Contribution
My Lords, we now move from the weeds to the stratosphere. I begin by expressing some sympathy for the Minister and her department, which is being asked to provide housing for a very large number of additional people without upsetting those people already here, whose communities and immediate environment will be radically reshaped for ever.
It is worth putting a couple of numbers on the record as background to this issue and indeed to my amendment. We are expecting the population of this country to increase by 6.6 million people by 2035—that is equivalent to two and a half cities the size of Greater Manchester. By the 2040s, this country will have overtaken Germany as the most populous country in Europe; by the way, Germany is one and a half times our size in geographical area. So, as regards population pressure, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Let me be clear that this is absolutely not a rant or an attack on refugees and asylum seekers. While there are clearly many knotty problems to be addressed, those unfortunate people make up less than 10% of the total increase in our population. The major reasons behind the growth are British industry’s insatiable desire to recruit overseas—the “default option”, as the Migration Advisory Committee has described it—and British higher education, which has built its business model on overseas recruitment, many of whom then morph into our permanent population during or at the end of their degrees. The consequences of these increases and decisions ricochet around Whitehall and impact on nearly every aspect of our national life. For the Minister’s department, the policy about housing can best be described as, “Please empty the bath, but you can’t touch the taps”. That is why the Minister and the Government find this such a difficult area to tackle.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said at Second Reading, no one anywhere in the Government—this Government or the previous Government—is responsible for joining up the dots. Amendment 214 is an attempt, for once, to join two of the dots, because it is about the security of this nation’s food supplies. In February 1945, with the war in Europe nearly won and the U-boat menace history, the Cabinet was alarmed to receive a report that the country had food reserves for only about two months. Now, 80 years later, how long would our food reserves last? Essentially, they would last for three or four days. Modern supply chains are run to minimise the use of working capital. It is believed that they carry about three days’ supplies at any one time, a situation which some have described as being nine meals from anarchy.
We currently grow just over half the food that we need as a nation. This Bill, when enacted, will undoubtedly result in the loss of yet more land capable of producing food, as we cover it with houses and solar panels and we grow maize and similar crops not to feed people but to feed biodigesters to generate electricity in pursuit of net zero. All the while, our population is growing by half a million a year, and we are in a confused, uncertain and ever more dangerous world. Yet with the exception of our farmers, and groups such as the NFU, the discussion of food security, our ability to feed our population, is nowhere to be seen.
What is the reason for the silence on this critical issue? Essentially, it is because it falls between two stools of different government departments. Today we are discussing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is the child of the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which has no knowledge of or responsibility for the provision of food. Food is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but Defra has no influence on planning decisions—which are likely to impact directly on its areas of responsibility. My amendment is an attempt to join up these two dots by seeking to require the Secretary of State for this department to provide annually an account of the land being taken out of food production.
I will say a brief word about why food security should be an issue of increasing concern. For the past couple of centuries, the economic theory of comparative advantage has dominated Treasury thinking and, in turn, has had major influence on government departments’ policies. The theory of comparative advantage argues that the country will be better off if it specialises in producing things that it is best at producing rather than trying to produce everything that it needs. If you accept this theory, it follows that we do not need to worry that we produce only half the food we eat; we can buy the remainder on the world market more cheaply than we can produce it ourselves.