Farming and Food Production: Land Use Framework

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact the changes proposed in the Land Use Framework will have on farming and food production.

My Lords, the land use framework strengthens our commitment to maintain overall food production in England. A resilient food system requires a thriving natural environment. The vast majority of agricultural land will continue to prioritise resilient food production alongside nature and climate benefits. The framework sets out how we can use land more efficiently, using a mixture of productivity improvements, multifunctional land use and the safeguarding of our most important agricultural land.

My Lords, as the Minister is aware, England is now the only UK nation no longer receiving direct farm payments, leaving an enormous gap to be filled between the direct farm payments and the environmental payments coming into play. In that regard, the land use framework is a wasted opportunity. There should have been a greater focus on profitability and productivity. Instead, land is being taken out of food production, with livestock losing out to greenery and rewilding. She need look no further than her own area of Cumbria and Northumbria. Will the Government put the top priority on food production and food security?

I can absolutely reassure the noble Baroness that the land use framework makes a clear commitment to maintain overall food production in England. Analysis shows that this is achievable alongside the proposed land use changes. Also, food will be produced more sustainably from less land if we have a proper combination of multifunctional land use. We need to safeguard our most important agricultural land and look at how we improve productivity. We also know that many of the improvements that are coming through sustainable farming, such as improved soil quality, increase that productivity.

My Lords, bearing in mind the current crisis over our defence budget and the fact that feeding our population will be as important to our nation’s survival as the efforts of our defence forces, I wonder whether the Minister considers it sensible land use planning to allow large tracts of our best agricultural land to be used for solar panels—sometimes 3,000 or 4,000 at a shot. When we have so many roofs, reservoirs and lesser-quality land available, it seems unwise, unstrategic and against all the best principles of the land use framework agenda.

The recent global instability has shown that we need to be more self-sufficient and strengthen our energy independence. Doing so can also help to lower costs and tackle climate change. In addition, farmers and landowners can choose to diversify their income through solar projects on their land, which can also increase the resilience of their farming businesses. I agree with the noble Lord that solar installations on rooftops and reservoirs are important, but on their own they cannot deliver the scale and capacity required to meet the nation’s needs. The land use framework demonstrates how we can safeguard our most productive agricultural land while adapting land use to support nature recovery, climate resilience, housing and infrastructure. Expanding land use for renewable energy will not come at the expense of our best agricultural land, and solar developments will need to be located in the most appropriate places.

My Lords, will the Minister say more about the promised reforms to the farm tenancy forum and what it will actually deliver? Tenants manage a third of England’s farmland yet have little say when landlords respond to new environmental or energy incentives. Can she confirm whether a tenant farmer commissioner, as recommended by the Rock review, remains under active consideration?

I cannot confirm that question specifically—I would have to go back to the department and check—but I can say that the department is keen to work very closely with tenant farmers. That is why we have a tenant farming commissioner: we want to do everything we can to support more tenant farmers to become profitable and more secure.

My Lords, can my noble friend knock this nonsense about solar development on the head, once and for all? Is it not a fact that, if you were to take all the schemes that have been proposed to develop solar energy on agricultural land, it would amount to a very small percentage of agricultural land?

My noble friend is right that it is a very small percentage. People sometimes think that solar panels are on agricultural land when in fact they are on brownfield. A very large solar development near where I live has just been given permission; it looks like it will be built on a lot of fields but, actually, it is an old mining site and brownfield.

My Lords, the land use framework identified the need for greater intensity and yields from our best farmland to compensate for the loss of production elsewhere. Market prices for agricultural commodities do not currently support an incentive to intensify this production and underpin our food security. Can the Minister clarify what support is given to farmers with this land through ELMS to meet the Government’s goals and enhance our food security? I declare my interest as a farmer.

The Government are supporting farmers through a number of different schemes. For example, we have committed at least £200 million through the farming innovation programme to support productivity improvements. We are also supporting skills development, farmer collaboration and adoption of innovative land management practices. There is a lot going on and a lot of options for farmers who are looking for support.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the solutions to food production and the use of land lies in the agritech sector? The sector can produce a lot of food under glass, et cetera, which will reduce the carbon footprint of imports, use less land and help provide food security. The problem is the cost of energy, which defeats the business plan of the agritech sector. Are the Government prepared to look at this?

This comes right back to the beginning: if we are to bring down energy costs, we need to be more self-sufficient in energy, and, if we are to be more self-sufficient in energy, we need to invest in renewable energies and nuclear.

My Lords, if the vision of the land use framework is realised, 9% of utilised farmland will be removed from food production for nature restoration. We will therefore be asking British farmers to farm efficiently on the remaining land while meeting our high standards of animal welfare and environmental stewardship. Does the Minister agree that it is both economically and ethically important that imported food meets equivalent standards? If so, what consideration have the Government given to establishing core welfare and environmental standards for imports so that we do not simply offshore the environmental costs of food production?

The right reverend Prelate makes a really important point. In our trade agreements, we have been very clear that we will not have food that is produced to lower standards than those in this country. That has always been a red line for Defra during trade agreements. That will continue. The environmental aspects are also really important, because there is no point in us increasing our standards if that gap is then filled with lower standards. I am certainly very keen to continue to promote this within Defra.