >> We have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Been in fields together, we've marched together and we've lobbied together. And today they stand with me. I'm proud that our party has me. I'm proud that our party has used our opposition day debate to hold the government to account for the latest shambles, which follows

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the latest shambles, which follows on from Last year's shambles two. It really does seem that lessons have really does seem that lessons have not been learnt. Minister my farmers cannot speak in this chamber, but I can. And I want to chamber, but I can. And I want to make their voices heard. And their verdict is blunt. Tim Hayward, who manages 3000 acre farm in South Fawley for over a. Described SFI as flawed and not fit for purpose, popular only because the sector is in such a dire circumstance that many farms have to embrace it to survive.

His Countryside Stewardship agreement expires at the end of the year, and despite trying to secure a new SFI agreement, he has received no support. He faces the prospect of putting precious pockets of land habitats that have taken years to establish back into production. James, another experienced West Berkshire farmer, had an expiring SFI agreement and costed alternative business plans, as he put it. I now regard the government as an unreliable trading partner. George Brown, a farmer who farms Prior's farm and is the chairman of the British Farming Union, told me the six hour window was simply impossible for a family farm to prepare for, let alone submit, the precise land mapping, rotational forecasting and multi-layered action planning and application needs.

With the introduction of the family farm tax and the sudden closure of FSE in 2025. Farmers feel that the rural communities they represent are not understood. Farmers play a crucial role in rural life, from environmental stewardship to hosting community events that reduce isolation. Clearing roads of snow in the dark winter months or lifting the villagers car from a country ditch. They are the backbone of rural communities. If we do not back our farmers, we are not backing rural life. Now, the farming roadmap rightly attempts to provide clarity. But after September's mess, distrust is as strong as ever.

And nor can we look to the party on my right for inspiration. You may turn up in my seat for photo ops with farmers, but you have never apologised to them. Now I recognise that this government inherited serious problems, but chaotic windows and abrupt closures have compounded them. I welcome the Minister's commitment to work with the NFU and move away from a first come, first served basis. So in concluding, can I ask the Minister three things? First, publish a clear timescale. As George Brown put it, the government created a funding race that left us all wondering when the starting gun would actually fire.

If the next window is to be different, open FSE 27 early with a phased arrangement starting on the 1st of April, so that those who diligently prepared but were shut out get a fair second chance. Second, make sure that the Budget matches the number of agreements ending. More than 21,000 farm businesses have environmental agreements ending by March, and only around 8800 have applied to FSE 26. So what transitional support will the government provide to close that gap? And third, use next week's Budget as a clear injection of support back. The Liberal Democrats call for an extra 1 billion a year for farming.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has said it's determined to rebuild trust across rural communities. If it takes these steps, it can mark a turning point and give the custodians of our countryside the confidence and clarity they desperately need.

18:23

Steff Aquarone MP (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Yay! >> Hooray! >> Deputy speaker. >> I'm pleased that the Democrats are leading on the smart rural communities by bringing forward this debate today. Norfolk is a rural county and a farming county. It's also a county right at the forefront of the climate and nature emergency, right along our coastline, the fastest eroding in north west Europe. We see residents facing the loss of their homes and villages, facing the loss of their identity. As rising sea levels increase, the speed of erosion in villages like Haysboro and Trimingham, and our precious natural environment, with rare chalk streams and species found nowhere else in the country, is at risk of collapse without action on the emergency facing them.

One of our strongest allies in tackling the climate emergency is farming, and that's why the SFI is so important. Farmers are custodians of the natural environment. They care for it, they look after it, and they will pass it on to generations after them. They want our natural environment to be protected and our climate to remain stable, not just for the greater good, but because it's vital to keep their farms viable. The importance of this scheme cannot be overstated. It's a crucial part of keeping our rural environment healthy and protected and enabling farmers to do so, too.

How on earth, then, can it be right that the process for securing this funding was such a catastrophe? A mad rush? Online queuing effectively a sell out event in a matter of hours. Now, I know that the Prime Minister is keen on Manchester Rusholme for the whole country. I don't think my farmers knew that making SFI applications follow the same system as getting Oasis tickets. But this farce speaks to a much deeper issue. I strongly believe that there is a lack of understanding of the workings of rural life and rural communities, because it just does not fit neatly into Whitehall's prescribed models or spreadsheets.

Securing funding for sustainable land management might make the difference between a farm being able to employ someone to work the land and not. And if that person isn't employed, they won't bring their family to the local village to live. That means perhaps their children don't attend the village school, which then can't make the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

numbers work within the funding formula. Yeah. Those young people won't be able to stay and start families to stay and start families themselves. Even if we were to tackle the cost of living crisis, which is significantly sharper the further you are from the city. When further you are from the city. When working age people can't afford to live and thrive in rural and coastal areas, everybody loses. And coastal areas, everybody loses. And as things stand, our communities are vulnerable to erosion as our coastline. We need powerful representation at the heart of government to stand up for them.

Because just like our natural environment, our rural communities are deeply interconnected. We are an ecosystem. We rely on symbiotic relationships, on food chains, and on a stable environment. Now, when the science of rural life is disregarded and the knock on effects are ignored, we end up with calamitous decisions like this. So much of this is down to how Whitehall works or doesn't. Food security, climate change, coastal erosion, flooding, farming policy, environmental protection. Communities in North Norfolk. All of our affairs are rural and yet real. Change on this issue cannot be handled by Defra alone. These are the things that matter to people, to the lives that we lead.

And they cut across the silos of government. I firmly believe if we had a better understanding of rural life across Whitehall, then such disasters as we saw with the SFI scheme would just not be allowed to happen. So an urgent, fundamental reassessment of how the state is supposed to work for rural communities is needed, because at the moment it simply doesn't.

18:27

John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)

- -

Yeah. >> John Cooper after which will drop to three minutes. >> John Cooper thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Food security is Deputy Speaker. Food security is national security as the mantra from the government benches, but the reality, Im afraid, is that its much spun and little done. The family farm tax sent a chill through my rural Dumfries and Galloway constituency and underscored yet again the disconnect with this urban centric government and rural Britain. Now we have the fertiliser tax coming along and again, like the family farm tax, it is deeply flawed. We had an admission, in fact, that the family farm tax was deeply flawed, and that came from a senior government Minister who pressed its case in this House.

Incredible. The price of fuel has been much backslapping today about the cuts to duty for Red diesel. That is certainly helpful. But the reality again, is that red diesel is up by as much as 60%. It is an enormous input cost for farmers. It is a big difficulty as well for the fishing sector. And I have asked the Fisheries Minister, I feel, convene a meeting with the fishermen because British boats are afraid to put to sea when French boats are able to access finance from the French government to fish in British waters. Funding, as we have heard from my hon.

Friend in Scotland is devolved for farming, for agriculture, but we have also seen in Scotland the SNP government exercising sleight of hand with the agricultural Budget. Money which was intended for farming supposedly ringfenced magically disappeared, only to reappear. That is not good enough and devolve and forget is the order of the day with this government. We must have more accuracy about what is going on in Scotland because the block grant goes north, the Barnett consequentials go north. This place should have some say in what is going on there. And the debate opened. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon.

Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, opened this debate with his usual paean to the EU and, of course, the EU funding settlement is changing. The envelope under the Common Agricultural Policy is shrinking such that farmers in Ireland are protesting about that, and I can assure the House that the farmers in Dumfries and Galloway are in no hurry at all to return to the EU, and the idea of a shrinking Common Agricultural policy. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaker.

18:29

Helen Morgan MP (North Shropshire, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Three minutes is not a long time to represent over 1000 North to represent over 1000 North Shropshire farmers, many of whom have been in touch with me in the wake of the shambles of the second wake of the shambles of the second window of SFI 2026. John, who farms in Whitchurch, was distraught when he contacted me after he was unable to get on to the latest iteration to get on to the latest iteration of the scheme. He couldn't apply first thing in the morning because the window wasn't open, and when he returned later on after doing some farming, he found that applications were already closed.

Now he's afraid that he'll have to remove acres of herbal lay, as he no longer has the funds to manage them and the hedgerows that he preserves around his farm. He told me it would be cheaper to rip them up and put fences in instead. That's not what we are trying to achieve here. Another farm family farming in Western fields. Watch the website repeatedly crashed. The funding was scooped up, leaving them with nothing. And what's most frustrating to farmers is that everybody could see this disaster coming from a good country mile away. A Budget of 233 million for farmers across England was insultingly short of the public funding needed to recognise the hard work and stewardship that our farmers undertake.

One farmer said to me, why bother going through the pretence, the chaos of the first come, first serve funding allocations, disadvantaged small businesses and family farms. Hardworking farmers cannot afford to take huge chunks out of time, out of the day and sit and watch a computer screen that will not load. But this total disregard and failure to understand agricultural life and business wasn't something that started with this government. This year's SFI failure is a direct consequence of the conservative government's weak attempt to patch up the abrupt removal of basic payment scheme following their botched Brexit deal.

They added insult to injury by signing the UK Australia Free Trade Agreement in 2023, which undercut British farmers threatening to flood our markets with low cost imports but offering no protections to ensure that there was a level playing field for our world leading UK animal welfare standards. It set a dangerous precedent for future deals. As we've seen under the Cptpp, farmers have felt increasingly under threat. Every meeting I've had with local farmers centres on how difficult farming has become, including through regular meetings with farmers and NFU members from across North Shropshire and indeed across the whole of Shropshire.

And my most recent meeting held in writing 11 towns in my constituency. Their frustration at the SFI system failure was obvious, but they also raised concerns about upcoming changes to water abstraction licensing after this summer's devastating drought. Drought, which left crops in North Shropshire shrivelled, shrivelled and livestock farmers in a desperate situation with their winter feed. The link between food security and water security is stark. They raised concerns that the hierarchy of water abstraction will propose prioritising water for data centres over water for food production. And what sort of world is that sensible. So will the Minister confirm that that won't be the case this year?

And will he confirm that we won't see a repeat next year of the shambles of the bluetongue issue, the shambles of the SFI issue, and actually take British farming concerns seriously.

18:32

Charlotte Cane MP (Ely and East Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)

- -

For Charlotte Cane Charlotte Cane. Cane. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The farmers of Ely and East Cambridgeshire fill the Breadbaskets of England. They also provide really, really good, tasty, healthy vegetables. You'd think, therefore, that we would treat them with respect and try to support them. But one of my farmers told me that the mapping system had didn't agree with his maps, and he'd been trying to sort that out for some time before the SFI window opened. But having failed, he was therefore unable to put in for the SFI. So will the Minister undertake to sort out the mapping system so it works for farmers and that they don't find themselves in the situation.

My farmer was found in. Another farmer told me that he and his agent were sitting at the screen trying to get his application in, and it. And eventually the window closed before they'd managed to get the application in. And so what he's asking for is he's asking the Minister to have a proper long term plan that not only says when the various windows will open, but is also clear and upfront about how much money will be in the various windows. Because if we keep opening the schemes with not even enough money to cover those people who already have environmental schemes, then it's not going to work.

There are going to be many, many farmers who fail to get the money that they need. And these are people who are feeding the nation and managing our environment. In my area, that is a really fragile and beautiful environment, and we should be helping them to continue to preserve it. And I don't think the Conservatives have anything to boast about, because they promised after Brexit that farmers would get the same amount of money as they had done before Brexit. And what did they do? They came up with a scheme to take away the basic payments.

They stuck to that rigidly. That was one plan they could manage. What they didn't do was bring in place the promised environmental schemes. And as we've heard, they actually underspent by £350 million. That is utterly, utterly disgraceful. So my farmers hope that with a change of government, they were going to get a change of attitude. They were going to get more support. And instead they've seen the farce of the SFI scheme, and they've also seen the family farm tax. The changes the government have introduced to that are welcome to some degree. But with land prices in Cambridgeshire, that's still going to affect an awful lot of my family farms.

This this government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needs to put itself behind our farmers. Seamus Logan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seamus Logan. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I firstly apologise to you in the House for missing the very the House for missing the very start of the debate? And I'm sorry I missed the right hon. Member's I missed the right hon. Member's speech for Westmorland and Lonsdale. The bit I did hear was excellent, and I'm sure he'll agree with many

18:35

Seamus Logan MP (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, Scottish National Party)

- -

of the points I'm about to make. I rise not in support of the motion, as much of the text concerns matters that are devolved to the Scottish Government. However, there are a number of points that are relevant to Scotland but reserved to Westminster. I will briefly set these out in the form of questions directly to the Minister. Firstly, no one has yet been able to properly explain to me why the Treasury cannot identify the difference between those family farms that are being handed from generation to generation, and tax dodging individuals and companies. And if that could be explained, surely some tweaks could be made to to the Budget that's coming before us next week.

Secondly, why can't the Treasury extend the annual investment allowance and capital allowances for things like sheds and buildings so that they are fully incentivised? This would surely increase investment and ultimately food production. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly for our farmers in Scotland, because they lobbied me last week and this was the point they wanted to make, can the government consider pausing and reviewing the carbon border adjustment mechanism due to come in next year, so that it does not become an additional tax on UK food production through higher fertiliser costs? And my final ask of the Minister is this, that the government maintain the reduced fuel duty rates for red diesel.

This is the kind of measure which will support farmers secure lower food production costs, reduce, reduce food inflation and enhance our national security. It surely is a no brainer. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, on July the 9th, I asked the ministries present here this evening here in the chamber to address problems in the pig industry by referring suspected matters to the the Agricultural Supply Chain adjudicator or the Competition and Markets Authority. He said from the Dispatch Box that he would follow up on these issues. As far as I'm aware, he has not done so yet.

Furthermore, a much anticipated round table with the pig farming industry in Scotland has not yet happened, and perhaps I've got that wrong, but I'm sure the Minister will correct me. So I would ask the Minister, in his summing up, to respond to the matters that have raised here tonight. Thank you.

18:37

John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

John Milne. the most powerful terms since World War Two, food security is once again a matter of national security, and the Prime Minister has said as much. But just like our defence capability, farming requires long term funding and a lasting framework to operate in the last sustainable SFI window opened at 10:00 on Tuesday 22nd of September and closed at 348 later that afternoon. If you popped out to the shops, you missed it. DEFRA has made excuses that demand was unprecedented when compared to previous Elm schemes, but setting a benchmark based on a previous flawed Tory scheme that nobody really wanted is not exactly a great metric.

The Minister argues that the £100,000 cap makes the scheme fairer, because a quarter of the funding used used to go to 4% of claimants. Yes, that's true, but a fairer way of rationing a Budget that is too small is still a Budget that is too small. Yes, for decades, farmers did what governments asked of them. After the war, food production came first, and that was rightly so. But the cost was paid in soil, in hedgerows, in wildlife and in our rivers. With policy makers recommending the use of harmful chemicals, the SFI exists because that was not sustainable in the long term.

So we can see this as a repair bill now come due for the policy that farmers were told to follow. For many years. Farmers are now weighing, weighing up, stepping back from wildflower meadows, from field margins and from buffer strips. Peter Hartley, who farmed in Cambridgeshire, was quoted in the Financial Times yesterday as saying I will literally take a plough to everything. We will have to go back to farming more intensively than the 1950s. Proper farm funding has other benefits too. Ministers told the Lords in April that SFI actions, which keep soil covered and build organic matter, improve its ability to hold water, and that 35 of the 71 actions in this year's SFI would offer target flood and drought resilience.

Cover crops are how you get there. So 35 recommendations on flood and drought resilience are welcome. But again, £200 million less in the Budget is not. There are practical changes that would help. Now, with very modest price tags. Farmers want to store their own water, but the CLA says that only 34 on farm reservoirs have been built in the last five years. When you realise that it cost an average of 45,000 £45,000 just with planning permission, you can see why there are so few. And I hope that the the review of permitted development rights will report swiftly.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sadly out of time. So if food security is National security, fund it like it is. Give farmers the certainty to plan and let them get on with feeding the country.

18:40

Edward Morello MP (West Dorset, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Edward Morello thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. I had. >> Hoped to share some of the many, many stories of my farmers and their experiences of SFI who have written to me in the days and weeks following the closure, but in the interest of time, I shall try and be constructive and just talk to the action that is vitally needed. Many farmers raise concerns about technical problems within the application system itself. One farmer who has experienced the software as well as farming, reported that some options appeared without the base options needed to support them. They raised concerns about the process of measuring hedgerows, arguing that the time and cost involved could outweigh the value of the payment.

If Deborah already holds land parcel information and uses satellite imagery to monitor land, it should explain why relevant information cannot be provided to farmers in advance, where appropriate. The government has said that the overall SFI 26 Budget has increased by 290 million, but that doesn't answer the question of whether enough money is available to meet demand. We need clear. We need a clear account of how the funding has been allocated, including by farm type, farm size and region. There are also concerns that the options and payments available do not adequately reflect the needs of livestock farmers compared with arable farms.

The government should publish the evidence and assess the impact on food production. Farmers whose existing agreements are expiring need to know when they can apply for replacement agreements and what support would be available in the meantime. Without clarity, environmental work already underway risks being stopped, not because farmers don't want to continue to do it because they can't afford to do it. So I ask the government for this. Firstly, please publish a full account of the technical problems experienced during the application window and explain what remedial action will be taken. Secondly, make additional funding available for eligible farmers who were locked out when the Budget was exhausted, rather than leaving them to absorb the financial consequences of a process that failed them.

Thirdly, review the first come, first served system. The government should consider alternatives, including allocating funding more fairly when they know that demand exceeds the available Budget. Finally, the government must properly fund the rollout of the environmental land management schemes, including SFI, with additional. With an additional 1 billion a year, we believe is needed to give farmers a sustainable and stable basis for planning and investment. My farmers in West Dorset are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a system that works. Funding they can rely on and a fair opportunity to apply. And I hope that Ministers will listen to farmers today before they are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

staring at empty plates tomorrow. Gideon Amos farmers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gideon Amos farmers. In Taunton and Wellington Madam Deputy Speaker have been hit incredibly hard by this debacle for incredibly hard by this debacle for residents and visitors. My Taunton and Wellington part of Somerset alike, as well as to farmers, the alike, as well as to farmers, the hedges, the field margins, the wildflower meadows funded by the sustainable farming incentive are sustainable farming incentive are the very fabric of the countryside we know and love. From the Quantocks to the Blackdown Hills

18:43

Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)

- -

and across my constituency. Yet. Madam Deputy Speaker, all of that has been put under threat simply has been put under threat simply due to a badly mismanaged system that this government could and should fix. I met with local should fix. I met with local farmers out on the levels and I constituency the week before last, and I want to thank them for the and I want to thank them for the work they do. 365 days a year, putting food on our tables, caring for our countryside and bringing for our countryside and bringing employment to our to our rural areas.

Let me relay just two of the cases they raised. The first is James Hebditch of Will Stone Court. He's not a last minute farmer. His fields have been registered with the RPA for years. Yet on the 22nd of September, a glitch on the government portal suddenly rejected one of his fields. He was faced with an impossible choice apply without it or try and amend and resubmit. By the time he could navigate the error the portal had made, the whole thing had closed. His entire application was lost. He was caught out by the government's own system on land that the RPA already had on its books.

When farmers are fighting a failing portal, they do not have time to sit on hold for hours. The consequence of this failure is devastating. The hedges and habitats James maintained for years, and the previous schemes will likely have to be ripped up just for his farm to remain viable and profitable. Tom Pope of Staple Farm said with no replacement scheme, we will be forced to consider ploughing up some of our environmental areas in return for that to return them to arable production. Some of these areas have huge variety of wildflowers and provide brilliant habitat for insects and birds.

It will break our hearts, he said. Somerset is one of the hardest hit areas as well for Blue Tongue, with 156 confirmed premises. Add to that the fact that direct payments are capped at just £600 this year. Diesel is top £2 per litre. The heavy burden of the family farm tax a 32% spike in ammonium nitrate and the conservative designs upcoming carbon border charge on fertiliser from January. The result is of all of this is farmers have been pushed to the very brink of viability and of much else. To make matters worse, the government ran all of this on a first come, first served basis.

It's not a serious way to run a £930 million public programme, and at least if you don't get Glastonbury tickets, you're not required to plough up the wildflower meadow afterwards. Madam Deputy Speaker can I finally call on the government to take four key actions? No cliff edge. Extend agreements to FSE 2027 A second chance, a certainty on SFI and protect farmers from substandard imports. Our farmers protect our countryside and feed our.

18:46

Anna Sabine MP (Frome and East Somerset, Liberal Democrat)

- -

DEFRA Anna Sabine. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope you will permit me to quickly put on record my thanks to the Broadcasting Unit in Parliament, who have been so helpful in providing me with additional support while I've been trying to speak in the chamber while struggling with vocal cord paralysis. Yeah. I'm privileged to represent nearly 200 farms in Frome and East Somerset. They're not only critical to the rural economy of Somerset, generating hundreds of jobs in the wider economy, but also to providing the UK with much of the dairy and other food products they rely on.

Every time I meet farmers in my constituency, I hear the same thing that this government doesn't understand rural communities and doesn't see that penalising farmers undermines its own goals of growth and stability. In order to survive, many of my farmers are running a range of side hustles, from cafes to ice cream companies to farm stay accommodation. They are stretching themselves to extremes to try to keep their farms going. The SFI is one of the few forms of funding available for these farmers. But as we know, in September, after spending precious time preparing long and detailed applications, farmers in my constituency weren't even able to load up the application form because the money had already gone.

Money was not awarded to the best farms, with the best plans to feed the nation and restore nature. Money was awarded to whoever clicked the fastest. Surely, regardless of attempts at political point scoring, we can all agree that despite any improvements the government has made to SFI, this is not a fair or smart way to spend public money. As a result, for the first time since 1945, many UK farmers now have no universal payment offer and at the same time, the government is also chopping and changing the agricultural property relief and making cuts to defra's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

farming budgets. Burnley and Victoria Collins. You're summing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You're summing. Up what so many of my farmers are facing, and I have one farmer in sandwich who says he's closing doors because the government feels doors because the government feels he feels the government are not listening, and also the impact on the environment. I have one guy and the environment. I have one guy and Susanna and Greg Gaveston, their shortfall because of the extreme weather means there are 6.6 million weather means there are 6.6 million less bowls of porridge from one farm, and would my hon. Friend agree with me? This is not just important, but this is crisis

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment and the government have to listen because this is about farmers. But our food security too. Miss Collins, I. Wasn't summing up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wasn't summing up. Because I wasn't speaking to. You and yours. Doesn't count. Anna Sabine thank you very much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anna Sabine thank you very much and I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend has just said funding decisions like these really matter for farmers and rural communities, for farmers and rural communities, but they also matter for the environment. Today, the government has announced jackdaw is going ahead, a stark reminder of the UK's continuing dependency on gas and continuing dependency on gas and how far we must still go to reach net zero. If we're serious about getting there, farmers are part of the solution. The SFI rewards the kind of sustainable choices we want farmers to make more of.

Yet many of the farmers who want to protect nature are being locked out of their very funding. That makes it possible. British farmers are the foundation of rural communities like mine. They are also key allies for tackling climate change in this country. The Prime Minister promises growth in every postcode, but can't even ensure that farmers in my postcode receive funding to help feed our country. So will the government finally support farmers and guarantee long term funding for all eligible SFI 26 applicants?

18:49

Adam Dance MP (Yeovil, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Adam Dance Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The absolute shambles was wave two of the sustainable. another. Sample of farmers being let down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sample of farmers being let down by government after government. I've already mentioned this in the chamber, but Tim, who farms near chamber, but Tim, who farms near Yeovil, was locked out of way. Two of SSI on the same day that he was awarded Water Quality Farmer of the awarded Water Quality Farmer of the year. I mean, you can't make that up, really. He and many farmers like him in Yeovil are now left in like him in Yeovil are now left in a financial hole. Tim said that the buffer strips around fields will now have to be cultivated in the hope they can make some money, as long as the weather, markets and business costs all play ball.

It is clear that his gambling with terrible odds. But Tim told me, what other choice does he have? And that really sums up the terrible situation so many farmers in Yeovil and across the country are facing extreme weather from heat waves and flooding, spiralling costs of fertiliser, fuel and equipment, and growing biosecurity threats from bluetongue and TB. When you throw in terrible government policy, it is a perfect storm waiting to happen. With the time I've got left, I'd like to just touch on a few issues. Raised a lot at my farming forum. Firstly, on sustainable farming.

While DEFRA are saying they have learned lessons for next time, farmers like Tim, Chris, John, Olly and many more want to know if they are going to get recognised for implementing sustainable farming practices now, because lots

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of them quickly. Yes. I'm grateful. He. Talks about learning lessons for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Talks about learning lessons for next time. My constituent from Butterley in Devon wrote to me about the withdrawal, the sudden about the withdrawal, the sudden withdrawal of the SFI. That wasn't this year. That was last year. Does he agree that the government, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he agree that the government, and Defra in particular, can't seem to learn to get this right? I totally agree with my hon. Friend. They can't seem to get it Friend. They can't seem to get it right. And they are failing our farmers across the country because lots of them are saying their own opinion is the only option. Now is intensive farming. That is really worrying for us in South Somerset. As winter comes round and it begins to flood, because our farmers are the front line of prevention and preventing even worsening flooding. More broadly, as we have already heard, farmers need more clarity about how SFI and other schemes are going to develop in the future so they can actually plan ahead.

Secondly, farmers hit by bluetongue and TB want to know what more government is doing to improve our readiness and communication systems for future outbreaks. I hope the Minister can set out when the government will intervene in bring in the new TB strategy. Finally, farmers from Yeovil are really worried more broadly about the future of farming. We have an ageing workforce and recruitment crisis, so I would ask the Minister what steps the government is taking to promote pathways for young people into farming and reduce the financial and admin burdens currently stopping farmers from being able to take young people on.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if this new government really is committed to problem solving, I can think of no better place than start than farming. We all know the problems. It's time to finally get on with the actual work and support our farmers.

18:52

Freddie van Mierlo MP (Henley and Thame, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Steve Van Mierlo.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend for Westmorland. For bringing forward this debate? He was right to express the motion, both in terms of the chaotic handling of SFI by this Labour government, but also by outlining government, but also by outlining the catastrophic mismanagement post-Brexit by the Conservatives. They bear responsibility for the They bear responsibility for the system we have today. Prominent Tories in 2016, including the now Father of the House, said if we Father of the House, said if we leave the EU, the level of subsidy to the farming community will remain exactly the same. Well, tell that to my farmers now.

Vote leave told the Treasury Select Committee. Farmers would get paid at least as much as they get now. The former Tory Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, a former holder of my seat in Henley, said he could 100% guarantee that farmers subsidies would continue or increase after Brexit. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I've just shown why the good people of Henley and Thame no longer wish the likes of Johnson and the Conservatives to represent their interests. Betrayed by the Tories, they said enough is enough. But farmers in my constituency have Henley and Thame have told me how disappointed they are now with Labour and the government.

That just doesn't get farming. A. PR and BP are with a prime examples of that, but there are more. SFI is the latest. One of my local farmers has put it best. Applications should not be a scramble for Oasis tickets, he told me. It's an appalling way to treat farmers and how they care for our farmed environment. Another, Jack Burchmore, who leads the Henley Young Farmers group, said they didn't even know when the window was going to open what time, so they sat there waiting for it. This is not a serious way to treat people, is it?

Another one of my wonderful local farmers has described to me how lucky they were to apply for SFI 26 in the short window. It was open and received the agreement, but they're now describe a feeling of guilt when so many others are in even more dire financial situations. So I'd like to press directly to the government. Her ideas. First, an early application window for SFI 27, with applications open in February, ready to start as soon as we hit the new financial year. Second, a priority for those farmers whose existing SFI or mid tier agreements are ending.

Failure to do so quickly will mean farmers ripping up their environmental areas in the spring and instead planting crop. Third, a better application process, faster than faster than fastest finger, and fourth, above all, a larger Budget for SFI farmers face a perilous time. Further, extreme weather could push many more farms out of business. With such global uncertainty, is it not time to back British farmers.

18:55

Manuela Perteghella MP (Stratford-on-Avon, Liberal Democrat)

- -

In Manuela Perteghella? Thank >> In Manuela Perteghella? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Farmers in my constituency are Stratford-on-Avon and across the country have been left totally bewildered and deeply anxious by this government handling of the SFI. The scheme, although flawed, was meant to reward good farming and environmental stewardship. Instead, farmers who had spent time preparing applications log on, ready to apply, only to discover that the available Budget had been exhausted almost immediately. This is no way to treat the people who produce our food and are doing what they can to care for our countryside. The government's approach has reduced what should be a strategic, long term partnership with farmers into a lottery.

Farmers need certainty and the confidence to invest. They need to know that when government asks them to change, the way they farm, they support will be there. One of my constituent farmers summed up the mood when they contacted me. They wrote, morale is rock bottom within the industry. Many farm businesses are on the brink. We need a sensible payment system to give us confidence, and we should also not ignore that this kind of prolonged uncertainty means for farmers mental wellbeing. At a time when we know that mental health challenges are widespread within the farming community, Ministers should be doing everything possible to provide stability and reassurance, rather than creating uncertainty.

To wait until 2027 is deeply unfair to farming and to nature. So will the Ministers make additional funding available for eligible farmers who were excluded through no fault of their own, including my constituents? And how will the farmers continue to deliver the environmental outcomes the government expects? If access to the very schemes designed to support the work and disappear in a matter of hours, these failures come on top of cuts to DEFRA Budget and ongoing uncertainty over the future of environmental land management schemes, farmers have been asked to do more with less, while receiving fewer guarantees about the support available to them.

Instead, farmers should be rewarded properly for delivering food security, restoring nature, capturing carbon and tackling climate change. But they need support. They need the government who's got their back. Ministers must work with the sector, learn from this shambles and ensure they never again are farmers forced into a first come, first served scramble for support. Our farmers deserve a government that sees them as partners and treats them with the respect they deserve.

18:58

Charlie Maynard MP (Witney, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you. >> Charlie Maynard on. Five minutes. >> Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again. The latest round of sustainable. Farming centre was a disaster for small farmers, including many in my Witney constituency. They were counting on this money as a counting on this money as a lifeline after another impossibly difficult year. As one local farmer wrote to me, it is madness to set a deadline and then require a field by field online application process by field online application process with a limited Budget and a first come, first served basis. No public money should be allocated this way, let alone money farmers were relying on to stay afloat.

So I welcome the Minister's commitment to scrap the first come, first served basis for 2027. But what's most disappointing is that this chaos was entirely predictable. The government abandoned the rolling scheme. The sector warned loudly that Prime Minister's extra 50 million would barely touch the sides, and the scheme ran out within the day, within six hours. Of course, the Conservatives laid the ground for this. They began phasing out the basic payment scheme the support farmers have relied on for years, long before its replacement was ready. They cut farmers income first and ask questions later, while hundreds of millions of the farming Budget went unspent.

Labour has inherited that mess, but it certainly has not fixed it. Farmers now face a perfect storm. The summer's heat and drought are projected to cause the worst harvest on record. That follows a drought hit 2025 harvest and a 2024 harvest that was washed out. Farmers expect to balance bad years against good years, but three awful harvests in a row is unsustainable. And as the climate crisis deepens, there is no reason to think next year will be better. Meanwhile, farming costs are rising at about twice the rate of inflation, with fertiliser up around 35% in a year.

The government lists food as one of the 13 critical national infrastructure sectors, yet the farmers are at the foundation of that chain and get support that is wholly inadequate. Farmers need a payment system that rewards both growing food and restoring nature. They also need help to invest in resilience, such as better irrigation and on farm reservoirs. So alongside reviewing the process and the Budget for next year's scheme, what additional funding will the government provide to help farmers adapt and future

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proof their businesses here? There we have it. We come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Sarah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson, Sarah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's an honour to close this debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We chose to use our opposition day on support for farmers because farmers are the backbone of rural communities across the country, and today's debate has shown just how

19:01

Sarah Dyke MP (Glastonbury and Somerton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

today's debate has shown just how deeply that is felt. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale opened by outlining how the Liberal Democrats will reform SFI. So every farmer is allocated a sum via SFI, which is consistent with the capacity of their farm theirs to claim within a long window. And the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and EFRA Select Committee chair, reminded us that we are. And farmers are in the middle of a perfect storm. Now, we've heard from members on all sides about farmers who prepared SFI applications for months on end, only to be shut out in an afternoon in Glastonbury and Somerton.

This is not an abstract issue. It is about whether family farms can play, can plan not just for next year, but for the years and generations ahead. On the 22nd of September, the second window opened with £233 million. By 3:48 p.m. it had shut. Now, farmers deserve better than a Glastonbury ticket scramble. At least festival goers know when the fallow years are coming. Farmers who missed out have been handed one with no warning at all. One farmer from Curry rival wrote to me and described the process simply as a disaster and the money has been shared out badly, not just too thinly.

Window one left £3 million unallocated. Yet window two was oversubscribed within hours and the scramble did not fall evenly. The EFRA Select Committee survey recently found that 60% of respondents could not submit before the window closed. Only 31% of those running farm businesses were successful, compared with 68% of those with land agents. That's a two tier system. Those that can afford an advisor are waved through the farm gate, while those who cannot afford it are left out in the field now. Until it was privatised in 1997, aid gave farmers free, independent advice provided by the state.

Today, if you can't afford an agent, you're on your own. That was not just bad luck. Defra's own forecasts, made in April and May, modelled the window, closing on its very first day, predicting 12,200 applications. On the day, 12,204 were submitted, just four more than were forecast. DEFRA saw it coming, and nearly 2900 farmers started an application they were never able to submit. Others were let down by DEFRA IT systems. Tom Kimber, who farms at Higher Stafford Farm in Charlton Musgrove, had an agreement coming to an end. He applied in window two and missed out because of technical problems.

He was assured farmers like him would be given a route back in. He has heard nothing since. Tom wants to deliver for the environment, and we know that demand for SFI proves thousands of other farmers are doing just that too. But that commitment is not being matched by a government that understands the scheme. Last week, the Minister told the House that first come, first served will end and I welcome that. But you can't feed a whole farm herd from a trough that is simply too small, as NFU has asked. With expiring agreements worth over £520 million and a Budget across both windows at just £310 million, where has the missing funding gone?

Around 8800 of this autumn's applicants have have agreements ending in February. Now Clare, who farms near Puckington, is one of them. For years she has protected the river margins on her land, slowing runoff, filtering pollution and giving wildlife space to thrive. SFI was meant to be her way forward. Now those margins have no funding. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I move on to the Conservatives at a failure to support British farmers, can I remind the shadow Minister that the Liberal Democrats were the first party to oppose the family farm tax, which includes BPR and April.

Now the Conservatives the Conservatives can't escape their share of the blame for the chaos farmers are facing today. They designed SFI on a first come, first serve basis. They botched the transition from basic payment schemes. They let farming budgets fall behind inflation, and they signed trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand that undercut British farmers. But this government cannot keep hiding behind its predecessor. It chose to accelerate the phase out of direct payments whilst stop starting SFI, so that for the first time since 1945, farmers have no universal payment offer at all. It imposed the family farm tax and it cut the DEFRA and farming budgets.

The Liberal Democrats warned this would happen now. I wrote to the former Secretary of State in July, before the first window closed, asking how the department would stop window to meeting this exact fate. Now, all of this as our farmers face one of their worst years in memory. Mark Humphrey, who farms at our brewers and chairs the NFU Somerset, has described a torrid 18 months. Milk prices are down at £0.32 per litre, selling for £0.08 less than it cost to produce. Maize. Yields are down 10 to 15%, but our farmers must be profitable, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Yet Somerset also shows what is possible with long term certainty. Now. Last week I met Damon Bridge of the RSPB and the Greater Sedgemoor Landscape Recovery Team on Northmoor, near Langport, where farmers and conservation groups are working together across 4000 hectares 20 year agreements. Not a window that slams shut in an afternoon, but only a handful of landscape recovery projects have reached delivery and farmers need to know these will actually happen because food security is national security. Madam Deputy Speaker, all of this comes back to one question can this country feed itself? We produce only around 60% of the food we eat.

Between 2019 and 2024, the farming Budget was frozen at £2.4 million, while import import input costs rose by 44%. With war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East, food security is national security. But yet this government still does not treat it as a priority. That is why I won't for time. That is why I brought forward my Good Food bill, now Liberal Democrat policy with binding targets for domestic food production and an annual food security audit reported to this House, and action to drive down food waste. And it's why we have long called for an extra £1 billion a year for environmental land management schemes.

So every eligible farmer who applied in good faith gets an agreement. So there's a proper bridge for the 8800 farmers whose agreements are ending. And we invest in the training and technology that cut farmers costs for the long term, not fairer rationing, but a bigger pot. And with the Budget next week, the Chancellor has the perfect opportunity to deliver it. So will the Minister answer four simple questions? First, what will be different next year? So a family farm without an agent has the same chance as an estate with one. And will she look at restoring free, independent advice services for smaller farms?

Second, will she guarantee that farmers like Tom, who missed out because Defra's own IT failures were not lose out again? And will she confirm whether any money from window two is left unallocated? And if so, how much? And third, will she open SFI 2027 early in the New year, or even before that, and publish its Budget now? So no farmer with an expiring agreement faces a gap from April next year. And fourth, will she press the Chancellor to use next week's Budget to properly fund these schemes our farmers depend on? And can she confirm the Defra Budget will not be cut?

Madam Deputy Speaker, our farmers have got their side of the deal. They've adapted to the end of the basic payment scheme prepared for scheme after scheme and kept growing our food through soaring costs, extreme weather, disease outbreaks and attacks that threatens their livelihoods. What they haven't had is a government, conservative or labour, that keeps its side of the deal. this motion offers a way forward long term funding for every eligible applicant reversing the farm, family farm tax and a comprehensive national food strategy, and an extra £1 billion a year for the schemes our farmers depend on.

Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because a nation that cannot feed itself cannot protect itself. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If you're ready, Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I start by thanking hon. Members from both sides of the House for their contributions throughout the debate and for throughout the debate and for sharing issues raised by farmers and rural communities across our country. And can I thank the country. And can I thank the opposition spokesperson for raising these important matters, too? Let

19:10

Stephen Morgan MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Portsmouth South, Labour)

- -

19:21

Division

The. Yes. >> The question is, as on the Order Paper as many of that opinion say, Paper as many of that opinion say, I of the contrary, no. know the Colleagues, Colleagues, colleagues should be observing the chamber and should be seated. Should be seated. Marcus. The question is as on the order papers made that opinion say, I of the contrary, no. know Tellers for the ayes or Will Forster and Bobby Dean Tellers for the noes. Order. Order. Order! Order. Order! The Order. Order! The ayes Order. Order! The ayes to Order. Order! The ayes to the Order.

Order! The ayes to the right. Order. Order! The ayes to the right. 57. The noes to the left. 279. The ayes to the right. 57. The nose to the nose. To the left. 279. To the The noes have it. the nose. Have it unlock. Point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker. Point of order. Sorcha Eastwood.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House may be aware of alarming press reports that Jeffrey

19:33

Points of Order

press reports that Jeffrey Donaldson, a former member of this House and my predecessor in Lagan Valley, is under police investigation over allegations of rape within the Houses of Parliament. This follows his sentencing last week to 15 years sentencing last week to 15 years for 18 charges of non-recent child sexual abuse crimes, including the rape of a child under the age of 13. rape of a child under the age of 13. Clearly, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a live police investigation and I would not wish to prejudice it. However, I know that former and current members of staff on this estate may be deeply affected by these reports.

What advice can the chair give and how we can support those who are distressed by this news, and on how we can encourage anyone with concerns to come forward?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I thank the hon. Member for bringing the point of order to my attention. This will, of course, be highly concerning allegations for highly concerning allegations for all in the parliamentary community. The Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service can advise and Wellbeing Service can advise and assist on the range of support available for anyone affected by these reports, and there are these reports, and there are established mechanisms for anyone with concerns wishing to come forward. While of course, any forward. While of course, any criminal allegations should be made to the appropriate authorities. I'll give the Frontbenches a moment or two to shuffle over.

or two to shuffle over. Right, or two to shuffle over. Right, we now come to motion number six relating to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Jessica Morden on the Order Paper. That opinion say aye. Aye Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to motion number seven relating to the Scottish Affairs Committee. question.

19:35

Remaining Orders of the Day

>> Is, as on the Order Paper. Is that say aye. The contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to motion number eight relating to the Women and Morden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Morden. I beg to move. The question is, as on the order papers. May that opinion say I of papers. May that opinion say I of the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to presentation of public petitions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

presentation of public petitions. Petition Sarah. Madam Deputy Speaker, I present this petition regarding the severe delays in the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the government to take urgent action to restore a reliable pension service for current and former civil servants, including by publishing its assessment of whether capita met its 30th September commitment,

19:36

Petitions

setting out what action it will take following the missed 30th of June deadline. Prioritising bereavement cases and setting a firm date by which all outstanding claims will be resolved. And strengthening oversight so that public servants are never again let down by a failing outsourced contract. And the petitioners

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remain, etc. Petition civil service pension

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scheme. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn and I call Steve Yemm on mine workers pension schemes in Nottinghamshire.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

schemes in Nottinghamshire. Steve Yemm Madam Deputy Speaker

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Steve Yemm Madam Deputy Speaker Before I start, I want to say something about today's date. 60 years ago, a colliery spoil tip gave way above the village of Aberfan and slid down onto Pantglas Junior School. 116 children and 28

19:37

Adjournment: Mineworkers' pension schemes in Nottinghamshire

adults were killed, and anyone who grew up in a coalfield knows the name of Aberfan. It's part of our shared history and the people of that village of Sarah every day since. And I know that the whole house will have this in our thoughts today. I'm grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the chance tonight to raise an issue that matters a great deal to people in Mansfield, across Nottinghamshire, in former coalfields right across the country. That is the pensions of men and women who worked in our pits, and whether we're finally going to give them everything that they are owed.

I'll give way and I'm going to take as many interventions as possible. But I would ask members to be brief. Please, please. I genuinely thank Please, please. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for giving way. I had one of those dreaded calls this week from a family member to say week from a family member to say that somebody that I'd been representing, a resident of mine had passed away without getting the justice. These people gave blood, sweat and tears for our country. Isn't it time we gave them their justice? Yeah.

Well, I.

19:38

Steve Yemm MP (Mansfield, Labour)

- -

19:52

Blair McDougall MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Jointly with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

- -

Here. >> Minister Blair McDougall. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Mansfield for securing this debate Mansfield for securing this debate for his leadership on behalf of miners, but also for taking the time to recognise and remember today's anniversary. The poet Ron Cook described Aravan as the day when the world stood still and the mountain moved. Aberfan was one of those tragedies that so overwhelming in its injustice that it's painful to think about. But that is precisely why it is essential to remember. The speech also brought to mind a story I read of the Victoria Colliery disaster in my own constituency, where 63 men and boys were killed.

The bodies were laid out in the churchyard of Saint John's Church in Barrhead, and local women faced the unimaginable horror of having to identify the remains not just of a husband but of a son. I'll come to what miners are owed in a moment, but it is right that we recognise the start of this debate, that those debts cannot be repaid by anyone. My hon. Friend says that this is not about money, but as we discuss the money and pension schemes and its distribution, we remember that my God, miners earned every penny of it. As the hon.

Member will know well, the British Coal superannuation scheme dates back to 1946 and the Mineworkers Pension Scheme to 1952. The British Coal Board, when it was privatised in 1994. The schemes were then closed to new entrants and the remaining employees were given the rights to participate in successor schemes. The government of the day gave the mineworkers a guarantee the value of the fund would not decrease, ensuring pensions would continue to be paid while taking half of any surplus on the investment. The other half could be used to improve benefits through bonus pensions for the miners scheme.

The surplus sharing arrangement is continued, although this government has not taken any money from the scheme since we came to power in 2024. For the British Coal Staff Scheme, the surface surplus sharing arrangement was ended in 2015 and future benefits were fixed, ensuring pensions could be paid, with the aim of returning the reserve to government in 2033. Since the 2015 changes, the scheme's investments have performed well, building up a reserve of £2.3 billion. I join with hon. Members in paying tribute to the campaigners who all the way through this, have spoken up for miners and ensuring that they get what they deserve.

Today, there remain almost 150,000 members of the two schemes, the vast majority of whom are receiving their pension. 5000 of those are in the hon. Member's constituency and 37,000 across the East Midlands. The average age of those members is. Other hon. Members have referred to across those two schemes is 76 years old. The group includes 30,000 widows with an average age of 84 years old. We owe former mining communities that debt of gratitude for their contribution to national prosperity, and we must acknowledge and recognise the hard work and sacrifice of coal miners who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powered this country for decades. Thank you very much. For giving way. I must declare

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. I must declare an interest. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm a member of the Mineworkers I'm a member of the Mineworkers Pension Scheme. Former miner, probably the only miner in the probably the only miner in the Commons at this moment in time, we must recognise the fact that the the Labour Party had in its the Labour Party had in its manifesto in 2017, 2019 and 2024 seeking justice for the mineworkers within the pension scheme. It was only when you get elected, you're allowed to represent and deliver on your manifesto. And let me just say that we actually did that.

We made a huge difference only a few months ago. There's a lot more to do, and I'm going to ask the Minister the same as what other people have asked. Can he give assurances to the members of the Mineworkers Pension Scheme, the families, the widows, that you'll do everything in his power to make sure in the Budget next week the full justice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is restored to miners in our coalfields. Mr. Magoo? Well, I pay tribute to his work on behalf of miners throughout his life. I will come to the specifics of the scheme and ask him in a of the scheme and ask him in a moment. But he is absolutely right that it is. Issues like this are exactly why all of us came into exactly why all of us came into politics in the first place. To politics in the first place. To deliver for those those individuals. Previous governments have failed to ensure that former British Coal employees got the level of pension that they deserved in 2021.

The then Select Committee, looking at the Mineworkers Pension Scheme, recommended that the government took no further funds from the scheme, transferred the reserve to scheme members and reviewed the surplus sharing arrangements. That conservative government declined to accept those recommendations and miners, as my hon. Friend has just said, deserve those historic wrongs to be righted. That is why the government is implementing those recommendations. In respect of both schemes, we continue to guarantee both schemes, ensuring that schemes, pensions will always be paid in 2024 has been said. One of the first decisions we made was to transfer the £1.5 billion investment reserve in the miners scheme for use as bonus pensions.

The hard work of the MPs behind me meant that that increased income by 32%, an average of £29 per week. We have also transferred the £2.3 billion equivalent within the British Coal staff scheme, and that has led to a 41% increase in pension incomes last December, backdated to November 2024. On average, this meant an extra £100 a week in scheme members pockets and, as has been said in the into the local economies within their communities. That is direct support for pensioners and local communities which powered this country for decades. But as everyone in this debate has said, there is more to do.

My hon. Friend raises important questions, and we are in that terrible pre-budget period where I know lots of people stand at this despatch box and ask for patience, and I have to do the same. But I also say that with the recognition, as has been said, that we are dealing with people who are incredibly advanced in their in their years and cannot afford to wait indefinitely. We have been discussing proposals for future arrangements for the scheme with the trustees, including the potential for those future surpluses to be used to enhance benefits, and we have been making good progress.

The government will make an announcement once that agreement has been formally reached, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible with also, as others have said, managing wider funding risks. The government and trustees have had very constructive discussions, and I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be in a position to announce a way forward shortly, and I will continue to work with hon. Members towards that end.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn as many that opinion, do now adjourn as many that opinion, say I. I the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order, order!

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page