Farming Matters!
Facts and figures

Countryside Matters!
'Burning Issues'
Globalisation

Helplines

Farming Matters!
Facts and figures

Countryside Matters!
'Burning Issues'
Globalisation

Helplines

• 1.Without discrimination - a country should not discriminate between its own and foreign products, services or nationals.

This WTO principle impacts directly onto farming in the U.K. because the demand for higher animal welfare pushes up production costs. Why is New Zealand lamb cheaper (even after transport costs) than home bred lamb? Could it be that minimum care and welfare keep costs down? Is there a case for the imposition of tariffs on animal welfare grounds? or is it a case where ‘cheap food is good food’ providing we do not see the result of poor welfare practices?

• 2. More competitive - by discouraging “unfair” practices, such as export subsidies and the dumping of products at below the cost of production, to gain a market share.

This impacts on U.K. agriculture in two ways.
Firstly by countries finding ways to support their producers - notably the U.S.A. who have paid their farmers billions of dollars in ‘disaster aid’ and who still carry out dumping on the world market, often in the guise of ‘food aid’.
and
Secondly, by the very fact that ‘Multi-national companies’ are not included under the WTO rules. There is nothing to prevent grain being bought cheap and moved around the world to sell at cost or even below cost elsewhere in order to gain market share. If a national producer goes bust in the process then it gives more power to the 'Multi-national' next time around - one more rival out of the way. This is all the more worrying because the WTO specifically states that ‘Marketing Boards should not be run by national governments’. The Australian Wheat Board has for this reason been floated on the Stock Exchange.
What is to prevent shares being bought by a ‘Multi-national company’ and the Australian wheat market dominated by just one large buyer? Ultimately what is to prevent a ‘Supra-national company’ controlling the world grain or indeed the world food market?
The WTO principles, rules or regulations do not apply to companies, only to national governments. There needs to be a way found of controlling the domination of the market place by these increasingly influential groups, and of putting the control of the world food supply back into the hands of democratically elected governments.

Put in very simple theological terms ‘Sin rules! O.K.?’

Farming Matters!
Facts and figures

Countryside Matters!
'Burning Issues'

Helplines

The NFU has calculated that there is more than £220m available to British farmers in agrimonetary compensation because EU subsidies are paid in Euros, worth less when compared to the strong pound. If these sums were paid in full (and farmers in continental Europe have already received them), it would raise the income of every person employed in agriculture by £975. This would raise farm incomes by 13% putting British farmers on a more level playing field with their European colleagues.

If the government is really committed to ensuring that the agricultural industry emerges stronger from the present crisis then some serious money is going to have to be forthcoming. Tinkering with the edges is not enough. The British people need a strong and efficient British agricultural industry. We say that we are unhappy at the semi-monopoly in the petrol industry! Just think what it will be like if the same type of multi-nationals control our food 'from farm to fork'. It could so easily happen if the base of independent farming is destroyed in the U.K.

Terry Brighton, January 2001

Farming Matters!
and
Countryside Matters!

'Burning Issues'
Index

Helplines

Archive 2000-2001

For example:-

Wiltshire County Council are reported as having to assess the 'Best Value' of the County Council owned tenanted farms. These were originally formed to give young people the first step onto the farming ladder. The thinking now is that 'Best Value' means that the land at present used for farming could be used for housing. The financial return will of course be far greater than the present rents can give, but what is 'Best Value' in this context?

This kind of 'Best Value' judgement has been in use for a long time. The privatisation of public transport and in particular the rail network is now acknowledged to have been 'handled badly'. The ongoing problems are seen to be public safety and punctuality. However there are other larger considerations, not least the difficulty of making connections between one company's trains and another. The possibility of making connections between local bus and coach services are almost non-existent. To reduce car use we need an integrated public transport policy. This can never be achieved by using monetary 'Best Value' judgements.

My criticism of the use of 'Best Value' would include the occasions when short cuts have been taken in matters of public health and safety. Although it has been vigorously denied in the past, it now appears that wrong judgements were made at the height of the B.S.E. crisis. The question remains:- on what basis were such judgements made? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but monetary concerns, even the short term survival of businesses, should not have been of first importance when public health was compromised.

Your ideas on the subject on a postcard please . . . . . . . . .
or e-mail me at 'countrysidematters@milestonenet.co.uk'

Terry Brighton, November 2000

Main index

and

With the increased cost of fuel for transport, and sections of the National Press campaigning for a reduction in tax, it is apparent that we have yet another pressure being brought to bear on rural communities.

The report by The Countryside Agency, "The State of the Countryside 2000" says:-

'The majority of people living in rural England use their cars for most journeys. the location of services and poorer public transport provision compared with urban areas makes car ownership a necessity for most rural households', (page 53).

'Rural households are twice as likely to run more than one car than metropolitan households', (page53).

These two statements by the governments own statutory body point up the needs which have been apparent for some time to those living and working in rural areas. The lack of any integrated transport policy is one factor that has led to young people moving into urban developments away from the communities where their families have lived and worked for generations.

Unfortunately the simple reduction in the tax on petrol will not provide a complete answer to the difficulties faced by commuters, students and parents of children when faced with the daily journey to work, school or college. The problems of congestion at the school gates, traffic chaos on routes into city centres, lack of parking provision not to mention environmental damage, all have to be faced.

For many years we have been unwilling to spend time and effort, (not to mention money) on working out a truly integrated policy on transport. This must take into account the following:-

An adequate rail network, re-opening some closed stations and building others.

A co-ordinated bus/coach service timed to connect with local rail services.

Parking facilities at the edge of local communities to provide 'Park and Ride' for those who live at a distance from village centres.

The provision of school transport and a restriction on the parking of cars near schools.

Surely for civilization that can equip us with mobile phones, the Internet and space technology, it must be possible to provide the basic needs in transport without destroying the environment and each other, (the road death figures are a disgrace to a so called civilized society!).

Unfortunately these things cost money!!! and are unlikely to be election winners. Theologically the problem is one of basic human selfishness. It is my car and I will drive it where, when and how I want. After all I do pay to use it and I have the right . . . . . . . .!

Sadly the 'rationalisation' of church services means that many Christians in the countryside are no longer able to walk to church on a regular basis on Sundays. They need to use their cars. That's progress that is!

T.W.B. 30/6/00

THANK YOU !

I would list the following as some examples:-

Terry Brighton; August 2000