Support for Farmers

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and James Naish

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

When the Labour Rural Research Group polled rural voters in the summer of 2025, 75% of them told us that their communities had been neglected over the past 15 years. Over half, 51.3%, said that agriculture and the rural economy should get more Government spending—a higher share than for any priority except the NHS. People really do care about this agenda, and it is important that we on these Benches remember that.

There is no doubt that there was exceptional demand for SFI26; that demonstrates farmers’ desire to invest in their soil, hedgerows, crops and wildlife. That was partly anticipated, which is why the Government allocated an additional £20 million in window 2, on top of the £50 million announced by the Prime Minister in August. I am pleased that, through this scheme, we have nearly £1 billion of investment in nature-friendly farming, as part of the £11.8 billion in funding for sustainable farming in this Parliament.

The good news is that SFI26 was allocated; the Tories did not manage that. But farmers had been preparing for months, and some were left part of the way through applications that could not be completed. The Government have acknowledged that too many farmers who hoped for an agreement have been left disappointed. I welcome that acknowledgement, but acknowledging a problem is where fixing it must begin, and we need to see the co-design of a new system very quickly. We need the IT systems at the Rural Payments Agency reformed, and we need a much clearer and more transparent road map for future application timelines.

I agree with the part of the motion that covers some of the failings of the previous Government. The motion

“regrets the previous Government’s decision to design the SFI on a first come, first served basis”.

It also regrets the trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and it is true that the Conservatives left a transition that was half built and half funded. On trade, the former Secretary of State, Michael Gove, has admitted that the Conservatives negotiated poorly with Australia and New Zealand.

There are therefore serious questions that need answering ahead of next year’s scheme. First, the National Farmers’ Union has said that any decrease in income jeopardises future business planning, so when will the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commit to a date for SFI27? Secondly, there is potentially the gap mentioned earlier today: £520 million of agreements are due to expire. In the Minister’s view, is that accurate? If so, what are the Government doing about it? Thirdly, I seek clarity on the timing for those whose applications failed because of the system’s technical problems. Fourthly, on horticulture and smaller farms, SFI must work for market gardens and smaller growers; the 3 hectare minimum for SFI26 shut some of them out altogether. Can that be reconsidered?

[Mr Carmichael]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we neglect at our peril the sheer extra cost of administration for SFI, as compared with the basic payment scheme. Baroness Batters has remarkable figures on that in her report. Does he agree, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), that one of the advantages of a more universal system is that it would be hardwired in for food production, and would be much cheaper to administer?

[James Naish]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks from a position of expertise. He is right that the more complicated we make a system, the more expensive it is to administer. I know that Ministers are looking into how a system that is not “first come, first served” might work; there are risks with that, and we should acknowledge that in this place. It is not a silver bullet by any stretch of the imagination.

I notice that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), did not mention the word “profitability” in his contribution. However, that is an essential point in any debate on farming. Baroness Batters’ “Farming Profitability Review” notes that the farming budget in England has hovered around that £2.4 billion figure since 2007, but the input costs are forecast to be 30% higher this year than in 2020. We need to be clear about the essential mission for farming. The aim is a countryside where farms are less dependent on subsidy and scheme windows, and more independent, resilient and sustainable—for people, profit and our planet. That is the thread that ran through the Batters review, and it is also the thread that ran through the Labour Rural Research Group’s report on the rural economy.