Memorandum submitted by the Family Farmers'
Association (X13)
These comments are based mainly on the Rural Development
section of the December 1999 issue of A New Direction for Agriculture.
(It is a little difficult to discover what is "new",
as this government's policies appear to be an extension of the
last one's.) The Introduction repeats, inter alia, the
mantra that the "new direction" is to be both competitive
and environmentally responsible. This Association fears that,
in so far as "competitiveness" means producing at world
market prices, competitiveness is not compatible with environmental
responsibility. It does not appear to be so in most parts of the
world.
The summary gives "industry restructuring"
as a goal. "Restructuring" is never clearly defined,
but it appears to mean amalgamating many farms into very large
ones, presumed able to produce at low or "competitive"
prices. On the other hand, there will be diversified farms where
the main income is from a non farming activity, be it having the
wife work in a school or hospital, or catering for tourism. A
few will supply niche markets, but doing this is greatly hampered
by regulations, as in cheese making, and it is difficult to produce
enough "niche" products to support a family.
THE MAIN
TEXT
Para 6—The "substantial expansion
in the Agri-environment Scheme"
The press release speaks of a 60 per cent increase
in expenditure over seven years. It is quantified in £billions,
but not properly in percentage. Is it 60 per cent of the present
3 per cent spent on environmental measures? The next page of the
press release says spending will be double the current level.
Para 9—The proposed Hill Farm Allowance
gives great cause for concern. Even our Regional Director of MAFF
admitted this in public. I have twice responded to MAFF's request
for comments on their proposals. On the face of it, it would appear
to be impossible to allocate subsidies on an acreage basis and
"maintain the social fabric of upland rural communities".
The poorer the land the larger the acreage needed to support one
family. This conundrum has been wished upon us by the CAP reform,
and the reasons are understood. The solution remains obscure.
Para 11—Rural Enterprise, Processing and
Marketing Schemes. The proposed level, or percentage, of funding
is not revealed. This where the Minister's promise to aim help
at young farmers could be most useful if the funding can be generous.
Para 12—"Targeted skills training
activity". This paragraph is somewhat vague. There would
appear to be no shortage of courses at all levels in institutions
of all sorts, pointed in all directions mentioned. Is it proposed
to give grants to would-be farmers to enable them to gain those
skills? This would be ideal if the young people could then proceed
to get substantial help in, perhaps, developing processing or
marketing for a neighbour or relative.
Para 14—Early retirement/new entrants.
As implied, there is a great need for these schemes. Manifestly
they would need considerable funding, which the Treasury is not
prepared to allocate. The main concern of the founders of this
Association, 20 years ago, was the difficulty of entering farming.
It remains a very serious problem. So are tenant farmers who are
unable to pay their rent and whose assets are less than their
liabilities. Is anybody collating the relationship between farmer
suicides and status—tenant or owner occupier—of the
victims?
Para 15—Recycling . . . (modulation).
Nick Brown's form of "Modulation" is, of course, our
biggest complaint about the whole of this measure. The original
suggestion was that there should be up to 20 per cent reduction
in the largest total subsidies to any single enterprise. This
has been implemented in France in a sophisticated way which should
be most useful in the cause of maintaining the social fabric of
rural communities. We have been unable to discover if, or how,
other nation states are implementing this part of Agenda 2000.
The Committee may be aware that we have long
campaigned for what we originally called redistribution, tiering
or tapering, of help among farmers, so that it was more evenly
spread, as opposed to the most help going to the largest and richest.
Apart from being more ethical, this would make it more feasible
for new entrants and smaller farmers to become viable, as there
would not be so much competition from the already large farmers
growing ever larger. (We cannot agree with the statement to you
by the NFU at a previous enquiry that to reduce payments to large
farmers would not help small ones.) Presumably the Committee is
aware of the very large sums being collected by some very large
farmers. (In case it is not, I enclose copies of our last newsletter
which includes the relevant statistics.)
As for the proposed 4.5 per cent cut in incomes
(subsidies providing more than the total profit on most farms)
it is hard to say if it will be felt more keenly by the farmers
struggling to keep afloat on, say £3,000 per year (£135
loss of income) or a larger farmer with a more comfortable £20,000
(a £900 drop). I suggest that MPs would not be pleased with
a 4.5 per cent cut in salary, even if they were promised that
the money saved would be "recycled" to other activities
benefiting parliament as a whole.
The difficulty is that there may be no connection
between the farmer who loses 4.5 per cent and the one who gains
a countryside stewardship scheme or a grant to set up a new enterprise.
As regards Stewardship, this is of much more use to a large farmer
than a small one. Much of the money available is essentially a
partial return for making less profit per hectare. A common rate
is £80 per hectare. A person owning 500 suitable hectares
will be able to retire from active farming. But a farmer who has,
at least until recently, lived from 50 hectares cannot afford
to reduce his production and so is unable to enter stewardship,
even supposing he had land with the right qualifications. He is
probably, also, not financially equipped to set up in Processing
or Marketing.
Para 17—The fully match funding is, of
course, much the best part of the whole. If only the farmer's
contribution to the funding could have been true modulation, so
that nobody with an income of less than perhaps £50,000 need
have been cut at all, it would have been possible to give a much
more hearty welcome to the plan. As everybody has to suffer to
achieve the proposed results, they will inevitably be examined
much more critically.
The true proof of the pudding will be in the
eating, and we must hope that the opportunities provided under
the new RDR or Second Pillar will be fulfilled in such a way as
to keep many more farmers solvent and thus contribute directly
to rural well being and indirectly to national felicity.
February 2000
| 
