Steve Reed's farming dilemma

Steve Reed addressed his first NFU Conference as Defra Secretary on Tuesday (25 February), giving a brave performance in the face of vocal and boisterous protest against the government’s plans for inheritance tax. Giving him his due, Mr Reed outlined a suite of policies of genuine advantage to the food and farming sector. 

Chief among these was a measure of progress towards the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to target half of all food bought and served by the public sector being sourced locally or to higher environmental standards. He declared: 

“For the first time ever, we are measuring where the public sector buys food from so we can use the Government’s own purchasing power to back British produce wherever we can. I have worked with my colleague Pat McFadden in the Cabinet Office to create new requirements for government catering contracts to favour high-quality, high-welfare products that British producers are well placed to meet.” 

Mr Reed's decision to make this statement to the Sun newspaper was clearly no coincidence, as it followed an exclusive article published by the same newspaper earlier this month. This examined the government’s pledge to serve British grown food in schools, subtitled - "The Countryside Alliance has demanded Labour communicate how they will back up their promises".

Food procurement has been a policy and campaigning focus for the Countryside Alliance. We want to maximise opportunities for British farmers and food producers to access potentially lucrative public contracts, supporting their profitability and the wider rural economy. Mr Reed’s statement lacked detail and precision and we have raised concerns over the government’s readiness to commit the necessary funding, but his willingness to engage on the matter can only be welcomed. We are working with numerous MPs on a cross-party basis on more specific proposals; he is right to identify monitoring as the first priority, since it is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for improving performance, and we are looking for routes to write these requirements into law. 

Other measures that farmers might welcome from Mr Reed’s speech included maintaining the seasonal workers visa scheme for another five years, so growers can access manpower to harvest their crops; he did caveat this assurance with a desire to “reduce the number of seasonal workers coming to the UK in the future” once farmers have invested in technological solutions to reduce their long-term reliance on labour. Funding for agri-technology was promised a £110 million uplift, with new Farming Innovation Programme research grants to be launched in the spring.  Biosecurity is to be strengthened through a new national centre based with the Animal and Plant Health Agency at Weybridge, and there was a commitment to protect Britain’s high environmental and animal welfare standards when negotiating future trade deals. 

Ultimately, however, Mr Reed’s remarks on agricultural and business property reliefs were less convincing even for a minister who lacks policy responsibility for tax. His statement, “I can't give the answer I know many of you want on inheritance tax,” followed by “I am sorry it's a decision that we've had to take,” revealed his recognition of the deep unpopularity of the government’s position with his audience. Unable to offer a substantive justification and constrained by government convention from showing flexibility or openness to reconsideration, his speech could be accused by detractors as an exercise in deflection. 

Mr Reed’s repeated assertion that food security is national security suggests a Minister with a genuine desire to understand and improve the lot of farmers. His dilemma arises from the question: how willing are his cabinet colleagues – chiefly the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer – to let him?