Agriculture: Government Support

Debate between Danny Chambers and Richard Foord

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that issue. Last year, farmers were devastated by the overnight closure of the sustainable farming incentive, which came with no notice. I welcome the Secretary of State’s pledge at the Oxford farming conference in January that there would be no further unexpected closures of that scheme, but I did not get the sense in my conversation last week that confidence has been restored fully since that overnight closure of SFI.

Small producers are disproportionately disadvantaged under the new SFI scheme. Payment caps raise serious issues about long-term farm profitability. The system appears not to have been designed around farmers and what they want, but rather around bureaucracy and administrative convenience. The Liberal Democrats would invest in agriculture, including an additional £1 billion a year to support sustainable, domestic food production, improving our skills, resilience and supply, rather than leaving our farmers at the mercy of global markets.

Thirdly, I would like to talk about planning concerns. As I understand it, there are delays in the planning systems across local authorities that are preventing farmers from doing the right thing. Last week, I talked to one who had applied for a cover on a slurry store and was still waiting, eight months later, for a verdict on whether he could go ahead and make the modification.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I was speaking to farmers in Winchester just two weeks ago, and planning is a huge issue, whether they want to put in a new slurry lagoon or repurpose a barn, with a wait of more than 18 months. The process is very opaque and there is no set timeline. It is impossible to make business decisions if no timeline is given as to when they might even be told when they will have to supply information to get the planning permission.

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend is right. From what I understand, there is a national shortage of planning officers, and many of them are stretched across a number of things; they might be looking at applications for big housing developments. Sometimes, farm improvements that are geared towards improving environmental practices are quite low down the list for some of those planning officers. I question whether we might have dedicated planning officers who specifically look at some of the applications from farms. That would make a huge difference by improving the contribution of farmers to the environment.

To recap, we are calling on the Government to reduce exposure to volatile global inputs by supporting domestic fertiliser production. We are calling for a tax policy that recognises that family farms need stability, rather than the Government adding to global shocks with one or two of their own. We need farm support schemes that are predictable, accessible and fair, alongside systems for planning developments that work towards following clear timetables, rather than deadlines that continue to slip.

Farmers are doing their best in very trying circumstances. They are adapting and innovating, and trying to produce food for all of us while under immense economic pressure. They do not need warm words from the Government—they do not need “monitoring”. What they need now is a Government that are prepared to take action to match their rhetoric. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Debate between Danny Chambers and Richard Foord

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Chambers]

I completely agree about the importance of demonstrating international leadership on this issue. If international support declines, from us and other countries, an additional 10 million new HIV infections, including up to 880,000 in children, could occur by 2030. Those are preventable deaths—people who could be alive this time next year if we choose differently and maintain funding.

Tuberculosis, often called a Victorian superbug, is on the rise again, with cases in England up 13% last year. Globally, it remains one of the leading infectious killers. It is largely preventable, treatable, and curable in the vast majority of cases, yet is too often neglected. Malaria is a microscopic parasite, spread by something as small as a mosquito, that continues to kill half a million people a year. There is a saying, “If you think you are too small to make a difference, you have never spent the night in a tent with a mosquito.” We know what works: mosquito nets, repellents, rapid tests and education. The challenge is not the science but the access. The tools exist but too many communities cannot afford or reach them.

When it comes to global public health,

“Nobody wins unless everybody wins.”

Those are not my words but Bruce Springsteen’s. They apply just as much to global health as they do to any other struggle. If we allow international health systems to weaken and turn our backs on collaboration, we are failing not only others but ourselves. Every time we strengthen a health system abroad, we strengthen Britain’s safety at home. We reduce the risk of the next pandemic reaching our shores, protect supply chains, stabilise economies and open new opportunities for trade and innovation.

If we invest now, we can cement the UK’s reputation as a global leader in health innovation, not just through our laboratories and universities, but through partnerships such as the Global Fund that translate research into real-world impact. British expertise in vaccine development, diagnostics and data science already help to shape programmes that have saved lives across the world. Continued investment allows us to share knowledge, strengthen health systems and, in doing so, build influence and resilience that benefit the UK and our global partners.

We also need to be honest about the wider picture. The UK’s official development assistance budget has already been reduced from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income. The Government are now reducing it further, to around 0.3% by 2027. The Fleming Fund, which monitors and helps to tackle antimicrobial resistance, has been scaled back, and the UK’s contribution to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has fallen from about £1.65 billion to £1.25 billion for the next funding cycle, which is a real-terms reduction of roughly 40%.

Taken together, those decisions risk sending a message that Britain is retreating from its proud record of global health leadership. If we are serious about being a world leader in science, public health and international development, maintaining our commitment to the Global Fund is one of the clearest and most effective ways to show it. A rushed transition from global aid to self-financing, forced by rapid funding reductions, will result in direct harm through reduced healthcare, stock-outs of essential medicines and untimely deaths. When this is done in the context of infectious disease, the long-term cost will rise in exchange for short-term savings.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about infectious disease. The cost of the malaria vaccine is now thought to be just under $5 a dose, which is amazing purchasing power. By contrast, the UK, under the last Government, who are not represented here today, was spending 29% of UK aid on in-country donor costs—that is, on hotel accommodation. Does he think this money could be better spent?