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.

Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

Again, I share my hon. Friend’s upset and anger about the state in which waste criminals leave our countryside. We are taking forward many measures, but one that I think will be particularly important—the nature Minister was keen for me to mention it—is the digital waste tracking system. This will replace outdated methods of monitoring waste movements in and outside the UK. It will be an excellent way of digitally tracking where waste ends up. Waste holders will record waste movements digitally at each transfer point, making it easier to share with regulators and improve timely compliance checks. This is just one of the many reforms that we will introduce.

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

The number of fly-tipping incidents per day is 3,157. That is equivalent to one every 27 seconds. We see fly-tipping all too often in the west midlands. In my constituency, despite the council’s great efforts to rid us of the scourge of piles of mattresses and fridges, what we see is absolutely shocking. The situation is not helped, of course, by the Birmingham bin strikes, which continue. Will the Minister support the introduction of penalty points on driving licences for those convicted of fly-tipping, to send a really strong message that those involved in organised waste crime will pay for the misery that they impose on our communities?

[Emma Hardy]

I agree about the appalling state in which fly-tippers leave our environment. We are looking at reviewing council powers to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers. We want councils to work more closely with the police, and to use the latest technology. We will be providing more guidance on what they can do, but I will ensure that the nature Minister hears the right hon. Lady’s other ideas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I have the greatest sympathy for my hon. Friend’s constituents. I encourage Stevenage borough council to work with our National Fly-tipping Prevention Group, which shares best practice on tackling fly-tipping. We are also taking direct action on some of the littered items, because once there is litter, people think that they can fly-tip, and then they think that they can dump. That is why we have banned the sale of single-use vapes from 1 June, and I stand ready to work with his council.

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

When it comes to cracking down on litter and fly-tipping, I would welcome anything the Government do. However, during proceedings on the Crime and Policing Bill, which passed through this place this week, Government Members had ample opportunity to accept various new clauses and amendments that would ensure stricter tackling of littering and fly-tipping, but failed to do so. What message does that send to those who go around tossing litter and fly-tipping, and, importantly, to the many volunteers in constituencies like mine who work day in, day out, to clear up that litter?

[Mary Creagh]

We have said that we will use existing powers to create clean-up squads, which will force the waste criminals to clear up their mess. It is a little rich of the Conservative party, after 14 years of failure, to attack us after just 10 months in government. We have said that we are changing the carriers, brokers and dealers regime to tighten up arrangements relating to who can carry and transport waste, because the Conservatives left us a paper-based system that is open to fraud.

Fly-tipping: West Midlands

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of fly-tipping on communities in the West Midlands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue, particularly as the debate coincides with the conclusion of the Great British spring clean, in which many colleagues, from both sides of the House, take part.

Fly-tipping is a growing concern not only in my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency but across the wider west midlands region and beyond, as I have noticed of late on my social media and in my inbox. Once people were aware of this debate, a number of them got in touch to say that they have fly-tipping issues locally. In some areas it has become a persistent and damaging problem. It is vital that we come together to explore practical solutions and collaborative efforts to tackle its impact on our communities. I consider litter and fly-tipping to be an expensive nuisance; that sums it up in a short and succinct way.

Keep Britain Tidy, which does so much to raise awareness of fly-tipping and littering, estimates that local authorities in England dealt with 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents in 2023-24—up by 6% on the year before. Sixty per cent of all fly-tipping involves household waste. It costs the economy a staggering £1 billion, and there is enough fly-tipped waste to fill Wembley stadium 30 times over. It is shocking to see that amount of fly-tipping in this day and age.

Of course, those of us who represent the west midlands are dealing with our own fly-tipping and littering situation thanks to Labour-run Birmingham city council’s bin strike. I am a bit disappointed that there are no Birmingham city representatives on the Government Benches, although there is a colleague from—is it Birmingham Northfield?

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Wendy Morton]

There we go. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has joined the debate, because there is a large number of Labour MPs in Birmingham city.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate. A deposit return scheme under which people take plastic bottles and cans back to the shop to get their money back, using a reverse vending machine, has reduced black-sack litter in many countries across Europe and the world. Will the right hon. Lady explain why her party voted against a deposit return scheme in Parliament on 21 January this year, despite having previously backed one as part of the solution to fly-tipping?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I absolutely support recycling schemes, as do Conservatives more broadly. That specific vote, which I believe was before the hon. Lady came into the House, was not UK-wide, and I think that was the issue. We need to work cross-party to find the best way forward on recycling and bottle deposit and return schemes. Any scheme has to work with individuals, communities and producers.

The ongoing bin strike in Labour-run Birmingham is now having a detrimental effect on every one of us who shares a border with Birmingham. For example, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who cannot be with us today, abuts Hall Green in Birmingham. On one side, the bins are piling up, whereas over the border on the other side, in Conservative-run Solihull, the streets are clean. In the past few weeks my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) has highlighted the similar situation on the border of his constituency.

[Laurence Turner]

The right hon. Lady highlights an issue that affects my constituency, as well as that of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove. Given that party politics were mentioned, I want to put on the record the fact that there have been disruptive bin strikes in Conservative-run authorities over recent years—Wiltshire, Adur and Worthing all spring to mind. Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is no particular party pattern and that Conservative-run authorities are by no means immune to the issues she raises?

[Wendy Morton]

I was hoping this was not going to be an entirely party political debate, because there is so much cross-party support when it comes to tackling these issues. My biggest concern is the magnitude of the Birmingham strike and making sure that it gets sorted out. Several right hon. and hon. Friends have been raising the issue. The amount of uncollected waste has risen to a staggering 21,000 tonnes, which is an eye-watering amount. It is also eye-watering that we now have rats as big as cats hurtling around the city. We all know that these squeaky blinders, as they have been named, do not respect borders.

I have heard that some city residents are burning the waste, as they simply do not know when the next bin collection will take place. I have staff members who live in Birmingham and have not had their waste collected for more than a month, and who have had no recycling collection services all year. This is not right and not fair, so it is only right and proper that we call on the Government to sort it out.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) is not able to be present, but he agrees that the situation facing residents is abominable. Some residents are taking responsibility by going to recycling centres, which is sensible, but that is having a knock-on effect in constituencies such as mine, with people seeking to access our recycling centres in Aldridge. It was reported that on one occasion this brought gridlock to Aldridge. It is worth remembering that when that happens, Walsall council tax payers are left footing the Bill.

At its worst, as has been observed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, in the absence of councils doing their job, sorting out the bin strikes and cleaning up the mess, people are driving out of the city to dump rubbish. We now have a bin strike that is a major public health emergency, as the Minister will be aware. Andy Street said last week that it is having a major impact on the reputation of Birmingham and the wider west midlands, which will take years to recover from. Birmingham is making headlines on a daily basis as far away as Australia, for all the wrong reasons. The longer the stand-off goes on, the worse the situation will become, with more than 4,000 tonnes of rubbish being added weekly to the current 21,000 tonnes.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and demonstrating yet again what a powerful champion she is for her constituents and region. I am sure she is aware that last night the BBC news reported from Birmingham not only on the Prime Minister’s visit but on the rubbish collection issue. Does she share my concerns that what is happening in the UK just now sends out a negative message to potential tourists and the global market?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which I was just about to come to. The reputation of a city and of a country is so important when we are trying to attract inward investment and grow our economy. It is only three years ago that, under the leadership of then Mayor Andy Street, Birmingham and the wider west midlands was showcased as the host of the Commonwealth games. Now, three years on, it feels like we are being showcased for all the wrong reasons: as a basket case because of a bankrupt council that cannot empty its own bins.

Under the previous Labour leadership of Birmingham —before he was unceremoniously dispatched by the national executive committee—we were promised a golden decade. It is really disappointing. If this is a golden decade, I can only despair. It is important not to forget that this is the second time in only seven years that we have had bin strikes on our doorstep in Birmingham. Residents really do feel that enough is enough. The public health emergency—that is what it is now—has to end, not just for the residents of Birmingham, but for the residents in my constituency and all those bordering Birmingham who are feeling its effects.

My local council, like other neighbouring councils, is looking at ways to assist Birmingham, but I feel that would be putting a sticking plaster on a problem that needs sorting out, and would come at extra cost. Can the Minister reassure us that if other local authorities helped, any costs incurred would be funded by the Government or by Birmingham city council? I do not feel it is the job of my local taxpayers to fund the clean-up of the Labour council’s streets in Birmingham.

On fly-tipping specifically, I think we all agree that the challenges posed are significant. However, it is heartening to see that proactive leadership can make a real difference. I do not want to just speak about Birmingham: I want to highlight some good work on fly-tipping, because that is equally important. In stark contrast to the situation in Birmingham, where residents are enduring ongoing bin strikes, Walsall council has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to keeping our communities clean and safe. I pay tribute to the leadership there and to all the staff.

Under Conservative leadership, Walsall has taken decisive action to combat fly-tipping and improve waste management. The results speak for themselves. Walsall’s operational teams work tirelessly to ensure that waste is collected efficiently, with one of the highest performance rates in the country. Over the past year, the council has successfully completed 7 million bin collections on time, achieving an outstanding success rate of 99.96%. In a climate in which some councils are failing to maintain basic services, it is only fair that we recognise that that level of dedication and public service is a testament to the commitment of the team in Walsall. By keeping our streets clean, Walsall council is not just ensuring a healthier environment but enhancing the quality of life for residents, supporting local businesses and making the area a more attractive place to live and work.

Walsall’s innovative approach to tackling fly-tipping has been nothing short of remarkable. For example, the environmental crime scene project has delivered tangible, long-lasting results. The initiative was launched in February 2023 and treats fly-tipped areas as crime scenes, to deter illegal dumping. Since its introduction, reports of bulky waste fly-tipping have plummeted from 40 to just five a day. In some wards, perpetrators have removed up to 70% of the fly-tips. The environmental crime scene project has sent out a clear message: fly-tipping will not be tolerated in Walsall.

The council has also organised a range of events that bring together councillors and volunteers to tackle fly-tipping hotspots across the borough. Thanks to an incredible network of dedicated litter pickers, over 67,000 bags of rubbish have been collected across the whole of the borough in the past five years. I hate to imagine how big a mountain of bags that is, but it quite some rubbish that has been collected by litter pickers, who have been doing this on a voluntary basis. In my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency, I know of groups such as the Pelsall Wombles, the Walsall Wood Wombles, the Pheasey Park Farm Pickers—I was out with them on Sunday—and so many individuals and community groups, including the Friends of Streetly Library, who are really making a difference.

It has been heartwarming to see our local schools, such as Pelsall village school, get involved in the Great British spring clean initiative and others. As I walked over to Westminster Hall this afternoon, I noticed that Shire Oak academy had taken part in the great big school clean—I had not come across that initiative before, but it is a really good way of encouraging the next generation to take part.

[John Lamont]

I recently spent time with the Keeping Duns Blooming Marvellous group, picking up litter around Duns. Dozens of groups across the Scottish Borders are doing similar work. Although my right hon. Friend is right to highlight the great work that Conservative-led councils are achieving, does she share my view that, often, it is in partnership with volunteers that they are able to achieve such success?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are some beautiful villages in the Scottish Borders, and I have been fortunate to visit many. He highlights how these community-led initiatives have not just improved local cleanliness but have helped to foster a strong culture of environmental awareness, education and civic pride. That proactive and community-focused approach sets Walsall apart from the ongoing challenges faced by neighbouring areas, where waste management issues continue to spiral. Walsall’s model should be a beacon of best practice for other local authorities to follow.

Turning back to the national picture, when we were in Government we took decisive action to tackle the scourge of fly-tipping. Under the antisocial behaviour action plan, in July 2023 we increased the upper limit of on-the-spot fines for fly-tipping to £1,000. We also supported local authorities to better deliver for their communities. In 2022, we launched the fly-tipping grant scheme, which awarded £450,000 to crack down on fly-tipping in local communities. Following the success of measures including roadside CCTV, social media campaigns and targeted surveillance in hotspot areas, we almost doubled the funding available for councils in 2023 to £775,000. In Walsall, the use of CCTV has made a big difference to some fly-tipping hotspots.

Last May, we went further, announcing a third round of grants that would see 26 local authorities across England benefit from a share of almost £1 million, with individual grants of up to £50,000. There is always more that we can do; the work is not finished yet, because the litter and the fly-tipping are still out there. What plans does the Minister have to build on the successes of the grant scheme, and can he announce a fourth round? Birmingham could take advantage of that if there were another round.

In 2024, our manifesto pledged to punish polluters by making fly-tipping an offence that carries penalty points against a driving licence. That is a sensible measure that would introduce a further deterrent by directly linking fly-tipping to driving penalties. I believe we must further consider this type of action. Individuals and businesses would think twice about offending if they risked losing the ability to drive or getting points on their licence. It may even allow us to deter those who choose to absorb the costs of a fine.

The forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill is a golden opportunity to implement this type of reform. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), has tabled an amendment to the Bill to introduce the relevant legislation. The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), said she would ask her counterpart at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider the benefits of endorsing penalty points for fly-tippers.

I read a report prepared by Policy Exchange, called “Litterbugs 2.0”—I am sure the Minister or his officials will have seen it—which calls for higher penalties, a local authority league table and, interestingly, a national litter awareness course. Those are all worthy ideas that we need to continue exploring, because we cannot just rely on volunteer litter groups or councils. Government cannot do everything; there needs to be a cross-Government, multi-layered approach. Will the Minister enlighten us on his views on this matter? I am sure that he shares my desire for sensible reforms that strengthen the deterrents against fly-tipping. Personally, I would like that extended to litter as well because, try as I might, I have yet to find a clear definition of the difference between fly-tipping and litter, so let us tackle it all in one go.

In a recent litter pick in my constituency, I could not help but notice that litter was being thrown indiscriminately out of vehicles—hence my previous point. At the weekend, members of a local litter picking group asked very pertinent questions around the littering on slip roads to highways. If the Minister has not noticed already—I am sure he has—I suggest that when he is travelling or driving he takes notice of the vast quantities of litter and fly-tipping that we often see on the sides of roads or slip roads going on to motorways. Could he clarify whether the responsibility is with councils or National Highways, and whether the approach is the same right across the country?

It is time that we properly recognise the incredible work of volunteers. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) has rightly highlighted the importance of providing funding to local parish councils and encouraging collaboration with local businesses, particularly to support the installation of more automatic number plate recognition cameras to deter and catch offenders. Could we find a way to offer greater recognition for some of those litter champions, maybe through the honours system, which could do so much more to inspire and reward people at the grassroots level. Those individuals and groups who go above and beyond in their communities deserve more than a thank you—a lot of them would not expect it, but they do so much good work.

In Walsall borough, we are proud to have over 1,000 registered volunteers and nine community litter picking hubs, where residents can sign up and collect equipment. A huge amount of good work is happening at the grassroots level, but Government must play their part, too. We cannot expect councils and volunteers to carry the full weight of this challenge alone.

To conclude, I have a few asks for the Minister, who I am sure would be disappointed if I did not. Sitting through DEFRA questions in the main Chamber the other week, I saw so much cross-party support for tackling this problem; there must be some way that we can move this agenda forward. Can we have a national debate and a clear action plan that leads to real, measurable delivery that makes a difference to our communities?

Will the Minister consider the appointment of a litter and fly-tipping champion in Government—as we have champions and envoys in other Departments—to lead a joined up, cross-departmental approach? I assure him that I am not bidding for that job, but it could be a really important role. Could we have for a strong commitment to education and a zero-tolerance strategy? It is so important that we shift public behaviour. That is what a lot of this is about—shifting public behaviour and attitudes towards fly-tipping and litter so that it is not acceptable to drop litter.

Finally, on enforcement, we need to move beyond warm words and see concrete actions to tackle this costly and persistent blight on our communities. With the promised 13,000 extra police officers, perhaps that extra resource could be used to tackle this nationwide problem.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing the debate. We will talk about some of the specific issues she raised in relation to Birmingham, but this issue attracts attention in every region and, as she rightly said, is an issue across the west midlands region.

I pay tribute to some of the volunteer groups in my constituency, such as the Rubery Wombles, who do excellent work. Just this weekend I joined a community litter pick to clear one of the walkways off Torre Avenue in Northfield, which had accumulated a volume of fly-tipped litter. That did not come about through a particular organised group; it was simply residents getting in contact and suggesting that we come together to take matters into our own hands and clear that waste.

The right hon. Lady made some valid points about areas where there is an overlap in responsibility between national agencies, such as National Highways, and local authorities, and some of the problems that can arise, which I am sure are familiar to all Members through their constituency casework.

The right hon. Lady spoke about working together, and started by talking about who was here in the Chamber. In case it is not clear, let me point out for the record not only that am I standing here as a Birmingham city MP, but that of the three political parties that represent the city of Birmingham in Parliament, only Labour is represented in this debate today.

[Wendy Morton]

I did apologise at the time for forgetting the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Forgive me; I will not do that again. On the point about balance, I am a Conservative with a west midlands seat, so the Conservative party is represented in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) may be a Scottish Conservative, but I will not hold that against him—he is part of this debate too.

[Laurence Turner]

The right hon. Lady is exactly right to say that there is west midlands Conservative party representation; I was merely making a point about the city.

We do not have the same figures for the region, but nationally, fly-tipping incidents rose by 37% between 2010-11 and 2023-24. For the west midlands, where records start a little later, the increase has been higher—the number of recorded fly-tipping incidents rose by 80% between 2012-13 and 2023-24. Within the city of Birmingham, that increase was lower until we got to this current, very difficult period of industrial disputes. This is an issue in communities across the whole region, and I see it in my own constituency. As I said, just yesterday residents and users of Bell Holloway in Northfield, which is an arterial route in the constituency, found that the road had been closed due to fly-tipping in nearby woodland. It is not the first time that such an incident has happened on that particular road.

Through my constituency postbag, I have picked up on a large number of very serious recurring cases across the constituency. There is a set of flats in the Longbridge area where there is some confusion over land ownership and organised groups are seemingly taking advantage of this grey area to repeatedly fly-tip at that location. I know that fly-tipping is a serious problem on private land, in particular when landowners may not have the resources to respond to regular and large-volume fly-tipping.

I pay tribute to everyone who works in my office; as MPs, we individually take up casework, but of course it is the people who work for us who take on much of the heavy load. I have cleared regular fly-tipping in Weoley castle car park, and have helped to secure permanent physical adaptations at a site on the Frankley estate, which has helped to deter repeat fly-tippers.

Turning to the strike in Birmingham, just this morning there was an unfortunate incident involving the mobile waste centres that are being sent out around the city, which over the last week have sadly become the subject of misinformation about when and where they will be deployed. Overnight, a very large amount of black-bagged waste was dumped on Vardon Way in Kings Norton, which of course will reduce the capacity for residents who attend that mobile service at the advertised time. I pay tribute to Councillor Corrigan for Kings Norton North, who I have worked closely with over the last 24 hours to ensure that waste is cleared.

[Laurence Turner]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am a member of Unite. I was on the BBC over the weekend to talk about exactly these issues. There has been a change in the policing of the egress from the depots, one of which is in my constituency. Also, at the start of last week, a major incident was declared in Birmingham. I support the action taken, which should lead to a 40% increase in the number of trucks that are able to leave the depots. I hope that means that there will be a change in the frequency of collections.

[Wendy Morton]

Does the hon. Member agree that, although a public emergency was declared, it is good news if a few more trucks are getting out because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said, lorries have been slowed as they have tried to get out of the depots? The only way to crack this is to break the strike, and for the Government, Birmingham city council and, if necessary, the commissioners to get back round the table and sort this, because the only people who are losing out are the residents.

[Laurence Turner]

A 40% increase is more than “a few”, by any measure, but on the right hon. Lady’s substantive point, I was a trade union official, and in my experience the vast majority of disputes are ended by the two parties involved—in this case, Unite the union and Birmingham city council—coming to an agreement. Talks have resumed and that is positive. Members of this House have a responsibility through our words and rhetoric not to make a resolution less likely to be achieved. The exact details are held by the people in those discussions. I hope we will see some news from those discussions soon, because the strike needs to come to an end, and I hope that the offer on the table will be put to Unite members in a ballot.

The reality is that the bin collection service in my constituency was not good enough before the strike; that is an important point that we cannot lose sight of. Waste collection rates in the city of Birmingham are too low. That has a consequence for the council’s finances, as well as for the environment. I have serious concerns about the number of commercial contracts that I hear anecdotally are being cancelled because of the lack of reliability of the service during the strike and the potential implications for the city’s financing.

The context that has not been touched on is local government funding. That has a particular expression in Birmingham, but it affects all our constituencies—although the situation in Scotland is a devolved matter. We all remember when the previous Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), boasted that he had redirected funding away from what he called “deprived” cities to more affluent areas. That is certainly what we have seen in Birmingham.

Research that I have commissioned from the House of Commons Library shows that over the last decade Birmingham has suffered the sharpest decrease in spending power of any unitary authority in England. Taking inflation into account, residents of the city have lost more than 40p per £1 for every single person. We have lost more than 60% of the staff at Birmingham city council because need has risen in addition to that broad fall in spending.

The challenges are not confined to Birmingham—although because of its levels of deprivation perhaps the wave hit there first. When we look locally, Solihull, Dudley, Worcestershire and Shropshire are all councils that are experiencing severe financial difficulties; indeed, the scale of the cuts proposed in Shropshire is greater as a proportion of the council’s revenue than those planned in Birmingham.

Of course, the extremely difficult financial inheritance has an effect on the ability of local authorities to monitor and enforce fly-tipping prevention. Keep Britain Tidy has said, appropriately enough, that we are facing a “tipping point”. Some of those problems are attitudinal, and as has been said, once people know that they can dump once and not face effective sanction, it is more likely to happen again.

West Midlands police has an important role to play in preventing fly-tipping, but it still has 1,200 fewer police officers and police community support officers than it did in 2010. The police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, recently submitted a bid to the Home Office to employ an additional 150 police officers. It would be a good start if that were granted.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for explaining that the police and crime commissioner has bid for some additional police officers, because try as I might, using written parliamentary questions and debates, I have been unable to find out how many police officers the west midlands will be getting out of the 13,000. Despite budgets and everything else, does the hon. Member agree that if someone is resident in Birmingham, where they have had a council tax increase of 17.5% in the last couple of years, all they want is to get the strike ended, their bins emptied and the streets tidy again?

[Laurence Turner]

I think what people in my constituency want is a regular and reliable service. They want the current backlog to be cleared. Some streets in my constituency have not had a collection for four or five weeks. Of course, that is completely unacceptable, particularly when other streets have had much more regular collections, even during the strike period. We need to modernise the service.

Council tax is a burden on all our constituents. The impact assessment for the 10% council tax increase in Birmingham last year made it clear that approval for that increase was given by No. 10 and the Treasury when they were under Conservative leadership. The decision has been taken this year not to go ahead with the second 10% increase that had been planned under the Conservatives. I think that is positive. We are also starting to see significant funding coming into the city, which reflects the higher level of need. Over many years, we heard from the Conservatives that they were going to introduce a fair funding review for local government. It never happened. I am glad that action is finally being taken on this matter, but it takes time to turn these situations around. I hope that we see progress on these matters soon.

To return to discussion of the Government’s plans, I note that I received a reply, not from the Minister present, who I know also takes these matters extremely seriously, but from the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), who is also a west midlands MP. In answer to a written parliamentary question, she said:

“We have committed to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess they have created as part of a crackdown on anti-social behaviour. We will provide further details on this commitment in due course.”

That is a welcome and sensible measure, and I hope that we will hear from today’s Minister, either during the debate or when we come back from recess, about what actions are planned, because people in my constituency are fed up with the actions of the organised criminal groups that are taking advantage of wider problems in society, including the severe restriction on resources for our councils and our police.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I note again that the hon. Member has not condemned the actions, yet who is being penalised but the residents of Birmingham as waste piles up outside their houses? The BBC was reporting on that very action last night. It reported not only on the action being taken by Unite trade unionists, but on the residents who are being impacted. It reported on residents who could not even get down their street, blockaded in their own homes, because of piles of rubbish outside that are causing a huge nuisance: a huge impact with the smell and a huge impact on their livelihood and way of life. That is completely unacceptable.

[Wendy Morton]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. It was obvious last week in the Chamber that the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), just washed his hands and passed it back to Birmingham. I come back to the same point: does my hon. Friend agree that the people who are suffering are the residents of Birmingham and those in the surrounding areas? What is wrong with standing up and saying, “Come on, folks, let’s get together and sort this out”? It is the 21st century and we have rubbish on the streets of our second-biggest city.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. Anyone would think it was election season, would they not?

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing today’s debate and making a thoughtful and considered introduction with a number of questions for me, which I will attempt to address. She asked for a champion of these issues and I can think of no better champion than the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), who would normally be here and who I am sure would welcome the cross-party support that the right hon. Lady offered.

I thought that the right hon. Lady made a number of sensible suggestions, for instance around points on licences, which I know is under consideration. She talked about having a national debate and a national action plan—all of these things are under consideration and are good ideas. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for not only making an excellent speech on the issues around waste and fly-tipping, but for putting some context into the political argument that is happening about the history of Birmingham. These issues have to be understood in that wider context.

To go back to fly-tipping, it is not just a load of rubbish: it is a serious crime that blights local communities and the environment. We appreciate the difficulty it poses to councils, landowners and residents. Local councils reported more than a million fly-tipping incidents in 2023-24, representing a significant cost burden to the UK economy. Over the last five years, those reported fly-tipping incidents have increased by 20%. That is unacceptable and this Government will take back control of our streets and our countryside. We are committed to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess they have created, as part of a crackdown on antisocial behaviour and we look forward to providing further details on this commitment in due course.

We recognise the crucial role of councils in tackling fly-tipping. Fly-tipping happens for a variety of reasons, from people misunderstanding how to deal with their waste to hardened criminals seeking to make money from the co-ordinated dumping of large amounts of waste, so the response will vary depending on the circumstances. We want to see an effective enforcement strategy at the heart of local authority efforts to combat fly-tipping. I strongly encourage them to make good use of their powers, which include prosecution. That can lead to a significant fine, a community sentence or even imprisonment and compensation for a landowner’s clearance costs.

Much has been said about Walsall council’s splendid record—the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills talked about it at length—but I note that it failed to bring a single prosecution in 2023-24. While sentencing is a matter for the courts, I understand that the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group, which is chaired by DEFRA officials, has previously produced guidance to support councils in presenting robust cases to court. Right and hon. hon. Members across the House may wish to bring that to the attention of their local councils.

Instead of prosecuting, local authorities can issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000 to those who fly-tip or £600 to those who pass their household waste to someone without the proper licence. They also have powers to stop, search and seize vehicles of suspected fly-tippers. To help councils to make full and proper use of their enforcement powers, we are seeking powers in the Crime and Policing Bill to provide statutory enforcement guidance, to which councils will need to have regard.

[Wendy Morton]

Perhaps the Minister’s records are not as up to date as mine. I want to gently point out that Walsall council successfully prosecuted an individual for fly-tipping a fridge while serving a suspended sentence order in February 2024.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am very pleased to hear it. It sounds like there was one prosecution, which is better than none.

We are under no illusion about the scale of the pressures that local authorities are facing. We all know how much pressure they are under, and it impacts the services that they can provide to local people. The 2025-26 local government finance settlement will provide over £5 billion of new funding for local services over and above local council tax. The majority of funding in the local government finance settlement is un-ringfenced, recognising that local leaders are best placed to identify local priorities. It will be a choice for local authorities, and they will make their choices.

The situation in Birmingham has been raised. I recognise the misery and disruption it is causing to residents and hear what Opposition Members have said. It is in the interests of all parties and, most importantly, of the residents of Birmingham and the surrounding areas, that this industrial action is brought to a close as soon as possible. We encourage all parties to redouble their efforts to find a resolution. We believe that it is right that the response continues to be locally led, as is usual in the case of council-run services such as rubbish collections.

Birmingham city council declared a major incident on Monday 31 March, which means that it can increase its street-cleaning operation and fly-tipping removal by bringing in extra vehicles and crews. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government updated the House on Monday 7 April on how the situation is being managed following that declaration. She, the Minister for Local Government and MHCLG officials are monitoring the situation closely. Birmingham city council continues to lead the response, as is appropriate, but cross-Government mechanisms have been activated to ensure a co-ordinated response, with MHCLG in the lead and DEFRA supporting.

The backlog of waste must be dealt with swiftly to address public health concerns. The council began its work to collect the hazardous accumulation of waste over the weekend, and the Government stand ready to play their part in supporting the council in that work.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

rose—

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will carry on for a minute.

In the time-honoured spirit of scoring political points, I return to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), who queried why the Opposition voted against the deposit return scheme. That vote was just a few months ago, in January, when 67 Conservatives voted against the very policy that they had promoted in government. If we are going to have this knockabout and tit-for-tat across the Chamber, let us recognise that there are issues on both sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), the hon. Members for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), and the shadow Ministers for contributing to the debate.

It seems to me there is a lot of cross-party support when it comes to fly-tipping and litter. I think we all agree that we need to do more and go further. I for one will certainly follow the Crime and Policing Bill closely in the coming weeks.

It was clear, though, that we disagree on the situation in Birmingham. It is disappointing that, time and again, Government Members would not condemn the strikes, and that the Government continue to wash their hands of the shocking ongoing situation in Birmingham and on the doorsteps in so many local authorities, including my own. I say gently to the Minister that if he is serious about taking back control of the streets when it comes to rubbish and waste, will he please start in Birmingham?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of fly-tipping on communities in the West Midlands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

All councils have been given an uplift under this Labour Government, so they have more money to be able to deal with the priorities of their local communities, and I encourage them to think about where that money is spent. There is also a really important equality issue here: if people do not have access to the internet in East Sussex, due to blackspots, they might not be able to digitally book in, so I would look at digital exclusion. The people who are least able to afford the internet should not be forced into dealing with unscrupulous rogues.

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

We know that fly-tipping is an expensive and dangerous nuisance. Local authorities such as Conservative-led Walsall council are taking a really proactive and determined approach to tackling it, but with bin strikes on our doorstep under the neighbouring Labour-led Birmingham city council, we fear more fly-tipping, particularly in the communities that border Birmingham. Alarmingly, we are hearing of rats the size of cats in Britain’s second city, and these squeaky blinders are definitely not welcome in Aldridge-Brownhills. What specific support can the Minister provide to neighbouring authorities in these specific circumstances, and what can she do to bring the bin strikes to an end?

[Mary Creagh]

Obviously Birmingham city council’s bin situation is a matter for the council, but, as a neighbouring MP in Coventry, we have not seen any of the fly-tipping that the right hon. Lady talks about seeing in Walsall. Both sides need to get round the table and sort this out for the benefit of the people of Birmingham.

Farming

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Farming is the backbone of this country, not only providing us with the food we need to feed our families, but acting as a steward of the land that we hold dear. Farmers do so much more than grow our food: they protect the countryside, create jobs and contribute immensely to rural economies.

My constituency may not have as large a farming population as some others, but believe you me, Madam Deputy Speaker: the farmers we do have are vital to the national picture, as the shadow Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), recognised during his recent visit to some of my local farmers. Their efforts support local communities, provide employment and contribute to food security, and I pay tribute to each and every one of them. I also pay tribute to the farmers who took valuable time off the land today to bring their tractors down to Parliament and support us here in this debate. I suspect there may even be some sitting in the Gallery upstairs.

Changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026 will have a profound consequence for family farms, including those in my constituency. The removal of the 100% relief above the first £1 million in agricultural and business property could mean farmers are forced to pay inheritance tax at 20% on the value of their property above the threshold, which will push many of them out of business.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the changes to agricultural property relief are completely contrary to what the Prime Minister outlined in his initial speech on Downing Street, where he said he wanted the Government to tread more lightly on people’s lives? Does she also agree that this policy is a false economy and that it ultimately risks concentrating farming assets in the hands of very few, which will make the market much worse for British consumers, society and food security?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I know he speaks and stands up for his local farmers very powerfully. Far from treading lightly, this Government are trampling over our farmers. This policy will lead to the break-up of long-established farms, with land being sold off to meet tax liabilities, which will, I fear, lead to the concreting over of our beautiful countryside.

Another topic that demands our attention is the use of agricultural land for the siting of battery energy storage systems. While I am fully supportive of the move to renewable energy, just as with solar farms, we must ensure that the siting of BESS, which are often large in scale, is done with care and consideration. In my constituency, a planning inspector has approved one of these battery storage facilities on green-belt agricultural land at Chapel Lane in Pheasey Park Farm ward against the will of the local council and the community.

Our land is finite, and we must balance the need for renewable energy with the need to safeguard land for agricultural use and food production. I urge the Government to take a more balanced approach to land use, ensuring that agricultural land remains available for farming and food production. I fear that the changes to the national planning policy framework and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will simply drive a coach and horses through our arable and green-belt land, disrespecting the views of local residents and risking our food security.

We can no longer take food security for granted. The war in Ukraine, global inflation, supply chain disruptions and extreme weather events are all contributing to rising food prices and shortages in some areas. Here in the UK, we currently produce just 61% of the food we need. We can no longer be complacent. It is time to stand up for our farmers. Just this week, the Government announced the closure of the SFI scheme—another kick to our farmers, who are leading the way on change.

Let me conclude—I could say more, and I would love to say more—by saying that farming is not just a job, but a way of life. No farmers means no food. It is time this Government axed the family farm tax.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I very much enjoyed visiting his constituency and talking to farmers there about these issues. I can absolutely give him that commitment.

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

How does the Minister expect those who have farming businesses to plan for the future when he sneaks an announcement out like his Department did last night, despite a message on his website saying that they would give six weeks’ notice of any closure? What does the Minister have against our farmers and food producers?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The only thing I have anything against is the previous Government, who set up the scheme in the first place. They set it up in a way that meant that SFI ’22 and SFI ’23 were closed in exactly the same way. SFI ’24 is only different in one sense, in that it is now oversubscribed rather than undersubscribed. As a consequence, it would not have been possible to give notice because it would have led to a further spike in applications.

Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber today, and I congratulate all new and returning Members on their election successes. It is an honour to be back in this place and to be called to speak in this debate on the King’s Speech. I start by thanking my constituents in Aldridge-Brownhills for returning me to this place for a fourth time. I thank the residents of Pheasey Park Farm, Park Hall, Nether Hall and Orchard Hills for returning me for the first time following the boundary changes.

There is much to consider in this King’s Speech, and rest assured that I will welcome those elements that benefit my constituents. However, my job on the Opposition Benches remains to get the best for my constituency and my constituents. Where the Government’s legislation and plans harm my constituency, I will stand up and be my constituents’ voice and fight for their interests. That brings me nicely on to the areas that I wish to raise today.

Starting with housing, we need homes, but we need the right homes, built in the right places and with the right infrastructure to support them and their communities, and we need local decision making. What we do not need to see is swathes of houses—the wrong homes, in the wrong mix and in the wrong place, driven by top-down mandatory targets. That is not nimbyism, but common sense. That is why I have always advocated for a brownfield-first approach, because the minute the green belt is released, that is it. When it is gone, it is gone forever, taking away the integrity of our communities and the sense of amenity and belonging, which we all believe are vital.

It concerns me that while Government Members say they will prioritise brownfield sites—they have coined this phrase “grey-belt land”—to meet their target, they are also telling local authorities to identify areas with green-belt collars to build on. That surely is wrong. It simply risks nibbling away at our green belt until it is gone.

The definition of green belt, in case we need a reminder, is that it is a buffer zone between towns and between towns and countryside. It is a planning tool to prevent urban sprawl. In the case of my constituency, it prevents us from being subsumed into the suburbs of a greater Birmingham. The green belt is not a nostalgic vision, but a future vision for future generations. The former mayor, Andy Street, had a vision for it. It is thanks to him, his leadership and his brownfield-first approach that we have seen 16,000 new homes built and thousands of jobs created on brownfield land, which has benefited many, including those in the Walsall borough. We need to see more of that approach. Surely we should build out the brownfield sites first before we release any green belt, with more financial incentives for land remediation funds.

We also need to understand what the new Government mean by “grey belt”. Is it simply another grey area? I, for one, sincerely hope not. One specific area that I seek clarity on is the new powers for compulsory purchase. I hope that can unlock some of the brownfield sites. In my constituency, there are some small derelict sites—often pubs in town centres—so let us look at working with local communities to unlock some of them.

Communities also need transport. It is inherently linked to communities and is key to jobs and opportunities. The Government have set out that they will get Britain moving, but I am deeply concerned, to put it mildly, that the new Labour Mayor of the West Midlands has said that he will review the decision for a train station in Aldridge. What has happened to the money that the former mayor Andy Street and I secured for that project? In the absence of any confirmation that it will be completed on time by 2027, within the budget allocated, I can only assume that the new mayor has no intention of delivering the project. It is 65 years since Aldridge had passenger trains. Today we have the track, freight trains and the land for a car park. Various partners are already working on it. It might not be a big deal to Mayor Parker, but it certainly is to the residents of Aldridge and to me.

I am conscious of time, but I want to touch briefly on crime and justice, as they matter to my constituents. Communities need police officers and police stations. I will continue my campaign to keep Aldridge police station. With a “for sale” board appearing recently at Sutton Coldfield, it is time for the Labour police and crime commissioner to come clean about his intentions for Aldridge police station. We need our police station as a base for our local bobbies, to increase the safety of our residents and to support our communities—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

Order. I call Luke Myer to make his maiden speech.

Food Security and Farming

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered food security and farming.

I thank the Minister and my hon. Friends who are present for joining me for this rather short debate. We will cover as much ground as possible. It is a little disappointing that there is no Opposition spokesperson, and a distinct lack of people on the Opposition Benches. Why does food security matter? There is a war in Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe. There is global inflation. There are global supply chain challenges, and climate change. There is the challenge of rising prices and the cost of living. We all need food; it is a basic need. So as I said, I am very disappointed that no one from the Opposition is present.

In this place, energy security rightly is firmly on the agenda, and the Government are taking action, but I believe that we must take food security equally seriously. Food security has many dimensions, including availability, affordability, nutrition, the state of global agriculture, logistics and food safety. The journey from farm to fork has never been more complex than it can be today.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this very important debate, short though it is. With food inflation at 18%—which hits poor people particularly hard, because staple foods are going up the most, not luxury foods—does she agree that it makes no sense to take grade 1 and 2 land out of production here, only to fly in food from all around the world, increasing the carbon footprint?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which I will touch on a little later.

Much of the journey from farm to fork is unknown to our constituents until they see gaps on the shelves of their local supermarket, or read of shortages in the media. Overall, we produce 61% of all the food that we need in the UK, a figure that has been broadly stable for the past 20 years. The food strategy commits to keeping it at the same level in the future. I acknowledge that the work that the Government are doing is putting significant investment into the food system, but I will challenge my good friend the Minister, who knows more about food and farming than many in this place, by saying that investment and innovation are great, but they can take time. We need to be addressing the challenge and delivering today.

The first UK food security report was published in December 2021, but I am sure that we would all agree that much has changed significantly since then, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and global energy and inflation pressures. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) alluded to, today’s figures report that food inflation is running at 19%. Many of us, when we go into our local supermarket or shop, often see that reflected in the basics that we buy, whether that is bread, milk, butter or whatever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Can we have a short intervention? It is only a half-hour debate, Jim.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is important that we continue to look closely at regulation and some of the bureaucracy around food production and farming, and ensure that the journey from farm to fork, and from one market to another, is as smooth as possible.

The production-to-supply ratio of food in the UK has been declining since it peaked in the mid-1990s. For me, the question is not so much why, although that is important, but what we are doing about it and what more can be done. We can start by recognising the dual role that farmers play as both food producers and custodians of the countryside. I am a farmer’s daughter, so I have a bit of experience in this, although it is a few years since my dad gave up farming. We need to get that important balance right, because farming must be viable and economically sustainable, as well as environmentally sustainable.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady is being very generous, and I thank her for bringing an important debate to this House. Like me, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has demonstrated that, while the official Opposition may not be here, the unofficial one is deeply concerned about the future of farming across our great family of nations. In Westmorland, and indeed across the rest of England, 100% of farmers will lose more than a third of their basic payment by the end of this year. Less than 10% are in the sustainable farming incentive so far, so there is a real gap in farm incomes. I can tell the right hon. Lady, just from my own experience of talking to farmers in Westmorland last week, that that is forcing some farmers out of business and some to intensify farming. Would it be wise to address that, so that we can continue food production?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. This is only a half-hour debate. It is not normal to have many interventions in this sort of debate. The Back Bencher produces his or her argument and the Minister replies.

[Wendy Morton]

Thank you, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he makes a crucial point. Farmers in my constituency have highlighted to me the challenge they face in getting the balance and the mix right. For me, it comes down to how we keep farming sustainable while producing the food we need and looking after our environment.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

May I make a point about viability, very briefly? I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate her on this debate and on making such important points. I appreciate that she may not have time to go into the international aspects, but does she agree that we need to have a much more ambitious food and wine export strategy that promotes brand Britain, and that we must genuinely address the legitimate concerns of farmers in relation to food standards and cheaper imports?

[Wendy Morton]

I am a passionate supporter of British farming and produce. In recent years, we have seen a greater focus on exports of British food, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that there is an international angle to all this. Alas, I doubt that I will have time to cover it, but I will see how much progress I make. The situation in Ukraine—the breadbasket of Europe—has highlighted just how important global markets are when it comes to food and food security.

We also need to do more to tackle food waste, which is another of my pet hates at home. It is important that we do all we can to help people to reduce food waste. Food waste is bad for landfill, and it goes right down to the household level. I am interested to hear what the Minister might have to say on that.

I particularly want to mention two other key areas: first, land use, the environment, land for food production and solar farms; and secondly, support for our farmers. I will take support for our farmers first, because a number of Members have alluded to its importance. In my constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills, we have only a small number of farmers, but they are very important to the local economy and the national production of food. Local farmers tell me that the cost of fertiliser has gone up by 161%. I spoke to farmers who have had to find an eye-watering extra £200,000 just to cover the increase in costs. When they produce a crop or a product on contract, they cannot just put their price up because prices are fixed. Red diesel has doubled in price. I think we all appreciate and understand that there is volatility of energy costs. Whether they need heat for greenhouses or refrigeration for the storage of potatoes, farmers are being hit in a number of ways. The cost of growing a tomato, as we realise when we go into a supermarket or a shop, rose by 27% between 2021 and 2022.

The environmental land management scheme has seen a reduction in basic payments, and by 2028 will be no more. In 2022, it was recorded that £22 million-worth of fruit and veg had been wasted due to a workforce shortage for picking. I appreciate that the Department is working on that, but something is not quite right when we have to waste food because we cannot pick it and process it, particularly when some are struggling to afford food. It was highlighted to me this morning that the UK horticulture sector alone needs around 70,000 workers each year to harvest fruit and veg. What more is the Minister’s Department doing to address that issue? Our farmers and our farms need support.

There will always be pressures on our land—farming versus housing and development. I know that particularly because my constituency is on the edge of the west midlands, close to the urban sprawl of Birmingham. Land use has to be about balance. I am sure that the Minister is aware of two recent petitions to the House of Commons: one to ban development on agricultural land; and another that calls on the Government to consider the cumulative impact of solar farm developments on the availability of agricultural land.

My good friend the Minister knows that I talk a lot in this place about protecting the green belt and developing a brownfield-first policy approach to housing and development. That is the right and sensible way to protect our countryside, our food supplies and our farms while also delivering the homes that local communities need.

I might be straying off the point a little here, Sir Edward, but I will bring it back to the debate. With the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities recently undertaking a consultation on the national planning policy framework, and with the Levelling-up Bill passing through the other place, it would be remiss of me not to press the Minister and ask him if he could explain a little more about the position of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when it comes to the balance between development and protecting our green spaces.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I am very lucky to be able to go to the local supermarket and buy the apples that have been farmed in my constituency, but, sadly, nearly 7,000 hectares of greenfield in my constituency are up for residential development. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the competing issues of being able to buy locally sourced food, house building and the value of our farmers’ fields need to be resolved so that we can protect locally grown products?

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend re-emphasises the point about balance. It has to be a good thing, where possible, to make the most of local land that can produce food and to buy food locally, but it must be affordable. It reduces the carbon footprint and supports local farms and shops. I agree wholeheartedly with her; she is fortunate to have so much local produce on her doorstep in her constituency. It comes down to getting the balance right, and I do not think we are quite there yet.

Agricultural land is a finite resource. It is important that we never take food security, farming or our farmers for granted. I want to spend a couple of minutes on the international aspect, although I will give the Minister plenty of time to respond. I have mentioned the war in Ukraine. It is a sad fact that we have the need of a UN-led Black sea initiative to get grain out of Ukraine to some of the most needy countries. That situation highlights the importance of global markets and the global food chain.

Taken together, Russia and Ukraine account for one third of the global wheat trade, 17% of the global maize trade and 75% of the global sunflower oil trade. It is critical to consider that perspective, and important to recognise that weaknesses in global security impact on not just us in the UK, but elsewhere; they often constitute a humanitarian crisis in some parts of the world. That can equally have a knock-on effect back here in the UK. Drought in Somalia displaced more than 1 million people. Almost 2 million people have been displaced amid the worst food crisis in a decade in Burkina Faso. We know that those are some of the factors that also contribute to migration.

The UK can be a leader in producing climate-friendly food, but we must not let our own production levels drop. We should be maintaining and increasing our domestic food focus and production, and helping our farmers, because then we can help at home and help some of the world’s poorest populations as well.

UK Canals and Waterways

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Michael Fabricant]

I am more than happy to do so. The work that is being done in my hon. Friend’s constituency—as in my own constituency, with the Lichfield and Hatherton canals—is testament to the hard work and enthusiasm that people have for the wonderful environment created by our canals.

Our canals have seen a remarkable renaissance over the past 70 years, recovered from the dark days of decline and dereliction in the middle of the 20th century. I applaud the role of the Inland Waterways Association in campaigning so tirelessly for their restoration over that time. The Lichfield canal, which I mentioned to my hon. Friend and is currently being restored, was filled in in the 1960s; how unimaginative and short-sighted planners were back then. Now, with more boats on the waterways and use of the towpaths more popular than ever, we are seeing their benefits realised on a grand scale, repurposed for leisure and recreation, health and wellbeing and homes, and still playing a vital economic role for freight and other commercial uses, attracting visitors from across the globe while enriching the lives of so many local communities.

I recall doing a TV programme on the Coventry canal, and as they were interviewing me a narrowboat approached. I decided to ad lib, being a former broadcaster, and as the narrowboat went by I said, “Where are you from?” I thought they might say Dudley; in fact, they said they were from Tel Aviv and were on a canal holiday. The canals affect not just the health and welfare of our people, but bring in commercial dollars to the United Kingdom.

Canals bring blue and green space to the heart of urban areas, connecting town and country and enabling people to connect with nature and enjoy traffic-free routes. Millions of our fellow citizens enjoy the canals, be it boating on the water, canoeing, paddle boarding, rowing—in greater numbers, walking and cycling along towpaths too—angling from the banks or simply enjoying these special, beautiful places on our doorstep, taking time away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. There are now over 800 million visits per year to the Canal & River Trust’s waterways alone, and that figure is rising.

Waterways are on the doorstep for 9 million people, including many of the one in eight UK residents who do not have a private garden, giving them access to nature—often in areas where green and blue space is limited. I suspect that that is very much the case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris). Around 60% of the trust’s waterways run through the most deprived areas of the country, with higher rates of ill health and economic deprivation. They reach many of those in greater need. As we saw so vividly during the pandemic, canals and waterways make a real difference to people’s lives, with tens of thousands rediscovering them in their neighbourhood, finding them to be a lifeline, and experiencing the wellbeing benefits of regular use of free and accessible waterside space ever since.

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

My hon. Friend makes some really important points. On his point about urban towns and industrial areas, particularly those that we have in the west midlands, does he agree that, as part of the levelling-up agenda, canals can play a really important part in regenerating industrial heartlands, creating a better environment for families and individuals who want to live in those areas, and creating much better regeneration?

[Michael Fabricant]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is interesting that the West Midlands Mayor, who has already been mentioned, is a keen supporter of the Lichfield and Hatherton canals. Why? Lichfield is not in the West Midlands Combined Authority, but it will link to the deprived urban areas of the Black Country to provide additional bucks in the form of tourism. As I mentioned, we need more Israelis and Americans there, and we need more national park rangers.

The trust now partners in programmes to promote green social prescribing pilots and other initiatives, from its “Let’s Fish!” scheme, which has seen hundreds of youngsters connect with nature, to its Active Waterways project in partnership with Sport England, which is designed to overcome inactivity, social isolation, and mental and physical health conditions.

The west midlands, a part of which I am proud to represent, has a special affinity for its canals. They are an integral part of our history and economy, as Metro Mayor Andy Street reflected recently in an article that he wrote for “ConservativeHome”. The recovery of our canals is tied closely to the renewal of the west midlands, contributing to business and culture while providing the spaces that inspire communities. Once neglected, the canal network is now vibrant. It is a driver for levelling up, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, and provides well-connected sites for business and attractive locations for new housing, providing sustainable urban living.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As we have already heard, canals and inland waterways are an integral part of our life and our landscape. In recent years, it is fair to say that we have seen a remarkable revival. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred earlier to covid-19; that is just one of the many factors that has encouraged us all to appreciate what we have on our doorsteps more than ever before.

In Aldridge-Brownhills we have the Wyrley and Essington canal, which has some wonderful walkways along the towpath where people can watch the wildlife, observe nature and enjoy being outdoors. In recent years, we have seen a real revival of the Brownhills canal festival, which is organised by the Lichfield & Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust. It brings visitors to Brownhills and local residents together for what has become an excellent event. We see many community organisations and traders taking part, including the roving traders. If anyone is ever in Brownhills when the canal festival is on, I recommend going to the Jam Butty, because it makes some of the most fantastic jams and marmalades.

[Michael Fabricant]

I have bought from the Jam Butty. It was at the Huddlesford heritage gathering in my constituency. I believe my right hon. Friend moors her narrow boat there; I think she should declare that.

[Wendy Morton]

It is my husband’s boating passion, but I will come to that shortly. In 2016, Aldridge-Brownhills hosted the Inland Waterways Association festival of water in Pelsall. We took that boat from Huddlesford over to Pelsall for the festival, and we had a great time. Alas, we no longer have that boat, but I can assure you that we still have another one. My husband has a real passion for his canal boats.

Those are just some of the significant economic, social and environmental benefits of our canals. It is estimated that more than £4 billion in additional benefits is brought in every year. That is pretty impressive, especially considering how the Canal & River Trust—a charity—was founded only in 2012. Prior to that, the public-funded British Waterways was responsible for canals and rivers in England and Wales. It is a huge task, with over 1,500 locks, 55 tunnels, 281 aqueducts, almost 3,000 bridges and 71 reservoirs to maintain, improve and invest in for the future.

It is fair to describe the CRT as the guardian of around 2,000 miles of waterways and the protector of historic and critical infrastructure. Much of that is more than 200 years old, and is now vulnerable to climate change. As we sadly saw with the Toddbrook reservoir dam a couple of years ago, that has a real potential to threaten neighbouring homes.

What makes the journey and story of the CRT even more remarkable is the way in which it is funded from a diverse range of sources; I would go through those, but I am conscious of the clock. Alongside the various income streams, I want to recognise the role of volunteers in my consistency. Aldridge rotary club is one of the many organisations up and down the country that is involved in maintaining one particular strip. I must declare an interest as a Rotarian.

The CRT is a huge success story, but I cannot stress enough the importance of the £52.6 million grant that it receives from DEFRA. I came to speak today to urge the Minister and her Government to continue to support the CRT. The benefits are massive—there are health-related, economic and wellbeing benefits, as well as benefits for community groups. At a time when so many families are feeling financial pressure, it is an opportunity to explore the outdoors for free. Given that the CRT has not just stepped up to the plate but gone way beyond it, I hope that the Minister and her team will look positively when reviewing the grant and continue to pay, de minimis, the £52.6 million a year—or increase it, because the return on investment is absolutely huge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I of course do not include the hon. Gentleman in that comment. He is ever present in Westminster Hall, and he brought to light the canals in his area. I am going to speak about English and Welsh canals, not Scottish and Northern Irish ones, because Scotland and Northern Ireland sort themselves out and run things themselves. However, it was lovely to hear about the canals in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

What a cornucopia of canals we have heard about—canals from across the country—and I have been struck by the stories that Members told, particularly those about the engagement of volunteers. We have also heard many great names, such as the Erewash canal and the Wyrley and Essington canal, as well as a whole lot from the Cotswolds, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) puts under the Cotswolds hat—the Stroudwater canal, the Gloucester and Sharpness canal, and the Thames and Severn canal, which are all in the area. She is spoilt for choice.

We also heard about the Walsham and Dilham canal, which is small but becoming perfectly formed after all the work. I have had quite an association with the Kennet and Avon canal, which ran right past my school in the centre of Bath. It played quite a big role in my life: we would go out there for art classes and walk along it. I met my first boyfriend on a sponsored walk along the canal from Bath to Bradford-on-Avon, so I have never forgotten it. My husband and his mates always used to do some sort of activity every year, and the very last activity he went on with his group of lads before he died was on the Kennet and Avon canal. It was in November and it was pouring with rain. He was on crutches, but they still had the most magical time. I remember it with great fondness. That is what can be done on a canal.

I now live near the Bridgwater and Taunton canal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield mentioned. It was a go-to place to walk along during the lockdown, so it was very important. We have heard about all the benefits that our canals bring, including the huge public benefits—enjoyment, leisure, recreation and waterside holidays. My husband went canoeing, and paddleboarding has become incredibly popular; I suppose it is quite good to do on a canal because there are no waves, unless a boat passes.

Canals have all those great benefits, and there is also their history and industrial heritage. There are huge health and wellbeing benefits to walking along a canal. During lockdown, we regularly used to see kingfishers. Even with all those people walking along the path, the kingfishers were not afraid because it was their habitat and home. We have heard about the amazing green corridors that canals can forge through our countryside, and particularly in cities and towns. I take issue with what the shadow Minister said, because the Government are doing a great deal of work on reintroducing biodiversity in nature. We are setting targets for that, and canals form a very important part of it.

The United Kingdom’s largest navigation authority is the Canal & Rivers Trust. As has been said, something like 800 million visits are made to our canals every year, which is pretty phenomenal. That shows just how important they are. Our waterways and navigation authorities have a really important part to play in helping to ensure that this important piece of our infrastructure is resilient to climate change and helps us to meet our net zero targets through sustainable transport, energy generation and the transfer of water.

Water security is becoming an increasingly important issue. I am the Water Minister—I am pleased to say that is one of the hats I wear—and water security is as important as all the other issues that we are tackling, such as water demand. Climate change is triggering changes and extreme weather events. The Government are developing policies to adapt to climate change right throughout the country, and our navigation authorities are exploring ways to adapt the network to climate change.

The infrastructure can also contribute to net zero. That includes examining the feasibility of increasing electrification of the networks and encouraging boaters to switch to electric vessels. Earlier this year, the Broads Authority, with funding from the Department for Transport’s clean maritime demonstration competition, examined the potential for the electrification of the broads hire boat fleet. The Environment Agency has installed a number of electric charging points along the non-tidal River Thames, and the Canal & River Trust has installed electric charging points on a few of its London canals, including a trial eco-mooring zone on the Regent’s canal, part-funded by DEFRA and the London Borough of Islington.

[Wendy Morton]

The Minister is setting out some fantastic examples of how we can help our waterways to adapt for the future with electric points and so forth, but one thing that really concerns me is our ageing infrastructure. Looking ahead is fantastic and absolutely the right thing to do, but will she reassure me that the Government will play their part when it comes to the maintenance and restoration of the infrastructure that we have today?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that pertinent point. I will refer to it a bit later in my speech, but it is a really serious point. Of course, infrastructure is affected by climate change and extremes of weather, which are putting more pressure on some assets. As well as the opportunities around electrification, there are similar opportunities with active travel and the cycle networks along our canals, which allow people to get away from roadsides and travel in a much fresher and cleaner environment. If we can get more people to take to their bikes, it will help us reduce carbon emissions and tackle the net zero targets.

Let me go back to water security, which is really important. Our navigation authorities have an important role to play in this endeavour in times of both flooding and drought. They can help by managing water levels, and the long dry spells this summer have highlighted how the canal network could increasingly play a role in water transfer, particularly from west to east. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned taking water from the wet west to the east. All these things obviously have to be carefully worked out, and I have spoken to the Canal & River Trust about how such opportunities would work. I particularly welcome Affinity Water’s plan to work with the Canal & River Trust to transfer water through the Grand Union canal, and I know others are looking at other such opportunities.

As has been touched on, the network has a really important historic value, with much of it being more than 200 years old. It matters a great deal to people and a lot of restoration work is under way. We have heard so much about volunteers and I, too, thank them. So many volunteers have played a key role in restoring sections of our canals, and I particularly want to mention that I had a wonderful trip to the Monty canal in Montgomeryshire, where I met lots of volunteers and saw the work they were doing. They have benefited from a £16 million levelling-up fund grant. Members have mentioned the levelling-up benefits of canals, and that money is being spent well in the community to restore the fantastic canal in the centre of town.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady mentioned that in her speech, as did others, so I will come to it now. Many Members mentioned the annual grant to the Canal & River Trust, so I want to explain a bit about the grant, how it happened and the history around it. The grant stands at £52.6 million until 2027 and currently represents about one quarter of the trust’s annual income, which means that the trust derives three quarters of its annual income from other sources. That distinction is very important, because one of the trust’s objectives when it was created in 2012 with charitable status was that it would be free of the public sector constraints that its predecessor, British Waterways, was subject to. Freedom from public sector constraints meant that the trust would be free to develop other income generation strategies, including by benefiting from charitable donations and legacies, charity tax reliefs, third-party project funding and borrowing on the financial markets.

It is also worth mentioning that in 2012 the trust was endowed by the Government with a significant property and investment portfolio, which is currently valued at around £1.1 billion, and the returns were to be used as income. The clear intent was that the trust would reduce its dependence on the Government grant and foster increasing self-sufficiency by providing access to income streams not available to public corporations and by stimulating new efficiencies.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield that British Waterways received more funding than the Canal & River Trust: indeed, that was the intent behind establishing an independent charity to undertake that function. However, it is important that we compare like with like when looking at the evolution of Government funding. British Waterways, a public corporation, was responsible for the waterways in England, Wales and Scotland, whereas the Canal & River Trust—which is a charity, with access to charitable benefits and tax breaks—is responsible for England and Wales only. Scottish Canals funding represented £10.5 million in 2011-12, and the existing grant increased by £10 million in 2015-16 and has been inflation-adjusted until April 2022. It is then required by the grant agreement to be flat for the final five years of the grant period.

[Wendy Morton]

I appreciate the Minister setting out the history behind the finances, but I want to reinforce the point that when we discuss the £52.6 million that the Canal & River Trust is in receipt of, we must not underestimate the huge level of income streams that they are generating, heading towards the target that the Government want them to get to. It is important that the Government do not lose sight of the £4.6 billion-worth of benefits that are coming in in various ways. Also, given that the climate change agenda has changed so much since 2012, does the Minister agree that we are not comparing apples with apples here?