Stephen Carr's interpretation of why NFUS is against he use of Article 68 misses the point with shotgun and barn door proportions. It is also wrong to mix up messages about LFA support and Pillar one payments. He is right to express concerns about de-stocking through de-coupling and question the payment of support to farmers who are no longer producing or who have dramaticaly reduced livestock production, or any production for that matter, but this will not be resolved through Article 68.

NFUS is completely committed to support payments being paid for activity. Article 68 ( 69 previously ) is already in use in Scotland with the Scottish Beef Calf Scheme. This scheme has failed to halt the decline in cattle numbers, although its removal at this stage would be even worse. It also fails to address the decline in sheep numbers which is also of great concern. The scope of Article 68 is too limited to deliver for the livestock industry and too blunt an instrument to target money effectively. As an arable farmer, I'm sure Mr Carr is need of all the SFP he can lay his hands on, so will recognise that no sector can afford to loose payments at this time to pay for such measures.

That is where a large part of the solution lies. Remove completely the payments from non active farmers, and target the money at activity.This is the only morally defensible approach, and in my view should be used in England as well, where the taxpayer justification for the existing scheme is even harder to pin down. Article 68 will only tinker round the edges of the problem, and should be left alone until we have a real chance to change things after 2013.

As far as LFA is concerned, Scotland's designated area is a good fit, taking into account both climatic and landscape handicaps as well as distance from markets and services. The so called socio-economic criteria which would be lost under the 8 new criteria proposed by the Commission. Criteria which would possibly see the Cambridge Fenn land brought into the English LFA because of its soil type. What a dogs breakfast of a proposal that is!

Our discussions with the Commissioner and her tour of some of Scotland's lowground and LFA areas, left her in no doubt that a European one size fits all policy for LFA would not fit in Scotland. She accepted that, and discussions continue.

the sfp was designed to reduce production , and is achieving that end perfectly.

what is the problem?

i would rather sell 500 lambs at £60 than 1000 at  £20.

President jim and stephen carr are both wrong.

I blame a large part of the decrease in production  of sheep and cattle on the wholesale clearance of scottish tenants since 2001, not the sfp.

Jim, if you are going to take payment away from "inactive " farmers, are you also going to take it off "inactive" estate owners?

if we go to an area base aka england, there will be even more inactive claimants, and even more clearances.

just leave well alone, its working well, just bring in sfp for new entrants from the existing modulated funds, currently denied to short term tenants

I've forwarded this link to Stephen. Fingers crossed he has time to reply.

SFP is not working well or otherwise. It has to be tied to activity and real output of benefit. Inactive estate owners deserve no more SFP than inactive tenants. I would rather sell all 1000 lambs for £100 and it will come to that soon. We have a totally indefensible SRDP which has just paid me to cut my sheep numbers. The whole system SFP, LFASS and SRDP is not fit for purpose.

sorry, hhs, as a tenant farmer, the sfp is the best thing ever. the factor no longer has the iacs payment stick to beat me with at the rent review.

i also have access to a cash deposit when a land purchase opportunity presents itself.

i have picked up 4 blocks of land since 2004 at little or no rent, and have no setaside.

i agree that the srdp is a disgrace. it robs the poor to pay the rich.

I propose a toast to Franz Fischler, saviour of scottish tenant farmers!

SFP is fine if you get it, I don't. We need a non historic base for support, it must be tied to activity and real benefit. I was a tenant and landlords despite their PR spin are the most consistently exploitative grasping bloodsuckers I have ever encountered. Scots must have the right to buy out of tenancy, the great estates are still clearing people, it must be stopped.

hhs, i didnt have you down as a new entrant, what happened to your sfp?

the sfp has done more to end the reign of estates than anything else.

if blair had allowed j mc connell to bring in the absolute right to buy in 2003, the whole sorry mess would now be finished.

Regrettebly, the lairds now have a well oiled spin machine, and are back in the ascendency, even hoodwinking the snp into shelving the right to buy.

A return to production subsidies ultimately only puts money in the supermarkets and landlords pockets. Neither deserve a penny.

In after the base years of SFP and no appeal.(unique and complicated case) Previous owner now lives in the south of France and gets about £35,000 per year. Maybe some tenants have benefited. But round here what happens is father takes the SFP and retires, the son/daughter is left with nothing, the rent stays the same, vacant possession inevitably follows. Historic SFP is a catastrophe and it is destroying the fabric of Scottish agriculture. We must have a system that delivers real benefit, not necessarily production, just keeping the fabric of society intact is a benefit. The young cannot possibly start in farming, they have student loans of tens of thousands before they even start. We need real change now not in 2013.

the lack of a proper allocation for new entrants is an absolute travesty, and that would solve all these pproblems.

i have lost a large sum in modulation, which i cannot access, but which should be funding new entrants, not the duke of buccleuch,s tree planting.

Glasshouse tinkering with historic SFP is not an option. The whole system is due to end in 2013 anyway. Decisions on the next system need to be made now. The best way forward is to plan to be able to survive without any, it is not pleasant but can be done (believe me I know). The most likely outcome however is some sort of support will continue. We will probably have to have some sort of dynamic hybrid based on area and production. Feel free to disagree but I suggest an area payment based on 5ha min lowland 15ha upland and 100ha hill with a maximum area allowed of 1000ha. We also need to keep a production base in livestock so we should keep £100 per beef calf and add £15 per lamb, verified by electronic tag. (might as well use it for something) I am open to suggestions as to a better system.

Dont forget a new dairy calf premium in your planning!! I would agree that the old system is open to abuse, from older semi retired farmers, we have one who has half an acre and get a payment of 12k for renting some hill. But as a young farmer who recieves a decent SFP and LFAS i'm quite happy with the current system. However it changes in the future who knows but there will always be winners and losers.

you are both wrong,the sfp was supposed to wean us off subsidies.

I have farmed effectively without sfp , as my landlord takes it all in rent, 6 months before i see it.

what is needed is good market prices, and no subs, and no red tape

I would agree but when we are tied up in red tape the sfp is a nice reward. The simple fact of it is without the sfp at the moment most agri business would be very marginal. In our dairy business we are looking at an investment of around £1.5m in the near future if we wish to continue, we will apply to the srdp but if unsuccesful then i would very much doubt it happening. Most of the srdp is geared to agri environment which generates little income and employment in the local community.

No problem with no subs as long as no one gets them and also everyone should have to work to the same standerds or you cant compeat with imports

and are imports all produced to our standards now??????

Dont no but i did not say to our standards just the same i dont no that ours are best or the ones to use in this ideal world.

Absolutely the removal of support from inactive land lords is of equal importance to removing it from inactive farmers. I make no distinction what so ever.

 

Now all we have to do is define "active". I think we can all give examples but how can we get a legal definition that will get past the lawyers? Plus the new systems need to be able to be delivered and administered in an efficient manner, the SRDP is an outstanding example of how not to do it. SGRPID footsoldiers hate it, we need to help them deliver a better service.

well then, jim, use the term "inactive landowners"  not farmers.

I  suggest the "horny hands test" for activity, or

the same criteria  as the inland revenue use could be applied, ie inspect the farmhouse, does it have an aroma of sheep doo doo, deisel, oil, etc round the back door? does the office look like a twister has been through? are there piles of wellies, oilskins etc?

Does the pickup look like the one clarkson blew up on telly?

is the garden immaculate,? or does it get power harrowed once a year and toppped by tractor?

You do realise that if you remove the ability to clsaim on naked acres, you put the lairds back in full control of tenants sfp, with resultant rent rises inevitable.

The resultant drop in the capital value of sfp will remove the current underpinning of tenant

farm overdrafts, so look forward to a flood of displenishing sales , and you will get more land to farm thasn you can handle.

HHS, i presume that you bought your farm in 2002 or therabouts, so you have made a large capital gain, and are presumably well funded as a result. and interst now at a record low.

spare a thought for the ruin you will bring to tenants  if you get your wishes. The sfp is my biggest asset, and doesnt the bank know it.

Glasshouse I will get my wish in 2013, it is inconceivable that data over a decade old would be used for the new system. The present one has many anomalies that need to be addressed, not just for my benefit, but I reckon very little will happen apart from some minor cosmetic tinkering. Using SFP as a capital asset is not at all wise, I have never bought any,(couldn't afford to at the start, wouldn't bother now) land is a better bet. You must have visited our place lamb milk and wellies mix with the smell of diesel, my Jeep has not been washed since I bought it and the last gardening I did was with a 13ton 360 slew excavator.

Investment in SFP entitlements were actually very sound especially in the early years. If you are set up as a limited company you can buy them and write them off over the next few years so saving on tax. Hence some of the large purchases by ltd companies. We have bought bits and pieces mainly of "inactive " landlords who we rent land off.

2600326 I agree SFP was a very good bet, if you had the cash. There are much better homes for mine now and it will end in 2013 so is it really a wise choice with such a short life left? SFP is not a free lunch forever, we will get a new system and we need to confront what sort of system it is. The present arrangement is not fit for purpose as the decline in output clearly shows. As for dairy support post 2013 I do wonder if there will be an industry left by then.

He his-self:

The present arrangement is not fit for purpose as the decline in output clearly shows. As for dairy support post 2013 I do wonder if there will be an industry left by then

 

 

Not fit for purpose! What has that got to do with a fall in production.

The main point of SFP was to reduce production with out sending thousands of small farmers to the wall. This is why European agricultural subsides where changed to make them environmental and social payments. Also environmental and social payments don't bother the world trade organisation where as agri subsides do.  

If policy makers are going to make any changes then the one message to get across is NO HEADAGE PAYMENTS. They have got to be the best way to make the livestock industry uncompetative.  

wee man SFP is not fit for purpose it does not support the most important thing in the countryside its people. Most small farmers round me have now retired to the bungalow in town abandoning the next generation to emigration and the land to ranching at best dereliction at worst. Many probably most can never hope to qualify for environmental payments, the beef calf scheme has been a success but is too little too late. Production is the core of agriculture without it we might as well be on the dole. If SFP is not reformed the system will be stopped totally. Can anyone seriously imagine a politician defending a system that pays money to the heirs and successors of those who happened to tick some boxes on a form at the beginning of the previous decade and have done nothing since.