Memorandum submitted by Food Security
Ltd (SFS 62)
Response to EFRA Committee Enquiry "Securing
food supplies up to 2050: the challenges for the UK"
1. The call for such a massive increase
in food production by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation
is an extremely serious challenge. It is reported in the Farmers
Weekly (9 January 2009) that the Council of Food Policy Advisors
has been instructed not to recommend any measures that would increase
domestic food production. This is a strange but certainly not
unexpected state of affairs. Defra is adamant that food security
is global, yet refuses to take up its responsibility to play its
part in increasing production.
2. Climatic conditions for food production
up to 2050 are likely to be far more favourable than in many
other countries. However, if the Government has any intention
of responding to the call to increase food production, the following
policies will have to be seriously reconsidered:
— The oft-stated intention to cut the
yield-enhancing fertiliser usage nitrogen, when already the nitrate
levels in many rivers is falling.
— Removal of tax relief for farm buildings,
especially crippling for those already built in expectation of
ABAs, giving farmers a further unwanted feeling.
— The smug feeling that we will be
OK now that we are in Europe.
— The determination to raise revenue
from farmers via compulsory registration for dealing with exotic
diseases.
3. In order to increase food production,
an impact assessment of the Government's policy to "Scrap
the CAP" should be undertaken. The following questions should
be asked:
— The average UK farm income without
any form of Government support would have been about £25 a
week in 2007 (Farmers Weekly 8 February 2008),
and farmers' borrowing is at an all-time high—showing how
effective Government policies for farmers to be "keepers
of the countryside" rather than producers of food have been.
If SFPs or equivalent had been finished with ten years ago, who
knows how many farmers would have been left by now?
— How much less tax would the Inland
Revenue be collecting?
— How much will our inevitably-increased
dependence on food imports, at a time when the pound is rapidly
declining in value, increase a family's shopping bill? Also, how
high would that bill have been by now?
4. The current UK food system is strong
in that our agriculture is of the highest standard. However, its
strength cannot be sustainable unless farmers receive a fair price
for their produce. In the face of continual uncertainty and financial
loss, it will continue to decline. If Defra does not take measure
to force buyers to treat their suppliers fairly, who will? Other
major issues have had to be faced by earlier governments-slavery,
child labour, for example. Why should the present Government not
follow suit?
5. The question raised about how well Defra
engages with other relevant Government Departments is very potent.
We would like to draw the Committee's attention to the recent
article by the Royal United Services Institute, "Risk, Threat
and Security", in which they say "We need to remind
ourselves of the first principles which govern priorities in the
liberal arena of short-term party politics". Defence and
security must be restored as the first duty of government. Moves
are needed to take defence and security, as far as possible, back
out of democracies. They make proposals "that would help
both ministers and officials comprehend the inter-related nature
of today's risks and the emergence of threats". How can defence
be even considered without reference to the food supply? This
is common sense to the simplest of individuals—maybe there
is some hidden reason why politicians adamantly refuse to see
it. Their antipathy to English farming seems to be distorting
their judgement to the point of endangering the nation, as well
as damaging our economy and therefore everybody's bank balance.
6. Some Government advisors claim that we
are no longer an island, but part of a trading block. We would
like to raise the question, have any signed and dependable treaties
been put in place which would be honoured in the event of our
trading routes being disrupted or our imports drying up for any
reason? How can we be sure that France, Germany, Denmark, Holland,
etc. would feed us if they needed their own supplies for their
own people, or in the event of international crisis? These nations
have not been inclined to come to our aid over the years—some
certainly do not pull their weight in Afghanistan. Do we really
want the humiliation of having to call on America and Australia
again? We spoke to the Australian Ambassador when he was at Westminster
a while ago, and he assured us that they would help us if necessary,
but why should we allow such a terrible situation to develop again,
where we expect these countries to sacrifice their men, ships
and planes on our behalf? We were ashamed as we spoke to him.
Have we forgotten the suddenness of Russia's recent invasion of
Georgia? We certainly worried at the time as to what the consequences
might be worldwide. No doubt the Committee members are aware that,
while the EU is busy regulating on pesticides and nitrogen, Russia
is busy with a massive re-armament programme, costing some $183 billion
dollars (see House of Commons debate, "Defence in the World",
1 February 2007).
7. The present economic crisis may well
prove impossible to solve until attention is paid to agriculture—the
primary industry which is the foundation and mainstay of the economy.
Has this not been proved in Zimbabwe?
Food Security Ltd
January 2009
|
