‹ Back

An assessment of policy proposals by Peter Lawrence of the Farmer's Movement Cornwall

Made by the Party Leader, Alek Yerbury

 

A prominent issue over the last six months has been the agricultural sector, whether in terms of discussing inheritance taxes or the economic situation for British farmers. I have learned of a Farmer’s campaign organisation called the Farmer’s Movement Cornwall, and it contains a series of policy proposals for addressing the agricultural sector in Britain. You can read them in full here:

 

https://farmersmovementcornwall.co.uk/the-dozen-demands-for-farming/

 

Since it is a subject that is relevant to our political situation today, with all credit to the creator of these policies, I would like to address each one from my perspective as the Leader of the National Rebirth Party and therefore the custodian of implementing our National Agenda. An overall summary would not do it justice, therefore I will address each of the twelve policy proposals in turn:

 

1) £6 billion in the annual agricultural budget.

 

It is impossible to say whether this is too much or too little, but the proposed uses of the budget in the expanded paragraph are perfectly reasonable. The general subsidisation of the National agricultural industry is sound, given that self-sufficiency in food production is an ideal for the nation. The other proposed uses of public education on buying British produce and healthy eating schemes are also reasonable. Again, only at the time of implementation would it be able to be accurately determined by the national government how much to spend, but the proposed uses are correct.

 

2) A low interest loan scheme for agriculture.

 

It is absolutely correct that farming requires considerable capital, and that high interest rates can create very real dangers given the requirement for significant loans. The inability to pay back loans also presents a further threat due to the potential loss of capital-generating land. The policy written proposes that the low-interest loan scheme for farmers be managed by the state on a not-for-profit basis, and that the interest rate payable be only that required to cover the cost of administrating the scheme. I see no real downsides to such a scheme as this, and it would align with the National Agenda’s goal of using the resources of the state to bolster British enterprises that are beneficial to the nation.

 

3) Reintroduce minimum commodity prices together with a deficiency payments scheme and ensure sufficient import tariffs and equivalent quality regulations on imports and free trade deals to protect UK production.

 

It is a reasonable expectation that farmers should not have to sell their own goods at below cost prices. The proposition is that either trade protections or a deficiency payment scheme administered by the state can prevent this issue. The National Agenda would recommend that trade protections be used in the first instance, as the state should be actively protecting British industries (which includes agriculture) from international finance. The proposal also includes forcing any imported goods to be submitted to the same regulatory inspection as nationally-grown produce, which is reasonable. These regulatory checks would in practice have to include checks on the production environment of foreign-produced goods.

 

4) Exempt all agricultural assets including farm machinery and diversification enterprises from Inheritance Tax.

 

There are already threshold exemptions for farmers, though this proposal is that inheritance tax on farms be scrapped entirely. Such an arrangement is possible, but it must be done alongside regulation to ensure that there is no fraudulent abuse of the exemption for illegitimate reasons. There is a separate argument to be had regarding inheritance tax in principle, needless to say that, at minimum, the qualifying thresholds are too low for inheritance tax in general and should be raised.

 

5) The first principles of agricultural policy making must be:

     i) achievement of maximum agricultural self sufficiency through the prioritisation of core food production.
     ii) protection of the privately owned means of food production through the long term financial viability of family owned farms.
     iii) recognition and renewal of the social contract that exists between a farmer and the nation. The first duty of a farmer is to feed the nation and to be a trustworthy custodian of the land for future generations, in return the nation must fully protect and support the farmer.

 

These three principles are in line with the economic proposals of the National Agenda, and the way that it encourages state protection and investment in key sectors. The farmer does indeed have a duty and responsibility to maintain their land for the benefit of our National Community, and thus it makes perfect sense that the National Community, represented by the state, has a duty to ensure that they are capable of completing this task. The private ownership of farms has never been an issue; most people do not have the skills, desire or capability to manage food production or produce enough food to sustain themselves in an industrial age.

 

6) Strengthened rights for tenant farmers

 

The policy paper proposes giving tenant farmers more flexible and longer-term agreements, which gives them more scope to invest and grow their businesses and operations. Tenant farming in Great Britain is around 1/3 of all farming, and the primary issues I see identified are that tenant farmers are often forced out of their land in favour of non-farming related uses (which reduces production as well as rendering the tenants destitute), and that the tenancy agreements being made at present make it difficult for tenant farmers to diversify their operations themselves, or, due to their short-term nature, make investment from the tenant very dangerous. It would absolutely be the case that longer-term tenancy farming agreements would enable these things, as tenants would have reason to engage in long-term planning rather than be forced to treat the land like a cash-cow for fear of having it taken away from them with little notice.

 

7) Business rates and planning easements need to be put in place by local authorities for farm shops to help promote retail diversification and improve local food resilience in order to challenge the monopoly power of the supermarkets.

 

Farm shops have routinely appeared in recent years as a way of generating extra income for farmers. They typically offer more expensive, but better quality, produce. Independent farm shops could be encouraged to form co-operative enterprises with other nearby businesses of the same kind, with a view that farmers can offer a localised alternative to chain supermarkets, especially in rural areas (where supermarket access is more difficult) or wealthier areas where people are more inclined to spend more on better produce. In general if farmers are willing to offer the freshest produce for retail sale, then the state should encourage this to happen, firstly because it provides better food security, secondly because it provides farmers with another source of income which assists in keeping prices of crops low without farmers being bled dry, and thirdly because in the case of highly successful farm shops it provides employment opportunities in areas where employment options may be limited.

 

8) Ban loss leading sales tactics on all fresh produce.

 

The argument being that they distort people’s perceptions about the prices of food. Whilst this is true, I understand why businesses loss-lead. It is true that offering products for outrageously cheap prices will distort most people's understanding of the real cost of products. It has to be noted that the loss-leading does not mean the farmer is paid less by the retailer - it just means that the consumer gets a false impression of what food costs to produce. Perhaps a compromised system is possible whereby when loss-leading occurs, the purchase/production price of the good is also shown to the customer.

 

9) Stop any further commercial solar installations on farm land, deploy on rooftop and brown field sites only, reduce onshore wind to 5% of total installed generating capacity.

 

From an energy generation perspective, nuclear power is the only practical alternative to fossil fuel that does not consume vast amounts of land or present enormous logistical challenges (in the case of offshore wind generation). It would be prudent to halt further development of onshore wind or solar installations while the option of nuclear power is on the table.

 

10) Ban cloud seeding and the use of any other weather engineering technology in UK airspace.

 

There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that it takes place in this country. It was attempted in experimental form in the 1950s, and it does occur in various countries around the world, but it is understandable to be averse to an activity which interferes with natural processes.

 

11) Lock farmland out of the planning system for house building.

 

The National Agenda deals with house construction and rezoning of green belt land in Demands #13 and Demands #19. We recognise that there will always be the potential for unforeseeable situations in which it is of national necessity that agricultural land must be converted for other purposes – if the land is not being used for its intended purpose anyway then this is more justifiable. We also recognise the need to conserve agricultural land wherever possible. This said, other proposals in our agenda are likely to reduce the demand for increased housing near green-belt land anyway. A programme of reindustrialisation will reinvigorate town and city centres, see centuries-old housing replaced with better housing, and see new developments in areas closer to workplaces instead of in agricultural areas.

 

12) Demand honest and fully informed food labelling for consumers.

 

The policy proposes that in addition to nutritional labelling, products also include summarised information about methods of production, methods of slaughter, any use of gene editing or chemical treatments. There is no reason this cannot be done. Granted that most people will not read small print on a label even with the best of intentions, but the fact that the information is there for people will matter to some. There is a separate question to be answered as to whether there is too much use of chemical and editing processes in the production of foodstuffs; evidence would suggest that the amount of modification is contributing to increasing rates of cancers and diseases.

 

Conclusion

 

In summary, the dozen policy proposals here are, on the whole, very good. There are advantages to their implementation and few disadvantages, and all of them are line with the goals of the National Agenda, particularly those around promoting economic self-sufficiency, public health, and the right to productive work. The agricultural sector is frequently ignored by the political establishment, due to it being small in numbers and often cash-poor, for money and vote obsessed politicians there is little seeming benefit to looking out for the British farmer. The National Agenda of the National Rebirth Party, however, is about ensuring that our nation is made able to sustain itself, and that none of our people are left behind.

 

The cause of the British farmer, British worker, and British citizen are one and the same thing.