🌾 Sustainable Farming Incentive

• The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, Daniel Zeichner, announced updates on the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) scheme, emphasizing that the UK is in a global transition for farming due to various factors including Brexit and climate change.

• The government has secured £5 billion over two years for farming, described as the largest budget for sustainable food production in the country’s history. This includes funding for existing agreements, new SFI agreements, and SFI pilot schemes.

• The SFI has been successful with more than half of UK farmers participating, resulting in significant environmental benefits, including farming without insecticides on 800,000 hectares and the protection of 75,000 km of hedgerows.

• The SFI is now fully subscribed and closed to new applications, leading to criticism and concerns about abrupt closure without prior notice or consultation, and potential betrayal of trust among farmers.

• The government plans to honor all existing SFI agreements and those submitted before the closure, ensuring farmers receive payments until the end of their agreement terms.

• A revised SFI offer is planned following a spending review, aiming to better support sustainable farming and align with environmental goals, with details to be announced after consultations with the sector.

• Opposition members, including Victoria Atkins, criticized the sudden halt of the SFI, suggesting it harms nature, the environment, and food production, and questioned the government’s commitment to supporting farmers adequately.

• Concerns were raised about the impact on farmers, especially those in vulnerable positions or planning to transition into the SFI from other schemes, and the need for better planning and communication from the government.

• The government’s broader strategy includes policies to improve farm profitability and food security, as well as supporting farmers through other environmental land management schemes.

• There were calls for clarity on how the government will support farmers not currently in schemes and address legal issues related to environmental targets, amidst continued debates over budget allocation and support mechanisms.

The parliamentary session on the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) exhibits significant disagreements, warranting a high rating in terms of disagreement. This rating is justified by several instances of heated exchanges, accusations, and rebuttals between the members of the House, particularly focused on the management and sudden closure of the SFI scheme.

1. Accusations of Betrayal and Lack of Notice: The session opens with strong criticisms from the opposition, with Victoria Atkins accusing the government of betraying farmers by abruptly halting the SFI scheme without warning. She highlights the contradiction between the government’s promise of six weeks’ notice and the sudden closure, which adds to the tension and disagreement within the debate.

2. Defense and Counter-Accusations: In response, Minister Daniel Zeichner repeatedly defends the decision to close the scheme based on budgetary constraints inherited from previous governments. He counters accusations by emphasizing that the budget was spent and that the government is handling the situation responsibly. This back-and-forth includes strong rebuttals, such as Zeichner stating that he was aware of potential budget exhaustion ‘five years ago,’ which directly conflicts with the opposition’s view that the announcement was a surprise.

3. Criticisms on Policy Impact: Several Members voice concerns and criticisms over the impact of the policy on farmers’ profitability, food security, and environmental commitments. For instance, Carla Lockhart raises issues about the allocation of funds to international aid while cutting domestic support, and Tim Farron questions the impact on upland farmers, indicating deep dissatisfaction with the policy’s direction.

4. Questions on Decision-Making and Future Planning: The session includes repeated questions about when the decision to close the SFI was made and how the government plans to support farmers going forward. These questions, such as those from Simon Hoare and Sir Julian Lewis, reveal a strong disagreement over the transparency and planning behind government decisions.

5. Personal Attacks and Frustration: The tone of the debate escalates with personal jabs and expressions of frustration. For instance, Andrew Snowden criticizes Zeichner’s responses, likening him to ‘a Poundland Alastair Campbell’ and questioning his willingness to face farmers directly. Such personal attacks contribute to an atmosphere of heightened disagreement.

6. Questions and Concerns About Future Schemes: Multiple members, including Markus Campbell-Savours and Helen Morgan, express concerns about the future and the need for better planning and support structures. These concerns are not directly addressed to their satisfaction by the Minister, leading to ongoing disagreement about the government’s strategy moving forward.

Given the intensity of the exchanges, the wide range of criticisms and defenses, and the unresolved questions about the future of farming support, the level of disagreement in this session is rated as high. The session reflects deep divisions and substantial contention over the government’s handling of agricultural policy and budgeting.