The Labour party conference in Liverpool brought confirmation that as part of its ‘reset’ in relations with the EU, the government will seek a new bilateral veterinary agreement.
This makes sense, given that UK and EU standards are similar, but common sense and politics do not always make good bedfellows. Things are running reasonably smoothly now, albeit with a lot of red tape, but a new deal could raise wider issues.
Many in Brussels want to ensure the UK is treated as a friendly third country, so that others will see the error of leaving the EU.
And many also want to force the hand of the UK to enter the European Economic Area, which would give it access to the single market, rather than creating a special case around veterinary issues.
The big political issue, however, is that the EU will want something in return. If rumours are right, that may be around some free movement, particularly for young people. That would be difficult for a government that still has its eyes on not alienating Brexit backers in the red wall English seats.
Beyond that it was a bit of a damp squib for farming. It took place against a backdrop of difficult times in agriculture, complete with new reports of a potential need to increase dairy imports because of the numbers leaving the industry because of poor profitability and problems getting farm labour. If the governing institution of the EU had been holding a showpiece event, it is a safe bet farmers would have been out in force to protest. Instead, the conference saw a low-key and fringe event organised by the farming lobby.
This may be down to a fundamental difference in how Europeans and the British confront their politicians. It may be because farmers know politicians at Westminster are not listening. This was the case under the Conservative government and despite a lot of talk about change, there is no radical thinking on agriculture from the new government. Defra minister Steve Reed stuck to the environment, targeting water companies for their constant ‘emergency’ discharges of sewage into rivers and the sea.
The event was not only a damp squib for agriculture, but for the party. It should have been a celebration of a return to government, with a massive majority, but it was blown off course by ‘freebiesgate’ around free clothing and tickets for sold-out events.
This put the party on the defensive from day one and turned a celebration into a PR fire-fighting exercise made worse by a decision to delay a debate on winter fuel payments for pensioners to the graveyard hour at the end of the conference. If politicians believe people will not see through that and the explanations as to how it was acceptable to be given freebies, they really are out of touch. There was some toning down of the gloom and doom warnings around the economy, but no shirking the reality of a difficult Budget next month. For farming, fears remain that agricultural property relief could be a target of efforts to increase the yield from inheritance tax.
Reed would not be drawn on the budget for agriculture and whether the Defra underspend in England would become a permanent reduction. Wait for the Budget, was his answer. There was a commitment to a new land-use review and to efforts to reduce farm energy costs, via what the new green GB Energy brainchild of the government will achieve. This was high on rhetoric and jam tomorrow, but short on facts, as was a commitment to better access of the grid for energy produced on farms. As part of a wider strategy to achieve economic growth, the government says its wants to make farming more ‘investable’ for the private sector. It is far from clear how that would be achieved, but it wants to use some public finding to deliver that ‘more investable’ farming framework.
There was also a commitment for 50% of the food for the public sector being British. That sounds good, but will this be properly policed to make sure British means UK-farmed? The bigger issue is whether the government will provide the public sector with a bigger budget to allow them to buy food on the basis of provenance rather than price. Again, this was all strong on ideas and even commitment, but short on detail and timescale.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here