DAVID RICHARDSON
DAVID RICHARDSON
At the Oxford Farming
Conference, Margaret
Becketts attidude to
subsidies was markedly
different to that of her
American counterpart
MARGARET Beckett wants British farming to succeed. Not only that, she wants those engaged in it to thrive and prosper. The DEFRA minister made this clear last week. But the only problem is that we can expect little help from the government and her ideas for achieving these objectives leave much to be desired.
The "headmistress" was speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference. The fact she appeared at all was a coup for the organisers – ever since she took the job last June, she has done her best to avoid events with farming in their title.
But on the second day of the conference she came to speak, if not to listen. Mrs Beckett swept into the hall like royalty, her fashionable red coat swaying. And Cumbrian foot-and-mouth victim and perfect gentleman Alistair Wannop, who was answering questions at the time, gave way to the Very Important Lady.
Within minutes she was telling a surprisingly subdued audience that sustainable development was the key role of her department. Farming could play a part in that, but it would have to change – massively and quickly. And, having recently returned from Doha, where the likely impact of climate change was considered, she said it would be dramatic and come earlier than previously thought.
"We expect our children and grandchildren to be affected and science now predicts further major change in our own lifetimes," she said.
I explored that with her at the subsequent Press conference in the context of the fast accelerating world population. In the interests of domestic food security, would it not be appropriate to assess the amount of food required in this country that should be produced at home? That followed a similar question in the main hall that I judged she had not adequately answered. For my impertinence I had my wrist sharply slapped. But she did concede that climate change would create changes in world food availability. However, it would still not be appropriate to make such an assessment. Was it the minister or was it me being inconsistent?
She was obsessed with cutting EU and UK farm subsidies. "The pressure to reduce market-distorting subsidies is probably at an all-time high," claimed Mrs Beckett. This did not quite chime with the motherly US secretary for agriculture Anne Veneman, who the previous day accepted that with world markets in their present state there was a need to support agriculture. Her concern wasnt so much the amount of subsidy paid to farmers, but what it was paid for.
Mrs Veneman wanted to avoid trade distortion. But when I asked if she would have any problem with redesignating existing EU aid from production to the environment or some other approved target she confirmed: "The US could not object to that. Its what we have done ourselves."
It was the first time it had been said so openly. It recognised the way the US is aiding its farmers and it put a different slant on Mrs Becketts subsequent claim about the pressures on subsidies.
Meanwhile, Mrs Beckett had a list of solutions for the farmers who, she admitted, were suffering difficulties.
She urged us to try new products and grow new crops that did not compete with cheaper imports. She told us to open farm shops and make direct sales to consumers. She advocated diversification and recommended co-operation.
Few would deny such ideas are part of the solution. Indeed, many farmers, myself included, have already tried most of them. But she failed to recognise that most of her solutions were niches and may already be overdone. Further, that although some of the activities mentioned might add pennies to a farmers income, most need £s to survive. Mrs Beckett clearly has no concept that you cannot sell a truck load of wheat or sugar beet at a farmers market; that most animal products have to be processed in factories; that new crops do not appear like gifts under the Christmas tree; that food production remains the essential core to most farm businesses.
She also descended to the hackneyed rhetoric of so many who do not understand our industry when she said governments would not continue to subsidise "goods that are not wanted by the marketplace". Which goods are these? The EUs food mountains and lakes disappeared long ago. Today there are barely sufficient surpluses to create a respectable strategic reserve.
And while UK farmers supply 80% of the indigenous raw materials for nearly 60m British consumers, as well as contributing to export earnings, she must not be allowed to perpetuate the myth that nobody wants what farmers produce.
I say again, the environmental and other goodies UK society wants from farmers are the byproducts of production agriculture, not the products. Run down that production too far and this countrys landscapes will change. The effect on tourism would be catastrophic, never mind the risk to food security. Britain needs its farmers and what they produce. It is the governments job to provide as level a playing field as possible to enable us to compete. Judging by her speech last week, Mrs Beckett does not yet understand that concept.