David Cameron champions green eating in speech to farmers

David Cameron (and David Miliband) has spoken to the Oxford Farming Conference today.  Here are the key themes from the Tory leader's wide-ranging speech:

Britain's beautiful countryside depends upon farmers: "It cannot be said too often that the fact that our countryside is one of our most precious national assets is not in spite of farming but because of farming.   I live on the edge of the Cotswolds where both the landscape and the architecture reflect centuries of successful agriculture.  Farming continues to be one of our hardest working industries and no one who cares about the future of this country can afford to ignore the countryside."

Margaret Beckett should have been held account for the RPA farce: "The Government has been guilty of rank inefficiency. The saga of the Rural Payments Agency and late payments was a complete disgrace.  In any other walk of life the person ultimately in charge would have to take responsibility. In politics, in this country, under this government, they get made foreign secretary."

Food security: "In this dangerous world, where we talk about the importance of energy security, we cannot afford to dismiss the importance of food security.  No one is suggesting that we operate a war economy, but a country like Britain that is blessed with so much fertile land would be foolish not to have the capacity to produce a significant percentage of its food.  Farming is about food production and, in an increasingly unsettled and dangerous world, this fact alone should ensure a proper recognition of the importance of agriculture."

Green farming: "Everyone now understands the importance of combating climate change.  Farmers have a huge role to play in this and other environmental challenges. The new products and new markets are genuinely exciting.  I saw many of them at this year's Royal Show.  Wool for home insulation.  Willow coppicing providing fuel for local boilers.  Hemp turned into breeze blocks.  There's also significant scope to grow energy crops to make bio-diesel and bio-ethanol and produce biomass for heat and power."

Honest labelling of food and 'food patriotism': "I'm convinced that the long term interest of British farming is best served by British consumers demanding quality British produce.  A vital part of facilitating this shift in priorities is ensuring that this country has far more rigorous and transparent food labelling.  Today British consumers can find it difficult to back British farmers, because of inadequate labelling. Food can be imported to Britain, processed here, and subsequently labelled in a way that suggests it's genuinely British.   That is completely wrong."

Competition policy must apply to supermarkets: "The supermarkets have been in the habit of using their market power to squeeze the margins of those they buy from.  Let's be honest: in the past there have been some real horror stories; Retrospective discounting; Making producers pay for promotions; and, according to the NFU, even instances of suppliers being required to supply labour to stack shelves.  There is evidence that the supermarkets are addressing some of these concerns but there is no room for complacency.  To me this issue is quite clear. These sorts of practices are completely unacceptable. The competition authorities are there for a purpose. They have the authority and the powers they need. They should feel empowered to act.  We will be watching to make sure that they do."

CAP and WTO: "We also need to start to shift the costs of CAP onto the countries that spend the most by phasing in co-financing.  Finally we need to ensure it is sustainable in WTO terms by phasing out export subsidies and by shifting funding from pillar one into pillar two."

Less bureaucracy for farmers: "Issues such as cross compliance, multiple inspections, the ban on on-site burial and integrated pollution control will all have to be looked at again.  We can learn a good deal from other countries in the EU, who would not think of burdening their farmers with the bureaucracy you have to endure."

Animal welfare: "Just as we insist that every Japanese car imported into the UK meets strict emission standards so we should insist that animal products meet decent welfare standards."

Organic food: "People are increasingly uneasy about some of the pesticides and antibiotics used in agriculture - especially abroad.  That's why we're witnessing the growth in the organic market."

The public sector should buy more local food: "We need a revolution in food procurement.  The Government spends £1.8bn each year on food for the public sector.  That gives it a lot of clout in the marketplace.  Ministers launched the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative in 2003 to encourage public bodies to procure locally source food.  But there's a problem.  The Government has no way of measuring its progress towards achieving this.  Therefore, it has no idea if its procurement policies are ignoring British produce and contributing to climate change.  The Government should be doing everything it can within EU rules to source food for schools, hospitals and other public institutions locally."

David Cameron is surely right to suggest that the growth of consumer demand for organic and locally-sourced produce could be a major source of future revenue for British farmers but are consumers right to want this kind of food.  The Economist (subscription required) recently raised some powerful objections to both:

"Organic methods, which rely on crop rotation, manure and compost in place of fertiliser, are far less intensive. So producing the world's current agricultural output organically would require several times as much land as is currently cultivated. There wouldn't be much room left for the rainforest..."

"The case for local food, produced as close as possible to the consumer in order to minimise “food miles” and, by extension, carbon emissions, is clear? Surprisingly, it is not. A study of Britain's food system found that nearly half of food-vehicle miles (ie, miles travelled by vehicles carrying food) were driven by cars going to and from the shops. Most people live closer to a supermarket than a farmer's market, so more local food could mean more food-vehicle miles. Moving food around in big, carefully packed lorries, as supermarkets do, may in fact be the most efficient way to transport the stuff.  What's more, once the energy used in production as well as transport is taken into account, local food may turn out to be even less green. Producing lamb in New Zealand and shipping it to Britain uses less energy than producing British lamb, because farming in New Zealand is less energy-intensive. And the local-food movement's aims, of course, contradict those of the Fairtrade movement, by discouraging rich-country consumers from buying poor-country produce. But since the local-food movement looks suspiciously like old-fashioned protectionism masquerading as concern for the environment, helping poor countries is presumably not the point."

Comments

[Andrew Woodman]

Fully support David Cameron with this. One thing keeps nagging away as I read through it. Are we in a position to act upon all this while we're in the EU, and wouldn't we be better able to achieve the goals if we got out. I can't see there being any real reform of CAP for instance whilst the French have any say.

[Valedictoryan]

"Are we in a position to act upon all this while we're in the EU"

Yes.

[Denis Cooper]

No.

[Andrew Woodman]

Are we still paying money to the EU to then pay our farmers not to grow crops Valedictoryan?

[TomTom]

"Just as we insist that every Japanese car imported into the UK meets strict emission standards

Really ? That should be a cinch since Japanese emission standards are way ahead of ours

[arthur]

Listened to Sean Rickard on R4 this morning, only person who talks sense about farming in this country.

[Jorgen]

"Are we in a position to act upon all this while we're in the EU"

Theoretically, yes, but is Camerons willing to withdraw from the Common Agricultural policy? I will bet that he is not. Any takers?

[Andrew Woodman]

Perhaps I should have said 'effectively' act upon all of the points.

[Andy Peterkin]

It is entirely illegal under EU Law for the government to orchestrate or in any way assist any form of "Buy British" campaign, and people who wish to label their produce as being of British origin have to be exceedingly careful.

[Tim Swift]

Just another example of Dave telling people what he thinks they want to hear. The quotes and examples you give above are just typical of the incoherent thinking. We're going to have less bureaucracy but even more rules about food labelling? We're going to go green but relax rules on pollution control? We're going to put a whole new set of rules in place to regulate the relationship between supermarkets and their suppliers (i.e. farmers)? We want to have more monitoring of where the public sector buys its food from?

May be good populist politics for getting the votes of a few farmers, but its inconsistent, incoherent nonsense.

[Annabel Herriott]

Andew, If you want to understand the Fench attitude to farming, do get a copy of " talk to the Snail" 10 commandments for understanding the french. By Stephen Clarke. He wrote A year in the Merde, a book which had me in hysterics. This new book is deadly accurate, and should be required reading for any one trying to deal avec les grenouille!!

[Annabel Herriott]

That is "Andrew" and "French" these typos will be the death of me yet!!

[Valedictoryan]

"It is entirely illegal under EU Law for the government to orchestrate or in any way assist any form of "Buy British" campaign"

I haven't heard of any law(s) that make this illegal. Which are you referring to?

[Scotty]

"It is entirely illegal under EU Law for the government to orchestrate or in any way assist any form of "Buy British" campaign" Never heard of this?
I am fully behind David Cameron on this, and I think that the way that this government has allowed our farmers to suffer and the home grown market deteriorate is just another damaging area of neglect we will regret in future years.
This is a vital area that the conservatives have to address for future generations.
A campaign to make the public more aware that we have to support and encourage a home grown industry because we may need to rely on it in the future.

[Andy Peterkin]

Article 28 of the Treaty of Rome prohibits promotion of products on grounds of nationality and any direct or indirect discrimination against imports from other EU member states in order to avoid distortions of competition in the Single Market.

Publicly funded "Buy British" campaigns are thus disallowed to the extent that they are targetted at consumers in the UK (overseas campaigning is allowed, so long as it is generic in nature).

[PW]

It could be caught under a number of the different competition sections 81 0r 82.

[Andy Peterkin]

It could also potentially amount to state aid. Basically, it is a no-no under EU law.

[PW]

Despite general illegality of supporting a buy british campaign, the only thing that I can see that Cameron says which would actually be illegal is "The Government should be doing everything it can within EU rules to source food for schools, hospitals and other public institutions locally" and he clearly caveats what he says with reference to acting within EU law.

Suggesting more stringent labelling is the extent to which DC talks about so-called "food patriotism." No problems with that.

[Matt Davis]

All seems like sensible stuff, but what do the Farmers themselves think? Having been actively oppressed by Labour, Britain's farmers must be aching for genuine promises of the support and help that they actually want and need. As a townie I have no idea if we have met these wants and needs. Any actual farmers out there got the time to offer an opinion?

[Andy Peterkin]

I think the point being made is that the threshold at which something can be labelled as being "British Produce" is governed by the European Union, and is outside the competence of the UK Government.

You'll also be aware that EU law now governs the tendering processes for public authorities, so I suspect that getting public authorities to prefer British produce is a non-starter as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Euro-bore (I favour withdrawal, I just think it is something that should be finessed when we are in power rather than made a central plank of a manifesto) or into criticising Cameron for the sake of it, but I think there are serious legal issues with this one.

[Kit]

I think EU Referendum are being too kind:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/01/oh-no-not-food-labelling-again.html

[Tory Loyalist]

I am fully behind David Cameron on this
_________________________________________________________________

Is there any issue on which you aren't "fully behind" Cameron, "Scotty"?

Mind you, knowing you TRG types, you'll still be right behind him when his ratings start to tumble...wielding whatever weapon you deem appropriate.

This looks to me like a rerun of Howard's classic pledge to cut EU immigration, which was instantly declared to be contrary to EU law - as it was.

Actually I've got more time for out-and-out Eurofanatics who at least believe in their wretched principles than I have for these feeble focus group driven Blue Labourites who know absolutely nothing about the EU and simply sit on the fence hoping it will go away.

Bad news. It won't.

[PW]

Lets actually deal with what the economist has said.

Organic food - requires lots of land. Okay -what about the amount of food that is wasted per annum?

Food miles - I fail to see how farming lamb in NZ compared to organic farming of lambs here is less energy intensive - apart maybe from the amount of land used/sheep, which isn't that relevant. Anybody?

[PW]

"I think the point being made is that the threshold at which something can be labelled as being "British Produce" is governed by the European Union, and is outside the competence of the UK Government."

Yep, agreed. I'm actually suprised the threshold isn't higher if you think of recent examples like Parma ham, West Country Cheddar and Melton Mowbray prok pies which would suggest a relatively high threshold

[TomTom]

It's true - we should all eat more greens

[Tanuki]

Whatever Cameron says, I'll continue to buy food on the basis of quality price and availability - where it comes from is truly irrelevant to me. Dave is looking back wistfully to some supposed halcyon-days when we 'ate local' - truth is such times were an era of severely-limited choice, questionable/inconsistent quality and prices so high that things we consider normal these days [like steak, oranges or chicken] were luxuries for most ordinary working people. Surely us Conservatives are fundamentally in favour of the benefits of free trade and globalisation? If UK farmers can't compete with the world's best when it comes to growing food, perhaps we should abolish old planning regulations and let farmers grow a nice crop executive homes on their land instead?

[steve]

I agree with many of the commentators on this post who say that this is David Cameron trying harder to address the real problems of the UK but perhaps he or his researchers should have done their homework better.
From my own point of view at least this speech didn't make me cringe like many of the previous ones. So please Mr Cameron make a long list of all the issues that are driving the hard pressed folk of this country mad under New Labour and come up with well researched and impressive solutions.

[Scotty]

Tory Loyalist, I was wondering when you would pop up like the proverbial bad penny!
"Is there any issue on which you aren't "fully behind" Cameron, "Scotty"

Is there any issue on which you would agree with David Cameron?
Is there any insult you would not use against regulars on this site who do support what David Cameron?
You have called me among other things a CCHQ sock puppet on more than one occasion and now you are saying that "Mind you, knowing you TRG types, you'll still be right behind him when his ratings start to tumble...wielding whatever weapon you deem appropriate."
There are plenty regulars on the site who do not support David Cameron and I enjoying debating with them. I hope that I manage to do so without getting personal and using a raft of nasty insults.
I think that my New Year resolution will be to ignore you in future and let your personalized attacks stand alone without oxygen.

[matt wright]

On one thing a good speech - Food Security. I did some extra reading over Christmas and chose to look at international affairs. Things are worrying and I would put food security and self-sufficiency very high up. DC should be applauded for this alone.

Secondly the issue of are we ready for an early election, well actually we are likely to be better prepared than any other party and we have more candidates in place early.

Matt

[michael mcgough]

"The Government should be doing everything it can within EU rules to source food for schools, hospitals and other public institutions locally"

A lot of schools both in the state and private sector buy locally----they buy HALAL meat but do not inform parents and pupils that they are so doing.

[verylowgradestufffromtories]

Pop quiz.

Cameron gives a speech in a parallel universe because:

a) He doesn't realise the EU is now in charge of all these things
b) He does realise but doesn't care cos it's all about the headline, not real policy
c)The policy/research operation at CCO remains comically low grade and renders the Party unfit for office...

A/B/C...?

[Tory Loyalist]

A little touchy aren't we "Scotty"? Your fragrant sensibilities wouldn't last five seconds on some of the political forums I frequent, where the definition of abuse is rather more robust than "CCHQ clone".

But could it just be that you and one or two of your TRG stablemates have discovered that the best way of silencing democratic criticism is to witchhunt people who allegedly "play the man not the ball" to use the favoured phrase?

Something which Jeremy Cardhouse and Boy Gideon would never dream of doing, eh?

is there any issue on which you would agree with David Cameron?

There was, actually, and I was so amazed that I mentioned it at the time. It can't have been very important, though, because I now haven't the faintest idea what it was.

[matt wright]

Tory loyalist, nobody objects to mature debate from people willing to put their name against what they say.

Matt

[Tory Loyalist]

Is that so Matt?

Does that also go for Valedictoryan, Scotty, changetowin, and assorted friends, or doesn't this stricture apply to Cameroons?

Possibly they were baptised with those names, but I doubt it.

Which brings me back to a question I voiced before. Why would any loyal Cameroon be afraid of expressing his fervent support for the celestial leader under his own name. What could he possibly have to fear?

Maybe we got a taste of the answer a few weeks ago when a dyed-in-the-wool Cameroon pressed the wrong button and accidentally posted a "personalised" reply under the name of one of his sockpuppets.

His spluttering "explanations" were hilarious to behold.

[matt wright]

I have said before that I think anonymous posts, whoever they are from, should be stopped. People who haven't the guts to say what they think using their own names don't deserve my or anyones respect frankfully. Maybe the Editor could give them their own little area to rant at each other anonymously,

Matt

[Tory Loyalist]

Well Matt, having memories of pre-internet blood-letting which arose from a former (as he rapidly became) Tory councillor who ventured into print to criticise certain policies of his own Conservative government, I can well understand why other Camerosceptics choose, like me, to remain pseudonymous.

Which of course is par for the course on internet forums anyway. You must lead a sheltered life.

Not sure what your problem is anyway. You can judge each ID by what he or she says. I agree that the face that certain Cameroons are using small armies of sockpuppets is irritating, but that doesnt seem to be the point you're trying to make.

Anyway, I've no doubt that the pronouncements of the IDs I cited are entirely congenial to you.

[Richard Carey]

On the main topic of this thread there is surely an interesting balance to be struck between the benefits of reducing food miles, providing every opportunity and incentive for fresh, local, in-season produce and not harming trade with predominantly agricultural developing nations who need to do business with us to better their lot.

I'm not going to get drawn too far on the issues of EU law raised here, but one particular thing that does obviously disadvantage developing nations in the agricultural market is the painfully slow pace of reform to the CAP. Blair's weakness on this has been a disappointment, albeit an expected one - surely we can and must do better there.

On the other issue under discussion:

Matt/TL,

I've given some thought in the past too about whther it would be better to require some form of registration - it doesn't seem right for a Conservative-inclined forum to be introducing extra regulation, though!

Provided posters stay within Tim's comment guidelines, I think we're all capable of making our own judgements. Personally I tend to take it as a sign of confidence in your opinions and judgement to post under your own name, and rightly or wrongly factor it in accordingly when reading some posts.

[Account Deleted]

I am increasingly despairing of both political parties. Neither are prepared to tackle large vested interests on anything, just going on mouthing the same damn phrases. On issue after issue there is no movement. Crime - don't promote'zero tolerance' despite clear evidence it works - for fear of offending the liberals. Immigration - ditto. Farming - can't stop the dribbling over a bloated and uncompetitive industry... NHS - can't question the basic problem - when did a government monopoly ever deliver....

There really is no difference.

[LJ]

The Magnificent Seven political heroes...

Please vote at:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/6161847.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_6161847