Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, for her excellent review on farming profitability, and my noble friend Lady Rock, who is in her place, for the Rock report, which also seems to have been carefully read by the Government. I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a farmer, forester, and landowner; as a commons owner and non-grazing grazier on Dartmoor; and as the owner of SSSIs. This farming road map is intended to provide a long-term strategy for farming for the next 25 years, but often seems disconnected from this Government’s other actions and policies. The family farms inheritance tax directly threatens long-term business viability and the partial U-turn has not been enough to restore broken trust or confidence. The £15 million investment in genetic improvement networks until 2029 remains overshadowed by the threat of the SPS negotiations to precision breeding and gene editing. Can the Minister give us any assurance that these, or the development of bovine TB vaccinations, will not be impacted? The road map promises to make trade easier with the EU through the SPS agreement, but the new regulations will also apply to our domestic produce without input from Parliament. Growers and breeders are making production decisions now for produce which will be sold beyond mid-2027, without any guarantee that this produce will still be compliant. We have highlighted the need for a sufficient transition period to mitigate these potential consequences, but the Government will not even publish an impact assessment until after the agreement has been signed. The road map also states that it wants to protect UK farmers from unfair competition, yet it lacks any mention of closing the flag loophole on food packaging. The draft Carbon Budget Order that we debated just last week requires a reduction in livestock numbers, and in meat and dairy consumption. The road map is right to say that farming and the environment should not be positioned against each other, but that is exactly what is happening. We recently saw this confusion between farming and the environment on Dartmoor, where the latest ELMS agreements administered by Natural England require a 60% to 90% reduction in grazing pressure, in a one-size-fits-all policy for moorlands around England. Natural England disclaiming responsibility for any resulting pony cull is disingenuous, as the consequence will inevitably be sharp reductions in pony numbers. The 2030 goal of 50% of SSSIs being on track to be in favourable condition is disappointing. How is this progress from the 62% that Natural England reported to be in favourable or improving status as recently as last year? What exactly has Natural England been doing all these years, with 2,800 staff and £300 million per annum of funding? These are our most important biodiversity sites, and that shows remarkably little progress. Imposing the same grazing policy across all the moorlands around England in order to improve SSSIs fails to reflect that every SSSI, moor, and every part of every moor, is different. Can the Minister tell us whether she believes that Natural England is fit for purpose and delivers value for money for the taxpayers who fund it? We need an overhaul of arm’s-length bodies, of which there are over 34 in Defra alone. There is a clear lack of co-ordination, accountability and value for money. Within the Statement, though, we welcome commitments such as increasing domestic timber production, and helping farmers and growers to access a greater share of the public sector food and catering market. However, there are a number of concerning commitments in this road map: doubling the number of Environment Agency farm inspections by 2029; turning sustainable farming incentives into unremunerated regulations; environmental permitting for dairy and beef farming; and a geospatial enabling programme to monitor land use. Does the Minister believe that this punishment and regulatory approach is really the right one? Would it not be more helpful to farmers to deregulate and allow them to focus on their businesses? There are also encouraging comments throughout the road map on bringing in greater private investment to support environmental outcomes, which we on these Benches robustly support. However, the detail is lacking. Will the water Bill that we expect in this Session include support for nature-based solutions helping farmers diversify their income? Which other carbon and nature markets does the Minister expect to deliver meaningful revenue for the rural economy by 2030? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. I have several questions and would be more than happy for her to write if she is short of time or the relevant information. I also join in the thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, and there will be more about the Rock review later. For these Benches, a central question raised by the Farming Roadmap 2050 remains: what, in practical terms, has changed in the short term for farmers on the ground as a result of this document? The language of clarity and partnership is welcome, of course, but many of the underlying challenges—income instability, an uncertain transition away from direct payments, and rising regulatory pressures—remain firmly in place. What immediate measures within the road map are intended to restore confidence, particularly for small and upland farms? I turn to funding. The headline figure of £2.5 billion for England is in regular use, but there is limited clarity as to how that funding is allocated in practice. Can the Minister undertake to provide the House with a breakdown of how that budget is spent across the principal schemes, including the sustainable farming incentive, Countryside Stewardship, higher-level stewardship and capital grants? In addition, what proportion of that budget was actually spent in 2025-26 and what is the projected spend for 2026-27? Can the Minister confirm how many farmers have been in receipt of payments in each of the past six years and whether the Government expect that number to increase or decline under the new framework? The reopening this week of the sustainable farming incentive is, of course, welcome. However, concerns remain about the operation of a first come, first served system. What assessment has been made of whether this approach risks favouring better-resourced farms with access to professional support, such as accountancy, over the small family farms that the early release scheme is intended to benefit? The road map presents itself as a shared vision, yet it makes no direct reference to the tenant farmers review by the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, which set out clear and practical recommendations on fairness, access and security for tenant farmers. Recommendations in this road map appear to have been informed by that review; it is just a bit of a shame that there is no explicit acknowledgment of that. On land use, the document does not adequately address the complexity of common land arrangements, particularly in upland areas. Commoners operate within systems of shared rights that do not align easily with standard scheme design. What specific provisions are being made to ensure that those farming common land are not disadvantaged? I wonder whether, in that context, the Government will perhaps consider something such as a rolling over of higher-level stewardship agreements, with appropriate uplifts, to provide a certain level of continuity while a more suitable long-term approach is developed for what I am calling the common land conundrum, which affects around 4,000 farming businesses. On trade, farmers continue to face a dual pressure: competition from imports produced to lower standards and friction in exporting to key markets, particularly the EU. I thank the Minister for keeping us regularly informed on progress on the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU. Would it be fair to say that some of the assumptions underpinning the road map mean that we need this resolved sooner rather than later? I wonder if even the date in the road map is a little too late. The Government say that food security is national security. Can the Minister explain how the road map will improve the UK’s level of self-sufficiency, over what timeframe and against which measurable indicators? Finally, at present, the gap remains clear between the laudable ambitions set out in the road map, which I think we can all support, and the immediate realities facing farmers. Can the Minister please explain how the Government intend to bridge that gap in practice in the meantime?

My Lords, there was an enormous number of questions—and, obviously, I do not have an awful lot of time. We are talking about the Statement on the road map; many of the questions are not about the road map and are much broader. As I have only a certain amount of time, I shall concentrate initially on the questions to do with the road map. Questions were asked about the UK-EU SPS agreement, which is still ongoing. I am sure noble Lords are very aware that the summit was postponed. Currently, we do not have a new date for the summit, but we are continuing with negotiations. Just because the summit has been postponed, that does not mean that we are not continuing to engage with the EU. We are making good progress in a number of areas. Clearly, I am not able to tell the House about the specifics on gene editing, pesticides and so on while negotiations are ongoing, because I would not want to impact them or the outcomes in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said that the environment and farming are being pitted against each other. I dispute that. We have a huge challenge in farming, which the road map is designed to tackle. That is why it is a long-term, 25-year plan. Farming is among the sectors most exposed to climate shocks, environmental degradation and growing resource pressures. So, we have a huge challenge here. How are we supposed to maintain food production and food security, and support profitable farming, while we move towards a lower-impact, market-led, climate-resilient system? That is what this road map is designed to do. From our nature security assessment, we know that ecosystem degradation is a significant risk to food production. That is why, instead of the environment and farming being pitted against each other, we are trying to bring resilience to farming. We know that environmental resilience means that we have better food security and food production, and that is what the road map is designed to achieve. We are trying to make farm inspections and environmental permitting more effective. We need to have inspections and permitting because we need to tackle issues such as water pollution, air pollution and problems with emissions. It is really important that we get farm inspections better organised. On a grant that we had a few years ago, we had three separate groups of people come round to inspect the same thing. That is what we have to stop—it is a waste of everyone’s time and money. We need to look at how we regulate and how we manage permits. The noble Lord talked about land use. The Land Use Framework is an important document, because land management will be absolutely central to our commitment to maintaining domestic food production at at least its current level, while at the same time restoring biodiversity and, as I just mentioned, improving water and air quality and reducing emissions. One of the key things this document does is bring together our different policies. We have an animal welfare policy and the land use framework, as well as the different farming grants and taxations. We need to bring them together, because if farmers are to be able to properly plan for the long-term future, they need to understand how all these different things link together. Having too many different things going on at the same time is not helpful. That is something else we are trying to look at. The document mentions the water Bill, alongside water pollution and things such as planning for reservoirs. Various things to do with farming and water that we need to be getting right are mentioned in the document. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the importance of restoring confidence. We absolutely need to do that, but there are so many things we need to do to ensure that farmers have that confidence. They need access to the right skills and advice—again, that is central to our approach. One of the important things about this road map is that we spent a lot of time talking to the sector, right across the board, because we wanted to hear what farmers had to say and what they were concerned about. A consistent message came through from whoever we spoke to: the need for clarity so that they could plan for the future. The overview of the road map is designed to answer that call for clarity so that farmers can plan. They need to know what the Government are looking to achieve and the future direction of travel, so that they can plan with confidence. Ultimately, farmers are businesses; you cannot plan for the future as a business unless you have some form of clarity and security in the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also mentioned uplands. Pages 37 and 38 of the document have a specific section on supporting upland farmers, and that includes improving access to schemes and support. One of the bees in my bonnet, as somebody in Cumbria, is that uplands have not had access to support, particularly regarding common land. I have spoken in this Chamber about that before, and I am pleased the noble Baroness raised it, as there is also a commitment in the document to ensure that “support is accessible, practical and viable for common land” where improvements are needed. That is why, given that the SFI has not been available for common land due to technical reasons, we have asked the RPA to look at this and try to come up with something that will work for common land. This is something I am very keen to encourage further. On the breakdown of the budgets and the details on the numbers of different applicants, I think the best thing will be to write to the noble Baroness. She has requested quite a lot of detail, and I would not want to say something off the top of my head that was not entirely accurate. On small family farms, we have just announced the latest SFI—the Written Statement on this has just come out—and the latest round is designed specifically to target and support smaller farms and those who have not had an agreement. We want to ensure that as many farms as possible are involved in agreements that help support sustainability, improving the environment while allowing them to continue to become more productive as farms. That leads into the whole discussion around food security. We have to get this right. If we are to have food security for the long term, we have to get our soils right. We have to get our water pollution and our emissions right. This is why it is so important that we bring absolutely everything together. Thinking about small farms brings me back to the comments made about Dartmoor and, again, uplands. It is important to remember that, as well as the farming road map, we are carrying out other things right now that are designed to make a difference. That comes back to the noble Baroness’s point: this covers 25 years, but what we are doing now? One of the things I am particularly excited about is the role Hilary Cottam will be playing in running pilot schemes in both Dartmoor and Cumbria on how to support those more challenging environments. Hopefully, that will make a real difference. She will be working with local communities as well as with Natural England. On tenancy, it is great to see the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, in her place; she has done so much on tenancy. “A vibrant tenanted sector” is the headline on page 36. A lot of people do not realise just how large the tenanted sector is. It is incredibly important that it is supported in the way it needs to be. The Tenant Farmers Association welcomed the farming road map. I am looking forward to continuing to work in a constructive way with the noble Baroness on how we can make sure the tenanted sector gets what it needs out of this road map, so that we have long-term security and longer-term tenancies. The average tenancy is now only five years, which is not ideal, to say the least. I have just about run out of time. The important thing here is that the Government are serious about having proper, long-term, year-on-year policy-making so that, instead of having short-term opportunities, farmers understand where the Government want to go. If farmers do not understand where the Government want to go, what we are trying to achieve and that we want to work with them on such things as innovation and skills—those long-term investment plans—they will never know where they are going to get the next grant or trade agreement from. That is what we are trying to achieve with this.

My Lords, the road map does not appear to address the very real issue of the funding gap between the collapse in basic farm payments, which is accelerating faster than anyone expected, and the incoming funds from environmental land management schemes. Have I missed it? How does the road map address that very real challenge to farm incomes this coming year?

The road map is designed to be a long-term look forward. Clearly, the important thing is that we make sure, because of that gap, that farmers can access the schemes that they need to support the farming that they are doing. Access to grant schemes has not always been straightforward. We want to make schemes simpler, fairer and more accessible, so more farmers can take advantage of the support they need.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing this Statement to your Lordships’ House this afternoon and the Government for ensuring that the road map was published, because I asked about this on several occasions during Oral Questions. I recognise that agriculture is a devolved matter, but does my noble friend agree that the UK Government’s farming road map is an opportunity to set out a vision for supporting Northern Ireland farmers and helping to grow the sector’s future contribution to UK food security? And will she discuss this issue with the Minister for DAERA in Northern Ireland when she next meets him?

As my noble friend is very aware, agriculture is a devolved policy area in the United Kingdom, so the Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for their own farming policy and can tailor that to best support their farming sector, which is different from England’s in a number of ways. I work very closely with DAERA and with the office of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as well as with the other devolved Governments. Regarding her question about raising this with my counterpart in Northern Ireland, I am meeting him online next week, so I am more than happy to do that. We work regularly on this. I go to Northern Ireland quarterly and discuss exactly these issues.

My Lords, I welcome the objectives for a vibrant tenanted sector set out in the road map. I draw the House’s attention to my interest as a tenant farmer. However, the Government appear to be a bit reticent still about taking the radical and necessary steps to improve the security of the tenanted sector. As the Minister has pointed out, 80% of all new farm business tenancies are now for five years or less. Short-term tenancies are the greatest barrier to sustainability, resilience and profitability. Both my review and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, to which this Statement is also the response, identify taxation as the most appropriate lever to achieve greater security. Will the Government look again at the way in which stamp duty land tax penalises the very tenancy agreements that the road map says it wants to encourage? We must also ensure that tenant farmers are not unfairly treated when land is taken away for development, including solar development, so will the Minister confirm that they are willing to look again at the legislative changes needed to improve compensation for tenant farmers who lose land so that they are compensated for the real loss their businesses suffer?

The noble Baroness makes some good points. I am more than happy to discuss these issues in the department and with the Farming Minister. Looking at our response to the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, on tenancy, because she particularly mentioned this, we recognise the benefits of longer agricultural leases and the importance of security of tenure for tenant farmers. New industry-led guidance was published in March of this year, which hopefully will help more landlords and tenants look at how long-term agreements are of benefit to both landlord and tenant. Also, we know that the Law Commission is looking to review agricultural tenancies within its 14th programme, and we welcome that, because we genuinely believe that longer-term tenancies are better for the sector.

Is this not a policy to make us more dependent on imported dairy and meat from the EU, because these policies will find that the carbon targets, the grazing policy and the wilding policy will mean far fewer farm animals in our country?

I disagree with that. In fact, I think the opposite. When we have met industry sectors, whether pigs, cattle or whatever—particularly in Northern Ireland, interestingly enough—we have found that they really see the benefit in the opening up of markets by us working closer with the EU. A lot of the trade restrictions, the paperwork and the bureaucracy will go. We lost, I think, 40% of our trading opportunities with Brexit, but this is an opportunity to have more trade and support for our farming industries.

My Lords, I declare my farm management interests as set out in the register. I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about more direct and clear support, helping farmers to access markets that are close to them; that is, public buildings and organisations. How can we prioritise local British farmers getting their produce into local schools, hospitals and that sort of thing?

I do not have time to find the exact page, but I know that somewhere in this lovely document is a whole section on procurement and trying to achieve exactly what the noble Lord is talking about. We have talked about the importance of “buy British”—all Governments do that—but we need to look at how to make that happen. I urge the noble Lord to read that section; if he has not, it is great. I see that he has it in front of him—excellent. He is right: this is critical. If we are going to become more sustainable for the future, we need to look at how we support our farmers through public procurement.

My Lords, under the heading “Government actions and commitments”, the road map says that the Government will work with industries to “co-develop horticulture and poultry Sector Growth Plans”. Given that we are only 17% self-sufficient in fruit and 55% in vegetables, I hope that no one in your Lordships’ House would disagree with the need for a large and urgent growth plan in the horticulture space. However, I question the inclusion of poultry. We already kill 1 billion chickens a year in the UK. Particularly in the hotspots in Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Shropshire and Herefordshire, we have huge environmental and public health problems from highly concentrated nitrogen and phosphate waste, problems with air pollution from ammonia and, of course, huge animal welfare issues. Are the Government planning to further concentrate the poultry industry in those areas or are they going to spread the problem more widely?

It is not for the Government to decide where poultry farmers want to farm. I will say that we are working closely with the poultry industry to improve animal welfare, because there are some issues around that. I am sure noble Lords who have been on the Tube have seen the posters about fast-growing chickens; again, that is something we are discussing with the industry. We are keen to promote the better chicken commitment, and we are very disappointed that certain restaurant chains decided to renege on their commitments on that—Nando’s was the key one. We are looking to improve things with the poultry industry and are working closely with it to make that kind of progress.

My Lords, I pay tribute to the Minister for so adroitly finding her way through the document, but are we not rather discussing it in a vacuum? She said clearly that she did not want to stray into issues relating to the EU reset, but is it not the fact that this whole document will be put on to the altar—that is, will be thrown away—in an instant depending on what the EU requires us to do under the reset? As my noble friend Lord Roborough said, farmers do not know what they will be allowed to grow, what they will be allowed to sell, what types of herbicides or pesticides they will be able to use or even the genome of what they might be allowed to grow in the future. We have already seen that with foie gras, which will have to be imported into the UK under the reset. Can the Minister please give me her absolute assurance that there will never be live animal exports ever again through my old port of Ramsgate, which I and other activists worked so hard to stop? That was delivered only because of Brexit.