Tread carefully on the countryside

James Pavey pens an open letter to Steve Reed, the recently appointed secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, airing his concerns about the rural environment. Dear Steve, Congratulations on your appointment as secretary of state. I am writing this open letter to you within the government’s first 100 days to raise some issues of fundamental concern to certain of your key stakeholders: farmers and landowners. This is not about individual policies but about the concerns and culture of those ultimately responsible for managing the countryside on a day-to-day basis. Those concerns should help shape individual policies. We were due to share a platform with the Country Land and Business Association at the Great Yorkshire Show on 9 July, but you were unable to attend so soon after taking office. This is what I would have said to you. From your unscripted remarks at the Future Countryside event on 4 June 2024 and from the government’s manifesto commitments, it is clear that, even before taking office, you had listened to those whose interests you have power to affect. In office, I am pleased to see the progress you have already made on tackling pollution in our rivers and flooding. But as fiscal realities and perhaps cultural differences become more pronounced, those fundamental concerns should remain an important touchstone. What is my interest? I am a partner and part-owner of a national firm of solicitors who advise landowners and farmers from the north-east to the south-west of England. At a time when other firms have stopped working for the sector, we have committed our business for the long-term to act for rural, land-based businesses. Our own economic prospects are linked to what the government and, in particular, Defra does for our clients. What are those fundamental concerns? First, take the long view. Those who own and steward land usually think in decades, sometimes centuries: so planning for a five-year parliament is short, at best medium, term. Some policies need to be made with a similar long-term outlook, otherwise they will not align with the interests of those key stakeholders, let alone resonate with them. In some cases, such as flooding, that alignment should be easy; in others where there might be a party-political imperative, such as public access, less so. Second, the ability for landowners to be able to articulate their property rights effectively and without them being eroded by government and parliament. “Property rights” might sound a foreign concept, except, of course, that they are enshrined in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The ability to rely on, defend and police property rights remains the key to long-term investment in land ownership and land-based businesses, whether you are an investment fund purchasing a £40m estate for natural capital, an individual willing to spend their own money restoring habitats on their land, or a farmer contesting the upgrade of a footpath to a bridleway through pasture so that it is more secure and more bio-secure for the next 100 years. Erosion of those rights and disappropriation of property come in many forms, from over-strong compulsory purchase legislation, with inadequate compensation, to mapping public rights of access over land, with opaque and ineffective processes for response and appeal. Third, that business property relief and agricultural property relief for land-based family businesses from inheritance tax is fundamental to their survival across the generations. From the smallest family farms to the largest estates, if the government removed those reliefs or even tinkered substantially with their rates and qualifying criteria, it would risk real damage to business. Only a small minority would have the cash or other assets to pay the inheritance tax on the land: without reliefs, the land itself would need to be sold to pay it. The already-small farm would become too small to be economically viable. Substantial parts of the large estate, whose income might support the upkeep of heritage property, would need to be sold. Across only two generations, the impact on agriculture, but also on the rural landscape and heritage, would be profound. Fourth, shoring up the policy basis of the current subsidy regime. The Environmental Land Management Scheme is based on the concept of “public benefits for public goods”. The public really needs to know that. When Brexit forced the previous Conservative administrations to invent a new, domestic subsidy regime, “public benefit for public goods” was the underlying concept. Unfortunately, neither Defra nor sector organisations, like the NFU, did enough to “sell” the concept to the public. The enhanced character of the landscape through restoration of dry-stone walls or hedgerows is something the public may enjoy, but it comes at a cost to the landowner. There are many things which landowners can do to reduce flood risk for the public benefit, but again they are at cost. But the more obscure the idea of “public benefit for public goods” remains, the more politically precarious subsidy is. That might suit the Treasury, but it risks undermining confidence in Defra. Fifth, show tolerance and understanding of those who are conservative with a small “c”. The countryside has historically been more culturally and socially conservative than the town. That is not the same as saying that those responsible for managing the countryside are not forward-looking; in practice, they are commercially and socially entrepreneurial. But not everyone wears a “progressive” badge with pride. My observation is that there has never been such a significant cultural divide between the Parliamentary Labour Party and those who own, farm and manage land: much more now than in 1997. Care should be taken so that divide does not obtrude into Defra policy. Careful policy, such as incentivising and encouraging permissive access to land, might even narrow that divide. I wish you every success in office – and encourage you to get out and talk to those who own and manage the countryside as often as possible. Yours sincerely, James Pavey, head of rural business and estates, Irwin Mitchell LLP Image © Thomas Krych/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock