Food Security

Debate between Emma Lewell-Buck and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 27th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right. The project was so well worked-up and had the most wide-ranging group of stakeholders possible, from farmers, distributors, retailers, producers, non-governmental organisations: everybody was involved. There were disagreements—that was a tricky enterprise to embark upon and to get agreement on—but, my goodness, there was agreement that that was the right way forward. I will compliment the Government on some good initiatives, but they are not a substitute for that real, coherent, cross-sectoral, binding strategy that says that we are serious about food security, nutrition for children, international development issues and climate change. We would say strongly to the Minister that, if he introduced his own version of a strategy that looked like that—Food 2050, perhaps—we would support him in doing that. However, it needs to bind together all these critical things, because if we get it right for schoolchildren and local supply chains, and so on, it will also be good for producers in the UK. I will mention that in a moment.

It is unarguable that food security is now an imperative, globally and for individual nations, including the UK. As such, it is worth reminding ourselves that food security was defined by the world food summit way back in 1996 as existing

“when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”.

It was redefined subsequently by the United Nations food and agriculture committee to include, rightly,

“dietary needs and food preferences”.

That definition remains sound, but the context has changed, not least in the scale and urgency of the challenges, summed up so well by Professor John Beddington in 2009, at a sustainable development conference, when he described the

“perfect storm”

that was coming:

“Our food reserves are at a 50 year low, but by 2030 we need to be producing 50% more food. At the same time, we will need 50% more energy, and 30% more fresh water."

This was reinforced by the Foresight report, “The Future of Food and Farming”, led by Professor Beddington, which Professor Tim Benton of the university of Leeds drew upon when he told the Committee in evidence that

“Wars are likely to happen”

in the competition for land and water and scarce resources.

The Enough Food for Everyone IF campaign, which ended earlier this year, brought together more than 200 organisations campaigning to end global hunger. Interestingly, they focused not simply on the efficient production and distribution of food, but on aid, land, tax and transparency. Food security, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned, is complex and international, but it is very personal for the 3 million children who die of malnutrition each year, in this modern world, or the 1 billion who go to bed hungry every night.

Here at home in the UK, we have seen the hugely accelerated growth in food banks and other types of food aid. I do not want to dwell on this, but I want to state two simple facts, which are both unarguable. Fact one: there has long been volunteer-led informal food aid in this country, going years back, in the shape of the distribution of emergency food, kitchens, and so on. The leading food bank organisation, the Trussell Trust, was providing just over 40,000 allocations of three-day emergency food packages in 2009-10, under the previous Labour Government. It has been there; it was there. That is a fact. However, the second fact is that last year the Trussell Trust provided over 913,000 three-day emergency food allocations. That is, by my rough calculation—and I am not great on maths—a twenty-two-fold increase.

Last February, a much-delayed report commissioned by DEFRA itself into the growth in food aid in the UK found that food aid providers ascribed the food insecurity to problems that have led to sudden reduction in household income, such as job losses, problems associated with social security payments and ongoing underpinning circumstances, such as continual low household income and indebtedness that can no longer support purchase of sufficient food to meet household needs. This analysis has been reinforced by many other analyses of this growing poverty and cost-of-living crisis.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a 60% increase in sanctions since welfare reform, as we heard in the all-party group on hunger and food poverty, and that is driving people, out of necessity and in their hundreds, to food banks?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Yes, indeed, and that illustrates the point that there is no simple international or domestic solution to food security and related food insecurity; it is very much a function not simply of food production and distribution and waste, but of social and economic policy. That is why we need to get the whole package right, including welfare reforms. Certainly, in my constituency of Ogmore, the delays following the move to personal independence payments mean that, out of a population of some 60,000 on the electoral register—mine is a relatively small constituency—I have 920 cases waiting for PIP outcomes at the moment, with delays in payment, assessment, and so on. So getting this right is a real issue.

I mention that because, as we debate this useful report, it is worth reminding ourselves of two important points arising from food security at home and overseas. First, the causes of food insecurity are many and complex and so are the solutions, involving wider social and economic solutions, as well as food production, storage, distribution, and so on.

Secondly, food insecurity is not an abstract construct, but a deeply personal matter that can devastate lives, families, communities and even nations. It is in our gift as policy makers to fashion adequate responses and on that note, I turn to the report and the Government response.

We note that the Committee and the Government draw on much that was achieved or initiated under the previous Labour Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse. The comprehensive food security analysis in 2009, which the Select Committee report refers to, bolstered such groundbreaking work as the Food Matters strategy and the Foresight report on land use and how to resolve conflicts on land use, which were drawn together in the landmark Food 2030 strategy. That strategy was being worked up into detailed action plans when we left government. Simply put, it was the most ambitious, comprehensive approach to food strategy, taking in not only food security domestically and globally, but diet and nutrition, climate change and carbon reduction, land-use conflict and resolution and so much more. It looked at how we can encourage people to eat a healthy, sustainable diet; ensure a resilient, profitable and competitive food system; increase food production sustainably; reduce the food system’s greenhouse gas emissions; reduce, re-use and reprocess waste within the sector; and increase the impact of skills, knowledge, research and technology. It brought all that together in a streamlined, joined-up way of thinking across Government, industry and non-governmental organisations.

The industry, NGOs and others are still asking why the Government scrapped that strategy and retreated into government by silos, with DEFRA doing its things on food production, the Department of Health doing its things and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office doing its things. What happened to the cross-Government, cross-sectoral working?

However, there have been some welcome developments. The green food project was good and well-intentioned, but even participants in it described it as too narrow and under-resourced, and it eventually ran into the sand. People were looking for what came next. The Foresight report, “The Future of Food and Farming”, adds usefully to the field of knowledge and to previous Foresight reports, including its “Land Use Futures” report under Labour.

The groceries code adjudicator, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, is a step forward in ensuring fair play in parts of the supply chain and had cross-party support, although we are still curious about why the Government resisted attempts by Labour and others, from all parties and all sectors, to strengthen the Bill with financial penalties until the Government were backed against the wall and facing defeat in Committee. As the hon. Lady asked, where does the GCA go now?

The fruit and vegetable taskforce action plan, which aims to increase the production and consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables in the UK, is commendable and recognises the huge potential of the sector to benefit the economy and health and well-being. It builds on the work of the previous Labour Government, who established—I think it was under my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse—the fruit and vegetable taskforce. I am getting a little worried that I am praising him too much.

The agri-tech strategy is welcome, as it applies that collaborative approach to innovation and research and development across industry, academia, NGOs and Government. That was pioneered by Labour in such programmes as the marine science strategy. The agri-technology strategy needs to ensure that productivity gains and genuine environmental sustainability are simultaneously achieved and that there is full buy-in, not only from the UK, but from global partners—that is the nature of the beast—but it is the right approach. We are glad to see the Government taking forward and building on some of the pioneering achievements of the previous Labour Government, to help build food security and to introduce some logical additional programmes to help deliver some of the wider benefits of a sustainable and resilient food sector, but their piecemeal and disjointed approach is not a substitute for a coherent cross-Government, cross-sectoral plan of action. I am delighted that that point was echoed today by Government and Opposition Members in their different views.

I will ask the Minister some questions that arise directly from this Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report—this is part one of two—and on which the Government response is still unclear. Specifically, does he believe that the increased costs, including the environmental costs, and the global demand for meat protein mean that we will consume less but higher-quality meat in the future? If so, how do we get there? Does he believe that UK farming is increasingly vulnerable to the rising costs of animal feed, and what is he doing to bring forward specific measures to deal with that? That might involve alternative modes of farming.

What measures can the Minister take to extend the access of food producers, including small farmers, to the highest quality of meteorological prediction as part of our climate change adaptation programme? Does he agree that horticulture has the greatest potential to improve diets, boost food production sustainably and create employment? If so, what more can the Government do to accelerate growth in the sector? What specific measures does he have to promote social enterprises in horticultural growing and food distribution and in local food networks, as well as to promote greater links among people, communities and the food we eat and grow? What measureable, tangible progress has been made on increasing the production and consumption of fruit and vegetables since 2010 and on the taskforce established under Labour?

In the light of the decision by EU Environment Ministers to enable member-state decision making on genetically modified organisms within an EU framework, when will the first commercial applications for GM cultivation in the UK take place and for what products? Why, if the Government agree that pillar two is the better use of common agricultural policy money than pillar one, as they state in their response to the Select Committee report, did they retreat from that position and not ensure 15% modulation? Why, if they see direct payments to farmers under pillar one as an ineffective use of public money and a distortion of the market, did they see fit to place no additional demands on innovation, farm entry, public benefits or environmental benefits on the largest recipients of direct payments, who receive in excess of £150,000 a year or even £300,000 a year? Over the last couple of years, the Government have appeared in statements from the very top of DEFRA to be a little gung-ho in their advocacy of GM. How will the Minister take forward a balanced argument to the public, based on science and evidence, robust safety controls and labelling for consumer transparency?

Those are just some of the questions, and I suspect we will have to return to them in future debates. I thank the Select Committee for a well-informed and excellently argued first part of a two-part contribution to this essential debate on food security. I thank all members of the Committee for their expertise and for asking questions, as well as proposing some possible answers. We look forward to the second part of their report, where we can examine other issues in more detail, just as we now look forward to the Minister’s response.