What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Time after time, the previous Energy Secretary stood in this House and told us that drilling in the North sea would not bring down domestic prices. Just today, the Prime Minister has stood at that Dispatch Box and said that prices will come down as a result of drilling in the North sea. Who is right: the former Energy Secretary or the Prime Minister? [Hon. Members: “No, he didn’t.] Yes, he did.
I support the principle of the Bill and obviously will not oppose it. May I ask the Minister to unpack the point he just made about the role of the Prime Minister in conveying the advice of the Church on appointments? That is exactly how it works at the moment. As the Minister said, the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, and ultimately it is the sovereign who has authority to make episcopal appointments. Does he agree that the Prime Minister has a function to play in the advice given to the sovereign, or does he think this is purely a procedural matter in which the Prime Minister is simply transmitting advice that he receives from the Church hierarchy?
The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech. Does he agree with me that the value of this Bill is that it could strengthen the Church of England and reconnect it with the political community of which it is properly a part? Does he agree with me that, as I said when I intervened on the Minister, it is not right to leave the appointment of bishops purely to the bureaucrats at Church House and committees there, and that it is a proper subject for politics? We have heard the suggestion that this is a second-order priority, and I recognise that there are more pressing concerns for the country, but this stuff matters—Gladstone thought the most important part of his job as Prime Minister was appointing bishops. My concern about the debate so far is that the Bill has been interpreted as some great step of progressive modernisation that clearly ends with the exclusion of Christianity from political life altogether. Does he agree that what we actually we need to do is strengthen the role of the Church of England in the political community and remind the Prime Minister of this very important part of his or her job?
I am sorry to jump up again, but I want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman. That was no doubt the case in the 19th century, but if he reads the brilliant book by Mark Vickers called “God In Number 10”, which is a history of 20th century Prime Ministers from Balfour to Blair, he will see that it is an opposite story. The book is a remarkable account of how very different Prime Ministers all took their responsibilities seriously, as the right hon. Gentleman said, right up to John Major. They honoured the fact that different dioceses had different traditions, and they tried to ensure that there was ecumenical balance in the Church of England. I do not think it is beyond a Prime Minister of any party to take their job seriously, think about the right balance of the Church of England and maintain the broad church. What we do not want bureaucrats in the Church of England appointing each other, which is what we have at the moment—that is why they are all left wing. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that we need a genuinely broad church that includes people from different political traditions.
Gas can help balance the grid, but if we are serious about energy security and decarbonisation, we need a clean and reliable source of baseload power—something the Jackdaw field cannot provide. Does the Minister agree that the Gwyndod nuclear project on Ynys Môn can help meet that need, and will he work with me to ensure its smooth delivery so that the energy security benefits can be realised as soon as possible?
Q11. At Guilford’s probation hostel, experienced staff are being refused skilled worker visa sponsorship because their salaries fall below the Government threshold, despite earning over £42,000 when essential overtime is included. I understand from local probation management that this could affect hundreds of staff across the 104 probation hostels in England and Wales at a time when probation services are already under huge pressure from the Government’s early release scheme. The Government have made special visa provision for prison officers, so why not for probation staff, who also protect the public? Will the Prime Minister review these rules urgently before experienced probation staff are lost from the service, which is already stretched to breaking point?
Today is not a good day for any campaigner pressing for urgent action on climate change. I know that many of my Bath constituents—particularly young people—will be deeply concerned and disappointed. The Government have justified their position by saying that Jackdaw will create new jobs and boost growth. Will they clarify which jobs will boost growth? I do not mean jobs that rely on a Jackdaw worker buying a sandwich—anybody working in any sector can buy a sandwich—but jobs that will be directly created by Jackdaw and otherwise would not exist.
Agriculture accounts for around 15% of economic activity in my constituency, from the Howe, the bread basket 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 and larger producers such as Kettle Produce, specialists in prepared vegetables for major retailers, and Quaker Oats in Cupar, which is supplied by arable farmers across the area. I regularly visit and engage with people across the sector in North East Fife and I want to take a minute to remember the Earl of Lindsay, lately of the other place, who passed away earlier this month and who was a constituent of mine. A Fife farmer, landscape gardener, conservationist and a Scotland Office Minister under John Major for the three Fs—farming, fishing and forestry—he was a dedicated person in the industry post 1997. My thoughts are with his widow Diana and family at this time. I commend the local mid-Scotland and Fife NFUS for organising regular sessions with both MPs and MSPs to keep us up to date. Just last week, I was at Balbirnie Home Farms learning about their low-input farming approach. Before our recent recess, I visited South Straiton Farm in Balmullo, meeting Duncan Pickard. He was very keen that I say in this Chamber that I had met a happy farmer, and now I have, but the reality 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 in 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 Timms report with interest, having engaged with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). If anything, the challenges facing farmers have become more acute. I say to the shadow Minister that we both stood outside Parliament during farmer protests with signs saying “Family farm tax” and I think we all knew what we meant: both the changes to inheritance tax and to business property relief. There is no doubt that those things have left families worrying about the future of their businesses. I also want to highlight the recruitment of seasonal workers, which is badly needed to harvest the excellent produce grown in North East Fife. I would like assurances from the Minister that the seasonal agricultural workers scheme will extend beyond 2029. Farmers cannot invest in the future if they do not have the certainty that they will have the workforce they need to get food out of the fields now. In Scotland, we have the future farming investment scheme, which is intended to provide certainty for farmers through to 2030, but Scottish Ministers 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. Sometimes, frankly, 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 who is unaware of their role in mitigating against climate changes. On that note, I would like to invite everybody in the Chamber, at the conclusion of the debate, to attend the 25th anniversary of the Voluntary Initiative, which meets in the Churchill Room this evening.
I thank my hon. Friend so much for securing this debate. I have the example of Annette, who is in her 70s and cares for her son. She has been forced to move twice when landlords have sold up, and she fears that she cannot afford the next rise. My hon. Friend talks about the costs. Citizens Advice locally highlights the fact that the frozen local housing allowance is now 20% to 25% lower than local rents, and record levels of people are at risk of homelessness. Does he agree that that reiterates the case? The Government must look at unfreezing local housing allowance and linking it to local rent?
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. My area also supposedly has a low level of crime, but residents in Tring talk about antisocial behaviour, residents in Harpenden have taken up private security, and Anna from Berkhamsted says she has not seen a police officer for years. My hon. Friend mentioned that online crime and community policing go hand in hand. Does she agree that one way of tackling this is by looking at it holistically and having a proper online crime agency, funded by big tech, so that we can then properly fund and resource community policing?
Joining my local Jewish community to celebrate Sukkot in Berkhamsted and seeing how the children were joyously celebrating was heartwarming, but then seeing how they have to have security there to stay safe is heartbreaking and hearing how they have to hide their faith is absolutely devastating. Sir David Bell’s survey revealed that many students believe reported antisemitic incidents will not be addressed. What steps will the Secretary of State take to rebuild student trust, and how will she improve the reporting system so that it leads to proper accountability?
You are summing up what so many of my farmers are facing. I have one farmer in Sandridge who says that he is closing his doors because he feels that the Government are not listening. There is also an impact on the environment. For Guy and Susannah in Great Gaddesden, the shortfall because of the extreme weather means that there are 6.6 million fewer bowls of porridge from one farm. Does my hon. Friend agree not only that that is important, but that this is a crisis moment? The Government have to listen, because this is about not only farmers, but our food security.
I beg to move, That this House regrets the Government’s chaotic opening of the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) 2026 application window on 22 September 2026; notes that the scheme’s budget was exhausted within hours, leaving many farmers unable to apply after months of preparation; further regrets the previous Government’s decision to design the SFI on a first come, first served basis and its post-Brexit trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which fundamentally undermined British farmers, their £358 million underspend in agricultural budget, and decisions to effectively cut farmers’ incomes in their approach to phasing out direct payments; further notes that the Government’s decision to accelerate the direct payments phase-out whilst stop-starting new schemes like SFI has left farmers with no universal payment offer for the first time since 1945; also regrets the Government’s changes to Agricultural Property Relief and cuts to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and farming budgets; also notes that the lack of an effective payment scheme for farms has undermined their profitability and the UK’s ability to produce food, recover nature and adapt to climate change; notes that farmers are deeply concerned about surging input costs, the impact of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on fertiliser costs, the impact of consecutive bad harvests and the looming crisis in the pig sector; and calls on the Government to guarantee long-term funding for all eligible SFI26 applicants, reverse the family farm tax, and commit to an additional £1 billion a year to properly fund environmental land management schemes. If there was a thin silver lining to Brexit—and that is an “if”—it was the opportunity to design our own bespoke system to reward and support farmers, to care for our environment and to feed our country, but every farmer, certainly in England, knows that at the heart of this debate is the utter, inexcusable failure of both Conservative and Labour Governments to deliver an effective post-Brexit farm payment scheme. That failure has undermined farm profitability and the UK’s food security. It is two and a half years since the Conservatives left office, yet, as Halloween approaches, that Government still loom as a spectre over our rural communities, haunting us all, because this Labour Government refuse to exorcise that ghost, clinging instead to the ghastly Conservative policies that did so much to damage our farmers in Westmorland and beyond. I am in no risk at all of overstating when I say that the last Conservative Government did more harm to British farmers and British farming than any other in UK history: trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that threw our farmers under the bus; a botched Brexit deal that ended overnight British farmers’ access to their biggest external market; and the reckless, rushed removal of the basic payment scheme while new schemes were falteringly introduced at a snail’s pace. Those new schemes have mostly placed hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into the hands of huge non-farmer organisations, while family farmers saw their incomes plummet, such that hill farmers in Cumbria now “enjoy” an average income of less than half the minimum wage—and that is if you assume that they work for 40 hours a week, when it is nearer 90. I do not know if the Conservatives’ attack on our countryside, taking money away from family farms and putting it into the hands of a few large landowners, was deliberate or incompetent, but the results are the same either way—those who we rely on to feed us being treated like dirt. The Liberal Democrats tabled this motion today because I want farmers to know that this House cares about them; that we think that those who get up early each day to feed our country and to protect our planet do the most awesome job in the world; and that they are valued and respected, and that we want a system that reflects that in practice. This debate follows the debacle of the sustainable farming incentive window in September. That catastrophically short window was a long time coming.
I very much agree. My view is that we should be seeking to reopen a window this year, given the number of farmers who were carved out.
That is an issue I will come to, but what my hon. Friend says is absolutely the case. If we have a first come, first served system, then there is no assessment of the quality of bids. I am sure that pretty much all the applications were of a high quality, but differential merit was not taken into account. Farmers were excluded simply because they were milking or otherwise doing their job before the window closed. The SFI was—I think the record will prove this—essentially set up to replace the basic payment scheme. It was implemented disastrously because it was designed disastrously. The Conservative Government failed even to spend the SFI budget when they were in power, underspending the allocation by £358 million. That is money that should have gone to support our farmers and to keep the promises made to them during Brexit—promises that have been broken. Then, in March 2025, with absolutely no notice, this Labour Government closed the SFI programme for the year, leaving hundreds of farmers outside with absolutely nothing. The Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), is not in his place. I must say that, before his removal, he was becoming an increasingly important advocate for farmers within Government. He apologised for the closure of the SFI, explaining that the scheme was a good one, but that because the application process inherited from the Conservatives was first come, first served, funds were being allocated neither wisely nor fairly, as my hon. Friends have already highlighted. I remain outraged at that closure in 2025, but the former Farming Minister’s point about the Tory’s first come, first served process is well made. A first come, first served process means that Government funding is allocated randomly at best, not achieving best value for the taxpayer. Even worse, it means that funding disproportionately goes to those farms that are big enough to be able to afford land agents, to be able to have a large farm staff, or to be able to spend much time away from farming to fill out forms. Meanwhile, farmers working 90 hours a week up Langdale, up Longsleddale or in the Eden valley, producing our food, caring for our countryside, with low incomes, get systematically shut out by accident or by design; the impact remains horrific either way. The Government pledged to learn lessons from the 2025 disaster, so along came 22 September this year, when sustainable farming incentive funds ran out and the drawbridge got pulled up after less than six hours. I have spoken to hill farmers, protecting some of the world’s most epic landscapes but struggling with dodgy wi-fi in their valley so they got nothing. I have spoken to dairy farmers who just popped out to tend their cattle and got back to their computer to discover that they had got nothing. I have spoken to land agents, heartbroken and ashamed that the majority of small farms that they bid on behalf of had got nothing. There are farmers who had all their basic payment taken away and had literally nothing else to look forward to apart from the SFI, yet the system closed in less than a day and they got nothing. The Government have learnt nothing from the damage the Conservatives did, so will the Minister return with a scheme this autumn that ensures that farmers who had viable SFI applications are funded and not left out in the cold?
There was indeed an SFI window earlier in the year, but the bulk of applicants were aiming for SFI window 2 in 2026, and of course a huge number of them were cut out simply because of the way in which the system was set up. Liberal Democrats are determined to put this right. With our biggest parliamentary presence in this place in more than a century, we humbly seek to be in government after the next election. Should we be so, we will be determined to lead the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and we would reform the SFI so that every farmer was allocated a sum via the SFI consistent with the capacity of their farm. That money would be theirs to claim within a long window, so long as they submitted a compliant claim that demonstrated delivery of public goods. There would be no competition as to who could press “send” the quickest. The failings of our farm payment system go far beyond the SFI disaster. At its foundation, this Tory-designed, Labour-delivered scheme is woefully flawed for one fundamental reason: they have given us a farm payment scheme, the bedrock of our agricultural policy, that—would you believe it?—actively disincentivises the production of food. What utter and complete madness. When Britain’s food security is more at risk than at any time since the last war, we now have a farm payment scheme in England that fails to support farmers to produce food. At a time when every other country in the UK and every country in the European Union does provide that support, England is the odd one out. We are failing our farmers and we are failing our people as we sleepwalk into no longer being able to guarantee that we can feed our country. Effectively locking small farmers out of the farm payment scheme is socially unjust. It damages our food security, and it also damages our environment. Many farmers I have spoken to in Westmorland and beyond who have been excluded from the SFI and other schemes are so utterly demoralised and angry that they will now just turn their back on environmental schemes altogether. These are people who have been champions of nature-friendly farming, and whose parents and grandparents have spent decades promoting environmental responsibility on their farms. They do not want to turn their back on sustainable farming, but they have got to pay the rent and feed their kids somehow. An SFI delivered well could have brought every single farmer who had received the basic payment in the past into the environmental big tent. Instead, this combination of cruelty and incompetence leaves thousands outside in the cold, and we cannot now blame them if they choose to intensify and undo the good environmental work of generations that preceded them. Liberal Democrats would reverse the banking tax cuts from the last Parliament and use a portion of that revenue to boost the environmental land management scheme budget by £1 billion. We would allocate an SFI sum to every farm, which would be theirs to claim. We would therefore maximise the number of farms inside environmental schemes, protecting nature, improving water quality, sequestering carbon, protecting urban areas from flooding, and providing access and enjoyment to the millions who visit the lakes, the dales and the rest of Britain’s beautiful countryside. We would revoke the Labour-Conservative consensus by finally making the production of food a public good, funding it as we should and starting the journey back to food security. To be parochial for just a rare moment, the English Lake District was awarded world heritage site status in 2017. When UNESCO made that award, in its assessment of the beauty of those towering landscapes it gave as much credit to the farmers who shaped them as it did to the glaciers that carved them. For a millennium at least, our land has been curated, tended, moulded, protected and nurtured into producing the food that fuels each one of us. How short sighted is it to put all of that at risk? To be personal, the loss of a basic payment, and the failure to include thousands of family farms in replacement schemes as funds instead gravitate to the big estates and the huge non-farmer organisations, has left many families back home in Cumbria bereft. I mean not just financially bereft, but deep heartbroken despair. Just think what it might feel like for if someone’s family had farmed their valley for generations, maybe centuries, and yet now it looks like the farm will be lost on their watch because of all this. Imagine the anxiety and the shame, the isolation—in every sense of the word—and the overwhelming desolation that there is nowhere to turn. Thanks to the Farmer Network, RABI and young farmers’ clubs there are places to turn. But in this House today, we can choose to say to our farmers that we will stand with them too, that we are grateful to them for feeding us and keeping Britain beautiful, and that we will match those words with actions. Maybe there are Members who think, “Well, I haven’t got any farms in my constituency, so this isn’t relevant to me,” but I will tell them this: 100% of our constituents eat food, and so farming matters to them and to all of us—yet this place too rarely acts like it believes that. Today, we give Members the opportunity to affirm that they do. Seventy per cent of England’s land mass is agricultural. If we are serious about tackling climate change and protecting our environment, we must start there, by motivating and including all of our farmers to be on the frontline for that fight, not locking them out, or demoralising and excluding them. In an increasingly volatile and uncertain world, Britain is less than 60% self-sufficient in food. That is terrifying. And yet we have thousands of farmers out there ready to meet the call, if only we did call. The Liberal Democrats present this motion to the House because British farmers are the best in the world, and the best farmers in the world deserve the best support.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is at least as au fait with Liberal Democrat manifesto policies as I am, so he will know that we oppose the family business inheritance tax changes as well. He will also know, having been here a reasonable amount of time, that there is a word limit on these motions; that is why those changes are not mentioned.
In March 2025, the last time the drawbridge was pulled up with no notice, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said that we must not do first come, first served again. We have just done that, so what guarantees can the Minister give us that next time around it will not be first come, first served? All the same, can he ensure that the window will come very, very soon?
My colleagues and I have consistently called for electricity prices to be decoupled from the wholesale gas price. The Minister has accepted that approving more domestic gas production will not in itself protect households from international price shocks, but doing that might. Will he accelerate the decoupling? Can he offer a timetable in which he will do that?
The Minister says officials are starting talks with industry leaders on refreshing the North sea transition deal. Will the Minister commit to putting money for retraining offshore workers, such as those in my constituency, at the core of that deal, funded by money from the new wealth fund?
It is a privilege and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on her incredible speech and on securing this debate. We have heard during the debate from all four corners of the United Kingdom; this is a significant challenge for constituents up and down the country. As we get towards Christmas, I am sure that all Members have a visit to the sorting centre in their diary. It always feels a little poignant to me, because one of my heroes, David Penhaligon from Cornwall, died on the way to a sorting centre in 1986 while discharging his duties as a community MP. I have been offered a visit to the Torquay centre twice, and on the second occasion I said, “No, I would like to go to Paignton.” Strangely enough, I discovered that the Paignton office was somewhat crowded and unruly. Despite the chaos, the posties were doing incredible work attempting to get the post out to people, but it feels as if there is a bit of gamesmanship in what Royal Mail wants Members to see—or not see. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) visited a sorting centre, and posties advised him that the undelivered post was hidden at the back of the office. There are some sharp practices occurring, which I am well aware of. Nikki in my constituency tells me she got an enhanced parking fine because the notice was three weeks late. She then—eventually—received post from an enforcement organisation chasing her up for the unpaid fine. That is utterly shameful, and it echoes what we have heard from around the Chamber about delays in finance-related letters, whether statements or card deliveries, and people being unable to complete transactions that they desperately need to complete. Perhaps the most poignant issue is missed appointments—I will not rehearse the points that have been made, but I am aware of a number of examples in my constituency—which impact not only people’s health, but the hospitals; we know about the challenges in our health service. We are seeing the Royal Mail, in effect, vandalising the service by failing to deliver post in a timely manner, which is utterly shocking. Turning to the most vulnerable, colleagues have talked about people in remote areas, and I am shocked but no longer surprised when I go around former council estates by the number of older folk who do not have access to the internet and do not have a smartphone. The reality of the way they communicate is post, and they have to use a very poor postal system. Those individuals simply cannot be accessed digitally, so they desperately need the post. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are looking to hold Royal Mail to account, because this is far from being the posties’ fault. Colleagues from different sides of the political spectrum have talked about surveys that they have undertaken. Like them, I have heard from dozens of people about the challenges, the most worrying of which was big batches of post arriving at once. When I have raised concerns with Royal Mail, I have received, in effect, bureaucratic drivel. I say diplomatically to the Minister that I was disappointed by the lack of backbone in the letter that we received. I hope we will hear better today. I am still waiting to hear from Ofcom, but I am looking forward to working with it and the Communication Workers Union to hold people to account. Liberal Democrats believe the Government must maximise the powers of Ofcom, give it teeth and encouraging it to use them, to make sure we have a firm hand on the tiller so that we can navigate the stormy waters facing our posties—and make sure that this is sorted by Christmas.
I am sure that many Members present will have already raised local issues with Royal Mail and got back what feels very much like a stock letter, as I did. What advice would the Minister give to Members about how to hold it to account for such an appalling service?
I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats are leading from the front for our rural communities by having this debate. Norfolk is a rural county and a farming county. It is also a county right at the forefront of the climate and nature emergency. Right along our coastline, which is 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 such as Happisburgh and Trimingham. 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 is 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 is vital to keep their farms viable. The importance of the scheme cannot be overstated. It is a crucial part of keeping our rural environments healthy and protected, and of enabling farmers to do so too. How on earth, then, can it be right that the process for securing the funding was such a catastrophe? A mad rush, online queuing and effectively a sell-out event in a matter of hours. I know the Prime Minister is keen on Manchesterism for the whole country, but I do not think my farmers knew that meant making SFI applications follow the same system as getting Oasis tickets. That 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 they do 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. If that person is not employed, they will not bring their family to the local village to live. That means that perhaps their children do not attend the village school, which then cannot make the numbers work within the funding formula. Those young people would not be able to stay and start a family themselves even if we were to tackle the cost of living crisis, which is significantly sharper the further from a city someone is. When working-age people cannot afford to live and thrive in rural and coastal areas, everybody loses. As things stand, our communities are as vulnerable to erosion as our coastline, and we need powerful representation at the heart of Government to stand up for them. Just like in 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. When the science of rural life is disregarded and the knock-on effects are ignored, we end up with calamitous decisions such as this. So much of this situation is down to how Whitehall works, or does not. Food security, climate change, coastal erosion, flooding, farming policy, environmental protection, rural communities—in North Norfolk all our affairs are rural. Yet real change on these issues cannot be handled by DEFRA alone. Those are the things that matter to people, to the lives we lead, and they cut across the silos of Government. I firmly believe that if we had a better understanding of rural life across Whitehall, disasters such as the one we saw with the SFI scheme would just not be allowed to happen. An urgent, fundamental reassessment of how the state is supposed to work for rural communities is needed, because at the moment it simply does not.
In Wiltshire, farming is at the heart of our rural economy, our landscape and our community. Farmers do not just produce the food on our tables, but support local jobs and businesses, and play a crucial role in protecting and restoring the natural environment. Farmers in Wiltshire are not asking for special treatment; they are merely asking for the certainty that every business needs. I recently spoke to Anna, a livestock vet in my constituency who works with farmers across Wiltshire, and she put the problem very simply: farming businesses plan years ahead, not months ahead. When support schemes change without warning, farmers cannot make decisions about environmental improvements because they simply do not know what resources they will have available. Wiltshire’s mixed agricultural landscape, which combines arable farming and dairy and livestock businesses, is exactly the sort of environment where sustainable farming practices thrive. However, if a farm does not know what support will be available, it cannot confidently plan for the future. In Wiltshire, we have already seen what can be achieved when farmers are supported to work alongside nature. The Bremhill Vales Farmers Group brings together 50 farms covering 5,000 hectares between Chippenham, Calne and Lyneham. It works with the Environment Agency and Wiltshire Wildlife Trust to improve water quality and reduce flood risk through natural management. Those farmers know that being productive can sit alongside environmental stewardship, but only with the right tailored support. As well as the SFI debacle, I will raise a couple of other things that are affecting my farmers. One is the rigidity around the machinery grant; the Government application windows are so tight. Another issue is how complex and difficult the guidance can be—even veterinary professionals, who deal with those programmes regularly, struggle to navigate the guidance and the application process. I looked through the welfare pathway website recently with a local vet. I found the forms difficult to locate and the timelines unclear, and minor administrative errors meant that access to support was lost entirely. If the experts struggle to navigate the system, Ministers should ask themselves how easy and accessible the system is to a busy family farm. Wiltshire’s farmers are ready to play their part; they deserve a Government who are ready to play theirs. I have two questions for the Minister. What assurance can he give farmers in my constituency that when they commit to long-term environmental improvements, this Government are willing to provide the long-term funding certainty needed to support that work? Will the Minister commit to publishing a clear, single-page timeline that sets out the application windows, the eligibility criteria and the payment timeline for the farming scheme well in advance, so that farmers can make the long-term business decisions that modern agriculture requires?
It is an honour to close the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We chose to use our Opposition day to discuss support for farmers because farmers are the backbone of rural communities across the country, and today’s debate has shown just how deeply that is felt. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) opened the debate by explaining that the Liberal Democrats would reform the SFI so that it allocated every farmer a sum that was consistent with the capacity of their farm. That sum would be theirs to claim within a long window. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the Select Committee, reminded us that we, and farmers, are in the middle of a perfect storm. We have heard from Members in all parts of the House 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 plan not just for next year, but for the years and generations ahead. On 22 September, the second window opened, with £233 million in the fund. By 3.48 pm, it had shut. 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 Rivel wrote to me describing the process simply as a “disaster”. The money has been shared out badly, not just too thinly. Window 1 left £3 million unallocated, but window 2 was oversubscribed within hours, and it was not an even scramble. A recent survey conducted by the Select Committee 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 land agents. That is a two-tier system. Those who can afford an adviser are waved through the farm gate, while those who cannot are left out in the field. Until it was privatised in 1997, ADAS gave farmers free independent advice, provided by the state. Today, those who cannot afford an agent are on their own. That was not just bad luck. DEFRA’s own forecasts, made in April and May, modelled the window’s closing on its very first day; it predicted 12,200 applications. On the day, 12,204 were submitted, just four more than were forecast. DEFRA saw it coming, and nearly 2,900 farmers started applications that they were never able to submit. Others were let down by DEFRA’s IT systems. Tom Kimber, who farms at Higher Stavordale farm in Charlton Musgrove, had an SFI agreement that was coming to an end. He applied in window 2, and missed out because of technical problems. He was assured that farmers like him would be given a route back in, but he has heard nothing since. Tom wants to deliver for the environment, and demand for the SFI proves that thousands of other farmers want to, too, but their commitment is not matched by a Government who understand the scheme. Last week, the Minister told the House that “first come, first served” will end. I welcome that, but one cannot feed a whole farm herd from a trough that is simply too small. The expiring agreements are worth over £520 million, but the budget across both windows is just £310 million; as the NFU has asked, where has the missing funding gone? Around 8,800 of this autumn’s applicants have agreements ending in February. Clare, who farms near Puckington, is one of them. For years, she has protected the river margins on her land, thereby slowing run-off, filtering pollution and giving wildlife space to thrive. SFI was meant to be her way forward, but now those margins have no funding. Before I move on to the Conservatives’ utter failure to support British farmers, I remind the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), that the Liberal Democrats were the first party to oppose the family farm tax, which includes BPR and APR. The Conservatives cannot escape their share of the blame for the chaos that farmers face today. They designed SFI on a “first come, first served” basis, botched the transition from basic payment schemes, let farming budgets fall behind inflation, and signed trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand that undercut British farmers. However, this Government cannot keep hiding behind their predecessors. They chose to accelerate the phase-out of direct payments while stop-starting SFI, so farmers have no universal payment offer at all for the first time since 1945. The Government imposed the family farm tax, and cut the DEFRA and farming budgets. The Liberal Democrats warned that this would happen. I wrote to the former Secretary of State in July, before the first window closed, to ask how the Department would stop window 2 meeting this exact fate. All of this is happening as our farmers face one of their worst years in memory. Mark Humphrey, who farms at Isle Brewers and chairs NFU Somerset, has described a torrid 18 months. Milk is down at 32p per litre, selling for 8p less than it costs to produce, and maize yields are down by 10% to 15%. Our farmers must be profitable. However, Somerset shows what is possible with long-term certainty. Last week, I met Damon Bridge of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Greater Sedgemoor landscape recovery team on North Moor, near Langport, where farmers and conservation groups are working together across 4,000 hectares. This involves 20-year agreements, not a window that slams shut in an afternoon, but only a handful of landscape recovery projects have reached delivery. Farmers need to know that they will actually happen, because food security is national security. All this comes back to one question: can this country feed itself? We produce only about 60% of the food we eat. Between 2019 and 2024, the farming budget was frozen at £2.4 million, while input costs rose by 44%. With war in Ukraine and conflict in the middle east, food security is national security, yet the Government still do not treat it as a priority.
I will not, given the time. I brought forward my Food Bill, which is now Liberal Democrat policy, to tackle this issue. It has binding targets for domestic food production, would ensure that an annual food security audit was reported to the House, and would take action to drive down food waste. We have long called for an extra £1 billion a year for environmental land management schemes, so that every eligible farmer who applies in good faith gets an agreement, there is a proper bridge for the 8,800 farmers whose agreements are ending, and we invest in the training and technology that cut farmers’ costs in the long term—not fairer rationing, but a bigger pot. The Chancellor has the perfect opportunity to deliver that money in next week’s Budget. I have four simple questions for the Minister. First, what will be different next year to ensure that a family farm without an agent has the same chance as an estate with one, and will he look at restoring free independent advice services for smaller farms? Secondly, will he guarantee that farmers like Tom, who missed out because of DEFRA’s IT failures, will not lose out again? Has any money from window 2 been left unallocated, and if so, how much? Thirdly, will the Minister open SFI27 early in the new year, or even before that, and publish its budget now, so that no farmer with an expiring agreement faces a gap from April next year? Fourthly, will he press the Chancellor to use next week’s Budget to properly fund the schemes on which our farmers depend, and can he confirm that the DEFRA budget will not be cut? Our farmers have kept their side of the deal. They have adapted to the end of the basic payment scheme, prepared for scheme after scheme, and kept growing our food despite soaring costs, extreme weather, disease outbreaks and attacks that threaten their livelihoods. What they have not had is a Government, Conservative or Labour, who keep their side of the deal. This motion offers a way forward, with long-term funding for every eligible SFI applicant, a reversal of the farm family farm tax, a comprehensive national food strategy and an extra £1 billion a year for the schemes our farmers depend on, because a nation that cannot feed itself cannot protect itself.
I present this petition regarding the severe delays in the administration of the civil service pension scheme. The petitioners request “that the House of Commons urges the Government to take urgent action to restore a reliable pension service for current and former civil servants, by publishing its assessment of whether Capita met its 30 September commitment, setting out what action it will take following the missed 30 June deadline, prioritising bereavement cases”, by 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. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton, Declares that former civil servants in Glastonbury and Somerton, who have given decades of service, are being left worrying whether their pension will arrive on time; notes the situation of widowers who have been left for nearly a year without the pensions of their deceased spouses; further declares that since the Civil Service Pension Scheme transferred to Capita, many newly retired civil servants have been left without an income for months and struggling to pay their bills; further notes that Capita missed the Government's 30 June deadline to deliver the full terms of its £239 million contract, and that on 8 July 2026 its executives committed to Parliament to restore contractual service levels by 30 September 2026; further notes that Capita is still being propped up by a Cabinet Office recovery taskforce of more than 140 officials; and further declares that 1.7 million current and former public servants deserve the peace of mind that a pension earned through years of public service will be handled competently, fairly and with dignity. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take urgent action to restore a reliable pension service for current and former civil servants, by publishing its assessment of whether Capita met its 30 September commitment, setting out what action it will take following the missed 30 June deadline, prioritising bereavement cases with a firm date for clearing that backlog, and strengthening oversight so that future public service contracts do not suffer the same fate. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003250]
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that today’s decision on the Jackdaw gasfield will do nothing to reduce people’s bills. Many of the people I represent have done everything they can to reduce their heating use, but are still paying more than they can afford. Will he say more about the Government’s intention to look at removing standing charges from people’s gas bills?
Will my hon. Friend give way?
My hon. Friend talks about DEFRA learning lessons for next time. My constituent from Butterleigh in Devon wrote to me about the sudden withdrawal of the SFI. That was not this year—it was last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government, and DEFRA in particular, cannot seem to learn to get this right?
I am pleased to be able to speak in my party’s Opposition day debate; I am less pleased about the context in which it takes place. Both Conservative and Labour Governments have failed to deliver an effective post-Brexit farm payment system. 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 the SFI window 2. After almost a year without access to the sustainable farming incentive, farmers were given little warning of its return, only for the scheme to slam shut in under six hours. A budget of just £233 million was never going to touch the sides. What is most damning is that this outcome was entirely foreseeable. A first come, first served application process, combined with inadequate funding, was always going to create a scramble. In that scramble, those with greater resources, more sophisticated systems and stronger connectivity enjoyed a clear advantage.
I was about to comment on the fact that my farmers on Exmoor were immediately put at a disadvantage, because they have limited broadband and limited connectivity. I was contacted by a farming family from West Bagborough who were in complete despair. They made the self-evident point that farmers cannot simply abandon the working day at a moment’s notice and spend hours online desperately trying to secure support before the window closes. Farmers have endured a perfect storm: inheritance tax, soaring energy costs, bluetongue, drought and now this latest SFI debacle. Farmers’ trust in the Government was already on the floor, and this recent episode has undermined whatever scintilla of trust remained. Once again, farmers have been left with the impression that Whitehall neither understands nor appreciates the realities of farming. What remains particularly frustrating is the ongoing lack of certainty. Farmers still do not know the shape of SFI27: what it will contain, when it will begin and what level of support it will provide. The farmers of Tiverton and Minehead are not interested in hearing about jam tomorrow; they need to know what support is available today.
I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, we discussed it at the Public Accounts Committee just last week. Farmers cannot operate in the dark; they need certainty. Farming is not a short-term enterprise. Decisions taken today affect planting, stocking, investment and land management years into the future. On the Public Accounts Committee last week, we examined the resilience of the UK’s food supply chain to disruption, and the session reinforced what many of us have long argued, which is that food security is national security. As co-chair of the APPG on farming, I heard the same message in our meeting with representatives from across the sector on Monday. That is why it should never be lost on us that farmers are on the frontline of climate change. They see changing weather patterns, degraded soils and seasonal disruption before anyone else. The woodlands, wetlands and grasslands they manage are essential to our biodiversity and natural environment. Farmers are famously stoic and resilient, yet even the strongest shoulders can carry only so much. The financial pressures, the uncertainty, the long days, the drought, the extreme heat, bluetongue and now the recent SFI disappointment have combined into an overwhelming burden for many. For some, that burden has led them to take their own lives. I conclude with a simple message to the farmers of Tiverton and Minehead: “I am with you.” What my farmers and I want to know is whether this Labour Government are with them.
Today’s approval of Jackdaw, in the midst of a climate crisis, is proof that Britain has not moved forward nearly fast enough on reducing our reliance on gas and oil. The Supreme Court judgment requires analysis of scope 3 carbon emissions of gas and oil licences, so the Government must demonstrate that their decision to approve Jackdaw is compatible with our climate commitments, not just our net zero targets. What is not compatible with our climate targets is our continued dependence on gas: 80% of UK households still heat their homes with gas. Heat pumps provide heating for just 2% of households in the UK. We hear that the Government plan to cut heat pump subsidies to homeowners who want to come off gas. The world has changed; we have had two global energy crises in five years. About a quarter of UK gas demand is supplied by imported liquefied natural gas. Our energy security is not strengthened by the fact that 70% of that comes from the US, given that Trump is prepared to turn that gas off. Let me be clear: Jackdaw will not bring down bills. It will meet about 2% of UK gas demand. It will play a limited, short-term role, while displacing more polluting and insecure imports. This decision must be the tipping point for transformative investment in renewables and electrification. With respect to our climate obligations, what will the Government do to account for scope 3 emissions, beyond the territorial emissions in our net zero targets? Will the Minister commit to £15 billion of funding for the warm homes plan, and support the Liberal Democrats’ call for a national electrification strategy to drive down our dependence on gas for good?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for setting out the case for regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters with great passion and conviction. She spoke very movingly of the loss of her constituent Jacob’s life, and highlighted the enormous geographical range of police forces that are concerned about this issue. Hon. Members from across the country have also spoken with great thought on some of the key themes of the debate. First and foremost is the human impact of the problem of illegally modified and used e-bikes and e-scooters: not only the deaths and the injuries, but the fear that so many people feel, particularly people with disabilities or who are partially sighted, and the fact that pavements are no longer thought of by everybody as a place of refuge from motor traffic and somewhere that they can rely on to safely complete their journey. Some hon. Members also highlighted the growing financial impact of the problem in terms of insurance payouts, where users of these vehicles who are not insured mean that everyone else bears the cost through increased premiums. They noted the problem of battery fires, which sometimes lead to loss of life, and rightly stressed the need for greater enforcement and for more support and resources for our police in dealing with the issue. Part of the problem comes from the complexity of what an e-bike or e-scooter is or is not. A legal e-bike has pedal-assisted electric power up to a speed of 15.5 mph and no more. In some parts of the country there are long-standing trials of e-scooters, but in most places there are not, and that adds to the complexity. According to statistics from the Office for Product Safety and Standards, the vast majority of battery fires arise from conversion kits and unknown brands of e-bike, highlighting the need for much greater product regulation. In 2025, London’s Metropolitan police seized more than 2,200 illegal e-bikes and e-scooters across London. In the first seven months of 2026 it seized more than 2,500—already exceeding the whole of 2025. In March 2026, a two-day enforcement operation seized 52 illegal e-bikes and mopeds. The London Fire Brigade reports that e-bike fires have doubled between 2022 and 2025, with most fires caused by illegally modified or designed e-bikes and their batteries. Many people see some food delivery couriers using e-bikes, sometimes illegally modified, in a reckless and inconsiderate manner. However, there is also a great opportunity if we can get e-bikes right. In 2024, the UK sold just 2.1 e-bikes per 1,000 people, compared with 8.5 in France and a staggering 36.1 in Denmark. If we do not buck that trend, we are unlikely to achieve the continuation of cycling into older age that happens in the Netherlands, where e-bike travel accounts for over 50% of cycling distance in the 65 to 75 age bracket. There is an opportunity, as well as a problem that needs to be solved. As well as the many hon. Members from many parties who have spoken on this issue, the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking conducted an inquiry into this issue last year and produced a very thoughtful and wide-ranging report. At the Liberal Democrat conference in September, which is still only last month—time is a very strange concept in this job—we passed definitive policy on the need to take much tougher action on illegally modified e-bikes. The strength of feeling in this room shows there is a widespread lack of confidence that the current Government are taking the co-ordinated and sustained action we need on this issue. This is a multifaceted problem that straddles many Government Departments, and we know from many Select Committee reports and the Institute for Government that, alas, we have not always been good at tackling problems that straddle multiple Departments. Hopefully the Minister will give us some assurance that a multi-pronged, multi-departmental approach will be taken on this issue. Our asks of the Government are as follows: first, we need to tackle the root cause, which is the supply chains. We need to make online retailers police and stop the sale of all non-conforming e-bikes, conversion kits, batteries and chargers, dealing with the problem at its source. We also need to deal with the perverse incentives created by the gig economy. The phenomenon of worker substitution makes avoiding individual identification and accountability too easy, while the pay-per-delivery model used by many of the delivery platforms incentivises reckless and illegal behaviour. Delivery platforms should be undertaking their own speed and e-bike checks. They need to take some responsibility for the issue.
Those statistics highlight the problem. The delivery companies need to take ownership rather than dumping the problem on everybody else, leading to the demonisation of their workforce, and expecting the Government to clear up their mess. They need to take action as well. If they will not, they need to be regulated much more toughly. The Government also need to get on with legislating to regulate e-scooters clearly and consistently. The current postcode lottery of arrangements is unhelpful for everybody. We also need a Government-backed e-bike safety certification scheme, building on the action taken by the cycling industry to come up with its own kitemark to show that an e-bike is safely manufactured and compliant with legal standards. Our police need much greater support. They need greater powers, they need more training on how to identify illegal e-bikes, and they need appropriate resources. We should also consider a national swap or amnesty scheme for illegally modified or designed e-bikes and e-scooters so that people can come forward. We heard from the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about how seized e-bikes can be used for positive purposes. There are good examples of such amnesty schemes in New York. The biggest reason why this needs to be tackled is the human impact, in terms of both deaths and injuries and the increase in fear and nervousness when using our streets.
I agree, and the hon. Lady is right to highlight the impact on our health service. There is also the economic impact on insurance. If this problem is not dealt with, there is a real risk that it will undermine the Government’s commendable aim to increase walking, cycling and wheeling, and all the resulting health and congestion-reduction benefits. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, and I hope to see the tough, multi-departmental action we need.
Food and good land stewardship for nature, environment protection and, indeed, our enjoyment are not luxuries, but essentials. Agriculture has enormous economic potential: the industry supports 334,000 jobs in the agriculture labour force alone and sits at the centre of the wider agrifood industry, which is worth more than £153 billion. Agriculture also supports many other industries, such as feed, energy, fertiliser, chemicals, logistics and professional services, with £20.9 billion of intermediate inputs, yet the sector seems to be treated as a luxury, rather than as something totally essential to everything that we need in our country to succeed, and farmers do not get the attention and consistent and coherent support from Government that they deserve. Even before the latest sustainable farming incentive farce, farmers in my Oxfordshire constituency already faced so many challenges and headwinds. Given their role in causing many of those problems, it is rather concerning that the Conservatives seem to be suffering from more amnesia than was portrayed in Christopher Nolan’s “Memento”. The challenges faced by farmers include: the current Labour Government’s agricultural and business property tax relief changes; 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; the impact of recent worldwide inflation on fertiliser prices and equipment costs, 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 gravely this year.
I do join my hon. Friend in calling for that. It was a shame that that, too, was missing from the shadow Minister’s speech. When designing the sustainable farming initiative and the system for allocating it, it would appear that the Ministers and officials concerned may have spent too much time here in Parliament, where Members wanting to get slots for some types of Bill 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 as 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 computer at a time convenient for DEFRA.
My hon. Friend has clearly been listening carefully to farmers in his constituency and makes some strong points. The Government have said that SFI will be offered again in 2027 and that it will work with farming organisations on potential changes to the scheme. However, a timetable, budget and detailed arrangements for SFI 2027 have yet to be announced. As well as ending the bidding war process for SFI, they need to move beyond an annual settlement. Investment in farms and agriculture is not an annual exercise. It is a multi-year and often multi-decade labour of love that requires hard work, forward planning and long-term thinking. That is why the Government should look at some good practice that they have implemented elsewhere, such as moving to multi-year local government funding settlements, and embrace the same approach for SFI. The Government have an opportunity to in part make amends in the forthcoming Budget, and I hope that it is one that they will seize. There are many requests from the sector for the Budget, and I will talk about three briefly. One is to increase the annual investment allowance 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 regard 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 AIA and instead generally qualify for the structures and buildings allowance, which provides relief at 3% per annum on qualifying expenditure. This does not incentivise 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 USA 100% relief is currently available for five-year periods. Our second ask of the Government relates to what we have 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. Finally, the Government could provide or underwrite the capital required for a temporary programme of interest-free farm crisis loans. That would really help the sector as it is 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 pressure because of the current situation. I hope that the Government will listen to those requests and use the Budget to help our farmers and get SFI in a much better state for 2027.