Defra has lost its way
4 min read
A series of policy missteps has left Defra floundering, Steve Reed needs to get a grip
It is often said that the monarch must believe that the whole world smells of new paint, on the basis that every place he goes has just been given a freshen up with a tin of emulsion. By the same token, Steve Reed and Daniel Zeichner must believe that the countryside is perpetually filled with the sound of tractor horns.
For two capable and experienced politicians, it must be a frustrating place in which to find themselves. Ahead of the last election, they both worked hard to master a brief in which neither had much background, given their urban constituencies. Zeichner in particular won respect for his diligence in getting to know farming and farmers while he was a shadow minister.
As the former Conservative government blundered its way through Brexit psychodrama, botched trade deals and backhanded agricultural payment reforms, the prospect of a Labour administration did not seem to farmers to be quite the terrifying prospect that it might once have done. In many ways it was a textbook example of how to manage your politics in opposition. Doubtless, many Labour MPs in rural areas owe their seats to their efforts.
Then came the Autumn Budget. Overnight, that story was turned on its head. The government’s decision to scrap Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief for inheritance tax on farms came as a bolt out of the blue. The reaction of farmers and rural communities has been justifiably furious.
For Messrs Reid and Zeichner, it undeniably damaged their political authority in the eyes of the industry, and arguably within Whitehall. By many accounts, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) was simply left out of the loop on the planned tax hike until it was already a done deal – hardly a sign of respect from the Treasury.
Fast forward from then to March 11 and the closure – without notice – of the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI). It was as if the government had scoured the countryside to find the few remaining people that they had not previously offended and then set out to alienate them as well.
Prior to the closure, the Rural Payments Agency (the Defra agency that administers the scheme) was advising applicants that nothing would change without at least six weeks’ notice. Six weeks turned out to mean about six minutes. It all served to reinforce the impression of a department not in charge of its own brief. Closing the SFI as they did risks cementing the impression that while Defra may be under new management, the same old outcomes should be expected by the farming community.
For ministers to take control of a department in these circumstances and to turn it around requires a vision of what they want to achieve and the political authority to make it happen.
When it comes to the vision, Reed talks a good game. His statement that too many policymakers in Whitehall had lost sight of the fact that the primary purpose of agriculture was to produce food is one that would have struck a chord with most farmers (if they were still listening). What is less clear is how he intends to do it.
Trying to put a positive spin on the closure of the SFI, Zeichner boasted recently to the select committee about the various environmental “goods” that Defra had achieved. Food production was not listed amongst them. In an age where “food security is national security” (as Zeichner and the Prime Minister remind us regularly), that surely ought to be part of the “goods” that they aim to deliver – and that farmers ought to be at the heart of delivering. It all speaks to a department that does not entirely know what it wants to achieve – and until they do, we cannot expect much to improve.
Unless something changes soon in Defra, I fear that Reed and Zeichner will find that the sound of tractor horns will continue to haunt their visits to the countryside – and their careers – for years to come.
