Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 139)
TUESDAY 4 JULY 2006
MR JAMIE
BLACKETT, MR
ANDREW BROWN,
MRS GILLIAN
HERBERT AND
MR GUY
SMITH
Q120 David Lepper: Mr Brown, you
talked about the lack of incentives for farmers such as yourself
to get into biofuels, I understand that point. On the other hand,
I think Mr Blackett was putting the emphasis on the need for a
fuel duty regime to help create the market for them. Would you
agree with him on that, are both things necessary?
Mr Brown: They have got to run
together because I think they are giving us 20 pence a litre off
biofuels at the moment and that is the lowest duty rebate in Europe.
If we can get that down even more and incentivise the farmer there
is going to be a symbiotic relationship. It is chicken and egg,
without one you are not going to get the other.
Q121 Chairman: I am going to ask
all of you if we have a minute or two at the end—and this
is to let the subconscious thought processes work on it—what
you think the purpose or the definition should be of the Common
Agricultural Policy. You can all think about that and muse on
that, and if we have a minute at the end I shall look forward
to some answers. Mr Brown, thank you very much indeed, again,
for the succinctness and focus of your evidence. Now we are going
to move on to Gillian Herbert.
Mrs Herbert: I come from a slightly
different background to many of the farmers here. I have spent
five years as a civil servant in the dim distant past, 15 years
working for the McLaren motor racing team and have only been in
farming full-time for three years. Reading the CAP Vision, I was
struck by the complacency of the assumption that food would always
be available for everybody. It is my job to produce food, it is
your job to ensure that the population of this country is fed.
As a farmer there are so many things you see, you realise how
desperately fragile the world is and how extremely difficult it
is sometimes to produce food. The Government wants farmers to
manage risk by diversification, that means you work full-time
as a farmer and then you find another job to bring you up to the
minimum hourly wage. You have to get to page 27 of the report
before it says, "We have to ask ourselves if there is anything
unique about farming which justifies it having its own system
of support payments". For most of this report you could substitute
the words "washing machine manufacturer" for "farmer"
and it would not read any different. Further on, on page 42, there
is a brief mention of food security and the fact that developed
nations are worried about it. There are so many things that could
go wrong with the world supply of food: a terrorist could drop
a nuclear bomb, there could be a meteor shower, I do not know,
you think of your own man-made or natural disaster. Farming takes
time, it cannot be turned on and off with the flick of a button.
It takes a season to grow a crop, from conception to slaughter
it takes two and a half months to grow a chicken, nine months
to grow a pig or sheep, two years to grow a cow, you have got
to be worried about food security. It makes no point at all, as
far as I can see, to run down European food production when you
have got global warming being accepted as a reality, China industrialising,
and the population of the world set to exceed nine billion within
a generation. It does not make sense. When I worked for Ron Dennis,
the owner of the McLaren team, he used to say, "There is
no such thing as luck, there is only meticulous planning and preparation
so that when a certain set of circumstances arise you are in the
right position to do something positive". Unless something
a lot more positive happens about European farming this whole
section of the world is desperately vulnerable. I am seeing it
from a different perspective, I have no particular axe to grind.
I have got my own tiny little niche with the rare breeds, but
overall I see farmers around me struggling and the way the Single
Farm Payment was so appallingly mismanaged. It says the Government
wants farmers to manage risk by diversification, and I think the
idea was that a lot of farmers would maybe use that Single Farm
Payment to start that process, but by the time they got it most
of the farmers around me were using it just to pay off the overdraft
because they should have had the payments at the end of last year,
and some of them are still waiting for them. If the whole process
of further CAP reform is managed to that standard, heaven help
us all. It is the kind of standard that one would expect if you
lived in Guatemala or somewhere but not, please, in the UK. The
CAP reform document seems to address everything. It seems to suggest
that we should use it to make the world a greener place and encourage
imports from environmentally sound places and, also, that we should
prop up struggling Third World economies and help them to compete
on the world market, all with the use of the CAP reform, and it
is such a scattergun. It is not very detailed and I think, particularly
in the international part of it, very naive. It does not give
solutions, it just says what would be nice.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Q122 David Taylor: You referred to
RPA, and I can assure you, Mrs Herbert, no group of people more
than this Committee have been critical of what has happened there.
You make interesting points in both what you have said and in
your written submission in terms of food security. Towards the
end of your written submission you talk about the US being moribund
in terms of growth and "China doesn't have enough land to
grow the food her burgeoning population will require as she industrialises"
and I do not dissent from that. But in essence will that not drive
up world food prices and will that, therefore, not make some types
of food production more profitable and bring back the core to
agricultural activity, the sort you are describing?
Mrs Herbert: Possibly, but there
is only a finite amount of world that one can grow crops on, and
that may be changing, as Andrew Brown said, because of global
warming. The population of China is growing enormously, she is
diverting three rivers to the north of the country to give more
water but that is going to take 50 years. The population of China
can grow an awful lot in 50 years.
Q123 Mr Williams: The review of the
Common Agricultural Policy is set against the negotiations on
the World Trade round which basically is promoting free trade.
Part of that would be to reduce our export subsidies which would
lead to a decrease in the price of products produced in Britain.
In terms of food security, do you think it is justifiable to keep
our export subsidies in order to keep the price up and stimulate
production in this country?
Mrs Herbert: Whatever we do it
has to be in line with the rest of the world. I do not think Europe
is strong enough to take unilateral action, when you have got
places like Japan and the USA strongly supporting their own farming
industries, to go out on a limb and do it just us.
Q124 Lynne Jones: The document bemoans
the fact that much of the subsidies do not reach farmers, do you
think that is true? Mr Brown was more or less saying that was
the case. If so, do the Government's proposals solve that problem?
If they do not, what would you like to see done about it?
Mrs Herbert: That is a very sticky
one. The document does give the example of France where the money
would go to the landowners who have 80% of the land and not to
the people who farm. I think if you do mange to get it to the
farmers in places like France, all that is going to happen is
the landlords are going to put the rent up to take account of
that. That is one of the problems where you decouple it from production
because the money can go anywhere. Where I live lots of people
are getting SFP but they are people who have bought up small holdings,
using them as pony paddocks and they produce nothing. I think
it has gone too much the other way in some cases.
Q125 Lynne Jones: What would you
like to see being done about it?
Mrs Herbert: I do not really know.
I do not know how you get the money to the right people.
Q126 Lynne Jones: Being somebody
who lives in a town with a centrally heated home and an air-conditioned
car, I have not got the answers, but I thought you might have!
Mrs Herbert: Not on how you arrange
the economics, no.
Q127 Mr Drew: Can I ask you a couple
of questions about yourself. I am intrigued, why did you come
into farming, which obviously is a personal question that you
may choose to hedge your answers around? Also, do you think it
is a good thing that people like yourself are coming into agriculture,
given that there is this view that agriculture is a dying industry
with lots of older people, the average age is 59 now? What would
bring newer people in? Is that something we should be particularly
trying to do?
Mrs Herbert: I entered it because
about 12 years ago my husband and I got very concerned. We were
living in the South, near Staines, and we could see that what
was happening was not sustainable, particularly in the south of
the country. We planned, saved and trained—I went to Berkshire
Agricultural College in my spare time—and then we made the
move three years ago. It was so unusual that we did get several
articles written about us in the local newspapers. We are sure
we made the right decision, but we obviously made it at a time
in our lives when we had a certain amount of financial security.
I think to encourage young people in there is not a great deal
at the moment. It is something that one sees constantly bemoaned
in Farmers Weekly, that there is not much encouragement
in the way of grants and things which there are in other countries.
I believe France has a good start-up scheme for new entrants to
agriculture. I think we are unusual. Many farmers around us are
fifth generation farmers and you can see the results of it. One
of the problems is that it is a very instant culture in this country.
There is fast-food and instant celebrity, and the idea of farming
and me planting a tree which is going to look wonderful 200 years
after I am buried, or going out to a show like this one and investing
thousands of pounds in good genetics to bring into my herd or
flock which will not really begin to show fruit for five, ten,
15 years is not in line with current culture.
Q128 Sir Peter Soulsby: In your written
evidence, Mrs Herbert, you argue against the reward to farmers
for using land for activities other than providing food. You said
why should they then continue to work 84 hours a week, or however
long it is. It is really following from Lynne Jones' question,
how would you tie the reward to farmers from the CAP in such a
way that it was doing something useful?
Mrs Herbert: It depends on the
Government as to how much they value the environment as opposed
to producing food. I think there is probably a balance to be struck
somewhere, but at the moment I find it quite ridiculous that when
I get the digital map of my farm, which I have been waiting for
for nearly two years for, I shall be able to apply for ELS and
I will be paid for not cutting my hedges, when I think I should
be paid for producing food for the population. I will manage my
farm in a certain environmentally sensitive way as it has been
for the last 550 years, thank heavens, but I do not think you
can decouple those two things entirely. There has to be a balance
struck, and I do not know what it is, it is for wiser heads than
me, but I think there has to be a balance.
Q129 Mrs Moon: You have expressed
a lot of concern about food security and cited as an example that
China, for example, will not be able to feed its own population
and there will be problems with the EU feeding its population.
One of the things we have certainly discovered as we have been
on our travels is there are whole parts of the European Union,
certainly in China, that are farming in a way which has not been
seen, for example, in Britain for perhaps 200 years. As they move
towards the current farming practice, as we have here, their food
production will change dramatically, their capacity to feed themselves
will change dramatically and they will then obviously have the
capacity to compete. How do you see that competition affecting
the way our farmers operate? How do you see farming in 10 years'
time in this country?
Mrs Herbert: I think the idea
that, yes, they will become more efficient is an interesting one,
but I think also the number of people in farming, as has happened
all over the world as countries industrialise, will move to cities
and the whole country will become more industrial. Once that happens,
there is always a greater demand for food, so the countries which
become more efficient, I would think, looking historically, will
only be supplying their own increased demand rather than the food
going onto the world stage, as it were.
Mrs Moon: Part of the problem at the
moment is—for example, we saw in Romania—that farmers
are literally strip farming, so they cannot produce the mass,
there is not the land base in farms to produce a critical mass.
In fact, I think in Romania it was 60% of the population were
still on the land?
Chairman: Four million farmers and they
do not need two million of them.
Q130 Mrs Moon: There has to be that
move, that move is going to be vital for those countries to grow
their economies and become less reliant on subsidy and free up
subsidy to allow the countries to grow and develop.
Mrs Herbert: Again, that is why
I found it rather naive that the policy says there should be a
free, fair and level playing field throughout the EU. That is
a long way down the line because those countries in Eastern Europe,
the new Member States, have got a long way to go to catch up with
the efficiency of the Western European farmers.
Q131 Chairman: I think we have got
to move on. As much as I would love to ask you whether Formula
1 should be using biofuels, I think we must give Mr Smith the
opportunity to give us his views.
Mr Smith: Thank you, Chairman.
No doubt you were all pouring over my written evidence as you
went to bed with your Horlicks last night, but I will briefly
remind you of the nub of my argument. It is that British agriculture
has certain structural costs that other agricultures do not have
in terms of high labour costs, high land costs and in terms of
regulation on the environment, welfare, and food safety. Because
of these relatively high costs I think it may struggle to compete
on a free global agricultural market. I would suggest that there
is one big ray of hope for our farmers in Britain and that is
our proximity to 60 million affluent consumers who call themselves
British citizens. If we can secure some of that market for British
farmers then we have a future. My problem is I think traditionally
there is not an effective promotion of agriculture in this country
and agriculture must promote itself in three keys ways. First
of all, in the way it produces a world-class, affordable, low
food mile, safe-assured, traceable product in that it has a world-beating
animal welfare record and it looks after the countryside in a
good way. If we can promote the role of farmers to the British
population in that way there will be a return to British agriculture
which may secure its future. This is the controversial bit: I
think Government has a political obligation to help with this,
and I would suggest that there is a lack of political will in
this country to do so. No doubt you are all in denial about this
and I am trying to shake you out of your denial.
Chairman: Consider myself well shaken!
Thank you very much indeed.
Q132 David Lepper: Yes, Government
has got its responsibility, you have rightly said that, to help
farmers reach the—how many million did you suggest?
Mr Smith: Sixty million or thereabouts.
Q133 David Lepper:—Sixty million
potential customers out there. But you have used the phrase in
your written evidence: "British farmers should seek to promote
their products", and in your comments just now—I have
jotted down your phrase—"Agriculture must promote itself".
We will take as given the fact that the Government ought to be
doing more, but can you say a bit more about the farmers' input
into doing more?
Mr Smith: Traditionally I do not
think farmers are particularly good communicators or promoters
of their industry for a number of reasons, but that is changing
with a new generation which is much more switched on to communication.
I think Government has a responsibility to help nurture that and
get farmers to promote themselves in a positive and strategically
effective manner in terms of markets.
Q134 David Taylor: You are based
in Essex, Mr Smith?
Mr Smith: That is correct.
Q135 David Taylor: I do not know
whether there is a Tesco in Chelmsford, there probably is, if
I was to stand outside there on Saturday morning with a petition
urging people to campaign against low poultry standards or pig
production, whatever, the same people who would be keen to sign
that petition would then go in and buy chickens produced perhaps
in Thailand or Brazil to standards that are relatively low, which
bears out your sentence in your written statement, "the killer
irony for farmers is that British consumers seem happy to buy
on price, preferring cheaper imports produced to lower standards".
How do you think we can bridge that gulf between what they say
their values are and how they deliver them in practice?
Mr Smith: For starters, as our
elected representatives, you will want to think this through before
you pass the regulation. I think you assume that there is a political
will amongst the British electorate to have high welfare standards
in this country, I hope you are right, but you must realise that
if that is correct then it would manifest in the way they make
purchasing decisions. If it is not manifest in the way they make
purchasing decisions, then maybe you are over-regulating us, and
the pig industry would be a perfect example of that.
Q136 David Taylor: Do you feel there
is more that can be done in terms of labelling to bring out the
high environmental and welfare standards that are often associated
with British food which are less often the case with the imported
equivalents?
Mr Smith: I think as regulators
you could do more to ensure correct, accurate and openly honest
labelling of British food and its source. You could also do things
like relax the over-restrictive interpretation of state aid rules
whereby even my money as a levy payer is not allowed to be used
to promote my product to my home consumers.
Q137 David Taylor: Do you feel the
EU inhibits this in any way?
Mr Smith: You are the first port
of call as my elected representatives, but if you will not help
then I will go to the EU.
David Taylor: I fully agree with what
you are saying, Mr Smith, I am just asking the questions, I can
assure you.
Q138 Mr Williams: The message that
you give that British farmers produce to high standards in terms
of the environment, animal welfare and various other criteria
is one that is mirrored by farming organisations in Germany and
France. But it seems to me that if farmers in the EU are going
to sell at a price which represents the cost of production and
get public support in terms of subsidy, then they have got to
re-engage with the British people and the people across the EU.
That engagement seems to have been lost recently. Have you got
any idea how that engagement can be encouraged and re-established?
Mr Smith: Often it comes down
to money. If you want to promote yourself and your goods then
you need a budget to do so. Tesco spend £60 million a year
promoting themselves, British agriculture spends about two and
a half pence a year promoting itself. I think you have got to
be serious about budgets and you have got to be strategically
sophisticated with the way you use communication. I also think—and
here is another bit of controversy for you—in this country
there is almost a culture to demonise agriculture as being responsible
for a myriad of problems, and that is often well reflected in
Westminster, and I would like to see a change of that culture
as well.
Q139 Mr Drew: What you have been
saying suggests that you would agree with me that the problem
is the price of food is too cheap and the only way you are going
to be able to overcome the problems is if the price of food goes
up. The real dilemma is if you were to deregulate, if you were
to lessen some of the controls, the danger is that you will further
drop the price. How do you square this circle?
Mr Smith: The problem is people
want it both ways in this country, they want cheap food and they
want it produced to high standards. It has got to be made clear
to the consumers that you cannot have it both ways. I am told
that there is a burgeoning market for ethical consumption in this
country, but to make an ethical decision you have to be aware
of the ethics around the marketplace. I would suggest that people
should be made aware of the fact that British farmers have very
high animal welfare standards and, therefore, there is a premium
to their product in terms of their ethical consumption. I am positive
that they are not particularly aware of the fact that a British
pig is treated a lot more kindly than one from wherever.
| 
