Sir Geoffrey Cox
MP for Torridge and Tavistock · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Once upon a time, it would not have been necessary for a Secretary of State for farming to come to the House to say that the primary purpose of farming was food production. The central recommendation of Minette Batters’ report was to make food security a national strategic priority.”
“I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) first, if she can give me just two seconds. I want to develop this theme, because it is very important to me. There are some things that have to be above politics. If there are not, we have no society to defend.”
“Not just now. I say to the House, in all conscience, that jury trial is precious. Why? It is precious because it unites all parts of the political spectrum. It is precious because it allows the people of this country to be directly engaged in the adjudication of guilt or innocence in thousands of cases across the country.”
“No, I am not giving way. I am mindful of time and I must complete what I have to say. This is a time when not just this House but the judiciary and the courts are under attack. The unprecedented attacks upon the judiciary and the legal profession are deplorable. Institutional trust is under siege, and now is not the time— [ Interruption.”
“No, I am not giving way. Let me make that clear now. I want to finish in a moment. The reality is that jury trial is too precious a thing to lose. We are faced with a question of principle here.”
“I should declare an interest at the beginning. I am a member of the Bar—that is not uncommonly known—I still practise at the Bar, and I have the honour to be a criminal barrister and a member of the Criminal Bar Association. I have spent 44 years at the Bar.”
The complete record
Every one of 617 lines we hold for Sir Geoffrey Cox, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“Once upon a time, it would not have been necessary for a Secretary of State for farming to come to the House to say that the primary purpose of farming was food production. The central recommendation of Minette Batters’ report was to make food security a national strategic priority. Does the Secretary of State not realise that unless her road map contains a commitment to make food security a national strategic priority, everything she says in that report will simply be like trying to fill up the bath with plug out? At a time when the generals are telling us that we could be at war in 10 years, surely it is time for the Government to commit to real, precise targets.”
“There is something about the gathering of 12 ordinary citizens, chosen at random and brought together into the crucible that a criminal trial produces, that strips away ideological and racial prejudice or preconception, and that causes them to focus upon a single question: is the allegation true, or is it not; and can we be sure, or is there any doubt? Again and again, throughout our legal history, the wisdom and capacity of juries have been repeatedly vindicated every time they have been analysed, tested or sought to be examined by those who research these matters.”
“I should declare an interest at the beginning. I am a member of the Bar—that is not uncommonly known—I still practise at the Bar, and I have the honour to be a criminal barrister and a member of the Criminal Bar Association. I have spent 44 years at the Bar. I have defended and prosecuted in some of the largest criminal trials that this country has ever seen—and some of the longest. I have been experienced in seeing how juries react to circumstances of adversity and circumstances that challenge and test the very boundaries of humanity in the appalling nature of the crimes they are forced to adjudicate upon. Without exception, they have responded in a manner that I think generally gives rise to the hugest admiration, not to say awe, from those who are otherwise engaged in the administration of justice.”
“Peter Archer, the former Solicitor General, led me in the early 1980s; John Morris led me just eight weeks before the ’97 election, when the Blair landslide swept in—oh, halcyon days to those across the aisle, or some of them, anyway; and Bob Marshall-Andrews led me right up to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. What remarkable men they were. Those men would never have countenanced—not for a single second—the compromise of principle that Government and Opposition Members are now being asked to make. I knew these people, and I knew them well. John Morris would never have countenanced it. Peter Archer would never have countenanced it. Bob Marshall-Andrews would never have countenanced it.”
“Not just now, but I will come back to the hon. Member. We in this House are engaged in ideological strife. Every day of our lives we are engaged in a political battle, and frankly, sometimes we do not always live up to the highest standards that even our own parties have set. In the course of my legal career, I have been led—when I say “led”, I mean that I was a junior in the courts—by some distinguished Labour Members of Parliament who continued to practise in the criminal courts and regarded it is a noble honour to do so.”
“Not now—later. I will. I want to appeal to Labour Members. We are engaged in ideological strife. But in the Venn diagram that any society depends upon for the sustaining of sufficient points of common ground to keep a society together, jury trial is one of those that appear in a point of intersection between the vast numbers of this House and outside it.”
“I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) first, if she can give me just two seconds. I want to develop this theme, because it is very important to me. There are some things that have to be above politics. If there are not, we have no society to defend. Jury trial is one of those institutions that have been defended by those across the aisle from me, on the opposite extreme of the political spectrum, and by those on our side of the House, out to the furthest waters of the right. Why is that? Because the administration of justice must be a non-ideological space. Jury trial unites us all for a simple reason: it is the most powerful instrument and engine of social justice that this country has ever invented. It is a safeguard against oppression. It is a built-in defence against establishment and administrative power.”
“As that could easily be an offence of protest, are we therefore saying that those who seek to go to jail, such as the suffragettes, should lose their right to trial by jury—a jury that is not obliged to follow the diktats or directions of a judge on the law; a jury that is entitled to reach its decision on its judgment about what is fair? I say—”
“There has always been a summary jurisdiction—invariably never for offences of dishonesty, and invariably never for offences that might lead to the destruction of the reputation of those who are facing it. If one Member of this House, who must be disqualified if there is a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months, after the passage of this Bill is arraigned before a court on a case that might involve 12 months and one day, he or she will lose the right to a trial by jury, despite the fact that that might be an offence of protest. It might well be an offence where the Member of the House has felt so powerfully that they must breach the law that they are arrested and arraigned on a potential sentence of up to three years. Three years is a long time.”
“Not just now. I say to the House, in all conscience, that jury trial is precious. Why? It is precious because it unites all parts of the political spectrum. It is precious because it allows the people of this country to be directly engaged in the adjudication of guilt or innocence in thousands of cases across the country. At a time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) pointed out when he rose to intervene, when our institutions are under unprecedented attack, is now the time to transfer a massive chunk of the administration of criminal justice and the decisions on the guilt or innocence of a fellow citizen to a representative who unquestionably will be seen as a representative of the state? It is the jury that protects us from the allegation that the state is deciding upon that citizen’s future.”
“I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Postmasters, postmistresses, postmen—those whose honesty and integrity are integral to their employment and who, for a breach of trust, would not receive three years’ imprisonment—would all be deprived of their jury trial, and at a time when the sharks and the vultures are circling around the institutions of this country. We are now on the brink of undermining—I believe irredeemably—one of the most precious of those institutions, which commands almost universal assent. Let me say why.”
“He was his best self then, because at that time he was motivated by those who were oppressed, who were poor and who faced the full phalanx of the state reined against them. It was this Secretary of State in a different guise who was their champion and their voice. A jury trial is the most potent weapon and instrument against oppression and injustice. It serves not just those who are wealthy but those who are poor, and not just those who have a voice but those who do not. It is the 12 members of a jury who will give a hearing to people who otherwise have no hearing—”
“No, I am not giving way. I am mindful of time and I must complete what I have to say. This is a time when not just this House but the judiciary and the courts are under attack. The unprecedented attacks upon the judiciary and the legal profession are deplorable. Institutional trust is under siege, and now is not the time— [ Interruption. ] I am trying to make a speech that is non-partisan— [ Interruption. ] It really is not. I remember vividly when I sat where the Lord Chancellor now sits and he was on this side of the House. I remember the fire that breathed from his soul as he spoke about justice. I can hear him now, in my mind’s eye, speaking on this subject, and I know that he would have been saying the direct polar opposite of what he is advancing today in the House. I would say that he was his wiser self in those days.”
“Of course there is no written right, but there has always been an accepted consensus, on both sides of this House and throughout the system of this country, that jury trials are precious for those kinds of cases, particularly those involving allegations of dishonesty. The right to elect is crucial. That is what this Bill is undermining. That is what is so dangerous about it. And undermining it on what basis? Arbitrary rules and arbitrary divisions. Why three years? Why not next year four or five? Why not extend it gradually, little by little, until we reduce—”
“The moment we make jury trials subject to the individual view of a judge as to whether that is appropriate or not, we drive a hole through the fundamental, accepted right that all of us on both sides of the House have accepted over so many years, which is that if someone is accused of a serious crime that could destroy their reputation, disqualify them from the House of Commons, wreck their professional reputation or result in the loss of their employment—as with the postmasters and postmistresses—they should be able to be judged by 12 people. There is a reason why summary justice is called “summary”. There is a reason that summary justice was always subject to a complete rehearing. It has been suggested that there is no right to a jury trial.”
“I will not take interventions now, and certainly not if they are of the quality that we have had up till now. The reality is that jury trial is the cornerstone of our justice system. Do away with it and we are in trouble. Let us look at the way in which this Bill operates. It automatically presumes jury trial for everything that will have a likely sentence of three years, and those will involve some grave offences. However, in relation to serious, complex or lengthy cases, it could cover any allegation, so long as a judge concludes that it is appropriate that it should be dealt with without a jury. Apart from the excluded offences, which I accept exist, it is not just fraud trials but all kinds of trials that will be tried without a jury if a judge concludes that is appropriate.”
“A summary justice trial is summary—the clue is in the name—but that has always been corrected by the power to have a full rehearing in the court above: the Crown court. The Bill is even taking that away. We are ensuring that many thousands of people will be dealt with summarily in cases of great importance to their life and reputation. I can only appeal to the House—ineffectually, perhaps; and I regret that I have attracted comments from Labour Members suggesting that my comments are controversial. They come from the heart, and from my 44 years’ experience of a system and a profession that I love. If I have attracted the ire of Labour Members, I apologise for that; I was hoping to induce reflection on the sheer importance of the institution about which we are to take this important decision.”
“I have seen it work in practice over 40 years and, as I have said, I have never failed to be awe-inspired by the sheer quality of attention and fairness that a jury brings to its deliberations. Summary justice can never replicate that. We are about to take a step that will irretrievably damage the quality of justice in this country. I do not watch television much, but sometimes I watch something called “Digging for Britain”. It is apparent from that programme that we can tell when a civilisation starts to degrade when the quality of its architectural constructions changes; they start to look cheaper, and there is less attention to detail. If we take this step, we will be degrading our system of justice.”
“No, I am not giving way. Let me make that clear now. I want to finish in a moment. The reality is that jury trial is too precious a thing to lose. We are faced with a question of principle here. The savings that the Government claim will be made are contested by many expert analyses from the profession, the Institute for Government and others. They are based on questionable assumptions. Are those savings sufficient for us to abrogate a fundamental principle that attracts almost universal assent across the political spectrum, which is so rare in our institutional and political life? Are they sufficient for us to take this highly unprecedented and questionable step? I would submit that they are not. I would submit to the House that we should pause long and hard before we encroach upon this fundamental principle.”
“The other logical absurdity is that, under the Government’s proposed reforms, somebody with a previous conviction may well go above the three-year threshold, so those who have a string of previous convictions will get a right to jury trial, but a person of good character will not.”
“It seems to me that the Secretary of State is adopting a highly technical and extremely unmeritorious argument. He says that because the declaration of incompatibility is not the subject of the intervention of the veterans, that gives him the opportunity—entirely technically and devoid of any moral merit whatsoever—to bring in this remedial order, but he knows perfectly well that the substance of the argument on which the remedial order is based is very much in point in the deliberations of the Supreme Court, so what the Court will do, if it decides against him, is to remove the entire basis for the remedial order that he is bringing in. However, because technically he can bring it in, he has decided to do so. That is not like the Secretary of State.”
“I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assist me with this problem. The Supreme Court is at the moment seized of the issue as to the lawfulness of the declaration of incompatibility. The fact that the Government have withdrawn their appeal does not prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules that the declaration of incompatibility is void. The legal position is that the declaration of incompatibility would then be void, and therefore the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding with the order would be removed. Surely it would be prudent to wait to see if the Supreme Court rules on it. Otherwise, we will be proceeding with an unlawful order. I ask in the spirit of genuine curiosity and inquiry, not political partisanship.”
“They must have known from a very early period; indeed, the first senior Treasury counsel said yesterday that, even in August, he had made the point abundantly plain to the Government that unless they reconsidered their approach and described the blasted animal as a duck, the case would go down the pan. There was nothing to prevent the Government, through their expert witness, from saying, “In our view, China was a national security threat in 2021”—nothing at all to prevent that.”
“This has been an interesting experience, almost revisiting ancient times with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) leading for the Government on this debate. While I have a great deal of sympathy with his position, I cannot sympathise with his rather bland, anodyne account of the events to date. What is clear, and it is an apophthegm often imbibed with one’s mother’s milk, is that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, it is almost certainly a duck. The problem in this case is that the Government were never prepared to describe that animal as a duck.”
“If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is almost certainly a duck, and when I apply it to what the right hon. Gentleman says, it is almost certainly a complete crock of old—”
“Is there anything I can do by way of intercession with ministries to ensure that you get the evidence that you require?” But nothing was said. Nothing was said on 3 September because “nothing” was the policy of the Government. It was to wait while this case slid down the slope straight into the pan where no doubt many of the, not inaptly named, mandarins of Whitehall were perfectly content to see it slide. There is extraordinary cheek in the right hon. Gentleman, who came to this House four or five years ago with his Humble Address when he asked for legal advice—advice on the most sensitive negotiating matters that this country was engaged in with the Berlaymont—to be disclosed for all to see, now saying that we should not see the truth of what in reality the Government were saying and doing at the time.”
“The witness was prepared to say, “It has webbed feet, it swims, it quacks, it has a bill—but we are not prepared to call it a duck.” Are you telling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman can look this House in the eye and say that nobody raised this problem inside No. 10 and said, “We have a policy problem. It is a roadblock to this case. What are we going to do about it?”? Is he saying that that was never discussed with the National Security Adviser, that the DNSA never raised that with any relevant Minister? The Attorney General, when he met on 3 September, said, “Well, I couldn’t intervene on matters of sufficiency of evidence.” That is perfectly true; he cannot intervene, but he could challenge. He could say, “What do you need?”
“No, I will not—too short of time. There was nothing to prevent that because it was a question of fact. The fact is that the Government were not prepared to change their approach. It is a perfectly legitimate point for the right hon. Member for Torfaen to say to me, “Back in 2021, the policy of the Government was not to describe China as an enemy,” but at that time, we had not had the spying, the intimidation, and the direct targeting of this institution and the democratic assembly of our people that we have now seen by 2025. Things have moved on, and it was incumbent upon the Government to reconsider their approach, which was that they would not describe a duck as a duck.”
“Why was the Attorney General’s Office represented and present? If the meeting had nothing to do with the case, why was the Attorney General’s Office present through its representative?”
“I thank the hon. Lady for the work she does on behalf of the Church. She occupies a very important role and commands considerable respect for what she has been doing. I wish to add to the point that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) just made about the closure of churches, particularly in rural parishes, which is becoming an increasing problem. In my constituency, we have experienced difficulty getting the Church to recognise that it too has an obligation to stand by the side of local communities when those wonderful and precious buildings are to be closed as places of worship, and that it must help find a community purpose for them. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Church cannot ignore its responsibility?”
“It is that blow, aimed with unerring accuracy at the very heart of rural life, that is the reason for the outrage we do not hear only upon these Benches today. Listen to the horns blowing outside. That is the voice of real democracy. That is the voice of the people crying out to those of us here to change direction on this harmful and damaging decision. I appeal to the Minister, for whom I feel sorry. He has been sent out like a nightwatchman to face the fast bowling in the twilight of the evening on the test match’s last day, and it is Michael Holding coming in to bowl. I do not envy him his task. He should go back to his seniors and tell them to change direction. The time has come for the Ministry and the Ministers to accept that they are wrong. Their figures are wrong. They should change the policy.”
“It is a cynical breach of a promise made by a man seeking the highest office in this land, and upon his promises, thousands of people relied: the elderly widower whose deceased spouse cannot transfer her allowance, the widows, the elderly farmers who now fear that if they do not survive for seven years, their family farm, often the work of a century of their ancestors with herds cultivated and nurtured over decades, will be lost because the family will have to sell off great portions of their farms. The farms are farmed not necessarily for the profit they make, because the profit is exiguous, but for the love of the life farmers lead and for the support of the fabric of the rural communities that we who represent them cherish and adore.”
“This is a flagrant reversal of the promises that were made. The Prime Minister appeared before the National Farmers Union conference and shed crocodile tears as he said to the hundreds of farmers assembled, as well as the widely listening electorate in rural areas, that he knew what it meant to lose a family farm. His voice trembled with that emotional resonance as he conveyed to those people in my constituency, across England and in all the regions of this great country that he would never impose upon them the tax that he has imposed upon them.”
“Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has a private Member’s Bill, the Exemption from Value Added Tax (Listed Places of Worship) Bill, on repair VAT. It is time that we considered what more can be done for these buildings and not only for the buildings—which are simply bricks and mortar, stone, with wonderful cultural artefacts within them—but for what they represent: the many hopes and aspirations of so many thousands of people, even if they do not now because “The Sea of Faith Was once, too, at the full,” but now is suffering from that “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar”. I know the Minister knows exactly that to which I refer. I have complete confidence in him and I look forward to his statement this afternoon.”
“I implore the Minister to give thought to what should happen when these places of worship close. Are they to be converted into housing, often surrounded by open burial grounds? Not likely. We need to give thought to what will happen to these wonderful places, though not now sacred perhaps in some cases when they are closed, but still precious to the community’s identity and to our national inheritance. I know that the Minister will not discontinue the scheme; I would be astonished if he committed such an act of philistine vandalism, putting at risk all these extraordinary buildings for the sake of a few million pounds. I ask the Minister to consider, “What next?” Let us not stop just at this. My hon.”
“They are small arks that have existed down the centuries as a repositories of the spiritual aspiration, the emotions, and the cultural and historical identities, of rural communities—ancestors have been buried there and pilgrimages paid to their gravesides. One by one, these churches are clinging on only by the efforts of half a dozen or so elderly volunteers, giving up time in the last years of their lives to preserve what has mattered so much to them. What happens when those volunteers go? We are seeing it already in Torridge and Tavistock. Churches are closing—I saw the Bishop of Exeter the other day to discuss it. This scheme alone will not cause the survival of those extraordinary buildings so precious to our culture, our history and our nation.”
“It would be an act of cultural, social and spiritual mutilation not to continue with this scheme, which is why I do not think that the Minister will announce later that it will not be continued. My concern is that, although we are here debating this very important but limited scheme, there is on the horizon an even bigger problem with which the Government may have to grapple. My concern, if I may say so, is not for the great cathedrals of this country that will always attract their supporters—my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) represents one of the greatest cathedrals—but for the small parish churches.”
“Farmers are being asked to adopt measures to improve the environment, but have been left without access to the very grant schemes that would enable them to do so and help with their cash flow and their productivity. With applications timed specifically to fit in with the farming year and their enterprise activities, and no confirmation that all applications already in the system will progress, further uncertainty is caused to these businesses. Will the Minister comment on that?”
“The countryside stewardship higher tier and the SFI 24, with the activities that are now coming onstream—or that will do, because I understand that some of the endorsed activities are still not ready—offered some prospect of mitigating the dramatic losses that the Budget has imposed, but the postponement has been a serious blow. Farmers are marooned in legacy schemes that are being extended in mirror agreements and cannot conceivably make up or mitigate the loss of direct payments that they are suffering because of the unexpected reductions. The Ministry has also suddenly halted capital grants. The sudden closure of the capital grant applications has been a huge shock.”
“Halfway through potential investments on their farm, farmers find that the income they expected to have is not the income they will have. That is unhelpful. At the same time, the countryside stewardship higher tier scheme has been postponed, it is said possibly until mid-2025—I would invite the Minister to give us his view on when that scheme will be available. The new, expanded sustainable farming incentive for 2024 does not appear to be readily available to all farmers, particularly to upland farmers, who have had so far very little access to that scheme.”
“As a result of this Budget, family farms will now experience a further 76% cut this year in the delinked or basic payment, with a cap of £7,200. For many families, that will represent a dramatic and unexpected reduction, for which farm businesses have been able to plan, and which will require readjustment and inevitable retrenchment of investment and employment. The payments will, of course —as they were always intended to—reduce progressively over the next three years, but farmers were entitled to believe that they would be reduced proportionately. Instead, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced them by 76% against the reference year, in a manner wholly unexpected to the industry. Cumulatively, I will describe the additional problems that that has meant. There has been an inability to plan and an inability to adjust one’s cash flow.”
“It is perfectly true that, across all farm types, the average net payment received in the reference year 2023-24 was approximately £18,300—but that was 21% lower than the year 2022-23. Nevertheless, that average of £18,300 still accounted on average for 40% of farm business income. In the meantime, the environmental land management scheme, which includes the sustainable farming incentive, is not replacing the income lost to farms. Considerable progress was made this year to improve those schemes under the last Government, but, while across all farm types net income from agri-environment activities increased by an average of 14% to £10,600 on average, which is welcome, that is by no means sufficient to replace the 40% of farm business income that the basic farm payment still comprised in the year 2023-24.”
“I would not be exaggerating if I said that these days those farmers in my constituency, and I suspect it is not much different in the rest of the county, probably regard the political weather as even more random and unpredictable than the actual weather itself. I mean no party political point, because I accept entirely that the weather under successive Governments has always been relatively unpredictable, but recently the weather has achieved a combination that could be described, without too much poetic hyperbole, as a perfect storm. We have had the Budget’s accelerated cuts to the basic farm payment, the delinked payments. It is true that the progressive reduction to the basic payment was introduced in 2021.”
“From those falling incomes must be deducted the living of those who work the land. Those incomes do not take into account the unpaid labour of those who own or tenant those farms. Families who live on them—sometimes several families—must from that £17,300 or £23,500 take their own living. We can see that most people would not regard the figures we are speaking about, falling as they have been in the last year or more, as easy to live on, particularly for more than one person, for multiple families. These farming families, of course, have to live with not only the hardness of their way of life but the unpredictability of the weather. They also, sadly, live with a different kind of unpredictability and a different kind of weather: the political weather.”
“From time to time, fortunately, farmgate prices have remained relatively buoyant, but average farm business income for the year 2023-24, to the end of February 2024, was lower for all farm types except specialist pig farms and specialist poultry farms. Almost all the farms in Devon, bar those relatively rare exceptions, saw falling average business income. On dairy farms, following the two better years, when farmgate prices were relatively buoyant, average farm business income was 68% lower, with a fall in the farmgate price of milk being the primary driver. On lowland grazing livestock farms—beef, sheep—average farm business income fell by nearly a quarter, to £17,300. For grazing livestock farms in less favoured areas, higher fixed costs were only partially offset by an increase in output of £23,500, which was 12% lower.”
“True it is that the produce is the most important thing, of which they are most proud, but they also contribute to the fabric. The Minister would love to come to the rural shows—the Clovelly show, the Okehampton show, the Holsworthy show and all the shows that take place throughout the summer months in Devon. They are extraordinary events at which people—not just the farmers, but the ancillary trades that depend on them—get together. In a convivial setting they discuss their industry and trade and create the fabric of rural life, which is so precious. Farm incomes have been falling. That is not a secret—the Minister will be well aware of the fact.”
“I am familiar with my neighbours, my friends—those who farm near me, around me and throughout the whole of Torridge and Tavistock, which I have the honour to represent. As I have said, those farms sometimes sustain not just one family but several: there may be two or three brothers, with their families. Children on those farms may be hoping in due course to have the opportunity of farming themselves. These people do not farm to grow rich; they farm for the reasons that I have given. But they also farm because they love that way of life—they have grown used to it, and know that they are following in the footsteps of their forebears. They farm because they are proud of the produce and the animals that they rear. That is why there is a special value in farming families and family farms in Devon.”
“There is a preciousness about farms, many of which have herds that may have been looked after and developed over dozens of years, sometimes even a century. There is all that cultivation and nurture and all those traditions that those farming families represent. Often a farm will support not simply one family, but several; I know of many surrounding my home. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—although I do not farm, I have farmland in Devon, and, depending on the vagaries of the sustainable farming incentive, I may well be a beneficiary of those schemes in a modest way. I tell that to the House and the Minister in candour before I start substantively.”
“By far the largest proportion of those acres are held and worked by modest-sized family farms of between two and 400 acres. No farming families in Devon continue in farming to grow rich; Devon’s farms are principally grazing livestock and dairy farms. They do it because it is a way of life, and because of the pride that they take in producing some of the finest food and produce on the planet. Those families also do it because many, even most, of them have farmed in that place and within those communities for generations. The names of their forebears, engraved on the tombstones of their churches and chapels, bear witness to the continuity of which they are the stewards and custodians. It is that value, which is precious to the entire rural fabric of Devonshire, that I will speak of most acutely and strongly to the Minister.”
“We are here to discuss not the general questions affecting the entire country in connection with farming, but questions most specific to Devon, although they share common themes and subjects. I forget whether I have yet been able to induce the Minister to visit Devon, but we hope that he will do so in the new year because we are likely to have a Dartmoor forum, which he and I have already spoken about, in connection with an important development for the management of Dartmoor—the Fursdon review and its implementation. I will speak of those in due course. To set the scene, in 2022 the economic output of farming in Devon was valued at £1.369 billion. More than 20,000 people are employed in farming in Devon on more than 1.2 million acres of farmland.”