Show Hide image

Farmers are still hungry for change

Reviving UK food production is impossible without undoing policies and laws hostile to producers

Timing is everything, and the 10 August announcement by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - amounting to an inevitable rise in food prices - comes deliberately late. Low food inflation is every government's friend, no matter the party. When an administration is on its last legs, such revelations are made knowing only that it will not be the recipient of public anger.

There is nothing especially radical about the "radical rethink of food production" contained in Hilary Benn's UK Food Security Assessment. He admits that we must reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and adapt to the changing climate; that water should be used more efficiently; that the depletion of fish stocks should be halted, waste reduced and the food supply secured abroad and in Britain.

But every policy connected to the food supply chain made by this government is a bar to Benn's suggested measures - especially when it comes to securing and increasing UK production. There has been no single swingeing blow to the country's self-sufficiency (now at 60 per cent), but a gradual chipping away at the whole infrastructure. Ask a farmer, fisherman, market trader, factory owner, butcher, artisan producer or slaughterhouse boss, and each has a view on why British food cannot compete with cheaper global commodities, bought at a high cost to human health and the environment. (The government has realised the £8bn cost of the obesity epidemic could be cut if we produced healthier food. A tax on junk food? Unlikely, given the power of the supermarkets and fast-food chains.)

Reviving UK food production is impossible without undoing policies and laws hostile to producers. The meat industry is burdened with overregulation. In particular, UK hill farmers know that the "radical rethink" should include reviving production from British grassland and moors. Farms and fisheries alike struggle with utterly inadequate conservation measures. Fish numbers will not recover while it is policy to discard thousands of tonnes of dying netted fish caught outside their species quota. Encouragement of aquaculture permits the depletion of wild fish stocks used for fish food. Beef and dairy farmers ask in earnest how their herds can stay TB-free while badgers remain protected. The UK has no national (and, vitally, healthy) nut, thanks to a bias towards the survival of the grey squirrel.

There is a lot of land in farming, but little balance. GM crops cannot be an option with no proof that they can combat climate change. With few "mixed" farms at present, little manure is applied to crops, just fuel-hungry artificial nitrogen fertiliser. Since the pigswill ban (following unproven claims that it kicked off the 2001 foot-and-mouth epidemic) there has been no food-waste outlet. Vast tracts of UK land now produce grains or pulses to feed livestock, not people. If they could talk, pigs would complain that they have been transformed from omnivores into vegetarians.
Market gardens have declined due to labour costs. Our once-great orchards have been grubbed, anyway. There is still no subsidy for UK tomato growers, who cannot compete with Spanish producers on the receiving end of a fat EU wad.

Labour failed UK food producers knowing that revival would bring economic and political agony - though it will one day pay off. But I know one butcher with kind words for the PM. "Gordon Brown is my food hero," he said. "He screwed up the economy, and at last I can sell cheap cuts of meat."

Rose Prince's "New English Table" is published by Fourth Estate (£25)

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2009 issue of the New Statesman, Afghanistan: The Lost War

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What's to be done about racial inequality?

David Cameron's words on equal opportunities are to be welcomed - now for some action, says Sunder Katwala.

David Cameron made the strongest, clearest and most high profile statement about ethnic inequalities and the need to tackle discrimination ever yet offered by a British Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
“Picture this. You’ve graduated with a good degree. You send out your CV far and wide. But you get rejection after rejection. What’s wrong? It’s not the qualifications or the previous experience. It’s just two words at the top: first name, surname. Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names? … That, in 21st century Britain, is disgraceful. We can talk all we want about opportunity, but it’s meaningless unless people are really judged equally”, said Cameron.
While the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, this was a powerfully argued Prime Ministerial intervention – and a particularly well-timed one, for three reasons.

Firstly, the Prime Minister was able to root his case in an all-but-universally accepted appeal for equal opportunities. It will always prove more difficult in practice to put political energy and resources behind efforts to remedy discrimination against a minority of the population unless a convincing fairness case is made that values cherished across our whole society are at stake. Cameron’s argument, that any party which tells itself that it is the party of the ‘fair chance’ and ‘the equal shot’ must have a response when there is such clear evidence of discrimination, should prove persuasive to a Conservative Party that has not seen race inequalities as its natural territory. Cameron argued that the same principles should animate responses to discrimination when it comes to race, gender and social class. Put like that, wanting job interviews to be fair – by eradicating conscious and unconscious patterns of bias wherever possible – would strike most Britons as offering as clear a case of the values of fair play as wanting the best baker to win the Great British Bake-Off on television.
Secondly, Cameron’s intervention comes at a potential "tipping point" moment for fair opportunities across ethnic groups. Traditionally, ethnic discrimination has been discussed primarily through the lens of its impact on the most marginalised. Certainly, persistent gaps in the criminal justice system, mental health provision and unemployment rates remain stark for some minority groups. What has been less noticed is the emergence of a much more complex pattern of opportunity and disadvantage – not least as a consequence of significant ethnic minority progress.

Most strikingly of all, in educational outcomes, historic attainment gaps between ethnic minorities and their white British peers have disappeared over the last decade. In the aggregate, ethnic minorities get better GCSE results on average. Ethnic minority Britons are more likely, not less likely, to be university graduates than their fellow citizens. 

As a result of that progress, Cameron’s intervention comes at a moment of significant potential – but significant risk too. Britain’s ethnic minorities are the youngest and fastest-growing sections of British society. If that educational progress translates into economic success, it will make a significant contribution to the "Great British Take-Off" that the Prime Minister envisions. But if that does not happen, with educational convergence combined with current ‘ethnic penalties’ in employment and income persisting, then that potential could well curdle into frustration that the British promise of equal opportunities is not being kept.  Cameron also mirrored his own language in committing himself to both a ‘fight against extremism’ and a ‘fight against discrimination’: while those are distinct challenges and causes, actively pursuing both tracks simultaneously has the potential, at least, depolarise some debates about responses to extremism  - and so to help deepen the broad social coalitions we need for a more cohesive society too.

Thirdly, Cameron’s challenge could mark an important deepening in the political competition between the major parties on race issues. Many have been struck by the increase in political attention on the centre-right to race issues over the last five to ten years. The focus has been on the politics of representation. By increasing the number of non-white Conservative MPs from two to seventeen since 2005, Cameron has sent a powerful signal that Labour’s traditional claim to be ‘the party of ethnic minorities’ would now be contested. Cameron was again able to celebrate in Manchester several ways in which his Cabinet and Parliamentary benches demonstrate many successful journeys of migrant and minority integration in British society. That might perhaps help to ease the fears, about integration being impossible in an era of higher immigration, which the Home Secretary had articulated the previous day.

So symbolism can matter. But facial diversity is not enough. The politics of ethnic minority opportunity needs to be about more than visits to gurdwaras, diversity nights at the party conference fringes and unveiling statues of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. Jeremy Corbyn’s first speech as Labour leader did include one brief celebratory reference to Britain’s ethnic diversity – “as I travelled the country during the leadership campaign it was wonderful to see the diversity of all the people in our country” – and to Labour bringing in more black, Asian and ethnic minority members - but it did not include any substantial content on discrimination. Tim Farron acknowledged during his leadership campaign that the Liberal Democrats have struggled to get to the starting-line on race and diversity at all. The opposition parties too will no doubt now be challenged to match not just the Prime Minister’s rhetorical commitment to challenging inequalities but also to propose how it could be done in practice.

Non-white Britons expect substance, not just symbolism from all of the parties on race inequalites.  Survation’s large survey of ethnic minority voters for British Future showed the Conservatives winning more ethnic minority support than ever before – but just 29 per cent of non-white respondents were confident that the Conservatives are committed to treating people of every ethnic background equally, while 54 per cent said this of Labour. Respondents were twice as likely to say that the Conservatives needto do more to reach out – and the Prime Minister would seem to be committed to showing that he has got that message.  Moreover, there is evidence that ethnic inclusion could be important in broadening a party’s appeal to other younger, urban and more liberal white voters too – which is why it made sense for this issue to form part of a broader attempt by David Cameron to colonise the broad centre of British politics in his Manchester speech.

But the case for caution is that there has been limited policy attention to ethnic inequalities under the last two governments. Restaurateur Iqbal Wahhab decided to give up his role chairing an ethnic minority taskforce for successive governments, unconvinced there was a political commitment to do much more than convene a talking shop. Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone did push the CV discrimination issue – but many Conservatives were sceptical. Cameron’s new commitment may face similar challenges from those whose instinct is to worry that more attention to discrimination or bias in the jobs market will mean more red tape for business.

Labour had a separate race inequalities manifesto in 2015, outside of its main election manifesto, while the Conservative manifesto did not contain significant commitments to racial inequality. The mid-campaign launch in Croydon of a series of race equality pledges showed an increasing awareness of the growing importance of ethnic minority votes - though the fact that they all involved aiming for increases of 20 per cent by 2020 gave them a slightly back-of-the-envelope feel. 

Prime Ministerial commitments have an important agenda-setting function. A generation ago the Stephen Lawrence case opened the eyes of middle England to racist violence and police failures, particularly through the Daily Mail’s persistent challenging of those injustices. A Conservative Prime Minister’s words could similarly make a big difference in the mainstreaming of the issue of inequalities of opportunity. What action should follow words? Between now and next year’s party conference season, that must will now be the test for this Conservative government – and for their political opponents too. 

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.