Peter Kendall is the President of the National Farmers’ Union, and actually farms just down the road from the RSPB’s Bedfordshire HQ. He is an exceptionally good political operator and an experienced and able lobbyist. And yet, he must be a worried man.
Defra is currently consulting on measures to replace the environmental benefits of set-aside – a production-limiting agricultural policy which has had unexpectedly good results for wildlife. There are two options – the one favoured by Natural England and the RSPB – which came out of a group chaired by Sir Don Curry (a group on which the NFU sat) – and which would require farmers to do a little more for wildlife on their farms and a little more work to earn their subsidy cheques. And the other favoured by the NFU, even though they were on the group which came up with the first option, which proposes a voluntary approach. Our preferred option is opposed by the NFU because it would impose some new costs on its membership (the NFU is a trade union after all!).
So, is Peter Kendall worried that he might lose the argument? I think he is more worried about winning! And that’s because he has invested lots of personal energy into promoting a voluntary approach and there aren’t many people out there who think that the NFU has enough influence on its members to get them to volunteer!
Defra has been bending over backwards to keep in with the NFU on this issue. Despite the NFU being part of the Curry Group they were allowed to break ranks, and Defra decided to consult on the two options even before the NFU option was written down! The NFU’s first offering was generally regarded as being way below the required standard and now they have had another go and their latest version is released today (only a matter of days before the consultation closes). The trouble with bending over backwards is that you risk landing on your backside and banging your head on the way down. One problem that Defra may face is that the consultation may break Cabinet Office rules on consultations.
But back to Peter Kendall’s worries. I guess Peter is worried about whether the NFU proposal really will deliver for wildlife, but it would be understandable if, as a trade union leader, he thought that that was not really his responsibility (that’s why we have governments) but he will certainly be worried about whether he could possibly persuade enough farmers to volunteer. If not, then the logical consequence will be that later in the day more measures will be imposed on farmers – perhaps ones which are worse than the current very mild proposals. The kindest thing that Hilary Benn might do for Peter Kendall is to choose the Curry Group’s recommended option and save the NFU all that worry.