That this House has considered global food security.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, and I want to thank all Members for attending the first debate I have ever hosted in this place.
I will start by setting out what we mean when we use the term “global food security”. The UK Government define it as
“stable global production and a well-functioning global trading system that reliably, efficiently and sustainably meets the needs of the UK and the world.”
It is about the security of our food system and our ability to ensure that people do not go hungry, both at home and abroad. But this issue stretches way beyond tackling hunger. Global food security involves education, international aid, tackling poverty, the impact of war and the climate crisis. I want to touch on each of those issues, looking at the worldwide situation first.
The United Nations has a global target to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition by 2030 as part of its sustainable development goals, but the UN has said that we are not on track to achieve that, with the latest estimates showing that between 702 million and 828 million people—10% of the world population—are currently going hungry. The UN estimates that that number could rise to 840 million people by 2030. If we look specifically at famine, the World Food Programme has said that a record 345 million people across 82 countries are facing acute food insecurity, including up to 50 million people in 45 countries who are at risk of famine. Over 970,000 people are already living in famine-like conditions in Somalia, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Yemen.
Does the hon. Member agree that farmers and agricultural workers across the world are the backbone of the globe’s access to food, despite smaller rural farmers often having to overcome the barriers of poverty and inequality? Does she agree that providing those smaller, poorer farmers with the support and technology they need is vital to every country’s food security?
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I absolutely agree.
Famine is also projected in parts of Somalia this month. Up to 60 million children worldwide could become acutely malnourished by the end of this year. Evidence from previous famines shows that young children are the most vulnerable in times of crisis. During the Somalia famine in 2011, more than half the deaths were among children under five. International aid is an extremely important part of the solution, but short-sighted cuts to the aid budget by the Government have left us isolated on the world stage. No other G7 country cut aid in the middle of the pandemic; Britain sadly stands alone in having turned its back on the world’s poorest. We are already seeing the impact of the cuts to international aid. The Government have paused all non-essential aid spending to ensure the budget does not push above their new target of 0.5% of our national income. That is yet another broken Tory manifesto promise. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the International Development Committee, in calling for more clarification on what the spending pause means in practice.
The climate crisis is one of the leading causes of the rise in global hunger. The World Food Programme estimates that if average global temperatures rise by 2°, an additional 189 million people could be pushed into food insecurity. The Climate Change Committee has warned that global warming could lead to a 20% rise in food prices globally by 2050, hurting the poorest wherever they live on our planet. I hope to hear some reassurances from the Minister that the Government will finally deliver on their promise of providing international climate finance to help developing countries fight the climate crisis and to protect food supply.
Although there are many factors causing global food insecurity, we cannot ignore the role that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has played in increasing food prices around the world. Before Putin’s invasion in February, Russia and Ukraine were responsible for about 29% of the world’s wheat exports. Ukraine grew enough food to feed an estimated 400 million people, despite having a population of only 44 million. Both countries are also significant suppliers of fertilisers.
It is not often that I get called immediately after the proposer of the debate, so I am greatly encouraged and a bit taken aback that that should be the case. It is a real pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I commend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) for setting the scene in such an evidential and factual way. I am sure this is the first of many debates that she will have in Westminster Hall, and we look forward to her making many more contributions.
This debate is incredibly important in today’s climate, for every aspect of daily life is being drowned in the cost of living crisis. It has engulfed us all; we read about it in the newspaper, hear about it on the radio and see it on the TV. The negativity that seems to permeate society about rises in the price of energy, fuel and foodstuffs is real, in every sense of the word. I commented last week about the price of some products back home; for example, eggs that were £1 for 10 are now £1.89—an 89% increase. Milk, another staple, is up 79p since before the crisis. Those are just two of the basics of life. The problems that people face are real, and that has been especially true in the last couple of weeks.
In addition, the devastating impact that the Northern Ireland protocol is having on smaller food producers in both the mainland and Northern Ireland often goes ignored. I will develop that theme when I talk about how we in Northern Ireland are impacted by global food security.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I think this might be a new portfolio for him. I know that he has been exceptional in past portfolios, and I look forward to his reply to this debate. I also look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who is a good friend of mine.
According to new research, 40% of the global commercial seed market is owned by two companies, compared with 10 companies 25 years ago. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the lack of competition in the global food market broadly risks leaving the world’s food security at the mercy of a select few?
Yes, wholeheartedly. We are in a complex situation, and that has implications. There are some who control what happens. I know that the Minister and the Government do not always control whether we can have the impact we want to have, but I know that the Minister will address some of these issues when he responds.
Our food industry has shown incredible commitment in manufacturing, farming and fishing throughout the pandemic, including during the panic buying. It has dealt with the impacts of Brexit and the protocol, and our dedication to the Ukrainians after the Russian invasion. Our Government have committed to all those things. I fully support that, and I understand the need to do those things. This is about the safety of the world. We are not just individuals playing our own game; the rest of the world impacts us all, so the title of the debate, “Global food security,” is apt. We are part of a team that work together as best we can.
We therefore have a need for greater resilience in the UK’s entire food system. We are fully aware of the threats that can damage our food systems, emphasising the greater need for systems to be in place for our protection. Recent pioneering research from the Institute for Global Food Security at Queen’s University Belfast in Northern Ireland has established us as leaders in addressing global food security through our agritech industry partnering with different industries to develop solutions. Elected representatives often understand the need to partner with universities. Queen’s University Belfast is one of those. Such partnerships are replicated across the whole United Kingdom, and I know that others will emphasise that. For us in Northern Ireland, Queen’s University is a key partner to take this matter forward.
We recognise how important the agrifood sector is in Northern Ireland. Some 80% of what we produce in Northern Ireland is sold overseas, so it is important for us to develop that sector. There are many, many markets that we can develop. Lakeland Dairies, for example, produces a milk powder that it exports all over the world, and it is instrumental in growing that market. Even through the hard times of covid, that market was growing because the agrifood and agritech sectors have taken great steps forward.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. It is a rare experience to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), rather than him following us. He said that we cannot grow everything in this country, but anyone listening to “Good Morning Scotland” earlier would have heard about the tea plants that have just been harvested on Orkney.
My hon. Friend says that has also happened in Stirling. That shows that, with a bit of ingenuity —and possibly as the result of a changing climate, which we will come back to—it is surprising what can be harvested when minds are put to it.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) on securing her first debate in Westminster Hall, and on an incredibly powerful speech. I agree with pretty much every word that she said, which makes it quite difficult to find something new to add to the debate. It is slightly unfortunate that it seems to be the case in Westminster Hall these days that very few Government Back Benchers want to come along, contribute and offer their perspectives. That leaves the Minister with a slightly unenviable task. Perhaps we will hear in due course which portfolio he is going to be addressing—I understand that these are slightly uncertain times.
I welcome the appointment of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) as a Minister of State in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Perhaps it is understandable that he is not right here right now, although it is unfortunate, because I suspect he would have been here to speak from the Back Benches if circumstances allowed. He has been a real champion of global poverty and global justice issues, and that is a rare thing to say about a Conservative Member. Out of all the chaos and everything else that is going on, his presence at Cabinet should be welcomed, but he has a very high standard to live up to now. Those of us who have been in these debates over the years will be looking to see whether development and justice issues really do start to feature more prominently in the Government’s foreign and development strategy.
As both previous speakers have said, food security is a challenge both at home and abroad. People watching this debate might wonder why we are spending time discussing food security around the world when there are people reliant on food banks in our own constituencies —Glasgow North is no exception—but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington powerfully laid out precisely why that is, why it is a common challenge for humanity as a whole, and the range of steps that need to be taken to tackle the issue.
The hon. Member is making an important point. Given that malnutrition plays such an important role in a child’s development, that 45% of all deaths of under-fives are due to malnutrition and that we are in the midst of a global food security crisis, does he agree that food security should play an integral part in the Government’s international development strategy?
Absolutely. The hon. Member makes a valid point. Children will not be able to study at school, either in the UK, in a developing country in sub-Saharan Africa, or in a middle-income country in Latin America, if they are hungry. We recognise that in the UK; we have free school meal programmes and campaign for free school meals. The Government were embarrassed into extending the free school meals programme during the pandemic, and I pay huge tribute to the Scottish Government for their roll-out of free school meals. We recognise that children who have a decent, good quality, nutritious meal will be more able to concentrate at school, and that will improve their education, which improves society as a whole in the long run. It is the ultimate in levelling up, and I hope the Minister might reflect on that.
All development processes are linked, and that is the route to tackle instability. Hungry children are more likely to go out and get radicalised. If they cannot grow their own food, if they cannot get food in the local supermarkets or the local shops and markets, and if they cannot rely on their own Governments to provide them with support, of course people will end up getting radicalised and seek more violent or extreme solutions to the challenges that face them in their country.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) that tackling the root causes of poverty is in everybody’s interests; that was pretty much where I was going to conclude. Food security is at the root of a lot of the sustainable development goals, and a range of different international development interventions are aimed at achieving it, because that is the basis for what we all need to survive. It is on that basis that we can all live in a fairer, more peaceful and prosperous world.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) for securing this timely debate.
Global food networks are innately linked to our national security. Throughout Putin’s illegal war, Russia has refused to fulfil its commitment to export grains from Ukraine, which in turn has poured fuel on the fire of an already serious humanitarian emergency. Rising food prices across the globe are having a devastating impact on the poorest communities, which cannot continue. Yet at a time of such calamity for global food security, what do the Government decide to do? They continue to cut the UK’s aid budget, with disastrous effect.
As the global community reels from conflict, hunger and climate catastrophe, the Conservatives continue to heap damage on to our global reputation. Britain should be at the forefront of providing aid to the hungry, not turning our backs on the world stage when help is most needed. Our allies are noticing, and they will not forget this moment. Britain is a leader on the world stage or it is nothing, so I urge the Government to think again and provide the help that is so badly needed. The Conservatives’ own manifesto contains an explicit commitment to end
“the preventable deaths of mothers, new-born babies and children by 2030”.
Given that malnutrition plays a role in 45% of all deaths of under-fives, and with global food insecurity rising, it is unacceptable that food receives only three mentions in the international development strategy. This Government are showing their true colours when it comes to fighting global food poverty. They will not act when it matters, and that is truly disgraceful.
The Government are breaking their own promise not only on preventable deaths, but on the looming threat of climate change. Global warming could lead to a 20% rise in global food prices by 2050, hurting the world’s poorest countries. The Government must finally deliver on their promise on international climate finance, to help developing countries fight the climate crisis, and help to protect food supply. If food security is not connected for the world, it is not protected for us at home. This, more than most, is an interconnected issue, and if we do not deal with it on a global scale, there is minimal chance of success. We cannot close ourselves off from the reality of climate change; we must work together with those who will be worst affected to find a solution now.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard, and to wind up for the SNP in this very important debate. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) on securing it. She said it was her first Westminster Hall debate; I hope it is not her last.
This important discussion is close to my heart. I was a Member of the European Parliament from 2004 to 2019, when that Brexit thing got in the way, and I sat on the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I was often struck by the interconnected nature of those issues: climate change, food insecurity and resource scarcity are drivers of many of the issues that we traditionally view through a foreign affairs prism, but which actually need to be viewed through a much more coherent prism.
It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. I know that fishing and farming are close to his heart; he has been a strong advocate of both sectors for a long time. He made the point powerfully that the UK imports 46% of its food, so the UK’s food security cannot be viewed in isolation; it needs to be viewed through a much wider prism, and our policies need to align better.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made a very powerful point on behalf of his constituents: they do not want to see anybody suffering from food insecurity and hunger, whether in our own communities or worldwide. That needs a far stronger response. In a very powerful speech, the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) spoke about the interconnectedness of climate change and international development policy, and said that we need to do better than we have managed to date.
I feel for the Minister, because there is an awful lot in this. As I say, I was struck by the fact that food, agriculture and foreign affairs are often interlinked, and the same is true domestically. Call it agriculture and only so many people are interested, but many are interested in food, nutrition, land management, trade, climate change, animal welfare, development policy and social justice. Food is at the heart of many of those issues, and we do not have the policy coherence that we need. I feel for the Minister, who has to cover all that.
20 of 31 shown
The World Food Programme has warned that rising food and energy prices due to the war are likely to exacerbate humanitarian crises around the world, particularly in the middle east and Africa, which are some of the most dependent regions on Ukrainian and Russian food imports. More than 80% of the wheat supply of countries such as Egypt and Somalia comes from those two countries. Russia’s blockage of grain exports from Ukraine has fuelled an international humanitarian crisis. The UN-backed Black sea grain initiative, an agreement between Ukraine, Russa and Turkey, is essential in combating rising food prices. Russia must continue to meet its commitments under the agreement in full. I hope the Minister will tell us that international pressure is being applied to make sure that happens. The war in Ukraine affects us all. In the UK, we may not be experiencing problems with our food supply in the same way that many poorer nations are, but we are seeing the impact of the war through higher energy costs and inflation.
I now turn to food insecurity in Britain. Recent research by the Food Foundation shows that 18% of British households experienced food insecurity last month, and that 4 million children live in households that experience food insecurity. Food prices are reported to be rising at their fastest rate in 42 years. That means it is more important than ever to ensure healthy, nutritious food is affordable and accessible by the most vulnerable through policies such as free school meals and by investing in healthier sustainable urban food systems. I will draw on one particular example that is close to my heart; it is something I worked on in my previous role as the Birmingham City Council cabinet member for health.
In Birmingham, we developed an eight-year strategy, in partnership with the Food Foundation, that put sustainable food at the heart of our local economy and used the power of education to transform people’s diets and help them to eat more diverse and nutritious food. I am particularly proud of our focus on nutrition in the work that we did in Birmingham. Food Foundation research shows that only half our city’s population eats five portions of fruit and veg per day, and that fruit and veg make up only 11% of expenditure, while 34% of money is spent on food high in fat, salt and sugar and takeaways. We can end food insecurity only by focusing on nutrition, to ensure that people have healthier diets. I hope the Minister can give us some assurances that nutrition will be a central part of the Government’s approach to this issue.
Let me finish by pressing the Minister to take on board three key points about food security. First, I hope the Government will acknowledge the simple fact that there is no shortage of food in our world today. The problems we face with food insecurity, both at home and abroad, are down to food being made unavailable as a result of economic and political factors shaped by people. We can change this, and we must work together to make food available for all.
Secondly, we hear a lot about the cost of living crisis and its devastating impact on our economy in Britain, but it is a global crisis that is increasing poverty everywhere. People everywhere are getting poorer, and when people get poorer they eat less food—and, crucially, less nutritious food.
Thirdly, I urge the Minister to acknowledge that food insecurity hits women and children the hardest, wherever they live in the world. All the available research points to this being a gendered issue. I hope the Government’s strategy will take that into account.
By working together internationally to reduce poverty, invest in local food production and improve nutrition, we can end global food insecurity. I urge the new Government to put these priorities at the heart of their approach to this issue.
We have been somewhat left behind by ignorance—I say that with great respect—as little consideration has been given to how the Northern Ireland protocol has impacted our food security strategies. We want to grow our sector. We need that protection and security. The Food and Drink Federation surveyed 83 members, half of which were deemed large businesses with over 250 employees, and found that food and drink imports into Northern Ireland had decreased by 10% because of the Northern Ireland protocol. I fail to see how we can possibly encourage food security strategies when Northern Ireland has been left behind. I always try to be constructive, but there is an anomaly here that has to be addressed.
I am sure Members are aware that my constituency of Strangford is rich in farming and fishing. I know the Minister has been to Portavogie. His former portfolio as Veterans Minister prompted him to visit Beyond the Battlefield there, so he knows the village and exactly where I am talking about. It is the second largest fishing village in Northern Ireland. Fishing is incredibly important for us. The Northern Ireland agrifood sector is imperative for our food security system. We produce food for five times our population and employ more than 100,000 people in that sector alone, and it is our largest manufacturing industry, so agriculture, the production line and manufacturing are critical.
I have mentioned before the concerns that land could be reforested, when it could be used further to advance the security of our agriculture sector. I urge the Minister to ensure that that is not the case. I appreciate his response to me and the debate. Food poverty has been an issue in the past two years. Local food banks in my area have been inundated with those struggling to obtain food. My office refers at least 20 people each week for assistance; that is more than 1,040 a year. That gives an indication of the impact.
The Trussell Trust food bank was the first initiated in Northern Ireland, in Newtownards in my constituency. That has grown alongside the need and demand. There is also an issue with food access, emphasised by the fact that more than 97,000 children are entitled to free school meals. It is important that the Government have responded to that, and made sure that those children have free school meals, but the fact that so many—the largest number ever—are in receipt of free school meals indicates that things are not the way they should be. I make that point in a constructive fashion. We must ensure that poverty is taken into account when it comes to food security.
The UK imports 47% of our food. I know we cannot grow everything here. It is not possible to grow some of the fruit, vegetables and minerals that we bring in. There have been debates on this issue in the past in Westminster Hall. I mentioned reforesting; it is good to have more trees for the lungs of the world, but it is also important to have land. Good, productive land should be retained for production. Other land could be used for reforesting and becoming the lungs of the world.
We must ensure that our imports are secure for the benefit of local and global food security. Our food security strategy falls within the UK and also externally, which is why the debate title, “Global food security,” is so important. We must protect and encourage the alignment of the four regional Administrations to pave the way for global food security. When we make decisions at Westminster, we must think about how they work in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that we can do the job better together.
I hope that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will do all in its power to preserve and protect our agriculture sector, which has proved instrumental for our food security, especially the contributions for my constituency of Strangford, as I am sure all Members will agree. I encourage the Minister to consider the installation of a private body to oversee the UK as a whole and our joint collaboration to achieve our food security goals. I say this often, but that does not lessen its impact: I believe that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can do great things together. I think the Minister will endorse that. Let us do that.
If food insecurity is a global challenge, it requires a global, as well as a domestic, response. The reality is that it is the same attitudes and philosophies among decision makers, whether at home or abroad, that have left people queuing at food banks here in the UK and queuing for emergency food supplies in famine-hit countries in east Africa. The constituents I hear from in Glasgow North, including supporters of the Borgen Project, who I hope to meet in the next few days, do not want to live in a world where anyone goes hungry, whether that is families down the street or families halfway around the globe—especially not when they know that hunger and food insecurity simply should not and do not need to exist in the modern world.
The reality, though, is, as we have heard, that for too many people, hunger continues to be all too real. We have heard about some specific examples. The food crisis in east Africa is now affecting about 50 million people. In particular, Somalia is on the brink—or perhaps even past the brink—of the official definition of famine. However, food insecurity is not only a crisis or emergency situation, but a daily reality for hundreds of millions of people around the world. As was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who introduced the debate, the number, astonishingly and depressingly, seems to be rising. That is particularly frustrating because the solutions are not unknown. In my time as a Member of Parliament, I have had the huge privilege of meeting farmers in Colombia, Zambia, Rwanda and Malawi, and in Wellingborough and Scotland, and they all know perfectly well how to farm sustainably. They know how to grow crops that will feed themselves and their families and produce a surplus for market, if only they have the right kind of support and fair access to markets.
In the middle years of the 2010s, as we came close to the deadline for the millennium development goals and negotiation for the sustainable development goals was under way, a coalition of international development and advocacy organisations, including one that I worked for at the time, ran a campaign called “Enough food for everyone IF”. It made the point clearly that we live in a world that is more than capable of producing sufficient nutrition for the global population—even taking into account the rapid increase in world population numbers in recent years—provided that we get the priorities and processes right, and that is still true today.
First and foremost, as both previous speakers have said, small-scale farmers all over the world have to be at the heart of how we produce and distribute food, and they need support to grow what works best for them—as I said, enough to feed their families and enough surplus to sell at market. Too often, small farmers become reliant on particular crops and particular fertilisers and inputs, or are forced off their land altogether by multinational monocroppers and agribusinesses. That is to slightly over-simplify a whole range of interventions that are also needed, from decent irrigation, to proper education on farming techniques, to fair access to energy and fair access to markets.
We have to change our own food habits here too. Reducing western demand for meat and for out-of-season fruit and vegetables has the potential to change demands for land use around the world. A fantastic report was launched last week by campaigners for the Climate and Ecology Bill, which looks at the paths towards net zero through changing land use and changing global diets to more sustainable, more nutritious, better diets that will make us all healthier, thinner, fitter, more resilient to disease and more resilient to climate change. It is a win-win-win situation, which gets us closer to net zero into the bargain as well.
We have to address the root of the issue, and help people to understand where food comes from. It comes not from packets in supermarkets, but from the ground; we have to put things into the ground to get it in the first place, and we have to work very hard. We have to help more people understand how to cook and prepare cheap, nutritious food for themselves. That is the whole point of a holistic and rights-based approach to development that tackles a range of problems all at once.
The UK Government have to rediscover the leadership that they once showed in these areas and rebuild the consensus. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington said today’s debate was the first Westminster Hall debate she has led; the first Westminster Hall debate I led was in 2015, on the sustainable development goals. In those days, there was a consensus. Members from all parties would speak together and would congratulate the Government on achieving the 0.7% target and on taking a leading role in shaping the SDGs. Now, the SDGs seem to have been forgotten, the aid target has been slashed to 0.5%, and the Government have announced that non-essential aid spending will be frozen. What on earth is non-essential aid? Surely, by definition, all aid is essential. All aid meets a vital need that cannot be met by a domestic Government.
Cutting the aid budget and diverting funding away from long-term sustainable development projects that boost food and other security is ultimately a false economy. Perhaps, for example, fewer people would be tempted to get on small boats and cross the English channel if their countries of origin were not being dried up or flooded by climate change, with their families and communities going hungry as a result. There would certainly be less need to spend vast amounts on emergency intervention and famine relief if there was proper investment in long-term sustainability.
I was thinking back to my days in the international development sector and was reminded of a saying that was attributed to the late Brazilian archbishop, Dom Hélder Câmara:
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor are hungry, they call me a communist.”
I think that attitude still pervades in a lot of the world today. Investing in global food security is perhaps the ultimate in preventive spending policy. If people at home or abroad have access to good quality, nutritious, affordable and culturally appropriate food, they will live longer, happier and more successful lives.
In the United Kingdom, we need a sustainable pivot towards self-sufficiency, meaning a decisive shift towards a farmer-focused food chain. We have a target to double the amount of locally sourced food in our shopping baskets. We need to put local farmers in Coventry, the west midlands and across the country, and fishers, food producers and workers, at the heart of plans to deliver healthy food locally. To support our farmers and save our planet, locally produced food must be the future. To achieve that, we need to boost the viability of small and medium-sized enterprise producers of fruits, vegetables, dairy and livestock, and increase the land area dedicated to smallholdings. City gardens and other urban green spaces must provide local populations with a much higher percentage of their daily food. That is something that we need to urgently address.
Unless the Government act, the UK’s reputation will continue to wane as we are seen to be closing ourselves off. This is an opportunity for our country to become a world leader in an area that will only grow in significance in the years to come, and for the Government to tackle a key issue that also affects the United Kingdom. Food poverty is on the increase, and in my city of Coventry many families now depend on food banks. If the Government refuse to act, Labour is ready and willing to do what is needed to provide food for the children of this country and the world.
To make a consensual point—this has been a cross-party, consensual debate—these issues cut across party, country and region. We all need to work on them together, because I am afraid they are getting worse, and they are getting worse faster. The developed world—I do not like that term—is in a position to help other countries that are suffering the consequences of our economic, trade and foreign policy.
I have some concrete suggestions. I am indebted to two organisations: the National Farmers Union of Scotland has produced a number of strong recommendations for domestic food security, which is part of the wider context, and the International Development Committee’s “Food insecurity” report contains a number of strong recommendations. I hope the Government take those recommendations to heart, because if they tackle this issue seriously, no one will applaud louder than me. It needs urgent attention and cross-cutting solutions.
The biggest thing we can do to tackle short-term food insecurity is to go back to the 2019 Conservative party manifesto and reinstate the 0.7% international aid commitment. I appreciate that the cut to 0.5% is temporary, but it means that a lot of people in the developing world are suffering. On 6 May, the ONE campaign published concrete data showing that the UK official development assistance cut had caused 11.6 million children, girls and women to lose out on nutritional support, 6.2 million girls under two and 12 million babies to lose out on nutritional support, 7.1 million children to lose out on education, 5.3 million women and girls to lose access to modern family planning methods, and 3.3 million to lose humanitarian aid. In addition, 54 MW of clean energy has not been installed.
That relates to my wider point about policy coherence. We must remember that food needs a farmer. We should not allow ourselves to get tied up in short-sighted debates about meat versus vegetables, and between competing land uses. Farmers will be integral to how we feed ourselves now and in the future. Farmers need to be at the heart of that policy. Policy coherence needs to begin at home, and our policies are not as coherent as they need to be.
I was struck by the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford about forestry. We are dealing with that issue in Scotland as well; the Scottish Government have recently brought out new forestry guidelines. I remember when I helped to draft the European Parliament’s common agricultural policy. It encouraged farmers to diversify into energy crops, photovoltaic panels and forestry, but it was always meant to be for the bits and bats of land that farmers could not do much else with. It was never meant to be taking prime agricultural land out of agricultural production. We must get that back out of our agenda. Of course there are going to be competing land uses—at home and worldwide—but we must put food production far higher up our national security and resilience agenda.
There has been a good debate and discussion. We have a lot of suggestions. I again refer Members to the International Development Committee’s report, which has a lot of concrete suggestions and, in a spirit of constructive co-operation, I offer the Minister our support; where we see positive developments, we will be constructive. These points are not party political. They are not limited to one country, however we define country. They are not limited to the domestic, however we define that too. We need to work together on this stuff.