Richard Wright: The EU backs young farmers, Labour’s policies simply don’t

This was the commitment from many now retired or discredited politicians who peddled that message to farmers. Many bought into those arguments. Nine years on from when they were criss-crossing the country seeking support, the clear, blue water is there. But it is the wrong way around for farmers here, particularly young people who hope to have a future in the industry. The CAP was an easy target back in 2016. Its failures were many and key elements, including rural development and efforts to help young people into the industry, were far from the stellar successes politicians promised. What was not on the agenda was the, albeit imperfect, financial stability the CAP put under agriculture in every member state, including the UK. It helped isolate farmers from the decisions of local politicians. The claim by Brexit supporters was that taking back support would be good for the industry. In fact the opposite has happened, thanks to governments then and now with no vision for farming beyond using it to help a poorly thought out drive towards a net zero green future. That green commitment is also there in the EU, but as geopolitics changed with the Russian invasion on Ukraine three years ago it has become much more farmer friendly. The change in emphasis is about food sovereignty and food security, which in troubled times European politicians see as hand-in-hand issues. At the NFU annual general meeting recently its deputy president urged greater trade into global markets. That makes sense, but political and economic chaos on many markets makes that difficult. It is also a reminder that with Brexit we walked away from the trade bloc that has the greatest number of stable, relatively farmer friendly trade deals in place. These have not proved easy to replace and that is not going to change in the near future. Brexit has isolated the UK in trade terms just when that is not a comfortable place to be. Thanks to Covid and the changing geopolitical climate it has been an unhelpful struggle all the way for Brexit. Whether without these obstacles it might have been more successful, only history will judge and the answer will never be definitive. The official figure for now is from the Office of Budgetary Responsibility, which put the cost of Brexit as a four per cent annual hit on GDP. To put that in context the government is struggling now to get to two per cent of GDP spending on defence. There is a stark difference between what the EU is hoping to do for young farmers and what is happening here. Last October the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, literally tore up and threw away every family farm succession plan, through changes to agricultural property relief. This goes against conventional thinking about the importance for an economy of adding value to indigenous assets. It also reduced food security for future generations at a time when we should be embracing that thinking. It is true that many other European countries have taxes on land moving to a new generation, but these have been in place for years and people have included them in their calculations. Our system has always been better, but now we are facing changes in a couple of years that cannot be planned for all while still leaving loopholes for those exploiting agricultural property relief to avoid tax rather than build a viable farming future. This contrasts with the position in the EU, as outlined in its vision plan for the future of agriculture. Its central theme is around the importance of farming to food production and rural economies, but a core message is also that the future for the industry, up to and beyond 2040, is about steps to get more young people to see farming as a worthwhile career and to make it easier for them to enter the industry. The tools it is advocating include tailored support measures, better training and the use of innovation and technology to encourage generational change. This is now a priority for the EU, welcomed by young farmer organisations. This radical thinking may yet founder, as have previous initiatives via rural development, to get young people into the industry. But it shows commitment and a belief in the future of farming that is lacking here, made worse by tax and other changes around land guaranteed to make a bad situation worse.