Agricultural Reform Bill Proposals
About Farmers Movement Cornwall
Facebook group Farmers Movement Cornwall states:
We stand in solidarity with the wider UK and European farmer protest movements who oppose green policy overreach and globalist attacks on the farming sector which threaten both national food security and the livelihoods of farming families. The hardworking, tax paying people of this £16 Billion annual turnover industry have been pushed too far for too long ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! The time has come to organise and stand together to demand change. A comprehensive AGRICULTURAL REFORM BILL proposed by a well organised farmers protest movement which has the support of related industries and the general public is how to achieve this. This group aims to connect people and ideas together to achieve the above stated aims so please join and share the group with everyone you know within the county. Please keep posts within the context of the groups aims. NO FARMERS NO FOOD NO FUTURE!
The following proposals are provided courtesy of farmer pete.
i) the strengthening of protections for farmers within Farm Business Tenancies. Over 30% of agricultural land in England and Wales is in some form of farm business tenancy so the importance of good regulation around tenancies cannot be underestimated. Not only are significant amounts of farmers affected by tenancy conditions but the sector provides a vital role in that it matches those without sufficient capital who want to farm to those with sufficient capital who do not wish or are unable to farm. This is an essential form of liquidity within the agricultural economy. All farm business tenancies should become formal to assure tenants of their rights. We propose to increase the minimum term of farm business tenancies to 7 years with a minimum 3 year notice to cease. Landlords who do not offer minimum 7 yr rental terms will be penalised by not being able to claim agricultural property relief on their assets for inheritance tax purposes. Landlords will no longer have the right to take land out of tenancies for other land management schemes without tenant consent. Tenants should be granted full rights to engage in farm diversification and fair representation must be guaranteed for the tenant to challenge any decision by the landlord to deny permission.
ii) the prevention of foreign ownership of farmland. British farmland is a natural asset for the national good of the British people and it must remain that way, its preservation and necessity should never be overlooked therefore prevention of foreign corporate or private ownership should be prohibited.
iii) the maximisation of British produce procurement in public food supply contracts. Public institutions such as schools, hospitals and prisons etc should be legally obliged to purchase British produce not to a certain quota level but whenever it’s available. Derogation should only be allowed for dishes of specific ingredient provenance or for religious faith.
iv) the creation of tax and business rate breaks for farm shops and small producers. This would support beneficial diversification enterprise and help farmers and growers to be competitive in the retail space. Furthermore it would encourage consumers to buy direct and by doing so improve food supply chain resilience in the UK.
v) the prohibition of loss leading sales tactics on any fresh produce by supermarkets. Give legal powers to the groceries code adjudicator to prevent this type of marketing activity which undermines the public perception of the real cost of fresh produce. To be clear, these regulations would not prevent produce nearing its best before date from being sold at reduced prices, it would apply to in date produce knowingly being sold at below profitable retail value by large supermarkets under a ‘loss leading’ marketing policy.
vi) the improvement of subsidy support for woodland wildlife corridor creation. There is a clear benefit to woodland creation in certain circumstances and although this would need to be tightly regulated so as to not endanger food security we support this form of stewardship. The benefits to wildlife and to run-off and soil erosion prevention on land adjacent to waterways is undeniable as is the enhancement to the aesthetic appeal of the countryside and there are instances where the creation of small ‘connective or protective’ areas of woodland are justified on a cost benefit analysis favouring long term farm system sustainability. However there are matters which do need to addressed with regard to the financial impacts on farm profitability caused by woodland creation. Capital funding should cover all costs of planting, fencing and early years management of new woodland and subsidy schemes should compensate for the loss of forward income and devaluation of land. We call for a review of the subsidy and grant schemes relating to woodland planting so that all these matters can be considered and that all parties gain from this beneficial form of environmental development. We propose that full forward loss of income from such schemes be factored into annually recurring subsidy payments and that full agricultural land sale value be retained on any new parcels converted to woodland in order to preserve full loan to asset value potential for farmers.
vii) the promotion of bio fuel crop production on marginal or flood prone land. Independent energy security is also of vital national interest therefore bio fuel production is a good second best option to food production in flood plain and other at risk areas and we would like to see improved subsidy and commercial support for this sector.
viii) The continuation of research and development into regenerative farming practices. Farming techniques are continually evolving and we can farm in ways which enhance long term food system security without compromising on yield or our self sufficient food security. For example the use of deep rooted herbal leys which offer more deluge rain protection and drought resistance to the soil should be encouraged and subsidy should cover the 30% extra cost. Funding levels for research into the development and evaluation of such weather resistant crops and practices should be reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose within a new climate change policy framework based on the significantly less costly ‘adaption to change’ approach rather than the one presently centred on a grossly expensive ‘prevention by net zero CO2 reduction’.