Editor’s view: Latest chapter in Red Tractor saga is baffling
© MAG/Steve Behan I’d like to announce that I’ve been given permission to lead a review into my own conduct as editor at Farmers Weekly after complaints from readers.
Now that five minutes have passed, I’d like to report that my conduct has been outstanding and I’ll be making a strong recommendation to the remuneration committee for an inflation-busting pay rise, a large bonus and a Christmas hamper.
What a pleasant fantasy that was.
See also: Editor’s view: Weary farmers welcome yet another Defra boss
About the author
Regrettably, it appears to be close to the reality of the ongoing spectacle that is farming’s attempt to exert more control over Red Tractor, as we have learned this week that the assurance body will be leading a review into its own governance.
This is a Houdini-level escape trick for Red Tractor given that little more than a month has passed since the NFU said it would be commissioning an independent review into the assurance body rather than calling for it to mark its own homework.
Remember, this is the same Red Tractor that torched much of what was left of its own reputation just last month by attempting to ram through the Greener Farms Commitment, a significant broadening of its scope, without properly consulting even its own technical committees.
What are we to conclude about what has happened in the intervening period?
How and why has the NFU not simply commissioned its own unilateral inquiry without any further discussion with Red Tractor?
Well, we know that NFU president Minette Batters expressed a desire for other farming bodies to be party to this inquiry – she said as much in her interview with FW deputy editor Abi Kay.
The honourable explanation for this is the NFU leadership team will have hoped that any subsequent recommendations for change would carry more clout if more farming stakeholders backed them.
After all, any of us can write a report into what we think of Red Tractor, but for real change to be achieved it has to win the support of the Red Tractor board, of which the NFU only occupies one chair.
Other seats are taken by representatives of the whole supply chain, many – if not all – of whom are supporters of full-fat assurance generally and Red Tractor in particular.
How unfortunate if this is the case. In seeking to be high-minded collaborators they have lost the ball out of the back of the scrum, allowing Red Tractor chief executive Jim Moseley to shove it up his jumper and rush back into the Red Tractor bunker with it.
A cynic, or anyone who has spent much time on large committees, may say there is another explanation.
You could speculate that the NFU leadership was from the outset acting in this way to bog down the review in endless discussion and create the grounds for its conclusions to be mild and ineffectual.
For having been dragged by the 80-strong NFU Council into reluctantly making a commitment for a review in the first place, it’s hard to imagine that they were keen to attach themselves to a process that may have resulted in outcomes they disagree with.
The big problem with this scenario is that it is hard to imagine how they think they will get away with it without an even worse uproar at the next NFU Council meeting.
Surely any leadership team interested in holding the NFU together would have been in favour of the toughest, most independent review possible to uphold their end of the bargain and place the blame firmly on the rest of Red Tractor if the recommendations were not accepted.