Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

Ev 50 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
17 November 2010 James Paice MP, Jeremy Eppel and Dan Osgood
Mr Paice: No, I’m afraid I can’t. That’s a DECC
issue. Carbon markets and how they operate would be
a matter for DECC. Jeremy, have I got that wrong?
Jeremy Eppel: No, DECC is obviously responsible
for climate change policy overall, but we have a
considerable interest in the land management aspects
of it. Defining how you account for the carbon is an
issue on which considerable further work is needed.
It’s certainly something that’s of importance and
interest, and I think will potentially get some further
consideration in the Natural Environment White Paper
next year. Establishing precisely on what basis you
can be sure that carbon is being either fixed in a peat
bog or retained in a peat bog, for instance, would be
important. It’s an important area for further
development, but we haven’t found a solution yet.
Q227 Chair: We heard last week that the uplands are
being mapped for carbon storage and water storage,
but that’s at a very early stage, I understand.
Jeremy Eppel: Yes.
Mr Paice: Yes.
Q228 Richard Drax: On succession and new
entrants, the CRC said that it was “essential that
[succession] is given prominence within our proposed
uplands strategy”. Do you think it’s for the
Government to get involved proactively to ensure this
happens by changing the law, changing tenancy
agreements or is it something for the Government to
keep out of and allow the existing system to continue?
How proactive should we be?
Mr Paice: As you’re well aware, the general
Government approach is to keep out of things unless
it’s really necessary. There have been many previous
Ministers of agriculture who’ve entered into
agricultural tenancy legislation and lived to regret it.
It’s a minefield. It’s how I got into agricultural politics
a long, long while ago. It’s not something to be
entered into lightly, which is why the previous
Government was quite wise to set up what they call
TRIG—the Tenancy Reform Industry Group—which
brings together the various bodies, not just landowners
and tenants, but also land agents and land legal
specialists, to try to thrash out all the wrinkles of land
farm tenancy legislation, etc, and wherever possible
to avoid the need to change the law.
That group is operating; Defra sponsors it but that’s
the limit of it. They have not come forward with any
clear recommendations on that front. If they do,
clearly, we’ll look at them very carefully and with a
lot of sympathy, because I think it’s a really
worthwhile forum to thrash out these problems. If
they’ve all agreed that something has to be changed,
clearly, we need to look at it very positively. I’m not
actually sure that it’s the legal issues to do with
succession that are the problem. Obviously, in my
constituency, I don’t represent any hill farmers, but I
spend a lot of time on the uplands, and my
understanding is that the issues of succession are more
to do with the viability of the business, and the
younger generation just don’t want that very tough
lifestyle for a pretty menial income.
Q229 Mrs Glindon: Will you be monitoring the sale
of the county council farms and their impact on new
entrants?
Mr Paice: Monitoring, yes; interfering, no. This is
part of localism. County councils have to make their
own financial judgments. Personally I think it’s
extremely sad if a county council decides to sell some
or all of its land. I think I’ve encouraged them
publicly before to think more widely—to think out of
the box about it. It’s not just a question of selling it,
but of whether there are other mechanisms, or other
institutions that might be able to take on a county
estate or some of it, with a view to retaining the
concept of holdings for new entrants. I think there has
been just a tendency to think, “Well, we’re going to
get rid of it. We’ll sell it whatever way we can.” No,
the Government doesn’t take the view that we should
be interfering in local decision-making. That must be
for them but, as I say, personally I hope they will think
very carefully before going down that route.
Q230 Mrs Glindon: Could Defra have some kind of
stance, if it didn’t want to directly interfere, on new
entrants who are coming in from outside farming and
obviously have skills? How important is that and how
should that be fostered? Is there anything that you
could do from that side—not directly interfering, but
emphasising the importance of new entrants? I don’t
know if there’s anything you think Defra could do
indirectly to help.
Mr Paice: There are a couple of aspects to this. The
first is the issue of having the right skills and
qualifications to work in farming is hugely important,
and Defra does have a big role in that, in the Agri-
Skills project, and we’re working to develop that, and
in the narrow context of uplands. It’s one of the
reasons I was on Dartmoor last week—to look at the
Moor Skills project, which was about farmers’ sons
and others going through an apprenticeship targeted
specifically at uplands farmers on the moors, where a
group of farmers had come together to pool their
resources so that the apprentices actually worked for
seven of them during the course of their
apprenticeship and got a wide range of experience.
Trainers came to them, because of the remoteness of
the area. This was entirely a local initiative; it was a
superb example. There is a similar one in
Northumberland, because I know they copied the
Moor Skills one. They’re superb examples of how you
get the skills into the next generation.
The other part of your question, if I may be so bold,
is: how do you then give them a foot on the ladder?
You then have to speculate, and this is speculation, as
to whether that foot will always be a farm of their
own, either a tenancy or even owner occupancy, and
owner occupancy is obviously not going to be open
to many people unless there’s a family farm to inherit.
I think more and more—and this is my crystal ball,
but with a lifetime in and around the industry—that
over the coming years we’re going to see many more
large operations, but with more good employment
opportunities for young people. Not everybody may
like this projection. Those young people may not
necessarily be working for themselves; they may
actually have a better income and a better lifestyle
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before
00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011