Tabled by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the effects on food security of allowing corporations to purchase
arable land to offset their carbon emissions; and what plans they
have to limit the amount of arable land that can be used for this
purpose.
The Lord
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in the name of the
right reverend Prelate the , who has been
unavoidably detained in his diocese and sends his apologies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the
register. This Government are committed to safeguarding food
security, as highlighted by the food strategy published today. I
am very conscious of the issue raised, and we already have
several protections in place, such as requirements for public
consultations on any large new woodland as part of environmental
impact assessments. I am also working closely with Her Majesty’s
Treasury and BEIS to develop robust standards for green finance
investments, and will set out the next steps in the forthcoming
months.
The Lord
My Lords, does the Minister agree that industrial-scale tree
planting by large investment companies which purchase arable land
may create what are called ecological dead zones and generate
more carbon emissions if insufficient attention is given to
biodiversity, according to the John Muir Trust? If so, how will
Her Majesty’s Government ensure that such companies are subject
to proper biodiversity requirements so that they may prove to be
responsible stewards of the land?
(Con)
Yes, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the wrong kind
of trees planted in the wrong place under the wrong management
style will be a loss for both the environment and the social
element we want in our countryside. That is why there are very
clear rules under the woodland carbon code which corporates would
have to abide by, and why the Forestry Commission, if applying
through grant aid schemes, will require standards to be
maintained. For example, planting will not be permitted on deep
peat; it will be concentrated on poor land.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, it is a nonsense to allow private companies to acquire
vast hectares of arable land, often removing generations of
farming families, in order to offset their carbon emissions and
carry on with business as usual. British farmers are essential to
the country’s ability to produce food. Does the Minister agree
that importing food which is not produced to the same high animal
welfare standards as we enjoy in the UK, to replace that which we
might have grown ourselves, is a backwards step?
(Con)
I suggest that we look at this as the glass half full: there are
plenty of examples where private sector finance can be a massive
boost towards the environment by working with farmers and seeing
tree planting on poor-quality land, for example. Some 57% of
agricultural produce is produced on 33% of agricultural land.
This shows that, if we favour the productive land to produce
food—every single farm has corners of it that can be planted with
trees or for other ecological benefits—this will benefit the
farmer and is in accordance with the food production targets and
ambitions of this Government. It can work; we want to root out
the bad behaviour which the noble Baroness rightly points
out.
The (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The
Minister has rightly referenced the importance of a good balance
between vital food production, carbon capture and other
environmental things. It is a very difficult issue, and I wonder
whether he can confirm that the devolved Administrations and the
UK Government are discussing these things at the new Inter
Ministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
(Con)
I absolutely assure the noble Earl that we are working closely
with our devolved colleagues on this, because the environment
clearly does not respect boundaries. We want to make sure that
our policies are very closely aligned with them. The issue is
perhaps more pertinent in Scotland and Wales, where we have seen
some of the concerns which have led to this title of a “wild
west” in how private sector finance is applied. We want the
highest standards applied. There are good examples right across
the United Kingdom and we want to make sure that the tweaks and
the measures that we impose favour those who are showing virtue
rather than those who are not.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I live quite close to
Newmarket, where an exceptionally large solar farm is proposed on
high-quality farmland. I wonder whether my noble friend will say,
in light of the food strategy today and the desire for greater
food security, what steps the Government are taking to ensure
that the desirable use of solar farms and renewables is not
prejudicial to our environment or indeed our food security?
(Con)
I am well aware of this case in Suffolk and the concerns of local
people about loss of good agricultural land. The food strategy
published today sets out the ambition to maintain our high levels
of food security and production. Those sorts of developments need
to be seen in the context of that ambition, and very strict rules
relate to both planning and the use of the best agricultural
land. That may well apply in the case that my noble friend refers
to.
(Lab)
With about 7 billion trees, I think, we are one of the least
forested countries in Europe, and there is a case for more
trees—the right trees in the right place. I cannot understand why
there is not a complete ban on using food-producing land for
solar farms, when all the flat roofs of the warehouses and
factories in this country could be used for that. There would be
more space available; it is a given that it does not take good
agricultural food-producing land.
(Con)
There are many grants that people can source, even at a household
level, to acquire and install solar panels on roofs, and the
noble Lord is entirely right to point that out. He is also right
that we need more trees. We have very ambitious targets of
planting 30,000 hectares of additional trees every year by the
end of this Parliament. That can be achieved without impacting
our food security, and there are many areas of renewable energy
production that can be done in accordance with food production as
well.
(GP)
I am sure the Minister is aware of figures from 2019 showing that
corporations already own 18% of England, together with oligarchs
and City bankers owning 17% and the aristocracy and the gentry
owning 30%, all of that adding up to less than 1% of the
population owning more than half of the land. Does the Minister
agree that for food security to allow new small farmers and food
growers to enter and start small businesses, we need to
democratise land ownership?
(Con)
The most beneficial way to encourage people into farming at all
levels is through a system of let land and tenure. It is very
often those corporations and those individuals that the noble
Baroness mentions that provide the only entry for people who do
not have access to capital to purchase a farm. We want as broad
activity as possible in agricultural production, and that means
encouraging new and younger people to enter farming through the
tenancy system.
(Lab)
My Lords, in response to the question from the noble Baroness,
Lady Bakewell, on a similar issue last Wednesday, the Minister
said:
“we are taking action to make sure that private sector investment
in our natural environment is done properly, with the proper
social underpinning.”—[Official Report, 8/6/22; col. 1151.]
Can he explain how this “social underpinning” is going to work?
Will local people have the right to veto a large-scale private
sector land grab, an example of which we have already been
hearing about?
(Con)
Under the Forestry Commission’s rules, there is a local
consultation process that proposed tree planters are required to
go through. Also, the woodland carbon code is very clear, as is
the UK peatland code. We also want to make sure that corporations
that are investing in this kind of mitigation are publicly
accessible through the UK Land Carbon Registry, so anybody can
see what is being done in their neighbourhood. We want to make
sure that, with these so-called environmental, social and
governance measures, the middle word is used and is fundamental—w
want to make sure that these schemes are socially acceptable, as
well as environmentally acceptable.
(Con)
The most pressing food security issue facing the United Kingdom
at the moment is the inability of Ukraine to export its grain to
the West. I ask my noble friend: what assessment have the
Government made as to the challenge that this will present us and
the West? Also, how do the Government intend to mitigate this
problem?
(Con)
It is having an enormous effect on the global cost of
agricultural production. The Government are working
internationally with organisations such as the World Bank, which
has invested $180 billion in trying to make sure that the
countries that are going to be deprived of grain as a result of
the Ukraine war are supported. In this country, we are largely
self-sufficient in grain, and what we do import comes from
countries such as Canada. But my noble friend is entirely right
to point this out to make sure that we are working with the
international community: first of all, to get the grain out of
Ukraine; and, secondly, to support the countries that are going
to be affected, in a devastating way, by the shortages that arise
from this crisis.
