‘Food and farming’ fail to register as government focuses on health

With a “record” £29bn funding boost to “get the NHS back on its feet and fit for the future”, today’s government spending review – mapping out the Treasury’s fiscal plans from next year to the end of this parliament, had a strong emphasis on health.

That £29bn equates to a 3% yearly increase in the NHS budget and would “put the NHS [and the nation’s health] firmly back on the path to renewal”, chancellor Rachel Reeves insisted.

But in a speech that was also heavy on defence, security and infrastructure commitments, any hopes of major announcements for the food and farming sector were in vain, as the words failed to even make it into Reeves’ speech.

However, she did confirm the government would deliver on its previously announced plans to provide breakfast clubs in every school in England, ensuring “no child goes hungry”. A free school meal rule change in England is also expected to lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of the parliament.

In light of government figures which reveal a massive drop in fruit and veg consumption for both children and adults, any help to reverse this decline must be welcome.

’Food security is national security’

Reeves spoke more broadly on how “real wages were up by more in the first 10 months of this Labour government than in 10 years of Tory rule”, how it was “backing business” and that countries were “lining up to do business with the UK again”.

She also explained that “national security doesn’t stop at the armed forces or the border”, adding that ”government must step up to provide security for working people and resilience for our national economy.

“Put simply, where things are made and who makes them matters.”

Whether Labour’s pledge that ‘Food Security is National Security’ will hold true remains to be seen, amid rising imports of key food items and unpopular policies such as changes to Inheritance Tax and the early closure of the Sustainable Farming Incentive.

Defra’s departmental budget, plus the Department of Business and Trade will have been cut by 15% by the end of this parliament, according to an accompanying Treasury briefing document – helping save a total of £2.2bn by 2029-30.

As for expenditure, Defra’s day-to-day budget will have been squeezed by 2.7% in real terms over the same period.

Given the parlous state of relations between the farming sector and government, many commentators are already breathing a little easier as the detail of the government’s plans becomes clearer.

Farming investment

Some £2.7bn a year is being invested in the farming budget, while funding for the Environmental Land Management (ELMS) schemes will rise to £2bn by 2028/29 – a 150% increase compared with 2023/24.

Defra is also spending more than £300m between 2026/27 and 2028/29 on programmes to improve services, deliver better outcomes and reduce costs, with an emphasis on improving IT and AI-enabled improvements, while flood defences will also benefit from an additional £4.2bn over three years from 2026/27.

The Country Land and Business Association – which has not been afraid to criticise the government over its recent policy decisions – was largely positive in an early response. 

“While we still need further detail, it is clear that this is a meaningful funding settlement. Many farmers will be breathing a sigh of relief,” said CLA president Victoria Vyvyan.

“We now need Defra to work closely with industry to understand how to get the best bang for their buck. Trust and confidence have been shaken, and this is an opportunity to rebuild.”

Investment will need to increase in the future to maintain food security, warns Amber Sawyer, analyst for thinktank the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, “as the impacts of climate change on our farm businesses continue to escalate”.

And as Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride pointed out, the government did “make a choice to make further cuts”, in what he described as “a huge betrayal of farming communities”.

Whether that’s true or not will become clearer as the likes of the NFU probe the details of this review. But in reality, the outcome could arguably have been much worse.