Examination of Witnesses (Questions 355
- 379)
TUESDAY 9 JUNE 1998
MR TONY
PEXTON, MR
JOHN LLOYD-JONES
AND MR
MICHAEL PAYNE
Chairman
355. Mr Pexton, welcome to the Committee. I
do apologise for keeping you waiting 20 minutes. We were late
starting and we wished to give our witnesses a decent opportunity
to make their point. May I invite you first to introduce your
team, particularly one of your team who is giving his second evidence
this morning to a Select Committee. A real glutton for punishment!
(Mr Pexton) Thank you, Chairman. I am
Tony Pexton, Deputy President of the NFU. I farm up in the East
Riding. On my left is John Lloyd-Jones, who, as you say, is in
for round two this morning. He is Chairman of our Parliamentary,
Land Use and Environment Committee and farms in Wales. On my right
is Michael Payne, who is our adviser.
356. Thank you very much for that, Mr Pexton.
Understandably, in your evidence to us, you write particularly
about the low-lying nature of England's "best and most versatile"
agricultural land. You tell us that some 615,000 hectares lie
below sea level. Now, that is an awful lot of land and superficially
sounds very alarming. However, is it not the case that no-one
is suggesting that a significant portion of high grade arable
land is going to be abandoned in any strategy for coastal defence?
Is it not the case that perhaps the NFU might be criticised for
being a little less than receptive to some of the newer schemes
that are coming forward for protecting the coast where high grade
land is involved?
(Mr Pexton) I think we have to acknowledge that questions
and policies are posed and developed, in the context of the time
those questions and policies are developed. Had we been looking
at the issue of managed retreat ten or 15 years ago it would have
been a very different situation to the one we are in now where
agricultural production, in general terms, is in surplus. Land
can be seen more now, than it was then, as a surplus factor of
production. Of course, there is a more heightened awareness of
environmental issues, at the moment, than there was some years
ago. So we have to answer the question in an acknowledgement that
things do change. We have seen that change in the last ten years
and we are not too sure if they are going to change back again,
or what the changes will be in ten or 15 years' time. That is
why we urge a certain amount of caution. We have to be aware that
the land we are talking about is low-lying; a lot of it, as you
say, below sea level. It is highly productive land. Looking at
production—a point I must pick up from the previous evidence—very
often of almost directly market-related unsubsidised production;
and not only the production of, but the processing of as well,
which provides a great deal of labour opportunity and employment
opportunities in those areas.
357. You are talking about horticultural land
particularly.
(Mr Pexton) That is right. The Fenland obviously.
But, also, we do not quite honestly know what the results of any
given action would be. For example, if we start on "managed
retreat" and we are talking about low-lying land, where and
how would that retreat be stopped? What would it cost? What would
be the effects on adjacent land and adjacent environmental impact,
as has again been mentioned this morning in the earlier evidence,
because a lot of our environmental situations are at the moment
man-made and, therefore, we are going to influence those considerably
if we have a managed retreat policy? However, our concern is not,
I hope, giving the impression that we are closing the door on
the debate, but our concern is whether we know the effects of
any action we might take and whether we will in the end actually
end up with the enhanced environmental benefits which we are actually
looking for. That means a long-term assessment of the results
of our actions, including what is the effect and the net result
not only on agriculture, but of course on the environmental benefits
that we are seeking to achieve?
358. Mr Pexton, Mr Todd is going to pick up
some of those themes in a minute, but before that, can I just
test this question of agricultural production in the low-lying
areas? We have had evidence from Dr John Bowers who claims that
the subsidy system of the CAP is distorting farmers' decisions
on some of this land and locking in higher agricultural land values
than would otherwise be the case, leading to an enhanced need
to protect that land. That is something we see happening in urban
areas too with unwelcome housing development, industrial development
and so on, so it is not just an agricultural issue. Here he says
that the CAP is actually assisting that process. You have just
said that a lot of that land is market land, horticultural land
and so on, and, therefore, presumably you would argue against
that proposition?
(Mr Pexton) I would not say that that proposition
is totally and exclusively wrong, no, but what I would emphasise
is that a lot of the higher-value land is producing the higher-value,
market-led crops which are not supported.
359. Could you give us any idea of that 650,000
hectares? I know it is a stab in the dark, but what sort of order
of magnitude is it?
(Mr Pexton) I am sorry, sir, but I honestly could
not attempt to do that.
Mr Hayes
360. Is not the truth of the matter that the
most valuable land is the land which has been reclaimed from the
sea in reasonably recent times, over the last 200 or 300 years,
because it is silty and that actually a lot of low-lying land
which you might think was very valuable agricultural land which
does not fall into the category I have just identified is not
of such value, so the managed retreat would disproportionately
damage low-lying land because it would tend to focus on the areas
I have mentioned which have been reclaimed relatively recently?
(Mr Pexton) I find it difficult to give a generalised
response to that because I believe that the effect on the local
land would depend on where we are. If you think of low-lying levels
of land which are of low productive value, I can equally think
of low-lying areas of land near the sea which are of a very high
productive value, so I am sorry, but I do not think that I can
give a generalised answer to that; it just depends where we are
talking about, I believe.
Mr Todd
361. I read your submission with interest and
was partly struck by the fact that you have concerns about the
environmental quality of the outcome of managed retreat. You produce
a defence which is not purely about self-interest. You state that
essentially the outcome may well be habitats that are not worth
a great deal. Perhaps you can tell us a little bit about that.
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) Yes, certainly. I think our concern
would be that in attempting to create a salt marsh, you might
end up with a mud flat and that would be one example of it. The
problem that we all have in this—
362. Does not a mud flat have some environmental
merit in biodiversity terms?
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) Yes, but not as great as a salt marsh.
363. Okay, go on.
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) The problem that all of us have in
this is that there are not enough long-term examples of managed
retreat. Yes, we heard the previous group explain about one, but
that was as a result of an accident rather than managed retreat.
I think that is the problem that we all have in this debate, that
there simply is not enough information of the long-term implications
of managed retreat.
364. So you would, by implication, support vigorously
further experiments to discover its effectiveness?
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) As long as it was done through the
voluntary means and as long as the people affected were compensated
in a proper manner.
365. That almost says no actually, does it not?
If you put those two very substantial qualifications in place,
then it would be very hard to achieve any experiments in this
area.
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) I doubt it very much. On that basis,
none of the agri-environment schemes would have worked either
if your proposition is correct.
366. But if we take the test of some of the
areas where an approach of managed retreat has been suggested,
there is evidence that objections of various kinds from local
farming interests have led to the halting of that particular concept
going ahead.
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) Maybe because the package of the
various options which are on offer is not adequate to the task
of what we are trying to achieve.
367. But the implication of rejection is effectively
to pass the bill to the public authorities in question to continue
the process of resistance to the forces of nature and the protection
of this area of agricultural land at the cost of the community.
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) That raises a number of—
368. So your members are in a sort of no-lose
situation here under that concept.
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) Is that a compliment to our negotiating
skills?
369. I am just commenting on it. That is not
a compliment.
(Mr Lloyd-Jones) I think you raise a number of issues
here. First of all, we are valuing agricultural land at its present
value. We have difficulty with that because of course future trends
may well change and agricultural land may well be needed in this
country for its productive capacity in ten, 15, 20 years' time
at a rate which we find difficult to acknowledge at the moment.
370. So do you feel that English Nature, which
is piloting a number of projects on the east coast, is perhaps
wasting money in this area, public money?
(Mr Pexton) Looking at the issue of environmental
schemes and farmers' enthusiasm for joining them, I would highlight
Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are voluntary. There are
various financial inducements to go into those schemes and our
experience is that initially farmers look at what is expected
of them and what they would get in return for meeting those expectations
and they are not bowled over by it, but after a certain amount
of thought, many say, they think, "Yes, this is actually
quite a good idea", so what I am saying here is that there
are situations where if the public purse is prepared to look at
encouraging farmers to take certain actions which have an environmental
aim in mind and farmers are prepared to do it then the uptake
of ESAs is actually very high, though there are one or two areas
where it is not high, because the obligation and the reward have
not matched, but the point I would make is that this is a system
that is tried and it does show that farmers are prepared to look
at these issues.
371. Would you accept that farmers in areas
which are at risk have some responsibility to take a part of that
risk upon themselves and that it is not purely a matter of the
public purse meeting that risk for them?
(Mr Pexton) I think to put that question into an overall
context of a farmer-producer who has been there for a long time,
I would go back to my original answer to the original question
which is that you are looking at the situation in the context
of the time you are asking the question and devising the policy.
Ten years ago that farmer would have been looking at his land
as a nationally-valued productive resource. Now, that ten years
in agricultural terms is an extraordinarily short amount of time—it
is twice around one of my rotations, for example—and for
that perception of the value of the farm to have changed so dramatically
is a big step for farming [as a policy of farming] to take.
372. What I am hinting at with the issue of
the concept of risk is that risks can be insured against and that
to some extent a farmer in an area of high risk can deal with
the issues of either the intrusion of the sea or the flooding
of a river by insuring himself against it, possibly with some
support mechanism from the Government to do that, rather than
necessarily relying on the public purse to maintain sometimes
unsustainable, in the long term, defences.
(Mr Pexton) I think, sir, there is a difference between
insuring against an accident which may or may not happen and actually
having a deliberate policy to create, for example, marshland or
mud flats.
373. Lastly, the issue of compensation, what
sort of model for a compensation scheme do you have in mind to
support a farmer through the process of persuading him to adopt
a process of managed retreat?
(Mr Pexton) You ask for the model, sir, and the detail
would be extremely difficult because that would depend to a great
extent on the sort of areas and the sort of land that you are
looking at retreating and the implications, but I would suggest
that the effect on that business's or those businesses' ability
to produce and remain as viable businesses, because again we are
not too sure—
374. So you would take a before and after scenario,
would you?
(Mr Pexton) I believe that that would be a robust
way of looking at it, yes.
375. Net loss in income terms and you would
be seeking the total compensation of that loss from the public
purse?
(Mr Pexton) I would not want to make, as it were,
policy on the hoof, sir, but quite obviously managed retreat will
have a different impact in different areas on different businesses
and it may well be critical to some.
Mr Mitchell
376. You are making it sound like a cash question,
in other words, if the price is right, managed retreat is acceptable.
Is that right? It is basically a question of proper compensation.
(Mr Pexton) No, I have been asked about one particular
aspect of managed retreat and that was the compensation factor.
We believe that there are many other angles involved in this.
For example, what is going to be the effect on surrounding areas
both agriculturally and also environmentally? How far does that
retreat go? If we are talking about land that is actually below
sea level, once the sea has come through, can you control that
retreat? What are the implications of the costs of controlling
that retreat? Are we actually in the end going to end up with
what we are aiming to provide which is an environmentally enriched
area? So there are many questions which we believe need answering
and need a lot of—
377. Basically the answer is money. As a general
proposition, the National Farmers' Union is much more sceptical
about managed retreat than the wildlife organisations or the RSPs
because their money is threatened and they have not adequate compensation
for the businesses if managed retreat goes on.
(Mr Pexton) Quite obviously we are concerned about
the businesses of our members, and I hope you would not expect
us to be otherwise, sir, but I am pointing out that we believe
that there are other questions that need looking at and answering
over and above the direct business interests of our members.
378. It makes a very confusing pattern if flood
defence works actually increase the value of agricultural land
which is protected. It creates an artificial price level.
(Mr Pexton) As I say, in the context of 15 years ago,
that land was seen as a very, very valuable national resource.
At the moment it is being looked at differently. We do not know
what might happen in ten or 15 years' time. I acknowledge that
the U-boat threat is no longer one that we can use, but we also
have to acknowledge that things do change and we have seen a dramatic
change in the last ten years and I believe that that seriously
is an issue that we have to be aware of. Priorities are changing
and they can change back.
379. There is one argument you can use with
me which is that Yorkshire has been washed away and if you fly
the patriot flag, I will back you on that, but forget the U-boat!
However, where agricultural interests do preponderate, they have
tended to veto policies of managed retreat.
(Mr Pexton) I would suggest all the time that the
context within which that debate is taking place is changing.
Mr Mitchell: Masterly!
|
