Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the Family Farmers' Association (Appendix 2)

  1.  The purpose of this association is to promote family farming. We believe that this is better than corporate farming, both for the environment and the community. Productive and profitable farming needs people, and produces food for the nation. We regret that there is no mention in the Bill of food production as we think that many people share our concern at this government's lack of concern about food security. There is a danger that following decoupling large scale industrialised farming will increase as it becomes more difficult to produce food and make a profit. It will be extremely difficult to care for the environment in the absence of farmers and their livestock, or even if they become much scarcer.

  2.  We therefore examine the Bill from the point of view of both farmers and the environment.

  In the first place, to abolish both the Countryside Agency and English Nature is a draconian action, and possibly unwise. Both organisations have only been created relatively recently and if they are found not to be fulfilling their intended purposes, it might have been better to improve them than to move their necessary functions to an entirely new body. The new Agency created in their place is to have a very wide remit in relation to the natural environment. It is to be hoped that it will appreciate the importance of farming and food production in the maintenance of the natural environment. (What we now enjoy is not, in fact, "natural", it is mainly the result of farming activities.)

  3.  The greatest concern to farmers—our remit—is the future of the Rural Delivery Service. This has the vital and practical function of actually administering all sections (as far as we know) of the ERDP. Organic and disadvantaged farmers are supervised by the Rural Delivery Service. So are all the environmental schemes. The RDS is the body which actually knows what is happening on all farmed land that is of importance to the environment. It appears to be playing a vital part in developing the new Environmental Schemes. No doubt it is being advised on the ecological aspect by EN, but it is the RDS which, when told what result is needed, organises actual on farm schemes. It is the officials of the RDS with whom the farmers have personal contact, negotiating details of their activities.

  4.  There is mention of making the "delivery" (not clearly defined) function local, possibly under the RDAs. However, as this delivery is a matter of judging whether farmers' practice, or proposals, fit the specifications of the relevant scheme, chaos could ensue if there were variations of application between different areas. The new Agency seems to be given most of the powers now performed by the RDS; specifically Management Agreements, often with farmers. A name will have to be given to the Section or Division which performs these functions. Why not Rural Delivery Service, which we are used to? We look upon it as a section of Defra, similar to the RPA which actually disburses the money . If the administration of the agri-environment schemes is to be by a body apparently quite separate from Defra, more confusion may be created among farmers, not less. (Remembering that environmental schemes are becoming ever more vital for farmers' survival.)

  5.  The Commission for Rural Communities appears to have rather vague purposes and functions. It may be intended to take over the social and economic functions of the CA? It is to be hoped that if/when it finds rural areas "suffering from social disadvantage and economic underperformance" as a result of the new CAP arrangements, it will be able to rescue them.

  6.  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee does not appear to have much relevance to farming or food production.

  What is of concern is the power to abolish existing bodies, eg the MLC, and create new ones. Taking the MLC as an example, this organisation costs farmers a lot of money. It also performs a lot of functions, which it says are vital. Most of the existing bodies have been set up in response to a perceived need to help or advise farmers. There should be provision for proper examination both of the need for each body or board, and its effectiveness, before decisions are taken as to its future. Formal consultations should be specified, even possibly votes from those who are, or would be, levied.

  7.  We are concerned that the Secretary of State will have enormous power over all these new organisations. By granting—or not granting—sufficient funding, and by appointing competent or incompetent people to run them, she (in the present case) will have absolute power as to how well they function and whether they will, in fact, benefit the environment. We have already pointed out that the environment is very largely dependent on how farming develops under the new CAP, and this cannot be too strongly stressed. The new bodies must have both the means and the determination to ensure that farming does not languish, leading to the dereliction of the countryside.

  8.  From the Schedules it is not clear if the new Agency and the CRC are to be regarded as government departments, as they will not be "servants or agents of the crown". We are obviously not expert in constitutional matters, but hope their status and importance will be made clear.

  9.  We do not have the technical expertise to comment on the rest of the details given in the schedules. Nor have we had time, unfortunately, to consider the whole of the explanatory notes or the RIA in detail. There is more about transferring the functions of the RDS to local organisations, which, as we have already said, could be a recipe for disaster. Apart from the difficulty of uneven interpretation of rules and regulations, it would hardly encourage the establishment of competent and dedicated staff if each area office had a different employer. As the RDS is virtually in control of all farming's environmental activities, which are legion, its smooth functioning is absolutely vital. The management of the ERDP is absolutely vital under the new CAP, and it must be organised as a whole, no matter what the whole is named or its nominal status under Defra.

  We note that the CRC is scheduled to be instituted next month, which seems a little hasty!

The Family Farmers' Association

February 2005





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 4 April 2005