Land Use Change: Food Security

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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 ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. We have had valuable contributions from Members across the House. I thank everyone for contributing to this debate on land use and food security, which matters to many of our constituents. May I also use this opportunity to welcome the Minister to her place? I think this is the first time that the two of us have been opposite one another. I would like to work constructively with her as we go forward, to ensure that food security is at the heart of Government policy.

As we all know, land is a finite resource—no one is making any more land—so a national conversation about how we use our land and what use we put it to is crucial. Most importantly, we must ensure that food security is at the heart of that conversation. Right now, as we speak in this Chamber, farmers outside are protesting against the direction in which this Labour Government are taking our food security agenda—most pressingly because of the Budget next week and the issue of the family farm tax, which I will come to. As a result of the choices that the Government have made over the last 16 or so months, we are, quite simply, in a food and farming emergency.

The sustainable farming incentive has been mentioned, but I want to talk to the challenges that many of our farmers are facing to do with cash flow and the cash-flow pressures on our farming businesses. These are the result of the sustainable farming incentive being chopped and the implications of the delinked payments being dramatically reduced to an annual payment of £600 in years six and seven of the transition period. Those dramatically reduced payment rates are having an impact on cash flow. The stopping of capital grants is also having an impact on many of our farming businesses. The end of the fruit and vegetables scheme—it was disbanded with no announcement beyond the end of this calendar year—is also impacting many of our horticultural businesses and has created huge uncertainty for our many farming businesses.

Then there are the taxes announced by the Chancellor, including the dramatic increase in employers’ national insurance and the increase in the minimum wage. That has created a disparity between those on the minimum wage and those wanting to get a bit more, and has imposed a huge additional burden on many of our farming businesses. Business rates relief has been significantly reduced, while the fertiliser tax and the double cab pickup tax have been implemented. Those are all decisions that the Chancellor has made in the last 16 months or so, and which have impacted the cash flow of many of our farming businesses. Banks are now speaking to our farming businesses and wanting certainty that they will be able to service their debt. Why? Because many of our farming businesses have an average rate of return of 1%, if not less—sometimes they do not even break even. They are now therefore struggling to provide certainty to the banks that they will be able to service the debt that they hold.

All that is before we start talking about the family farm tax. Simply reducing a 100% relief on agricultural and business property to a threshold of £1 million will impact every farming or family business across the country. The average size of a farm is about 200 acres. Once we take into account the value of the farm land, the cottage, the growing crops, the stocks in store and the machinery, the value will be well above the £1 million threshold, thereby exposing every farming business to an inheritance tax liability of over 20%—one that they simply will not be able to pay. That is the elephant in the room, which not one of the Labour Members spoke about in their speech, despite this being a debate about food security.

[Chris Hinchliff]

My constituents have raised many of the concerns that the hon. Member has just described about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief, which I recognise. However, will he say whether his party recognises any of the points that the Government are making about that? Do they accept that some improvement could be made to the previous agricultural property relief? Or would the hon. Member just return it to how it was and not make any changes whatsoever?

[Robbie Moore]

Our position on the family farm tax is absolutely clear: the 100% relief on APR and business property relief needs to remain in place. That is why, as the Conservative party, we are absolutely clear that the family farm tax needs to be axed. When we come to the vote on the Finance Bill, I hope that the hon Member will join us on this side of the House and put his words into action by voting against this disastrous tax policy that this Labour Government are bringing about.

It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), despite being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, did not mention the inheritance tax changes once in his contribution.