Land Use Change: Food Security

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of land use change on food security.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful for the chance to raise this issue, which goes to the heart of our national interest. When I submitted my bid for the debate, little did I know that it would take place on a day on which there were members of the farming community out on Parliament Square with their tractors, with what we called a muck spreader where I was brought up, on a farm, but others might call a slurry tanker, and even with livestock. That is testament to the determination of the farming community to make sure their voice continues to be heard in this place.

In simple terms, this debate is about what we choose to do with the land beneath our feet. If we keep tarmacking and concreting over our fields, we should not be surprised if one day we find ourselves asking a basic question: “Where is our food going to come from?” We must not become a country that produces some of the finest produce in the world, to the highest standard, and yet becomes dependent on imports of lower grade, substandard produce. Domestic food security is national security, and it must be protected.

It is one of the principal duties of any Government to ensure that their people have access to sufficient safe, affordable and nutritious food. As Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, has said, food security is national security. If we cannot feed ourselves, we are vulnerable—economically, strategically and in the choices available to us as a country.

I sought this debate because of what is happening in my constituency, which I believe is a small version of what is happening right across the country. We face proposals for major development on open green spaces and on our farms—land that local people quite reasonably understand to be green belt, farmland and open countryside. These are not blank spaces on a map; they are working fields, grazing land and green buffers between communities. They prevent urban sprawl and prevent areas such as mine from simply being swallowed up into a suburb of a greater Birmingham. I want to look at three things: the effect on domestic food production; the environmental consequences, especially flooding; and the Government’s policy direction, which is pushing us down the wrong path, through the treatment of the green belt, the invention of so-called grey belt, and tax proposals that will make it harder for family farms to survive.

In recent years, households across Britain have seen food prices spiral. We see it every time we go into the supermarket; we seem to put less in the trolley but pay more at the checkout. Of course, that is driven by global shocks, the war in Ukraine and supply chain pressures. At its peak, food inflation reached 20%, and people saw it in the basic cost of goods. Global instability, import prices, exchange rates, skyrocketing input costs and continued pressure from the war in Ukraine meant that between January 2021 and April 2025, UK food prices increased by 36%, over three times more than in the previous decade.

At the same time, the UK’s capacity to produce its own food has steadily declined. We now produce roughly 60% of the food we consume by calories; in the 1980s, we were close to 78%. That is a huge shift in one working lifetime, and it is a worrying downward trend. The picture by sector is even starker. We grow just over half the vegetables that we eat and only around 15% of the tomatoes that we consume, and fresh fruit production stands at just around 16%. Those numbers should start to ring alarm bells if they are not doing so already.

While that has been happening, we have lost hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland to development and long-term environmental land use change. These are not temporary changes. Once productive farmland is built on or turned over to schemes that cannot be reversed, it rarely comes back; when it’s gone, it’s gone. We all accept that homes are needed, but it should worry us that so many have been placed on productive land when large brownfield areas remain underused. There is enough previously developed land in England to take well over 1 million homes, yet the easier, cheaper option of edge-of-town, green-belt development continues to be both developers’ and the Government’s preference. This is where food security starts being undermined not by global events, but by our own planning choices.

Against that backdrop, the last thing we should be doing is making it harder for farming families to stay on their land, yet that is exactly what this Government’s changes to agricultural inheritance—now widely referred to as the family farm tax—would do. Most farms in this country are family businesses. They are part of the local economy, of the landscape and of the food supply chain. The Government’s proposals would pull most of them into new inheritance tax rules. That is not a small technical tweak; it creates a financial hit at the very moment a family is trying to pass the farm on. If a family has to sell land, or even the whole farm, simply to cover a tax bill under the new rules, there is no safeguard that the land will remain agricultural. More often than not, it is snapped up by developers, meaning that previously productive farms become speculative housing sites.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate. The issue about the number of farms above the £1.5 million mark is that 30% of British farms made no money last year. West Dorset farmers are responsible for maintaining 70% of the land. That number will only decrease as they are forced to carve up their assets to pay these bills.

[Wendy Morton]

That is exactly the point. Many farming families—often the hill farmers, in particular, but the arable farmers too—struggle. The last couple of years have been really difficult for many farmers. If they have one bad year, it is very hard for them to recover the next year. They are working against so many factors over which they have no control, weather being one of them. It is really important that, in all our deliberations, we recognise that.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady makes a really important point. The value of a farm depends on where it is are based, but farmers do not see that money, because they are—I know this phrase is often used—asset rich and cash poor, so families are put in the awful situation of potentially having to sell off parts of their family farm to pay these taxes. However, they need economies of scale to make farming work, so quite often they are looking after their farm and also renting areas from other farms to make sure that the books balance.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point, setting out yet again the challenges that farmers face. I am a farmer’s daughter; my dad was a farm worker for many years. We lived on a farm; we grew up in a tied cottage. That sort of farm is often very different from the massive farms in parts of the country where there is more arable land rather than land for hill farmers. Every farm is unique—every farm is different—but many of the challenges that farms face are very similar.

All of this comes at a time when family farm businesses are under unprecedented pressure. We have talked about the costs, but input costs have risen by more than 40% since 2015. Fertiliser is up by nearly 40%, feed by over a quarter and energy by more than a third. National Farmers’ Union surveys show confidence among farmers at its lowest recorded level. Two thirds expect profits to fall, and nearly half plan to reduce investment.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she agree that that depleted confidence comes against the backdrop of all the pressures that she has discussed, including the pressures from the Government to increase house building, and the opportunity that farmers see to replace arable or pastoral farming with a new cash crop in the form of solar, and that ultimately, depletion of morale is probably the worst affliction on the farming community, because, regardless of other considerations, there is a risk that there comes a point when most farmers say, “We just can’t do this any more”?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Sadly, suicide is very high among the farming community, which is another indicator of the many pressures that our farms are facing. I return to the point that I do not think that we appreciate our farms, farmers or farming communities enough in this place. That is the backdrop that some of us are fighting against. To introduce a new tax burden at this moment risks accelerating the loss of domestic production. If we are serious about food security, it is exactly the wrong time to treat a farm as if it were simply an asset to be broken up.

I will return to what is happening locally. At Stonnall Road in Aldridge, there is an outline planning application for around 355 houses on a site that we have always understood to be green belt—a vital green buffer for the village. Hundreds of residents have already backed my petition against the development. They are not opposed to housing, but they struggle to see why that productive land—well-used green space—has suddenly become the soft target, when brownfield sites exist in Walsall and, indeed, Birmingham city centre. Surely that is where we should be doing much more regeneration work.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady is making an important speech, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. She will understand, as we all do, that the current planning system does not resolve these issues very effectively. She will also know that the previous Government had plans to develop a land use framework, and that was announced three or four years ago. Why does she think that the previous Government did not bring that framework forward?

[Wendy Morton]

As the hon. Gentleman said, there are some things that we agree on and others that we do not. However, I have long campaigned against building on the green belt—on our green fields. Even during our time in government, there were certain aspects of planning that I spoke out about—those who were here at the time of the last Government will probably remember that—and, believe me, I will continue to do so, because I feel so passionately about it.

Over on Chester Road in Streetly, another eight or nine hectares in my constituency—again, green belt and on the edge of the built-up area—are now being described as grey belt and suggested for the local plan. It raises the same concerns: what happens to our fields? What happens to local food production? What happens to roads, GP access and school places? What does it mean when this pattern is repeated across the country? Chipping away at the edges of green space means altering the balance between built land and productive land, and once that balance tips, it is very difficult to recover.

The green belt is not perfect, but it has achieved two essential things: it constrains sprawl around major urban areas, and it provides a degree of protection for farmland and green spaces. To many communities, the introduction of grey belt feels like an attempt to weaken those protections by stealth, because once land is marked as “grey” rather than “green”, the presumption shifts, and with it, the likelihood of development.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In relation to the intervention from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), the fundamental problem is that although successive Governments have said, “We favour brownfield,” there is not sufficient push behind it. In my constituency, we are legally driven to accept every application on its own merits. Applications are made almost exclusively for greenfield sites, rather than brownfield ones. We have to approve them, because we have no legal means by which to turn them down. That is the essential problem, and I do not think that it has been addressed in the new legislation. There is not enough push for local authorities to promote brownfield sites over greenfield ones.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We talk about a brownfield-first approach, and it can work. We saw examples of it in the west midlands under the leadership of the former mayor, Andy Street. Developments such as those on the Caparo and Harvestime sites show that it can be done, but it needs funding to help level the playing field, so that brownfield is as attractive to developers as greenfield sites. It can be done, but it requires the Government to put money into brownfield remediation and to properly focus it.

Local authorities feel huge pressure at the moment, but brownfield sites, some of them derelict for decades, remain untouched. It is crazy. No one is arguing that the green belt can never change, but there must be a high bar, genuine scrutiny and clear honesty about what is being sacrificed. Above all, we should start with a genuine, not rhetorical, commitment to brownfield first. Farmers also tell me that they face conflicting pressures from all sides. Tree-planting targets, rewetting proposals, biodiversity applications—none of those aims is wrong, but when piled on top of housing allocations and complicated tax changes, they steadily squeeze the land available for food production.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady has talked a lot about housing and development infringement upon the green belt. An issue in my area, around the village of Scotton, is the proposal for a huge solar farm. While I completely agree and want to see that the targets and net zero are reached, does the right hon. Lady agree that rather than using prime agricultural land, we should be looking at the roofs of distribution warehousing and other alternatives first?

[Wendy Morton]

I do. The hon. Gentleman talks a lot of sense. There are so many areas where we should be putting solar panels. I despair when I drive down the M40 around the west midlands and see field after field full of solar panels. I can understand why a farmer may want to go down the diversification route—because it helps to balance the books—but there are surely better sites such as rooftops and garage tops. Why are we not being a little more creative in what we are doing?

[Edward Morello]

I will happily answer the question, drawing on my experience in solar: it is because the amount of money for the export does not make rooftop solar viable on a commercial scale. To provide the simplest numbers: it costs 50p per unit to put it on ground mount, about £1 per unit to put it on rooftop and £1.50 to put it on carports. Unless we increase the export value to 12p to 15p per unit, it will never stack up. That is why.

[Wendy Morton]

I appreciate a bit of knowledge in Westminster Hall, but the point remains that we still need to be more creative in where we put our solar panels. Maybe they could be put on larger rooftop spaces, and we often talk about brownfield and urban sites; to go straight for productive green fields is just total madness. There are real concerns about proposals that would give Natural England sweeping compulsory purchase powers that could see productive farmland acquired for environmental offsetting. If that goes ahead, the loss of farmland could become permanent and unchallengeable. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at those proposals.

Flooding is another consequence that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs cannot and must not ignore. Fields at Stonnall Road in my constituency and elsewhere do not only grow crops or support livestock; they also absorb water. They drain slowly and hold back surface run-off. If we replace them with bricks, concrete, tarmac and driveways there will be nowhere for the water to go. We saw this recently with the heavy rain this weekend causing flooding more quickly because the natural buffers have been reduced. Every time it happens, local people ask the same question: why were those fields built on?

Natural flood management relies on soil, hedgerows, woodlands and wetlands, yet that is rarely at the forefront of planning decisions. If we are serious about preventing flooding, we must consider the cumulative impact of losing those natural soakaways. How is DEFRA working with the Environment Agency and local planning authorities to ensure that the flood risk from losing open land is properly accounted for before permissions are given?

I do not wish to challenge your timings, Dr Murrison, so I will start to draw this all together. First, food production must be treated as a strategic priority. Departments should not be signing off major land use decisions without asking the basic question: what does this mean for our ability to grow food and feed our nation? The NFU is absolutely right to call for food security impact assessments on all relevant policies. We have impact tests for almost everything else, and it is extraordinary that food security is not one of them.

Secondly, we need a firm and practical brownfield first approach. That may require investment to remediate sites, improve infrastructure or bring land back into productive use, but the alternative is the steady, irreversible erosion of farmland. Thirdly, the Government should revisit the family farm tax that introduces a new burden and risks forcing families to break up their farms and sell them to developers, which is surely directly at odds with any credible food security strategy.

Fourthly, Ministers must halt the weakening of green-belt protections, including through the grey belt. Our communities need confidence that national policy is not quietly tilting the scales against them. In view of today’s ministerial written statement, my communities want to feel they and our councils still have a voice in planning decisions.

Finally, we need a coherent national land use framework that recognises how housing, farming, environment, energy and flood management overlap. We cannot allow one Department to encourage woodland creation on productive fields, while another encourages development on the next field. Joined-up thinking is not a slogan; it is a necessity.

To return to where I began, land use is about choices. In Aldridge-Brownhills, those choices can be seen from our front doors. We know that when farmland disappears, it does not return. We know that if we keep building over productive land, we will become more reliant on food imports and more exposed to global shocks. Food security is not an abstract concept; it is about whether this country can feed itself at a price that people can afford. If we care about that—and we should—we must take seriously the land that makes that possible.

I hope the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling in my constituency and many others. Protecting farmland, resisting unnecessary encroachment on the green belt and supporting farming families are not about nostalgia—far from it; they are practical steps towards a secure and resilient food system. If we get those choices and decisions right, we can deliver the homes we need and safeguard our ability to produce food. If we get them wrong, the consequences will be felt for generations. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my employment by CPRE before my election to Parliament. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate.

There are fair questions to answer about the effectiveness of planning policies that are supposed to protect our best farmland. They are currently failing far too often, but this is not a new problem, and the Tory record of preserving agricultural land for our food security is, I am afraid, rather shaky. In the 12 years from 2010, we lost more than 14,000 hectares of prime agricultural land to development.

Having listened to Conservative Members speak on this issue many times, I suspect that the debate today is really something of a proxy war. They use the issue of food security as a smokescreen for the fact that they oppose the aesthetic impacts of turning large swathes of our countryside into industrialised landscapes under steel and glass, surrounded by wire fencing and surveillance cameras. I would encourage them to be brave and defend beauty on its own terms.

[Wendy Morton]

I could not resist intervening on the hon. Gentleman about the rationale for this debate. I spoke about food security in the last Parliament, and I gently say that his interpretation of this debate does not resonate with mine.

[Chris Hinchliff]

That is a very fair intervention—I take the point. Indeed, the right hon. Member made some powerful arguments about the beauty of our countryside, and we should be up front about the fact that those aesthetic values are worth fighting for—perhaps I should have put it like that. I do not think my hon. Friends on the Government Benches should scorn that argument either, as protecting the beauty of Britain’s countryside for all our citizens is a proud part of Labour’s heritage. From creating national parks that steward our best landscapes for future generations to launching national trails that are enjoyed by millions and, yes, even establishing the green belt, the Labour movement has always yearned for bread and roses too.

Returning to food security, it has been far too long since we have taken the issue seriously. We have grown complacent in the surety that, as a rich nation, we can import all we want and need. With the worsening climate emergency, however, it would now be entirely unwise to assume that we can continue to rely on those supply chains—when Valencia next floods, we will remember that to our cost—or to step back from trying to achieve net zero. The threat of flooding from climate change to so much of our best agricultural land is too great for that to make any sense, with 95% of grade 1 land in the east of England already at risk of flooding.

We must urgently update our agricultural land classification. The system we use to determine potential farmland productivity is desperately out of date. It uses rainfall data from 1941 to 1970 and temperature measurements from 1961 to 1980. The impacts of climate change are already being severely felt on our farmland and intensive farming is degrading soils, with 5.3 million tonnes of organic carbon lost from our soils every year, so the likelihood is that the current agricultural land classification system substantially overestimates land productivity. We must update it.

Food security is about not just the amount of land under agricultural use, but what we are producing. Food security must mean nutritional security. To take this seriously, the Government must set a clear and measurable target for a higher proportion of our nation’s nutritional needs, according to a recognised diet such as the NHS “Eatwell Guide”, to be met reliably by domestic production to high environmental standards. Achieving that will require national policy to guide substantial changes in the amount and types of food that we produce domestically. The essential element of genuine food security is establishing a national policy framework that provides certainty and incentives for farmers to invest in practices that prioritise nutritional needs and environmental outcomes, but that will likely see their yields fluctuate in the short term.

When we consider energy security, Government contracts for difference ensure a minimum price that gives suppliers the confidence to invest in the production needed to secure national policy objectives. Food security is no less essential than energy security, and farming practices that restore nature are as important as the transition to renewable energy. A Government serious about making genuine food security profitable to produce should establish new contracts for food security based on the contracts for difference mechanism in the energy sector, providing certainty through price floors for the key produce necessary to meet the nation’s nutritional needs. That is how we can achieve genuine food security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

On the point about the Budget, I hope that the Chancellor is listening to this debate. She has made several speculative announcements and some U-turns on various tax and financial policy decisions in the last 16 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that she still has the opportunity, if she so wishes, to change her mind?

[Robbie Moore]

I do hope that the Chancellor is listening to this debate and also that she engages with the farming community. It is incredibly disappointing that the Chancellor has not once met with the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association or the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers in the 12 months since the last Budget was announced. It is a disgrace. Therefore, what is the Minister doing to convince the Treasury to axe the family farm tax—the reduction of the 100% relief on agricultural and business properties?

If it was not enough for the Government to go after our elder generation and our family businesses, they are also going after our next generation, with the decision to scrap the £30,000 grant to the National Federation of Young Farmers. It is an absolute disgrace. Then we have the land use framework consultation, which is setting a direction of taking about 18% of land out of food production for other things—whether it is energy security, housing, biodiversity, offsetting or nutrient neutrality—and away from increasing food productivity. All that is on top of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which further empowers Natural England, not to acquire land at market value, but to acquire it at agricultural value, disregarding hope value. That all suggests that this Government are not interested in food security.

We have yet to receive the findings of the road map for farming, and Baroness Batters of the other place has spent a good deal of time—six months—producing a profitability review, which is on the Secretary of State’s desk. That was meant to be published before the Budget, but what has the Secretary of State said? It will not be published before the Budget, but before Christmas. I ask the Minister a second question: where on earth is that profitability review? Why will it not be published before the Budget, so that we can at least use it to urge the Chancellor to do the right thing? I call on the Government to release the profitability review this week, so that the farming community, stakeholders and all Members of Parliament can digest it before the Budget next week.

I cannot stress how urgently we need clarity and certainty from the Government. The implications of the land use framework consultation; the profitability review not being published; the increased taxes on our farming businesses; the decisions to dramatically reduce delinked payments and close the SFI—these are all causing huge uncertainty. What does it say to our many farmers who are outside this building protesting right now when a Chancellor is making those decisions and is not even willing to engage? The emotional toll on our farming community is stark. I therefore urge the Government to have the decency to engage urgently, before the Budget next week, so that our farmers can have clarity on how they use their land.

The Farming Minister will no doubt say that food security is national security, as the Prime Minister has already said. But those are only warm words if they are not backed up with sound policymaking across Departments that brings out a proper food strategy, has all-Government buy-in—including from the Treasury—and does not have a huge, detrimental impact on how our farmers use their land or on their hopes to increase food security for the good and the health of the nation.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—I hope you are warmer than I am, having sat in what is quite a cold room for the entire debate. It has been a good debate, so I would like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on her success in securing it. We have had a good and serious debate across all parties about a serious, if somewhat complex and multifaceted, issue.

Food security is about land use, but it is also wider than that, so I will begin my response by explaining how the Government are approaching this issue in the round. I do not think anyone would argue that food security is not an important part of our national security. If they were going to argue that before covid-19 and the war in Ukraine, I do not see how they could possibly argue it after living through those occurrences and seeing the effects and implications that those unanticipated events had on our ability to be resilient in future unforeseen circumstances. Being open-minded to learn the lessons, and doing our best to anticipate what the challenges of the future might be, is an important part of how we develop a more resilient stance than we would have if our post-war complacency—if I could put it that way—had carried on without what has happened in the last few years.

Anticipating the challenges of the future requires a close working relationship with the food sector. I chair F4, which brings together the National Farmers’ Union, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and UKHospitality. That group represents the food system from farm to fork, and ensures that we are prepared for disruption to food supply chains and that we can respond quickly to threats as they emerge. We have heard about some of the threats from right hon. and hon. Members today, ranging from cyber-security threats to threats from Ukraine. Nobody has mentioned pests or diseases, but that is another potential threat that farmers know only too well. We have sadly experienced that in this country while I have been a Member of Parliament.

Robust analysis and transparency are critical. That is why we will publish an annual food security digest report, in addition to the UK food security report, which is published every three years. The most recent was published last December. Those reports highlight how diverse international trade routes and resilient domestic production systems ensure that any disruption from risks, such as adverse weather or disease, does not affect the UK’s overall security of supply.

Figures have been bandied around by different people about the percentage of our food we grow ourselves. UK agriculture currently provides 65% of the food we eat—77% of what we can actually grow here. We may not be brilliant at growing bananas, even though people love to eat them. The figure rises from 65% to 77% if we take account of what we can grow in our climate. Those figures have been more or less stable over 20 years.

Recent geopolitical challenges have highlighted increasing risks to food security, but have also demonstrated the resilience of our food system. As we develop implementation plans for the food strategy, we are applying lessons learned from covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine about how to prepare for, respond to and recover from shocks.

For example, one of the lessons from covid-19 was the key role that local communities and food systems played in maintaining access to food, particularly for the most vulnerable. I know from my experience during that strange time that working with the local authority and local kitchens was a far better way of ensuring that those who had to shield had access to useable, nutritious food. That is why the food strategy will focus on strengthening local food systems.

I am working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to end mass dependence on food parcels, which is a moral scar on our society. I raise that point because food security is also about the ability of every citizen to access the nutrition they need. The new crisis and resilience fund will enable local authorities to provide preventive support for communities and assistance to individuals facing a financial shock, improving citizens’ financial resilience and reducing the need for future crisis support.

We also face challenges to the resilience of domestic food production systems from soil degradation, disease and climate change. Those are critical long-term risks, but we should be clear that the impacts are here today. We need only speak to a farmer whose fields were underwater last winter and then parched and drought-ridden this summer. They would say that that is not a theoretical risk, but a threat to food production today. That is a threat we can manage because we need to take climate change seriously and do something about it, as we do with more conventional threats.

[Wendy Morton]

I am genuinely interested in what the Minister is saying about food and food systems, but how does she see the connection between that and our farmers? We do not want anybody to be reliant on a food parcel, but what is her Department doing to ensure that the food in a kitchen, in a parcel or on our shelves is produced by British farmers? That is at the heart of this debate: British food security.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was coming to that. I am happy to get across my view of what this should be. The food strategy that we published in July makes clear that we will act to ensure that our food system can thrive and grow sustainably and continue to provide a resilient and secure supply of healthy, safe and affordable food. It sets out that that should include investment, innovation and productivity, and a fairer, more transparent supply chain, which is why we are dealing with the supply chain adjudicators and introducing regulation on how to ensure fairness. Dairy and pigs are already in a process, but other work is being done for other sectors to ensure that a fair price is paid for the food that is produced, which is important.

Boosting the resilience of our food system will prepare it better for supply chain shocks and disruption. Some of what we have to do is ensure resilience to climate change, which will make us more resilient in the way in which we produce food. Environmental changes therefore go hand in hand with protecting food production. If we do not make our landscapes more resilient and more sustainable environmentally, it is likely that the productivity of our land will decline and it will be harder as the climate changes for us to guarantee reasonable food production. Some of those things bolster each other and should not be set against one another, as the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said in her opening remarks. They can produce a more effective and more resilient result if we do them effectively and properly.

We already manage the resilience of domestic production through updated environmental land management schemes. The good news is that actions taken today to manage these immediate risks can also reduce the risk from climate change. There is a £7 billion farming budget focused on improving the resilience of our food systems. That maintains the Government’s commitment to farming, food security and nature’s recovery. It includes £5.9 billion for environmental farming schemes, £816 million for tree planting and £385 million for peatland restoration, all of which is vital for sustainability.

The farming budget will pay for land management actions that reduce flood and drought risk for arable systems and manage heat risk for livestock. The Government will also provide £15 million in funding to stop millions of tonnes of good, fresh farm food going to waste by redirecting that surplus into the hands of those who need it.

The new energy infrastructure and new homes are not a risk to food security. Today, ground-mounted solar covers 13,000 hectares of land, which is 0.1% of England and 0.15% of English agricultural land. Half the agricultural land generating solar power is still producing food because it is dual-use—there are sheep grazing, and so on, on it. By 2035, the plan is for the percentage to rise to 0.4% of England as we increase our solar power generation capacity from 18 GW to 75 GW.

To put that into perspective, golf courses take up 0.7% of UK land and grouse moors take up 4%. At the moment, solar is at 0.1%, with plans to go up to 0.4%. People may not like solar panels appearing in and around the areas they live in, but they are not a threat to food security.

[Wendy Morton]

I must respectfully disagree with the right hon. Lady—

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Hon. Lady.

[Wendy Morton]

I beg your pardon—the hon. Lady. Maybe one day! It is one thing to see a few sheep grazing under a solar panel, but my point is about agricultural arable land that grows crops. I have yet to see a solar panel in an arable field because I do not think that is possible.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was not trying to make out that arable crops could graze around solar panels—

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady gets my point.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The right hon. Lady is correct, but I am trying to get this into perspective in terms of overall land use.

There have been many calls for the land use framework to be published. I hope I can reassure hon. and right hon. Member that we will publish it early next year. Having looked at some of it, I am totally fascinated by it; when we publish it, I think we will have very many interesting debates about what it demonstrates. As I see it, the food strategy goes together with the land use framework, which goes together with the farming road map—all of which are in parallel production even as we speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

We have had a good debate, but I feel that the conversation has only just started. So many questions remain. The key point is that food security needs to be recognised as critical to national security. There is no more time for warm words; we need some action. Our farmers and our farming community need action.

I will try quickly to list all my asks. I would love the Government to take food security seriously, support our farmers and farming, axe the family farm tax, deliver a truly brownfield-first approach to development, and listen and respect the views of our farmers and local communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of land use change on food security.