Food security should command a premium in a risky new world

As the UFU put it, this is evidence at last that farmers were finally rewarded for delivering a secure food supply.

However, like all statistics, this needs to be seen in context. Income gains in agriculture are generally from a low base; they also tend to be temporary, reflecting a positive but brief mismatch between income and rising costs. At brief points in time the gap swings to the advantage of farmers, but economic reality and supermarket price pressure tend to ensure the good days are time limited.

Hopefully this will not be the case this time, but saying that risks being a prime example of the folly of hope over realistic expectation. In its statement on the farm income figures the UFU said it was a suitable reward for helping to deliver national food security.

With the world an increasingly risky and war-torn place, food security should command a premium, but this is sadly not the case.

It is hard not to sound like a cracked record when more and more cash is being splashed on defence, but the government needs to show the vision needed to class agriculture as strategically important, rather than as a tool to pursue net zero thinking. The UK is vulnerable to global conflicts. We have undermined our energy production to depend on gas from the United States and nuclear power from France; oil supplies are vulnerable to events in the Middle East and we have no commitment to food production. As Keir Starmer plays a bigger part in the race to spend more on defence, the farming lobby should be screaming from the roof tops that defence is not just about buying bigger bombs, ships and planes, but about ensuring the UK can withstand whatever shocks are coming down the track. That it believes the level of risk has risen was highlighted when government advisers suggested this week the country needed to prepare to be on a war footing.

That is talk not heard since the Kennedy era in the 1960s and the Bay of Pigs missile crisis with Russia over Cuba. If that preparation is needed, ensuring we have the capacity to step up self-sufficiency in food is a key element.

That will not be achieved by pursuing policies that dismantle that ability in favour of a green vision cobbled together 10 years ago. The public is getting some tough love on defence spending and the need for a reordering of priorities.

Agriculture needs to join that debate and make clear that green over food production was thinking for very different times.

We can have food production and a green countryside, but a politically driven green countryside without food production is now a recipe for national disaster. What is frustrating with politicians and agriculture is their lack of interest and vision.

This was the case with the last government and nothing has changed, indeed things are worse, given the attack on agricultural property relief. In the EU we left for a better future things are very different. The commitment to food security is there, but above all the industry has a farm commissioner ready to fight the cause of farmers.

Plans to end the traditional two pillar direct support and rural development model for a single CAP fund look set to fail.

The future for young farmers is now an absolute priority and the farm commissioner, Christoph Hansen from Luxembourg, is fully engaged with this commitment. What would we give to hear any politicians, national or devolved, using some of the Hansen thinking.

He deems young farmers “essential” to the future of agriculture, which in turn is essential for Europe. He claims agriculture needs a new “entrepreneurial spirit” and deems young farmers the “key to successful innovation”.

This mix of political commitment and funding is helping the EU move up a gear to a new, more dynamic support model that will future proof industry.

It is far from perfect and we know the EU track record is not good for scientific innovation, because green influences remain even if the movement has lost much of its political power in Europe.

However, rightly cynical as we may be, an imperfect solution is better than the no solution, no interest and no vision position here.