Editor’s View: We must persuade Reed of merits of compromise
Steve Reed © ZUMA Press Inc/Alamy Stock Photo Collateral damage… a phrase Defra secretary Steve Reed didn’t utter, but left hanging in the air, when he spoke at the Farmers Club in London this week.
Taking question after question from club members on the punitive impact of the changes to inheritance tax (IHT), he ducked, dived and dodged his way around the topic, not leaving a crumb of hope for those freshly caught in this financial trap.
See also: NFU to intensify campaign against ‘family farm tax’
About the author
Sick or elderly farmers who haven’t got time to hand on their business without their descendants getting clobbered?
“Mercifully circumstances like that are extremely rare.” (Tell that to the accountants helping folk figure this out.)
In that case, should an amnesty be granted for farmers in such a situation as it will cost the Treasury so little?
“It’s not really in my gift to grant amnesties.”
And nor did it seem within his gift to show them any empathy or desire to help them win one either.
Later he went further, saying he didn’t think that the changes to IHT would affect farming’s productivity at all.
To hear that he has considered the financial impact of this tax change on farming’s output, while refusing to engage with it at a personal level, seems chilly in the extreme.
In the past, I have had sympathy for Defra secretaries of state who have been dealt an extremely bad hand – either by unforeseen events or the actions of their prime minister – and have to endure a large dose of political pain through no fault of their own.
I even felt it for Mr Reed last year, as he seemingly had no influence on this Treasury initiative, yet had been sent out to be a human shield for chancellor Rachel Reeves.
And I understand that members of the Cabinet are bound by a collective responsibility to have each other’s back.
The best can even sugarcoat some pretty bitter pills. Instead, we have in Mr Reed a hammer in search of a world made only of nails.
But to be dismissive to the extent that he would not even offer to raise genuine concerns with his colleague, the chancellor, about the sick and elderly is not just cold, it’s bad politics.
Good politicians are able to tell effective stories about what they are doing and why, so as to take people along with them.
The best can even sugarcoat some pretty bitter pills. Instead, we have in Mr Reed a hammer in search of a world made only of nails. He cut his political teeth fighting the hard left in the council wards of south London.
Farmers probably seem a doddle compared to that.
Later, as an early Starmer-supporting MP in the Corbyn-era Labour Party, his career was dominated by more brutal political combat as the two factions battled for supremacy.
Now, as a secretary of state, he still seemingly wants to batter opponents into submission, lacking the language, temperament or willingness to allow him to engage with this topic on its merits.
The individuals, lobbyists and companies still working hard to rectify this must ask: What nail can we offer this hammer that persuades him and his colleagues that an IHT rethink is a solution, not a defeat?
The shows of strength, such as the forthcoming rallies, must continue, but subtler methods may also be called for.