How climate change and red tape could be jeopardising UK access to affordable food
It might be tempting, given how much coverage has focused on it recently, to assume the forthcoming changes to inheritance tax regime are the single biggest issue facing farmers these days.
But the reality is these tax changes come at a moment of extraordinary pressure, with farmers having to contend with a swathe of unsettling issues, many of which could prove existential for their livelihoods.
Put them all together and you realise that for many of those marching in the streets in London, inheritance tax isn’t the only problem – it’s more like the last straw.
Why does this matter for the rest of us? In part because there’s a deeper story here.
For decades, this country’s level of food security has been more or less constant. This country has produced roughly 60 per cent of our own food for two decades (the figure was even higher in the 1980s). But farmers warn that given all the pressures they’re facing, that critical buffer could be about to be removed, with domestic production falling and dependence on imported food rising.
Whether that eventuates remains to be seen. As of 2023 the amount of food supplied domestically was still 62 per cent of everything we consumed. But now let’s consider the challenges facing farmers (even before we get to inheritance tax).
The first of them comes back to Brexit.
Following Britain’s departure from the EU, the government is making dramatic and far reaching changes to the way it supports farmers. For years, those payments, part of the EU-wide Common Agricultural Policy, were based on the amount of land farmed by each recipient.
Alongside these main farm payments there were other bolt-on schemes – Environmental Land Management schemes, to give them their category name – designed to encourage farmers to do more to look after local wildlife. But these schemes were always small in comparison to the main land-based farm payments.
There were problems aplenty with this old scheme. For one thing, all told, it amounted to a subsidy for land ownership rather than food production. Nonetheless, for many farmers it was an essential support, without which they would have had to sell up and stop producing food.
Under Michael Gove, Defra committed to far-reaching changes to these subsidies. Farms across the UK would get the same total amounts, he said, but instead of the majority being based on how much land they were farming, a growing portion would be environmental subsidies.
When Labour came into government it committed to accelerating this process, with the result that by 2027, fully 100 per cent of farm payments will be for environmental schemes.
Whether this is the right or wrong move is a matter of keen debate within the farming community. Many farmers argue that the net impact of environmental schemes is to reduce the amount of land being farmed for food, and that the schemes serve to reduce their crop yields rather than increasing them. Defra, and environmental advocates, argue that unless the soil and local habitats are preserved and improved, Britain faces ever diminishing harvests in future.
Speaking of harvests, that brings us to another issue farmers are having to contend with at the moment – poor crop yields. The past winter was exceptionally wet, with the upshot that the latest figures just released by Defra show 2024 was the second lowest wheat harvest since comparable records began in the early 1980s.
Now, the whole point of farming is that it’s weather dependent – no two years are alike. It’s quite conceivable that 2025’s harvest bounces back from this year’s. But one projection made by climate scientists is that the coming decades could be wetter and more volatile, spelling more trouble for farmers.
On top of this is another challenge: trade competition. Following Brexit, the UK has signed two trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which raise the quotas of how much food each country can export to the UK. Look at trade data and you see a sharp increase in beef and dairy imports from Australia and New Zealand.
In other words, UK farmers are having to contend with more competition even as they contend with worse weather and drastic changes to their funding model.
Nor is this where the challenges end. Because we might also be in the midst of something else: a secular slowdown in farming productivity.
Look at a very, very long-range historic chart of crop yields in the UK. You see a few interesting features. For most of our history, from the Middle Ages through to today, the amount of wheat we could grow in a given hectare of land was pretty low and pretty constant.
Now look at what happened in the second half of the 20th century. Thanks to a combination of artificial fertilisers, combine harvesters and other technological leaps, yields leapt by 200 per cent.
This extraordinary leap is the story of British farming for the parents and grandparents of those family farms tending the land today: ever increasing yields even as the government provided large subsidies for farmers. It was, in terms of pure yields, the golden age for farms – fuelled in part by chemicals.
But now look at the far right hand side of the chart – the past 20 years or so. The line is no longer rising so fast. Farm productivity – at least based on this measure – has slowed quite markedly. Yields are no longer leaping in the way they once were.
Or, to put it another way, it’s getting tougher to generate a return for each hour of work and each pound of investment.
Farmers have staged protests at government plans
This might all seem miles away from the day-to-day debates on farming today. But each of these factors matters. Together, they help explain why things are getting tougher for farmers.
But there’s a broader issue at hand here. Despite having left the EU and implemented far reaching policies such as these, this country hasn’t really had a proper debate about food.
Do we prefer to subsidise farmers in an effort to maintain our domestic food supplies at 60 per cent of our consumption? Would we rather ditch those subsidies and rely on imports instead? Should we favour the long-term health of the environment over short term food production?
These are chewy questions – and ones we really ought to be debating a little more. This isn’t just about inheritance tax…
MPs have voted to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales.
The amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, abolishing the prosecution of women for terminating their pregnancy at any stage, passed by 379 votes to 137.
It represents the biggest shake-up in reproductive rights for almost 60 years.
Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, who tabled the so-called “New Clause One” (NC1), said it would ensure women do not face investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment in relation to any pregnancies.
She said the current “Victorian” laws had been used against vulnerable women, citing cases such as Nicola Packer, who was prosecuted on suspicion of having an illegal abortion. She was found not guilty in May.
“Nicola’s story is deplorable, but there are many others,” Ms Antoniazzi said.
Abortion in England and Wales is currently a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider for up to 24 weeks after conception. The procedure is allowed after this time in very limited circumstances.
It is also legal to take prescribed related medication at home if a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant.
Ms Antoniazzi said NC1 was “a narrow, targeted measure” that would not change how abortion services were provided or the rules under the 1967 Abortion Act.
Pro-choice campaigners demonstrating for decriminalising abortion in the UK
She said: “The 24 [week] limit remains. Abortions still require the approval of signatures of two doctors, and women would still have to meet the grounds laid out in the Act.”
The MP said that meant healthcare professionals “acting outside the law and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised, as they are now.”
She added: “This piece of legislation will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help.
“As I have said before, and I will say it again, just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice, it is cruelty and it has got to end.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Should abortion be decriminalised?
The change will not come into effect immediately as the Crime and Policing Bill is still making its way through Parliament.
A separate amendment, put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy, went further with a measure to “lock in” the right of a person to have an abortion while protecting those who help them.
However, her amendment was not voted on because Ms Antoniazzi’s passed, as expected.
Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh, speaking against both amendments, described them as “not pro-woman” and argued they “would introduce sex-selective abortion”.
How did MPs vote?
MPs were given a free vote on the amendment, as is typically the case with so-called matters of conscience.
A breakdown of the vote showed it was passed overwhelmingly by Labour and Lib Dem MPs.
Read more:
Sky poll reveals public’s view on decriminalisation
Just eight Conservative MPs voted in favour, while all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment, with the exception of the party’s leader Nigel Farage, who abstained.
Sir Keir Starmer was not present for the vote as he is currently in Canada for the G7 summit, but said earlier that his “longstanding in-principle position is that women have the right to a safe and legal abortion”.
The issue of women investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions has been in the spotlight due to several recent high-profile cases.
Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after taking prescribed abortion medicine at home when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks.
In the Commons, Ms Antoniazzi cited another case of a young mother who was jailed for two years after she was forced to take illegal abortion medication by her abusive partner. He was never investigated.
The UK-US trade deal has been signed and is “done”, US President Donald Trump has said as he met Sir Keir Starmer at the G7 summit.
The US president told reporters in Canada: “We signed it, and it’s done. It’s a fair deal for both. It’ll produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income.”
Sir Keir said the document “implements” the deal to cut tariffs on cars and aerospace, describing it as a “really important agreement”.
“So this is a very good day for both of our countries – a real sign of strength,” the prime minister added.
Mr Trump added that the UK was “very well protected” against any future tariffs, saying: “You know why? Because I like them”.
However, he did not say whether levies on British steel exports to the US would be set to 0%, saying “we’re gonna let you have that information in a little while”.
Mr Trump also praised Sir Keir as a “great” prime minister, adding: “We’ve been talking about this deal for six years, and he’s done what they haven’t been able to do.”
He added: “We’re very longtime partners and allies and friends and we’ve become friends in a short period of time.
“He’s slightly more liberal than me to put it mildly… but we get along.”
Sir Keir added that “we make it work”.
As the pair exited a mountain lodge in the Canadian Rockies where the summit is being held, Mr Trump held up a physical copy of the trade agreement to show reporters.
Several leaves of paper fell from the binding, and Sir Keir quickly stooped to pick them up, saying: “A very important document.”
Sir Keir Starmer picks up paper from the UK-US trade deal after Donald Trump dropped it at the G7 summit. Pic: Reuters
The US president also appeared to mistakenly refer to a “trade agreement with the European Union” at one point as he stood alongside the British prime minister.
Mr Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on countries in April. At the time, he announced 10% “reciprocal” rates on all UK exports – as well as separately announced 25% levies on cars and steel.
Read more:
G7 summit ‘all about the Donald’ – analysis
Scrambled G7 agenda as leaders race to de-escalate Israel-Iran conflict
In a joint televised phone call in May, Sir Keir and Mr Trump announced the UK and US had agreed on a trade deal – but added the details were being finalised.
Ahead of the G7 summit, the prime minister said he would meet Mr Trump for “one-on-one” talks, and added the agreement “really matters for the vital sectors that are safeguarded under our deal, and we’ve got to implement that”.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike