200. Does the NFU take the
view that it is okay to target GDP funds and ERDF funds on particular
geographical areas and that there are particular rural areas in
need and other areas that are not?
(Mr McLaughlin) Given that we have limited budgets
and given that we are looking for the most effective use of the
resources available, targeting is almost inevitable. Having said
that, I think we accept it with a degree of reluctance because
two things emerge from that, a pattern of targeting in the past
which has tended to reinforce areas of need around the periphery
of Britain and really do nothing for the middle (which we call
"Polo Mint Britain" in another set of evidence we gave
earlier on). I think following on from that there is a substantial
body of evidence which says unlike the urban problem which is
often easy to identify in a concentrated geographical area the
rural problem is much more dispersed. So I think we would accept
the concentration out of a necessity driven by resources but we
would have a caveat that we should always keep in mind that there
are rural problems dispersed throughout the country which may
not be picked up by this focused or targeted approach.
201. Have you specific proposals for the new
EAGGF measures for the non-geographical specific components?
(Mr McLaughlin) Insofar as theoretically we are dealing
with a horizontal measure there must be some opportunities because
the menu, as you know, in the rural development agenda is potentially
quite wide hence our concern about it becoming too narrowly focused.
I think the other argument we would make is we need to exploit
the potential of other structural measures for rural Britain.
We make specific reference in our evidence to Objective 3 which
so far we believe—and we have not got statistical evidence
to back it up—but our perception is that Objective 3 funding
has been something of a Cinderella issue in the rural environment
compared with the urban environment. Given the fact that the agenda
is about retraining, re-skilling of the labour force we see some
potential in the more constructive use of Objective 3 in these
areas to try to pick up these more horizontal issues.
202. Would you say that the LEADER programmes
on your assessment have been a success or not? These cross measure
programmes?
(Mr McLaughlin) It is really a question of how you
measure success. Leader programmes have been successful in the
sense of very often stimulating community involvement and community
interest and getting shared goals. I think the biggest mistake
we would make about LEADER is expecting too much from them. I
do not know the figures but sitting from where I am sitting they
seem to be potentially fairly resource intensive for what is produced
at the end, but that would not at all suggest that I am arguing
against them. I think we have to evaluate them on different criteria
and community involvement and community identity is quite an important
component.
(Mr Lloyd Jones) I think one of the things LEADER
programmes gives is an opportunity for a certain amount of experimentation
to see if something can develop and if it can be shown to be working
then to put in a full application for the next round if you are
lucky enough to be in an Objective 2 or Objective 5b area.
Mr Todd
203. In your comments on funding you use a slightly
pejorative term "syphoning" funds away from direct payments
via cross-compliance and modulation towards rural development
measures. Does that particular sentence imply a disapproval of
the goal of cross-compliance or merely that you are concerned
about the loss of money into the core agriculture activity?
(Mr Lloyd Jones) A combination of both. We have made
no bones at all about it, we find cross-compliance a very blunt
instrument and a very unfair instrument. If, for instance, part
of the cross-compliance was the maintenance of field boundaries
then obviously the farmer who has maintained his small field system
would actually have more to cross-comply with and therefore a
greater cost for actually keeping something which the public now
perceives as being of value.
204. I think it depends a little on what the
public define as being of value.
(Mr Lloyd Jones) Indeed so and quite often what the
public defines as being of value changes as well.
205. Do you feel that you have got a clear grasp
of what the public feel should be protected in this way and form
part of the cross-compliance regime?
(Mr Lloyd Jones) Certainly I think the public appreciates
what farmers are trying to do with whole farm conservation schemes.
206. Turning to the existing schemes that are
there now, are you suggesting that the new schemes that may come
out of Agenda 2000 will be overlaid on top of those schemes and
combined with them in some way or indeed, as you have implied,
that the Government should chip in a bit more money to maintain
the existing schemes in their current form on top of any new schemes?
(Mr McLaughlin) I think what we anticipate is that
the Government will use existing schemes as its core and add to
those and extend them where appropriate. Where we have some concern
of course is how far that extension goes, how far that extra funding
will occur largely because, as you know, only one of these schemes
is obligatory in Member States and that is environmental measures.
Governments in my experience who have successful flagships are
very loathe to refocus. When one looks at the available budgets
and looks at what might come out of it in terms of commitment
to existing agri-environment, what might come out of expenditure
on area payments, and what might be spent in terms of early retirement
there might be very little else left to spend.
207. What is your solution to that?
(Mr McLaughlin) I think we must look at funding levels
but I think we would probably want to see the Commission define
or ask the Member States to come up with a reasoned justification
as to why they have excluded certain schemes. There have been
various debates in Brussels over the last 12 months as to whether
the farming community would want Member States to take this on
a mandatory or legal basis. I am not sure that is necessarily
the best line to take because obligations do not necessarily determine
the right level of the scheme, but certainly given the diversity
of issues that have to be faced in the rural environment I think
it would be acceptable for the Commission to seek reasoned opinions
as to why they did not pursue particular elements of the menu.
208. Your solution, as I understand it, is to
try and ensure we have a firm and compulsory framework for schemes
which might fit into the rural development portfolio and therefore
apply to all Member States and therefore the hidden background
is that if we do not get that you would expect the UK Government
to come in and put in some additional resources to help you achieve
your goals. So you are asking for additional public money into
farm support of one kind or another?
(Mr McLaughlin) It comes back to what the public actually
wants the farmers to produce. One of the problems we have in the
market route to the countryside is we do not have a futures market
for conservation. In the absence of a futures market or commercial
market for conservation if the public decides that is what they
want some way has got to be found to fund it. At the moment that
seems to be one route. The Government is prepared to envisage
imposing environmental taxes to address pollution on the basis
of what is a perceived public priority. I cannot see why the same
thing cannot be applied to land management.
209. How would such individual Member States
action comply with Community obligations to protect some form
of free market within the European Member States because effectively
it would be another subsidy to farming from the pocket of the
taxpayer in this country which would not be equivalent to any
other subsidy in other Member States or do you think other Member
States would be doing the same sorts of things with different
goals?
(Mr Lloyd Jones) It is not a competition issue because
obviously the reason why extra funding is being used like that
is because higher expectations are there.
210. That really does depend on whether our
expectations can be defined properly and then quantified in monetary
terms.
(Mr Lloyd Jones) Absolutely and part of that should
be the ability of these schemes to provide extra employment and
the job creation opportunities should be properly assessed as
a justification for the funding.
211. Because otherwise this will just become
effectively another form of farm income subsidy swilled around
in the farm income economy.
(Mr Lloyd Jones) We are perfectly clear that what
we would like to see is agri-environment schemes being supported
on the basis of the cost of the work done and the public benefit
provided.
Mr Curry
212. Can I ask a slightly scandalous question.
(Mr Lloyd Jones) Why not!
213. On the Continent, in France in particular,
a big problem is with diversification of the countryside. People
are getting out of it. In Britain the big problem is people want
to move into it and, as anybody knows from their constituency
surgeries, most of the planning permission cases are how to stop
people doing it. What this measure is trying to do is absolutely
the opposite in Britain to many Continental countries. Why should
we bother? If we were being sane and dealing with any other industry
we would say the key to the rural economy is to forget that approach
and to realise agriculture's long term rundown. It has always
happened and no one is going to change it. BSE might have accelerated
it a bit but it will carry on, the curve is there, it is not going
to change. We are moving towards agri-business. All the pressures
are there. The key to the rural economy is to forget this obsession
with agriculture and start looking at everything else which is
there. We should be looking at more effective planning permission
to change redundant farm buildings for light industry and looking
at the options for clean technology and ask who wants to live
in a clean environment. The famous cottage industries in the modern
information world (which I find so confusing) which enables people
better at it than I am to make a lot of money out of it. We need
high quality vocational training for youngsters because in the
countryside the quality of that education post-school is not as
good as it is in the towns. Realistically should we not start
to talk about rural development by devising a programme to help
the rundown of farming which is going to be inevitable and then
find what we are going to put in its place?
(Mr Lloyd Jones) Surely the reason why many of those
industries actually want to locate into the countryside is because
they are locating there against the background of a well-farmed
countryside?
214. But if you look at the United States you
had countryside in, say, New England and it is now wilderness
and lots of people love that wilderness. They like it, they muck
around in it, shoot things in it. The countryside we have now
is not the countryside of 200 years ago. If you tried to build
the Settle to Carlisle line now there would have been outrage
at the violation of the countryside to build the Settle and Carlisle
line where amazing amounts of ergs of energy are spent preserving
it despite the fact it is fundamentally not very economic. I am
asking a provocative question because on the Continent an agri-environmental
scheme is seen by the Commission as a way of helping to anchor
agriculture and create employment within agriculture. In Britain
it is a way of making money out of it.
(Mr Lloyd Jones) I remember the New England example
being used in the wilderness conference. It went down very well
until somebody got up and said, "You do realise that a) the
people had only been there for 50 years and b) they were starved
off."
215. But let's continue this line of argument
because what I am anxious to do is to say what is the most effective
way a state can spend its money to bring about rural development?
I think this is a genuine question. Is it effective to devote
it to an industry which is in long-term transition or which lurches
into decline. It is a question of choice of words. Be honest about
this, we know this is the long-term trend. Would it not actually
be better to put it into those things which are happening much
more in the countryside. Only a fraction of the people in the
countryside are involved in agriculture. The first thing and the
last thing most people know about agriculture is being stuck behind
a hay wagon on the A65 when we think, "I wish the bloody
man would get out of the way because I want to move." This
is being realistic. The countryside is expensive to live in and
extremely noisy to live in as a matter of fact and most people
do not want the next person to arrive in it because they want
to defend their territories there. In cost-effective terms if
we do want to protect agriculture we have got to make a case out
that there is something very special it is delivering, something
which people want to buy, something which is unique. We are beginning
to join each other's point of view now. What I have not seen is
other than the usual for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and
ESAs a worked-out scheme which enables the taxpayers to buy into
this and gives the farmer the opportunity to buy into it. If those
two groups of people are not willing to buy into it we might as
well forget about it and concentrate on making the planning permission
laws.
(Mr McLaughlin) I think by posing these either/ors
is a false dichotomy in the sense that there is a land management
element here that needs to be encouraged which, as I said before,
the market-place is not prepared to pay for so we have to temper
our free market competitiveness philosophy with bringing some
support to that land management venture. Notwithstanding that,
the other agenda is equally real and that is the fact we need
to look again at the protectionist philosophy which has governed
our approach to the countryside especially through planning policy.
That would have and should have been irrespective of what we do
on CAP and rural development. I think to some extent we are dealing
in false dichotomies here. It is a nice academic question of the
kind I used to enjoy setting under-graduate students but I think
if we come back to the policy debate there are two issues here
and the Government as well as addressing the question of how much
support it gives to farmers or whoever for managing the countryside
also needs to address the question of the planning philosophy
with which we approach the countryside, the infrastructural investment
which we make to the countryside because at the end of the day
if farming cannot get to its market we are all in trouble anyway.
I think really you are posing a false dichotomy rather than actually
trying to seek a straightforward answer as to what we think about
rural development.
216. Academic or otherwise it would be a very
interesting conversation to continue, would it not?
(Mr Lloyd Jones) Again we have been vocal in saying
in protecting the family farm what is important is not the income
generated by the farm but the income going into the farmhouse
and they are two different things.
Chairman: After Mr Curry's fascinating series
of questions I am not sure which of my colleagues' questions are
still valid! I am going to ask them to ask the questions nonetheless.
Mr George?
Mr George
217. I think my question have been left untouched
by this one so I am okay! I just wanted to come back to the issue
of structural funds and in particular you raise in your memorandum
points about the use of ESF monies in relation to training and
you claim that EU funding for training has hitherto primarily
benefited urban areas and rural areas have not benefited as much.
Could you justify this? Who exactly has benefited? Why if sufficient
funding has gone into agricultural training have agricultural
colleges not taken up the opportunity?
(Mr McLaughlin) I have to confess that we have not
done an intensive survey of the distribution of ESF funds. Our
comments are based on a perception that most of the budget headings
under ESF seem to be taken up by urban authorities in the UK.
Of course that does raise the question of who benefits from that
because an urban-based initiative could benefit rural inhabitants
in the hinterlands, but that is the basis of our observation that,
by and large, the rural side does not seem to have access to as
many funds as urban equivalents. That is purely based on perceptions;
it is not grounded in detailed research. As to why, I suppose
my response is really you would have to ask the TECs that. I do
not honestly know why. My guess is that maybe it relates to the
dispersed nature of populations and the difficulty of laying on
courses in centralised locations and consequent transport and
accessibility problems but I am speculating and I have no statistical
basis.
218. Is it more a commentary on the fact that
the majority of colleges and training establishments need by necessity
and by market economics to be based in market towns and towns
and that therefore some of the courses presumably are of a rural
nature? Are you saying that the training is not even benefiting
rural areas or is it just that it is based in urban areas?
(Mr McLaughlin) I think our comment is based on where
the training is located. I have conceded that rural populations
in the hinterlands may indeed benefit. As somebody who is an escapee
from the higher education world one must not underestimate the
difficulties that rural populations have in consuming courses
such as those that are funded by ESF which are part time, day
release a) because of the structure of business where people do
not find it easy to release people to do that and b) because the
physical difficulties of getting there and back.
(Mr Lloyd Jones) To be fair, some of the TECs are
realising that there is a problem there and they are starting
to address it.
219. Is the NFU anxious about certain types
of training where you feel there is an unmet need out there and
that in future rounds of EU funding there is a major training
and retraining issue for agriculture or is it purely the fact
that you look rather jealously at the money other sectors are
getting and you are not getting?
(Mr McLaughlin) No, no, I do not think there is any
jealousy involved at all. Just looking at one area there is the
whole move towards high tech and computer technology where, quite
frankly, for many in the farming communities, and to some extent
I share their concerns, it is not something they have yet engaged
with. As training becomes available through schools that problem
is disappearing but I think there is a computer-based education
framework there. I also think in the sense of retraining and keeping
up-to-date with changing standards and requirements, the industry
does not stand still and the context in which the farming industry
operates does not stand still and I think there is scope for exploiting
the training potential of European funding to allow that. Having
said that, it is not just farming.
(Mr Lloyd Jones) That is the important point. What
we are talking about here is transferrable skills, skills you
can transfer from agriculture to other industries and other employment
creating opportunities within rural areas. This brings us back
to Mr Curry's point. If we are going to go down that road for
goodness sake let's have farmers trained with transferable skills
to take advantage of that situation.
