The Chairman, Christopher Jones, introduced the speakers and explained the issues to be discussed at the seminar.

He said that the Association defines ‘Family Farmers’ as people who work their land themselves. They live on their farms and take their own management decisions. They tend their own stock and/or till the land themselves.

We would like them to receive an adequate reward for producing the nation’s food and for caring for the landscape and environment. The ‘adequate reward’ should enable them to have an income comparable with the rest of society for their investment and time and enable them to care for the landscape, environment, their animals and land, to the standards we expect in Britain.

The questions today: Is it important that family farmers continue to exist as food producers? Or is Britain’s agriculture now in a post food producing era as some would claim? Is it important that we should continue to produce a significant amount of food here in Britain for our own consumption? Or must the countryside be mainly based on tourism, and other forms of leisure, and the small-scale processing and selling of niche foods on one hand or on the other, large industrial farming units producing food in quantity to supply cheap raw materials for others to process? The latter is the direction we are now taking for food production. Is it inevitable? Or desirable?

If we think that family farmers are an important part of the character of Britain and of a sustainable food-producing system, what is needed to secure a future for them and how do we achieve that future?

Christopher Jones said his own view was that farming was an intensely local business. Farmers tend only to encounter other farmers through other farmer's products which are cheaper than theirs. Farmers in other countries have grasped the reality of global marketing faster than have British farmers. Unfortunately, farmers are at the wrong end of a power structure. The term ‘food chain’ has more than one meaning. Farmers today receive a lower percentage share in money terms, of their product than they did fifty years ago. The power structure is interested in large quantities of identical products. The customer is becoming interested in fair trade and farmers’ markets. How we farm is a world issue of crucial importance to food security, and the future of the planet, and the livelihood of farmers, who make up a large proportion of the people living on our planet. There are three questions to be answered about food: What is it? How is it produced? How is it paid for?
 

Baroness Byford, Conservative spokesman on agriculture in the House of Lords
Lady Byford opened by saying that she regarded the gathering to be one of non-political ambience. Her background was that she had studied at an agricultural college, followed by being a poultry farmer in Leicestershire, but she has not been a hands-on farmer for forty years. Her husband however, has a family farm in Suffolk, which until two years ago was farmed under a manager. She hopes that eventually one of her grandchildren will be able to farm it. There is no stock on the farm at present; it is arable, with an interest in conservation. She is well aware of how difficult it has been for farmers since the foot and mouth outbreak. As one born in 1941 during the last war, her stance is that Britain should produce sufficient food for its own basic needs.

She asked ‘What is an adequate reward for the farmer?’ Should family labour costs at £11.18p an hour be included in a farm business plan? ‘Adequate’ is difficult to define. Lady Byford believes that farms should be profitable. It is not sufficient for DEFRA to talk of sustainability without including profit. The IBEX study is worrying. She quoted, for example, a difference of £300 per cow as existing between the top and lower-paid producers. The average farm price has increased by 10 per cent on last year for beef, etc. Everyone is trying to get more money for their product; the price varies according to locality.

Some farmers have diversified. and so she wanted to mention in particular the work of three individuals: Professor Diana Bowles who had spoken at an Oxford farming conference about the development of crops for the future; the work of Gilly Creed who was setting up a scheme to market the produce of local farmers in her area; and John Gelhardt, whose farm shop was a hub that sold his own produce and also food from other nearby farms.

Farmers’ markets and shops were growing. People need to get used to these outlets as alternatives to the supermarkets, and they need to be publicised. However, about 70 per cent of people want to buy at supermarkets. Farmers need to spread the news that their products are fresh and of high quality, and, maybe, organic. Nevertheless, there is room for both direct and supermarket selling.

It was the aim of the Year of Food and Farming that every schoolchild should visit a farm in order that they understand how food is produced.

Lady Byford acknowledged that there is an opportunity for growing fuel crops and the set-aside scheme, but, nevertheless, some land was wasted and could be used more productively. The role of family farmers was not only to produce food, but to be part of the local community: other local people depended on farming for their livelihood.

The Government, she maintained, should make life easier for farmers by ensuring that regulations are proportionate; that is, kept to the minimum, so that British farmers do not have more regulation than their European competitors. For instance, IPP charges are higher in Great Britain than in other countries. One visiting inspector ought to be employed to assess the farm for the whole of DEFRA requirements.

Lastly, she mentioned the view of Stuart Hampson (Chairman of Waitrose and John Lewis) that supermarkets need to change their attitude towards their suppliers, otherwise small farming will be jeopardised.

Points raised in discussion
With regard to cross compliance Lady Byford believed that this should be relevant and proportionate.

Set-aside should not be regarded as either/or, but part of farming.

The fact that Tesco is considering introducing local food is indicative of a customer mood change, and if this is regarded as a threat to local farmers’ markets we should remember that the farmer supplies his product through any viable outlet.

How should agriculture be modified in view of global-warming? Some farms have soil that is suitable for growing bio fuel. Water supply is an important consideration for all farms. A balance needs to be maintained, perhaps some land could be set aside and some used for bio fuel.

Is there sufficient government control of farming now that the advisory agents are no longer operating? This is a result of European Community regulations. However, the Government has banned the use of hormones to increase milk production and has banned the import of GM foods from America.

With regard to her opinion on farms that are marketed as tourist attractions, Lady Byford commended the scheme organised by LEAF (linking environment and farming) for Sunday open days which enabled families to visit farms [10 June in 2007].
 

Andrew George MP (Liberal Democrat)
Mr George, the second speaker, said that Lady Byford had covered a lot ground and that he did not dispute anything that she had said. He would raise three issues for discussion.

First, he asked is there a future for farmers as food producers? Over time living standards had risen and so food costs have become a smaller percentage of family income, so if producers want to have the same standard of living as others they must produce more food or go out of business. This mechanism has operated since the Industrial Revolution, but he believed that it need not be so. He came from a family-farming background and understands the emotions of maintaining the fabric of the countryside, and believes that the measures must be found that will protect our countryside.

Secondly, how can problems with the food supply chain be resolved? The Competition Commission has asked that evidence of ‘bully-boy’ tactics used by supermarkets towards their food suppliers be given to them and also evidence regarding any cases of short notice given for a change in product and the practice of buying shelf space. However, he did not believe that the supermarkets are evil, since they were simply trying to maintain their share of the market, though he did question whether supermarkets are intelligent and rational in their use of power, or abusive of their power He maintained that any supermarket manipulation of power was detrimental to their suppliers, and recommended that proactive inspectors be appointed to investigate food supply-chain issues. Some suppliers are able to find a niche market for their products; others will be part of mass supply marketing. Evidence of abuse needed to be given to the Competition Commission, in order that corrective measures could be introduced.

The third issue that Andrew George wished to raise was the relationship between farmers as food producers and custodians of the countryside, i.e. an alteration of the Common Market policy. There was a massive public pressure to transfer subsidy money from agriculture into other public spending, such as the health service. Issues of cross compliance were important. If British farmers were primarily food producers, then Britain would for efficiency reasons have prairie type ranches instead of farms with small fields. The situation is that our farmers are competing in a world market with prairie producers, whilst also trying to consider the environmental appearance of the countryside. However, this comes at a cost: farmers are being paid a single farm payment because they are custodians of the countryside.

In conclusion he said that there are two aspects of farming today - a fair price for food should be paid to farmers, and farmers as custodians of the countryside should be paid for this task.

Points raised during the discussion
The speaker from the Fruit Farmers Association commented that they had been pressing for a Regulator for twelve years, and that they had given evidence to the Commission. However, most producers do not deal directly with the supermarkets and the processors will not complain. The forms needed to obtain a Leaf Marque and so become a supermarket supplier are difficult to fill in, and time consuming; therefore a voluntary scheme should not be made compulsory.

The single payment has resulted in a fall in the price of milk given to the farmer, and 1000 dairy farms have closed since his introduction. Andrew George replied that he is against a production payment, some other political action was needed.

Family farms supplying local markets are more energy efficient because of low food miles; using less non-renewable inputs assists the survival of family farming.
 

Jeremy Eppel, head of the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy Division at DEFRA
Jeremy Eppel explained that there are two sides to sustainability – social and economic. He would give an outline of the Government’s position on these issues and the present Government's strategy. The Government’s sustainable food and farming strategy was first developed four years ago after the food and mouth epidemic.

Recently DEFRA Secretary of State, David Miliband, has re-interpreted the aims of the strategy. With respect to both economic and environmental issues, food production and conservation is very important. In his speech at the recent farming conference at Oxford, David Miliband put forward a very positive vision in which farmers will play a key role as stewards of 80 per cent of the land in the United Kingdom. They have a responsibility for climate change. Water conservation is crucial and ways must be found to reduce emissions. Thus, the core sustainability argument is more about environmental security than food security, and it is not the role of government to provide subsidies to farmers. David Miliband believes that British agriculture will continued to provide the major part of the food we eat, but British consumption of British food will be because of the quality of this food and not because it is cheaper through subsidy – it is the environment that will receive the subsidy. Pursuing this strategy is a shared responsibility. The Government will look at controls and farmers should grasp opportunities. Consolidation of farms is not the answer. If farms are vulnerable because they are small, then they must seek to find advantage for their products in a niche market or engage in environmental protection. Although there have been good recent developments, there are still problems ahead, but there is a real opportunity for farmers in partnership with the Government to drive this sustainable food and farming policy ahead.

Discussion points
What is the Government’s response to the rise in price of grain due to shortages caused by climate change and the use of maize to produce bio fuel? Jeremy Eppel replied: Climate change is real and the price rise can’t be prevented by government. The Competition Commission has been set up.

DEFRA should oppose David Miliband’s policy, and market forces should not be allowed to determine prices. Reply: a system that rewards the benefits produced by farmers rather than subsidy can be good because it protects the environment, ensures biodiversity, and protects the beautiful countryside. These are public goods. The questioner then replied ‘food is the most important farm product; I support CAP reform stage I, but not stage II.

The chairman intervened to comment ‘an assumption that there can be no change can cloud many issues’.

Does the government worry about dairy farmers going out of business? With a different financial system cows can no longer be put on the land of people going out of business. Will family farms be able to switch to bio fuel? The government should consider this before more family farms are lost. Reply: the government doesn’t want to make regulations too difficult for family farmers, but to provide opportunities for them to acquire new skills. Regulation should not be disproportionate.

In answer to a comment that the regulations should have been right in the first place and that people have been driven to commit suicide, Jeremy Eppel said that regulations are partly the result of European Commission decrees. This provoked a bitter attack on EU legislation from the floor.

The Family Farmers’ Association’s Spring Newsletter commented on the seminar as follows: No definite solutions to farming’s problems had emerged.  However, it was clear that those present definitely wanted family farming to continue in order to preserve to character of the countryside.  Various suggestions were made which deserved further debate.  It seemed that there was a strong desire to pursue the question of how family farmers’ problems could be alleviated, particularly with the aim of keeping family farms viable;  also, in the hope of averting a situation where the production of food, so vital to the health and happiness of the nation, becomes just another industrial process taking place here or abroad, wherever it happens to be most profitable.