George Eustice on the challenges facing farming
George Eustice was appointed parliamentary under secretary of state for natural environment, water and rural affairs last month. Philip Case finds out what makes him tick.
Tell us about your farming background
I grew up on a mixed, family farm in Gwinear, near Hale, Cornwall. I attended Writtle Agricultural College and spent about nine years in the farming business. We had about 500 acres, including about 200 acres of winter vegetables, predominantly cauliflowers, and 50 acres of strawberries. We had about 100 cows in a pedigree south Devon suckler herd. We have got the oldest herd of British Lop pigs in the country, a breed native to Cornwall.
What are you covering in your portfolio?
It’s broadly farming and fishing, including other links such as environment, food, animal welfare and animal diseases.
What are your biggest challenges?
We have got the immediate challenges of dealing with bovine TB. It’s a contentious, but very necessary policy. We’re having to take some difficult decisions. We have got to reverse the tide of this disease. Outside of this, we are trying to work out how to implement CAP reform. Longer term, other key areas include trying to encourage new entrants into the industry and also promoting British agriculture abroad. For instance, we are putting a lot of effort into exports.
DEFRA is getting a lot of criticism from farmers over 15% modulation. The NFU insists that 9% would cover the ongoing environmental commitments until 2015. How do you respond?
Our wording was very clear in the documentation. We are minded to do the full 15% modulation, but we have not made a final decision. We think we can achieve much more in Pillar 2. You can come up with more creative policies that are tailored much more towards our own national needs. We have got a great track record in environmental stewardship schemes, which we would like to build on. We can do a lot more with targeted grants to boost farm competitiveness. This is a consultation though. We have had representations from the NFU. There is this argument that says we wouldn’t need all that money for the agri-environment schemes in the first year. Equally, we have had other representations saying you could perhaps roll over some of the schemes such as ELS and HLS for an additional year, which would be an alternative way of using that budget.
What would you have to cut in terms of programmes if you had opted for 9% modulation?
Keeping the modulation rate at its current figure of 9% would represent a significant reduction in the Pillar 2 budget. By doing 15% modulation, it means that we, broadly speaking, keep the size of the Pillar 2 budget stable in real terms. That enables us to continue to do both the agri-environment work we are doing and also the work we are doing on farm competitiveness. If we didn’t go to the full 15% modulation there would be a shortfall in the Pillar 2 budget and we would have to discontinue some of the activity.
You said the ‘overwhelming majority’ of farmers would not be affected by the three-crop rule. But what will it mean for our most productive farmers?
In this CAP negotiation, we didn’t get everything we wanted. We were arguing against the crop diversification, three-crop rule. But I think most farmers will find that they can comply with the greening measures and the crop diversification rule more easily than perhaps they fear. According to some of the analysis we have done, and we have published this in a paper alongside our consultation, about 7% of farmers – particularly the arable farmers – may need to change their farming practices to deal with the crop diversification rule. But the overwhelming majority – the remaining 93% – will be satisfied just because of the way they farm their land now.
England’s farmers are going to get a lower payment than farmers in France/Holland. Surely that will put them at a competitive disadvantage?
I think it’s wrong to see the CAP as something that’s about creating a level playing field. The CAP has never been a level playing field. There has always been, right across Europe, very wide differences in payments made. For example, eastern Europe will complain that Britain gets too much. We complain that we don’t get as much as other countries, such as France. Within the UK, we have discussions with other devolved assemblies about how much single farm payment farms in different constituent parts of the UK get. It has never been equal.
Why did you decide that Scotland should not get all of the ‘convergence uplift’ money?
Historically, large parts of the land area in Scotland were less productive. That’s why they tended to have a lower rate per hectare. If you look at what farmers actually receive as an annual income from the single farm payment, the average Scottish farmer still gets far more than the average farmer in other parts of the UK. That’s simply because they tend to be far larger farm holdings.
The average farmer in Scotland gets more than £25,000/year in single farm payment. Compare that with the average farmer in England who gets about £17,000, and the average farmer in Wales gets around £16,000 and in Northern Ireland, it’s less than £8,000. On that measure, which I think is the most important, the average Scottish farmer still gets much more than farmers in other parts of the UK.
Farmers in the South West are desperate for the badger cull to be rolled out to other counties next year. Is everything still on track?
It’s our intention to roll this policy out next year. Before we make any final decisions, we want to properly analyse the evidence from the two pilot culls. An independent panel will examine whether they are humane. There is no example anywhere in the world of tackling bovine TB without dealing with the reservoir of disease in the wildlife population. That’s why, while it’s difficult and contentious, a cull policy on badgers has got to be part of any coherent policy to eradicate TB.
What do you think about the recent growth in on-farm renewable energy projects?
Renewable energy has got a role to play. But I am concerned that in too many cases, some of these developments are not being done with local communities, but to local communities. They can be a blight on the landscape. Wind farms, if properly planned, can blend into the landscape. I am also quite concerned that we are losing good agricultural land to solar farms.
What steps could we take to make it easier for new entrants to get on the farming ladder?
I’m really keen that we develop some 
of the thinking in the Future of Farming Review. The big barrier to getting new people into 
the industry is lack of capital; land prices are at an all-time high.
I would like to explore ways of making arrangements such as share farming, even profit-share agreements, much more the norm in our industry. We need to encourage ways of getting new people in. If we want to attract good talent and the best people, we have got to be able to help them achieve their aspirations. It can’t just be that they are working on a farm and not going any further. I want them to have a stake in the industry.
I’m a passionate believer in the union. We want Scotland to stay with us. We are stronger together. When I go and take part in negotiations in the EU, I do so on behalf of the whole of the UK. If Scotland were to leave the UK, it would be outside of the EU as well and it would have to negotiate new terms. I think it would really weaken Scotland on the international stage. When that referendum comes, I hope the people of Scotland will take the sensible decision and stick with us.
Do you believe British farmers would be better off outside the EU?
No. I don’t want us to leave the EU. I left UKIP because I changed my mind on this, but the status quo is not the best option. Some of the regulations we get are a burden and some cross-compliance measures in Pillar 1 are onerous. A huge amount could be done to tear up these regulations and give individual governments far more discretion to pursue policies of their own.