Peterborough farmer 'devastated' as government scheme closes
A farmer has said news that a government scheme to support farmers is now fully subscribed is "devastating". Tom Martin, who farms at Haddon, near Peterborough, said he was "lucky" to be a part of the government's sustainable farming incentive (SFI), but that not all farmers had managed to put an application in.Mr Martin said: "It has been an absolutely terrible six months in UK farming in confidence... as an industry who want to work closely with government, there is no trust, no good faith, no goodwill and no confidence whatsoever. It is shameful."The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said a reformed scheme would be announced in the summer.
The closure of the scheme has been described by the National Farmers' Union as "a shattering blow".The SFI was launched in 2022 and follows the post-Brexit payment scheme that replaced EU subsidies.Under the scheme, farmers in England are paid to manage land to protect soil, restore hedgerows and boost nature recovery. For farmers already on the scheme, nothing changes, and the government said those who had managed to submit an application before the window closed would be offered an agreement.However, if an application was started and not submitted, it will not be fulfilled.Mr Martin, whose family have farmed near Peterborough for four generations, said the news had been delivered without warning. He said: "At 6pm last night [Tuesday], we were told with no warning whatsoever the application window had just closed, so those farmers who were preparing their applications who were doing all the groundwork... have been left with nothing but loss and a pretty hollow feeling, and a massive gap in their budget as well."While some farmers were already on the scheme, he said those still reluctant to be a part of sustainable farming had been "caught short" and should be encouraged into this way of working. Coming after the government's changes to inheritance tax for farmers, he said it was "adding insult to injury".
Farming minister Daniel Zeichner, Labour MP for Cambridge, said with 37,000 live SFI agreements, the scheme was "now fully subscribed". Speaking in Parliament, he said: "This is an opportunity to improve how we do that under a fair and just farming transition, which supports farms to be profitable businesses in their own right... SFI can and must work better for all farms and for nature." Mr Zeichner said the revised scheme would "align" with the government's land use framework and contribute to the priorities of food, farming and nature. He said the underlying problem facing the farming industry was that farmers did not make enough money and the decision was about "investing in long-term stability".
Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Does David Bull know why people vote Reform?
In a week of high drama, in which Reform lost its chairman and then saw him return 48 hours later, the party could have hoped for a quiet news day. Slim chance of that. After Zia Yusuf returned as party chairman, Reform held a press conference to announce that Yusuf would head the party's DOGE unit to uncover waste at councils – and would be replaced as chairman by Dr David Bull. A former Conservative, Bull is better known than his predecessor was when taking the role, having formerly presented Newsround and Most Haunted, becoming an MEP for the Brexit party in 2019 and the co-host of the TalkTV weekend breakfast show in 2022. As James Heale notes, he is also popular with members, being both 'a gregarious character and a longtime Farage loyalist.' A key part of Bull's role will be in handling the media; but his first steps in the new role, it appears he has already stumbled, stating that 'immigration is the lifeblood of this country, it always has been'.
NBC News
6 hours ago
- NBC News
Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's move to send National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies has given new weight to a lingering question: How far can a president go in using the military to quell domestic disturbances? For now, the military has a limited role in Los Angeles, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities, but that hasn't stopped California's Democratic leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, from vehemently objecting to Trump's actions. Trump has not taken the more drastic step of invoking the Insurrection Act, the name given to a series of legal provisions that allows the president, in certain circumstances, to enlist the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities. But Elizabeth Goiten, an expert on national security at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the June 7 memorandum that Trump issued authorizing military involvement in support of immigration enforcement makes no reference to Los Angeles, meaning it applies nationwide. "That's just a red alert," she said. "If we have the military being pre-emptively deployed throughout the country to effectively police protests, that is the hallmark of authoritarian rule." Although the military's role may initially be limited to a protective function, Goiten said that could easily be expanded in certain situations to include use of force and detention of protesters even without invoking the Insurrection Act. She pointed to the response of federal agencies under Trump during protests in Portland and Washington, D.C., in 2020. Ilan Wurman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that to this point, Trump has acted within existing precedents that allow the president to use the military to assist with the enforcement of federal law. 'Federalizing the National Guard, using regular forces to restore order, is in my view well within the range of prior precedents,' he said. But, Wurman added, any attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act 'would be more problematic.' When is it legal for the president to use the military to support law enforcement? Generally, using the military to conduct broad law enforcement activities is forbidden under another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But that statute contains many loopholes, of which the Insurrection Act is one. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted at the tail end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, erecting a new barrier against military intervention in the South as it moved toward the Jim Crow era. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of Tom Bradley, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, and Pete Wilson, the state's Republican governor. Previously, the act was used to desegregate schools in the 1950s and '60s amid opposition from state and local leaders in the South. In calling in the National Guard, Trump invoked a different law that allows the president to do so when there is an invasion or danger of invasion, a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or when "the president is unable to with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The law states that orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the states,' which has not happened in this case, as Newsom is adamantly opposed to Trump's move. California has filed a lawsuit that cites the skirting of Newsom's role under that provision as well as broader claims that Trump is infringing on California's sovereignty, among other things. "There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she fully backed Trump's actions. 'We are going to enforce the law regardless of what they do,' she said, referring to Newsom in a Fox News interview on Monday. 'Look at it out there. It looks like a third-world country.' Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the impact of Trump's current plan could be limited by practical considerations, including the number of military personnel available and the cost of paying National Guard troops on active duty. "This ends up becoming extremely expensive very quickly," he added. The cost of the Los Angeles deployment alone is about $134 million, a defense department official said Tuesday. Military personnel are also likely to have little training on how to approach a domestic protest. "This is not in their normal mission set. There's always risk of escalation," which would only be more pronounced if the Insurrection Act was used, Mirasola added. How is the Insurrection Act different? If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, troops would not be limited to protecting federal property and personnel. Instead, they could have a much more active role on the streets, with a greater possibility of encountering civilians. While troops may not be able to carry out all the functions of federal law enforcement officers, such as conducting immigration raids, they could potentially assist, Mirasola said. There are also questions about whether the judiciary would intervene if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act — or even who would have legal standing to sue to stop Trump. Litigation in that scenario could mirror a legal fight that has already played out over the Trump administration's efforts to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly deport certain immigrants without affording them due process. The Supreme Court said due process is required, that detainees be given a proper chance to raise legal objections before a federal judge. But the court also said such lawsuits must be brought via habeas corpus claims from the individuals affected, not under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Although Trump and his allies have referred to protesters in Los Angeles as "insurrectionists" there is no plan at the moment to invoke the Insurrection Act, a White House official told NBC News. Speaking on Sunday about whether he would seek to use the law, Trump said there was not currently a reason to but did not rule it out in future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection," he said.
Times
7 hours ago
- Times
Civil service workforce reaches highest level for nearly 20 years
The number of civil servants has hit a near 20-year high, despite a pledge by ministers to reduce the size of Whitehall. Official statistics showed that the number of people employed by the government grew by 2,000 in the first three months of this year to reach its highest level since 2006. A total of 550,000 people were employed as civil servants in March up from 548,000 in December and a rise of 1 per cent on the same time last year. The figure is 130,000 more than in June 2016 — since then numbers have been steadily increasing, driven in part by the impact of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic. It came as official figures published on Tuesday showed that employment in the UK last month fell at the quickest pace since the early stages of the pandemic as wage growth dropped to its lowest level since September. Data from HM Revenue & Customs showed that the number of payroll employees fell by just over 109,000 in May, the largest monthly decline since May 2020. On an annual basis, payrolls dropped by 274,000. The drop in employment came after the £25 billion rise in employers' national insurance contributions took effect in early April. Since Rachel Reeves's inaugural budget in October, the number of payroll employees has contracted by 276,000, suggesting that higher employment taxes announced in the budget prompted companies to shed staff. Ministers have committed to reducing the size of the civil service as part of the government's spending review; as many as 50,000 posts expected to be abolished over the next few years. However at the same time the government has announced plans to set up almost 30 new government quangos in a move which critics claim will increase the size of the state. A government spokesperson insisted that the most recent increase had been driven by recruitment to 'operational roles' including tax collectors and probation officers who were classed as civil servants in official statistics. 'As part of our Plan for Change, we are creating a more agile and productive state — reducing back-office costs to deliver savings of over £2 billion by 2030 and targeting spending on frontline services,' they said. 'We have already announced a new cross-government fund for exit schemes to reduce staffing numbers over the next two years, as well as introducing measures to make it quicker and easier to remove poor performers from post.' Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, said in March that Civil Service running costs would be reduced by 15 per cent by the end of the decade. As well as abolishing quangos such as NHS England, ministers have committed to increasing the proportion of civil servants working in digital and data roles, creating a workforce 'fit for the future'. However, Alex Burghart, the shadow cabinet office minister, described the figures as 'crazy'. 'The Conservatives set out clear plans to reduce the size of the civil service — plans Labour have ignored,' he said. 'Instead, they've already set up 29 new quangos and arms-length bodies. They are just not serious.' Two government departments together account for more than a third of the full Civil Service headcount: the Department for Work & Pensions (17.6 per cent of the total) and the Ministry of Justice (17.5 per cent). The next largest are HM Revenue & Customs (12.9 per cent), the Ministry of Defence (10.5 per cent) and the Home Office (9.2 per cent).
