Senior Tories urge Chancellor not to cut £100m from Elms which encourages greener land management

The Government risks breaching its manifesto promises if it cuts a flagship farming fund at the Budget, critics have claimed.

The Chancellor has been warned that slashing a post-Brexit scheme aimed at incentivising farmers to make nature-friendly choices will put her party’s commitments to British wildlife in jeopardy.

It comes as more than 20 Tory MPs and peers have written to Rachel Reeves and Steve Reed, the Environment Secretary, urging them to maintain the initiative after reports suggested its funding could be slashed by £100 million.

The Environmental Land Management Scheme (Elms) pays farmers for environmental goods such as soil health, air quality and reduced water pollution.

It is seen by some as a “significant win from Brexit” as it replaced the old system of EU-style subsidies.

Labour pledged in its manifesto to “make environment land management schemes work for farmers and nature”.

The party also promised to “deliver for nature” by endeavouring to meet the targets in the Environment Act.

The Treasury is seeking £40bn in tax rises and spending cuts to cover measures including a string of workers’ pay rises, costs relating to asylum seekers and more cash for the NHS.

Critics claim that cutting the Elms budget would undermine these pledges, as the scheme plays a “critical role” in protecting Britain’s wildlife.

Global commitment

Separately, the Government has inherited global commitments to protect 30 per cent of its land and seas for nature by 2030, known as 30×30.

A source from the One Nation Group of Conservative MPs told The Telegraph: “This funding plays a critical role in achieving their manifesto promises – they need to increase it, not cut it.

“By cutting it, they are undermining their environmental manifesto promises and paving the road to breaking it.”

They added: “Seventy per cent of all land in the UK is agricultural. Therefore, farmers will play a critical role in nurturing wildlife and encouraging nature restoration and will require financial support.

“Elms fill this critical role: by cutting it, the Government risks putting our nature targets in jeopardy.”

In their letter to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget on Oct 30, coordinated by the Conservative Environment Network, 23 Tory parliamentarians said they were “extremely concerned” about reports that the fund could be cut.

“This threatens the livelihoods of farmers, who are struggling like never before with high costs and the impacts of extreme weather events, and would harm our food security too,” they said.

“It will also cast into serious doubt the Government’s ability to hit the 2030 nature recovery target, which your party has consistently said it supports, with an estimated 239,000 hectares less of farmland under Elms if the budget is cut.”

They added: “At a time of significant financial and environmental pressures, cutting this budget would be a short-sighted act of self-harm.”

The signatories included Claire Coutinho, the former energy secretary, Helen Whately, the former health minister, and George Freeman, the former science minister.

A source at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did not rule out a cut to the Elms budget, pointing to “difficult decisions” faced by the new Government.

“The Conservatives left Britain facing the worst economic inheritance since the Second World War because they refused to make the tough decisions and spent money that didn’t exist,” they said.

“The Chancellor has been clear that difficult decisions lie ahead to repair the colossal damage left by the Conservatives and address the £22 billion hole in the public finances.

“Decisions on how to do that will be taken at the Budget in the round.”

According to The Guardian, which reported the scheme was at risk last month, Civil Service sources said ministers would claim the cut to the £2.4bn fund was justified by an underspend of £100 million per year.

But the parliamentarians said that the previous Tory government “intentionally left room in the budget” to make sure that it could accommodate the maximum possible uptake.

They said any attempt to “frame the £100 million figure simply as an underspend” would “not wash”.

“Ministers’ rhetoric on giving farmers a new deal and protecting the environment will look hollow if you fail to protect the farming budget in full,” they said.