Hybrid payment option

England were the better side in most departments but the Australians fought like tigers to keep us out.

At times, it felt we were playing against 16 men, with some strange refereeing decisions, but justice was done in the end and we should all be proud of our boys, a team which I note modestly has a strong northern content!

There is a wind of change blowing through the discussion chambers of Whitehall where the debate rages as to what form the single payment to farmers will take in 2005.

Fischler's Europe took the decision last July to reform the CAP by stopping all subsidies for direct production and rolling up most of the money into a single annual payment for farmers based on area.

The first single payments are to be made under the new system in 2005, and we have, therefore, but a few months to get sorted with the devilish detail.

The early favourite was for payments to be based upon the historic receipts by each individual farmer during the years 2000 to 2002, and this historic method would more nearly reflect the current position, causing less distortion and potential harm to businesses which had budgeted for a level of income from subsidy.

By October, the organisations representing the landowners and conservation interests were lobbying for all the subsidies to put in a single pot, and then paid out to every farmer equally on an acreage basis. This is known as the area-based payment.

Last week, there was a long meeting with Lord Whitty where the large stakeholder groups were represented; and a late runner in the entitlements race has appeared in the shape of a hybrid mixture of historic and area-based systems. Support for the new hybrid has been growing although, as you would expect, producer organisations are strongly opposed because of the hardship it may well cause.

For example, imagine the difficulty a beef or dairy farmer would be in if, having invested capital in buildings, cattle or labour, he was then robbed of the funds to repay the loan.

The hybrid model currently being debated is roughly as follows:

All regional payments under the AAPS and set-aside would be paid out on a flat rate, spread over the arable land (ie, no grass or permanent pasture).

About £20 per acre (equivalent to 20pc of the livestock payments and dairy premium) would be paid out on a flat-rate basis across all permanent pasture and grass.

The remaining livestock and dairy payments (ie, about 80pc) would then be allocated on an historic basis.

This may seem to be a fair compromise to some, and I can see a lot of merit in it, but there are some pitfalls:

It would be much more complex to set up and administer, leaving us with a tier of bureaucrats which we are trying to get rid of.

All areas would be calculable upon the situation in 2005, which of itself would create a lot of jostling for the position between owners and farmers.

I have to say that I didn't accept the arguments of some environmental bodies, such as the RSPB, which claim that an area-based payment equal to all would be better for the countryside.

They have misunderstood the situation, in that the basic decision to decouple all subsidies from production has already been taken, and it is only the method that is at stake.

In some respects, it may be argued that the area-based payment, which is equal to all, would benefit the larger landowners with vast areas of open space.

I would appreciate anyone's views before responding.

Since our last visit to New Zealand four years ago, one of the most significant changes in that country's landscape has been the expansion - or in some cases explosion - of small-holding development in the countryside.

It is accepted planning policy that any farmer can subdivide his holding and sell off an area upon which another homestead can be built without penalty.

Until the last year or two, this was done by creating small holdings of around 20 to 50 acres. Increasing demand from the migrating Auckland population has led to further sub-division, and now one to two-acre plots are often seen along the roadside.

These can be sold for £25,000 to £35,000 and give a valuable injection of cash for the farmer. This liberal attitude to rural development contrasts starkly with our own rigidly-enforced regulations which seek to pickle our countryside in a state perceived by the urban dweller as acceptable.

It is not healthy to allow such a dead bureaucratic finger to control the rural landscape and it would be much better for a little more flexibility.

On the other hand, the genuine Kiwi farmers I met were critical of the new "lifestyle" epidemic which was taking productive land out of their agriculture.

Another New Zealand industry which is expanding as fast as we can drink it is vineyard production.

Our friend Owen Dodson took us on a helicopter flight around Blenheim, which is the main wine-growing area at the top of South Island. It is easy to see from the air the almost wall-to-wall vines covering thousands of acres.

Bare land is changing hands for around £8,000 to £10,000 per acre, and land with vines already planted will make £20,000 to £30,000 per acre.

Compare this with normal arable land prices for cereal production at around £2,000 per acre, and you can see why farmers are tempted to go down the winery route.

A week ago, the funeral was held for Willy Lister, who died at the age of 94, and was probably the last of the great farmer-auctioneers.

He left school in 1924 when his father, also an auctioneer, had lost his cashier and Willy took up the gavel at both Bridgend Market, at Otley, and the market at Bingley.

He was highly respected as a man of total but inflexible principle, with a deep knowledge of agricultural valuation, and a first-class judge of livestock.

He leaves his son, Mervin, and two grandsons, all practising in the family firm of FM Lister, and they are a healthy example of a provincial firm continuing to flourish.

The annual Christmas show of fatstock will be held next Tuesday, December 2, and if there is a display anything like this week it will be a sight to see.

The main judging will take place at around 9am with the sale of the show cattle at 10.30am.

If you are passing, please call in to support the exhibitors, or for a bit of pork pie.

Forward on Tuesday at Malton were 135 cattle, including 28 cows and 35 bulls; 366 sheep including 49 ewes.

Light steers to 108p from L Jones, Wrelton; medium steers to 123p from J A Barker, Snainton (ave 109.8p); heavy steers to 136p from J L Gray, Grindale (103.4p).

Light heifers to 120p from B Raby, Nawton (108.4p); medium heifers to 140p from G I Marwood, Harome (100.98p); heavy heifers to 142p from G I Marwood (114.5p).

Medium bulls to 101p from D Beal, Yedingham (98.5p); heavy bulls to 125p from D Beal (99.6p); black & white bulls to 90p from R Inman & Son, Acklam (82.1p).

Standard lambs to 113.1p from J Greenheld & Son, Rosedale (110.2p); medium lambs to 113.3p from P Richardson, Nunnington (108.1p); heavy lambs to 115.6p from D Gilson, Bridlington (109.2p); overweight lambs to 107.1p from H W Ward & Son, Habton (104.5p).

Ewes to £52 from G Harper, Newton-on-Rawcliffe (£41.50).

Updated: 11:26 Wednesday, November 26, 2003