New Maidstone PPC Makes Her Rural Pitch by Michael Bax

The prospective Parliamentary candidate for Maidstone and the Weald is Mrs Helen Grant, who replaces Ann Widdecombe. She is described as a rising star, and organised a Rural Business Forum at the Weald of Kent Golf Club on Tuesday 26 January. There was an impressive attendance and Mrs Grant will have done her cause no harm at all, with some pretty impressive contributions from her panel of three speakers:-

Richard Benyon is the Shadow DEFRA Minister and was the last remaining dairy farmer in the House of Commons, until he sold his cows in 2009. He opened by stating that farming is fundamental to the rural economy and senses a fundamental disrespect to rural communities in Government circles, with low levels of proactive help for affordable housing schemes, growing rural unemployment and rural poverty. He is appalled at the scandal of the RPA which has so far cost the tax payer £620M in extra administration and costs arising from internal mistakes. He fears the gold plating of Brussels regulations by the current administration and highlights the decline of the dairy industry, by 41% between 1998 and 2008. He points to lack of labelling in the pig industry and the succession of bio-security failures with continued complacency over food security. The one lesson to be learnt from all of this is that domestic production must be fundamental to the needs of the UK and red tape must be removed with four out of five farmers spending over three days per annum in dealing with compliance issues.

Tory policy is to return power to the rural communities with a process of deregulation for small businesses. This will be assisted by Rural Advisory Groups who will monitor transparency on rural funding. There will be more consultation with local authorities in terms of understanding where money should be spent. Housing Trusts will be encouraged and every effort will be made to promote a fair deal and deregulation in CAP reform. The Tories also recognise the value of country sports but there must be an absolute priority in food security. A competitive framework for food in this country has to be established and an “Honest Food” label for food genuinely produced in this country.

Government departments have been encouraged to serve home produced food but Mr Benyon drew attention to the scandal that only 4% of food consumed by the various arms of the Ministry of Defence is produced in the UK. A new Tory Government will tackle bovine TB and a raised profile for research and development will be promoted, involving colleges, universities and the private sector in funding. Mr Benyon wants to see a “golden age for farming”!

Andrew Bowles is the leader of Swale Borough Council and also establishing a significant presence as a Kent County Councillor. Until very recently, he farmed arable and sheep enterprises near Faversham. His opening witticism was that he believes the DEFRA logo to stand for “Don’t Ever F-ing Ring Again” and he wants to see the word agriculture back in the departmental title.

So far as a future for farming is concerned, he believes this fundamentally boils down to food security and in the medium term increased world population is unavoidable, with large areas of production around the world reducing in their productive capacity due to climate change and other factors.

The UK is ideally situated with favourable climate and productive soils, as well as entrepreneurial skill.

He draws attention to the fact that the UK balance of payments is abysmal and largely not referred to in current economic commentary. Reducing food surpluses around the world will mean that food will become more expensive. Because of our economic situation, UK will be less able to afford that food, and the emphasis has to return to home production.

At a local Government level he feels that the focus must be on promoting Agribusinesses, where farming is not the only priority. The wife may be working, there may be on farm tourism, business use and so on where the local authority can provide encouragement.

He recognises that the planning process is stifling and where feasible schemes are put forward which do not necessarily comply with planning policy word for word, they must be allowed.

He points to one problem in the farming industry so far as local government is concerned and that is the fact that whereas 40+ years ago there were Rural District Councils with widespread farmer representation, the modern District or Borough Council will have very little farmer involvement. Indeed Mr Bowles is the only farmer out of 43 Councillors in Swale.

He is involving himself in specific initiatives in relation to the expansion of rural broadband availability. It is essential for businesses to work on a level playing field in the world of IT.

Mark Lumsden-Taylor is Director of Finance & Resources at Hadlow College and formerly a corporate accountant in the City. He is very concerned at the general public’s perception of reality in the countryside. He sees a very definite rural/urban divide fuelled by people’s perceptions rather than the reality of actual situations. The general community must learn that the lovely scenery which they see in the countryside is actually a managed environment arising from farming diversity and the fact the countryside is a workplace. People can manage without many things, but not food and people must be encouraged to understand that the global market involves the import of large quantities of produce that can be grown in UK and countless food miles in getting that produce to our tables. The understanding of seasonality has also been lost to the detriment of the British farmer.

All people are entitled to physical and economic access to food in order to lead a healthy life, but only 60% of this country’s food requirements come from UK producers. That is a huge shortfall and increased consumer demand for British food must be promoted. The “Produced in Kent” label is beginning to work in that respect and membership has tripled.

We must therefore work towards breaking misconceptions, and making the best use of the resources we have by a unified strategy.

“Life ends when we are silent about the things that matter”


This meeting covered a lot of ground and seemed to hit the spot in many areas. The one issue that was not addressed related to the current power of the retailers, but may be it is all about supply and demand and we just have to work on increasing that demand. Whatever we do, little will be achieved by sitting back and moaning.

The message is – get involved!

But I fear there will be many Conservative candidates who are not following the apparently admirable Mrs Grant in getting involved in rural affairs.

Rent Reviews Under The Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 by Michael Bax

The statutory rent review formula in the 1986 Act has caused much consternation during the last 18 months and yet seems to me to be a very helpful guide to practitioners on the issues that require to be taken into account. Effectively, it requires the parties to use commonsense in arriving at a sustainable level of rent taking account of all relevant factors including the productive and earning capacity of the holding and levels of comparable rental settlements.

The autumn 2008 reviews were the first reviews on many holdings for approx. ten years and it is extraordinary how the experience of the profession in dealing with such matters appears to have waned.

Furthermore, landlord’s agents seem to be driven by the aspirations of their clients who are aware of the level of open market rental values on new FBT bare land lettings and appear to expect to see those levels on 1986 Act reviews. The open market is a very different place to the market envisaged by the 1986 Act rent formula and a lot of time and money has been wasted because of the failure of practitioners to recognise that.

When Agricultural Holdings rent reviews were a regular feature of a land agent's year, practice was to make a new rent proposal in June with the hope of agreement prior to harvest. All parties were well acquainted with procedures and there was generally little difficulty.

At the recent rounds of rent review, the vast majority of proposals were only received during the month prior to the review date. Very few were settled and dozens of arbitrator’s appointments were required in order to keep situations open. I myself took on ‘57 longstop’ arbitrator’s appointments for Michaelmas 2008, some of which are still open today.

Budgets on the landlord’s side were produced which did not reflect reality and the greatest angst arose where a pre-rent surplus was identified, from which a rental value would be derived, but to which landlords then sought to attach a residential value for the farmhouse, representing a proportion of open market residential value.

It is true that when analysing comparables, the profession finds it convenient to place a value on house, cottages, land and buildings separately, but that is for the purpose of analysis and enables comparison of different holdings with different features. So far as the farmhouse is concerned, it is part of the fixed equipment of the holding and virtually all tenancy agreements require the tenant to reside in the farmhouse, with an associated burden of repair. A tenanted farm can only afford to pay a proportion of its farming income in rent and it is completely spurious to identify that proportion and then seek to enhance it with a notional residential value. The text of the 1986 Act rent formula does not propose that at any point and would become meaningless if it did so.

Of course, a tenant should expect to share rents received on sub-let cottages, and whilst there is some logic in applying a nominal rental value to employee cottages they are also effectively part of the fixed equipment of the holding and help to generate the holdings earning capacity. No wonder professionals talk about practice – some of our colleagues need a lot of practice on this one!

Big Brother or Oh Brother! by Michael Bax

It was interesting to note the 18 December Farmers Weekly’s report on the findings of MP’s on the Public Accounts Committee in their consideration of the activities of the Rural Payments Agency. £680M of taxpayers’ money appears to have been wasted and the committee charges the RPA with paying negligible attention to taxpayers’ interests.

From this firm’s perspective, it looks as though the 2009 Single Farm Payments are coming out quite well but the mapping debacle was scandalous and is likely to hold up a number of those looking to enter or reapply for ELS over the next couple of months.

At the end of the day words from the Government are cheap. Nothing ever seems to stick on that side of the fence and yet individual farmers suffer highly stressful investigation over what are often very minor issues. We can only hope that the RPA end up with a core of experienced staff, with whom there can be sensible discussion rather than inexperienced operatives who have no choice but to hide behind their big stick in order to conceal their shortcomings in terms of knowledge and experience.