# The deal for repeal - rating farmland



## Judgemental (19 March 2011)

The Deal for Repeal is fundamentally the rating of farmland and bringing farms into the Business Rate envelope.

There have been no rates on farming property or land since 1929.

The Lyons Report of 2007 recommended that the government examine the exemption.

My sources tell me, that it is very likely that an introduction of rating and business rates for all farmland, farm buildings and agricultural businesses will be introduced and it will be linked to a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004. 

Remember where you first heard that!

Very simple politics are involved, Conservatives want the repeal, so they won&#8217;t argue &#8211; will they. However, there will be a few colourful comments in farmhouse kitchens up and down the country when that one hits the mat!

Libdems will justify supporting the repeal on the grounds that the countryside is going to make an additional contribution to taxation.

The Labour party will be delighted to see all those rich farmers and landowners paying rates and well, giving back the Hunting Act 2004 will be a small price to pay. 

George Osborne will be delighted, as it will raise about a billion. 

So the price of Foxing Hunting is valued at a Billion Pounds.

Cambat Claire and others will be onto a winner with all those valuations.

I nearly forgot to mention the person who posts from New South Wales in Australia, I am so sorry, I forget your posting handle but I am sure you can tell us how well it works in Australia? Australian farms are rated every three years and Australian farmers do not enjoy any subsidies.


----------



## Simsar (19 March 2011)

I love it when you talk dirty.


----------



## Judgemental (19 March 2011)

Simsar said:



			I love it when you talk dirty. 

Click to expand...

I just knew you would have a comment - LOL

Well here's a little more 'dirt' on the subject.

Some simple economics for our masters in Whitehall.

"Farmers have never had so good". 

Well, not exactly but with the price of grain and commodity prices substantially up on previous years - they can afford it - can't they. 

Simples......


----------



## jrp204 (19 March 2011)

Simples............we sold our grain for £155/t and are buying our poultry feed for £260, hmm never had it so good


----------



## JanetGeorge (19 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			My sources tell me, that it is very likely that an introduction of rating and business rates for all farmland, farm buildings and agricultural businesses will be introduced and it will be linked to a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004.
		
Click to expand...

Goodness only knows who 'your sources' are - but obviously NOT the brightest stars in the firmament!  A (largely) Conservative Government is not going to screw farmers AND screw hunting in the same breath!

Yes, some forms of farming are doing relatively well at present (but only where supported by EU subsidies!!)  Others are struggling and dairy farming and pig farming have just about given up the fight!  Store lamb prices are not much better than they were 15 years ago - with every other input cost having at LEAST doubled in the same period!

Hitting farmers with rates as part of a 'deal' to bring back 'proper' hunting wouldn't help hunting - the enormous support we've had from farmers over the years - and especially since the ban - would go right out the window!

UK farmers are very 'moderate' compared to their French neighbours - but I would foresee HUNDREDS of fully loaded muck and slurry spreaders descending on Whitehall if any FURTHER attempts were made to close down British farming!


----------



## Judgemental (19 March 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



Goodness only knows who 'your sources' are - but obviously NOT the brightest stars in the firmament!  A (largely) Conservative Government is not going to screw farmers AND screw hunting in the same breath!

Yes, some forms of farming are doing relatively well at present (but only where supported by EU subsidies!!)  Others are struggling and dairy farming and pig farming have just about given up the fight!  Store lamb prices are not much better than they were 15 years ago - with every other input cost having at LEAST doubled in the same period!

Hitting farmers with rates as part of a 'deal' to bring back 'proper' hunting wouldn't help hunting - the enormous support we've had from farmers over the years - and especially since the ban - would go right out the window!

UK farmers are very 'moderate' compared to their French neighbours - but I would foresee HUNDREDS of fully loaded muck and slurry spreaders descending on Whitehall if any FURTHER attempts were made to close down British farming![/QUOTE]

Janet, I get irritated when folk take my quotes out of context or not in total.
Therefore yours is taken in it's entirety.

However it is the first and last pieces in red, that are important. The farming vote is neither here nor there.

I am not trying to be controversial. It is simple arithmatic. If all the farmers, and landowners voted for any other party, who would they vote for and what would they gain, or indeed abstained. This coalition has nothing to lose.

As for your last comment "UK farmers are very 'moderate' compared to their French neighbours - but I would foresee HUNDREDS of fully loaded muck and slurry spreaders descending on Whitehall if any FURTHER attempts were made to close down British farming".

I don't think you will see a single farmer or landowner doing anything of the sort. a) they will never get anywhere near Whitehall and b) if the government as I reasonably believe, is going to propose agricultural rating of land and at the same time repeal the Hunting Act 2004, there is no contest. 

How can one argue for hunting and not pay a price and I don't think there is any danger of Farming England and Wales Ltd being closed down. I think the Scots may conclude the idea is a good revenue raiser too. 

At a time when the Chancellor is cash hungry.

There are 70 million of us on these islands and more Life Style Buyers than you can shake a stick at! Life Style Buyers, all willing to pay business rates and eager to hunt.

Finally are farmers really in a position to say "I am having to pay business rates on my land and farm buildings, therefore I don't want the hounds". 

Anybody who did that would become a social outcast. You and I both know how potent that element is as a feature of hunting cohesion.

Trust me it's well along the pipeline.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## oakash (19 March 2011)

Judgemental, you seem to me to be making a curious connection between farming and hunting. Certainly most farmers support hunting, but there is a wide diversity of farms. How would we be able to pay rates in upland pasture areas? Widespread losses are forecast already ( basically because we are importing cheap food from third world countries which really need all the food themselves - but thats another story) so charging rates would simply close us down. (what was it - DEFRA (as was) the Department for Ending Farming and Agriculture?)


----------



## JanetGeorge (19 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Janet, I get irritated when folk take my quotes out of context or not in total.
Therefore yours is taken in it's entirety.
		
Click to expand...

Get irritated all you like!  It is FAR more irritating when people quote a WHOLE post that appears immediately above just to comment on one point!




			The farming vote is neither here nor there.
		
Click to expand...

The numbers might be relatively small.  But in rural constituencies, farming support IS important!  It's the farmers who supply the land for all those well-placed posters saying: "Vote for Fred!"  And farmers have friends, relatives and employees - all within the same constituency.




			As for your last comment "UK farmers are very 'moderate' compared to their French neighbours - but I would foresee HUNDREDS of fully loaded muck and slurry spreaders descending on Whitehall if any FURTHER attempts were made to close down British farming".

I don't think you will see a single farmer or landowner doing anything of the sort. a) they will never get anywhere near Whitehall and b) if the government as I reasonably believe, is going to propose agricultural rating of land and at the same time repeal the Hunting Act 2004, there is no contest.
		
Click to expand...

The muckspreaders might not get to Whitehall - but they could make a big mess along the way.  They could also target MP's constituency offices (it's been done before on a small and localised scale.)  There is also the opportunity for more motorway blockades - very easily done without actually breaking the law!  I have some experience in organising this type of protest so I know just how easy it is - and how easily a relatively small number of vehicles can bring motorways to a standstill!

I think you over-estimate farmers' support for hunting if you think they'll roll-over for a big hit on their bank balance in return for repeal!




			Trust me it's well along the pipeline.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah - a lot of things are in the pipeline.  The problem is when they see light of day - and major opposition - and then the Government WILL back down!  On a MUCH smaller scale, look at Defra's recent proposal to put 82 PIOs out of business and replace them with a single PIO - took just 3 weeks of fairly low scale dissent and lobbying for THAT to be thrust right back on the back-burner!


----------



## Judgemental (19 March 2011)

oakash said:



			Judgemental, you seem to me to be making a curious connection between farming and hunting. Certainly most farmers support hunting, but there is a wide diversity of farms. How would we be able to pay rates in upland pasture areas? Widespread losses are forecast already ( basically because we are importing cheap food from third world countries which really need all the food themselves - but thats another story) so charging rates would simply close us down. (what was it - DEFRA (as was) the Department for Ending Farming and Agriculture?)
		
Click to expand...

Indeed there are areas where the income is not substantial and as per the Australian model, the valuations for rating are tailored accordingly. 

However what you have to bear in mind also is the huge value that land attracts.

I am not making a connection between hunting and farming that is set in stone.

However, I am making a connection that is set in stone in the House of Commons.

Hunting supporters and the majority of the Conservative party want a repeal.

However the numbers in the H of C do not support a repeal and never will, unless there is a sea change in the political make up of the H of C.

What has happened is that 'the usual channels' have brokered a deal which is in very basic terms:

Give us the support for repeal in the H of C and we will introduce Agricultural Business Rates.

"Marvellous" say the Libdems, "justify's support for repeal and in any event there is a huge asset going to waste so far as taxation is concerned".

"Don't really like it" say the Labour tribe "but suppose it is revenue and they say as an aside, "my goodness agricultural business rates introduced by Conservatives (coalition) might as well support it, gives us a grand new source of revenue to increase when and if we regain office. We could certainly change the ownership of land with agricultural rates or a bit of social enginneering". 

They are saying "If it's at the price of the presky Hunting Act, well suppose it's worth it".

In the final analysis the various parties who are against repeal have to be given an incentive to get it through the Commons,


----------



## rosie fronfelen (20 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			The Deal for Repeal is fundamentally the rating of farmland and bringing farms into the Business Rate envelope.

There have been no rates on farming property or land since 1929.

The Lyons Report of 2007 recommended that the government examine the exemption.

My sources tell me, that it is very likely that an introduction of rating and business rates for all farmland, farm buildings and agricultural businesses will be introduced and it will be linked to a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004. 

Remember where you first heard that!

Very simple politics are involved, Conservatives want the repeal, so they wont argue  will they. However, there will be a few colourful comments in farmhouse kitchens up and down the country when that one hits the mat!

Libdems will justify supporting the repeal on the grounds that the countryside is going to make an additional contribution to taxation.

The Labour party will be delighted to see all those rich farmers and landowners paying rates and well, giving back the Hunting Act 2004 will be a small price to pay. 

George Osborne will be delighted, as it will raise about a billion. 

So the price of Foxing Hunting is valued at a Billion Pounds.

Cambat Claire and others will be onto a winner with all those valuations.

I nearly forgot to mention the person who posts from New South Wales in Australia, I am so sorry, I forget your posting handle but I am sure you can tell us how well it works in Australia? Australian farms are rated every three years and Australian farmers do not enjoy any subsidies.
		
Click to expand...

This is exactly what bothers me, we are not rich agri. barons nor do we have hundreds of cattle- the thought of rules and regulations, licences etc will be high on the repeal agenda, and i speak for hundreds of small farms in our area,we are hardly likely to follow Australia's example now, are we?


----------



## Judgemental (20 March 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			This is exactly what bothers me, we are not rich agri. barons nor do we have hundreds of cattle- the thought of rules and regulations, licences etc will be high on the repeal agenda, and i speak for hundreds of small farms in our area,we are hardly likely to follow Australia's example now, are we?
		
Click to expand...

Rosie, from what I have read and heard, if I were in your position on the Welsh Hills, I would not be too concerned.

It all comes down to valuation and reasonableness. Coupled of course to the ability to appeal. In the case of Australia, the facility to appeal is a cornerstone of the system.

However from my professional experience anybody who hunts and wants The Repeal, should positively embrace the concept of paying business rates on agricultural land and buildings.

For the simple reason you can look 'John Q Public' in the eye and say, "look I pay my taxes on this land and upon it I will do as I please".

Also I think it will bee seen as a Conservative initiative, which on balance would impress 'John Q Public' who see farmers as Feather Bedded (I know they are not but that's the perception) because of subsidies.

Of course there are bound to be a number of administrative issues but fundamentally, it will restore hunting. Never again to be a political issue.

The only downside, is that it puts in place a fresh tax for the agricultural community that could be exploited as and when it suited the governement of the day. 

The big question that remains, would it be administered centrally or by local authorities.


----------



## Herne (20 March 2011)

JM, the bottom line is that a deal of the sort you suggest would lose the Conservative Party more votes than it would gain - so it wouldn't even be proposed. Furthermore, the Hunting Community would never support it.

The annoying thing is that rumour-mongering about such a deal could well strain relations between the hunting and the farming community at a time when we all need to be sticking together.


----------



## Judgemental (20 March 2011)

Herne said:



			JM, the bottom line is that a deal of the sort you suggest would lose the Conservative Party more votes than it would gain - so it wouldn't even be proposed. Furthermore, the Hunting Community would never support it.

The annoying thing is that rumour-mongering about such a deal could well strain relations between the hunting and the farming community at a time when we all need to be sticking together.
		
Click to expand...

Herne, This is a Catch 22 Situation for farmers and landowners. What votes are going to be lost. Those of landowners and farmers, who are they going to go and vote for the LibDems or the Labour Party - hardly.  

There are only about 350,000 farmers and landowners in the whole of the British Isles. Sorry to put it so bluntly but out of a population of 70 million, farmer's votes and indeed the ancilliary industries (who pay business rates) are neither here not there.

Putting my bipartisan hat on, the hunting community 'cannot have their cake and eat it'. But as you can see Professor Lyons was saying agricultural land and buildings should not not be exempt in 2007.  

If you are a member of The Farmers club you will see that the Senior Lecturer & Senior Tutor in Rural Enterprise & Land Management at Harper Adams, Lucy Preston has written a very interesting paper on rating of agricultural land and building. Spring Edition. She was funded by a Farmers Club Charitable Trust award to visit Australia to study the valuation of farmland for rating purposes.

Clearly there is no mention of hunting. However I am told the corridors of Whitehall are abuzz with the linkage and think it would be an excellent development.

The mandarins are saying, "they want their hunting, ok we want some cash". 

The piece points out that the Lyons Report of 2007 recommended lifting the exemption.

http://www.webarchive.org.uk/waybac...p://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/docs/final-08.pdf

Scroll down to page 309


----------



## Herne (20 March 2011)

JM, the farming community will not want repeal at that price and the Hunting Community would not support such a deal deal being proposed (a) because it is unfair, (b) because a lot of them are farmers themselves and (c) because of the massive resentment that it would cause between farmers and hunting.

This sounds to me like an anti-hunt propoganda designed to cause dissention, pure and simple. Clever, though, I'll give them that...


----------



## Judgemental (20 March 2011)

Herne said:



			JM, the farming community will not want repeal at that price and the Hunting Community would not support such a deal deal being proposed (a) because it is unfair, (b) because a lot of them are farmers themselves and (c) because of the massive resentment that it would cause between farmers and hunting.

This sounds to me like an anti-hunt propoganda designed to cause dissention, pure and simple. Clever, though, I'll give them that...
		
Click to expand...

Herne you have missed the point, this will get the Libdems and Labour party on side to support a repeal.

At a time when the government is strapped for cash, leaving hunting out of the equation, why shouldn&#8217;t farmers and landowners not pay rates on land and buildings? They are a business and enjoy more subsidies than most.

To put it another way, the subject of rating agricultural land and buildings is clearly being discussed in the corridors of power and by the movers and shakers of the agricultural industry. Hunting might as well get something out of the deal.

After all, if a farmer finds that rates bill for his land and buildings has dropped on the mat and still cannot go hunting, he or she is going to be really ticking. 

Better to give a little to get a little?


----------



## Judgemental (20 March 2011)

*RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM PROFESSOR LYONS REPORT OF 2007*

Agricultural land and buildings have been completely exempt from business rates since 1929, although they had enjoyed some level of relief since the late 19th century because of economic difficulties in the sector. This situation no longer applies to the same extent, and there would seem in principle to be little reason to maintain the special treatment, which gives
agriculture a tax benefit that no other business sector enjoys. Farms and other agricultural businesses are generally liable for a range of other taxes in the same way as other businesses (although there are some specific differences, for example in inheritance tax). That said, agriculture does have some unique characteristics, including the role of farmers in land stewardship as well as agricultural production, and the sector has been the subject of significant ongoing reforms of agricultural subsidies and support.
My analysis suggests that the exemption is worth in the order of £450 million a year in revenue foregone. This is not an exact figure as agricultural land and buildings are not currently valued for business rates by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA). In addition, we would expect agricultural rental values to fall as a result of the re-introduction of rates. If rental values fell so as to completely offset the impact of taxation, this would reduce the expected income from rates on agricultural land and buildings to around £300 million. The impact of taxation would also be to reduce the capital value of agricultural land. 8.96 There are precedents for large-scale changes in the rating system in the return of industrial property to full rating in England and Wales in 1961, having enjoyed a 75 per cent exemption from Agricultural land and buildings Recommendation The Government should develop proposals for the taxation of derelict property and brownfield land and consult on those with stakeholders. Business taxation 

March 2007 Lyons Inquiry into Local Government &#8211; Final Report 
1929, and more recently in the re-rating of industry in Northern Ireland. However, re-introducing rates on agriculture would undoubtedly be a significant step, and a tax liability of £300 million &#8211; £450 million a year would represent a substantial proportion of the income from farming (which totalled £1.9 billion in 2005 in England and Wales, as measured by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs&#8217; Total Income from Farming assessment). Adjustment by farmers, and the agricultural sector as a whole, to a range of powerful long run economic pressures is a normal, ongoing process, but it is also the case that UK farmers are still responding to the implications of &#8216;decoupling&#8217;, and that significant further Common Agricultural Policy reform is likely over the next few years. Ultimately, the incidence of business rates falls on the owners of business assets, but policy on reforming exemptions to business rates needs to be sensitive to the
broader economic context of the affected sectors, and in respect of farming (particularly tenant farmers) it needs to be sensitive to the realities of the agricultural adjustment process. If the Government was to re-introduce rates there would therefore certainly need to be a period of transition to allow the sector to adjust, and there might well be a case for some continuing level of relief, for example to avoid a situation where otherwise viable and environmentally beneficial agricultural business activity is curtailed. In particular, I believe that marginal agricultural land should continue to receive full relief from business rates. Other land, including that used for
&#8216;lifestyle&#8217;, rather than agricultural purposes, would legitimately face taxation.


----------



## JanetGeorge (20 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			However from my professional experience anybody who hunts and wants The Repeal, should positively embrace the concept of paying business rates on agricultural land and buildings.

For the simple reason you can look 'John Q Public' in the eye and say, "look I pay my taxes on this land and upon it I will do as I please".
		
Click to expand...

Yet again you prove that your knowledge of how hunting actually WORKS is pretty damn limited!  The majority of farmers in most hunt countries do NOT hunt themselves.  Many do not even have a close member of the family who does!  They allow the hunt on their land - and in many cases provide extra 'support' - because of relationships that have been built up over many years - and the service that many of them receive from the hunts by way of pest control and deadstock collection!

It doesn't take too much to upset that relationship - a couple of stupid followers leaving a gate open so stock escape can be enough to get a hunt banned from that farm for years (and even generations!)

ANY suggestion that the hunting community would support the rating of agricultural land in return for repeal would ensure that most hunts had so little land remaining available that hunting would end!!

In fact, any suggestion that the hunting community would not give the farmers 100% support in opposing such a move could lose most hunts over 50% of their hunting country!

I could find dozens of white papers suggesting all sorts of things - most of which will NEVER see the light of day!

And, frankly, most 'Senior Lecturers' at Ag Colleges are pretty clueless about what goes on in the real world - about as clueless as you would appear to be!




			This sounds to me like an anti-hunt propoganda designed to cause dissention, pure and simple. Clever, though, I'll give them that...
		
Click to expand...

Sounds that way to me too, Herne!  I'd go further - I've thought for some time that JM might be a slightly cleverer than average anti-hunter (either that of a dimmer than normal pro-hunter!)


----------



## Judgemental (20 March 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			Yet again you prove that your knowledge of how hunting actually WORKS is pretty damn limited!  The majority of farmers in most hunt countries do NOT hunt themselves.  Many do not even have a close member of the family who does!  They allow the hunt on their land - and in many cases provide extra 'support' - because of relationships that have been built up over many years - and the service that many of them receive from the hunts by way of pest control and deadstock collection!

It doesn't take too much to upset that relationship - a couple of stupid followers leaving a gate open so stock escape can be enough to get a hunt banned from that farm for years (and even generations!)

ANY suggestion that the hunting community would support the rating of agricultural land in return for repeal would ensure that most hunts had so little land remaining available that hunting would end!!

In fact, any suggestion that the hunting community would not give the farmers 100% support in opposing such a move could lose most hunts over 50% of their hunting country!

I could find dozens of white papers suggesting all sorts of things - most of which will NEVER see the light of day!

And, frankly, most 'Senior Lecturers' at Ag Colleges are pretty clueless about what goes on in the real world - about as clueless as you would appear to be!

Sounds that way to me too, Herne!  I'd go further - I've thought for some time that JM might be a slightly cleverer than average anti-hunter (either that of a dimmer than normal pro-hunter!)
		
Click to expand...

Janet, of course you are entitled to your opinion and that of my cerebral capabilities.

However like it or not the rating of agricultural land and buildings is top of the agenda in Whitehall.

Farmers and landowners will be very meek about the whole issue, after all they dont want to lose all those grass margin subsidies. Protest there will be none.

Clearly the Farmers Club is giving credence to the issue by paying for Lucy Preston to visit Australia. Her report in the Spring edition of the club magazine is most erudite 

I am reliably informed that the Lyons report of 2007 is being dusted off and the recommendations are well ahead in the minds of those who govern these islands and are seriously strapped for cash. 

So far as hunting is concerned, be thankful for small mercies.

If outright repeal can be achieved by bringing farms onside so far as team UK is concerned and paying business rates as virtually every other business has to, that must be right.

The Australian example must be right, would you not agree?


----------



## JanetGeorge (20 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			However like it or not the rating of agricultural land and buildings is top of the agenda in Whitehall.
		
Click to expand...

I doubt that VERY much.  According to your references, we're talking £300-400 million - which is chickenfeed in the bigger picture!




			Farmers and landowners will be very meek about the whole issue, after all they dont want to lose all those grass margin subsidies. Protest there will be none.
		
Click to expand...

I'll remind you of that when there are 500,000 farmers and hunting folk protesting in London!




			Clearly the Farmers Club is giving credence to the issue by paying for Lucy Preston to visit Australia. Her report in the Spring edition of the club magazine is most erudite
		
Click to expand...

The Farmers' Club??  Are you referring to the establishment in Whitehall Court?  Or the NFU?  Or, ?????





			If outright repeal can be achieved by bringing farms onside so far as team UK is concerned and paying business rates as virtually every other business has to, that must be right.
		
Click to expand...

No - it ISN'T right!  Repeal will come in due course because the Hunting Act is BAD law - brought in for all the wrong reasons - and it isn't working!  And because the Conservatives have a manifesto pledge to repeal as soon as it is practical!  Screwing the farmers to get what WE want is NOT right - and farming is a very unique 'business' that needs and deserves special treatment!




			The Australian example must be right, would you not agree?
		
Click to expand...

Not at all!  Australian governments in MY memory have all been bloody useless, marginally (or very) corrupt - and often short-lived!  Don't get me started on the subject of Australian politics - and useless Australian PMs and Ministers - I could write a book on the subject!  And half the big Australian stations now belong to the Japanese anyway - and all the valuable bits of the Gold Coast!  So taxing THEM would be popular with Australians (there are still enough of us who had friends and relatives in Changi!)  And now they're flogging off the big stations not owned by the Japanese to the Chinese! 

Following Australia's example in ANYTHING (other than - possibly - playing cricket) would finish off the UK!


----------



## Herne (20 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			To put it another way, the subject of rating agricultural land and buildings is clearly being discussed in the corridors of power and by the movers and shakers of the agricultural industry. Hunting might as well get something out of the deal.
		
Click to expand...

AS I said - anti-hunting propoganda.

Take two unconnected items that coincidentally both affect two groups of people who are usually allies and concoct an imaginary, hypothetical link between them to try and cause dissention.


----------



## Judgemental (20 March 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			I doubt that VERY much.  According to your references, we're talking £300-400 million - which is chickenfeed in the bigger picture! That was the figure in the Lyons report of 2007. However I am reliably informed that a billion could now be raised annually.

I'll remind you of that when there are 500,000 farmers and hunting folk protesting in London! Yes, and how far did that get us - the Hunting Act 2004!

The Farmers' Club??  Are you referring to the establishment in Whitehall Court?  Or the NFU?  Or, ????? Of course I am talking about The Farmers Club in Whitehall Court right next door to DEFRA and the Min of Defence.

No - it ISN'T right!  Repeal will come in due course because the Hunting Act is BAD law - brought in for all the wrong reasons - and it isn't working!  And because the Conservatives have a manifesto pledge to repeal as soon as it is practical!  Screwing the farmers to get what WE want is NOT right - and farming is a very unique 'business' that needs and deserves special treatment!
Farmers need to stop saying they are special. They are still playing "The cheap food for a starving nation after WW11 tune".

Not at all! 

Australian governments in MY memory have all been bloody useless, marginally (or very) corrupt - and often short-lived!  Don't get me started on the subject of Australian politics - and useless Australian PMs and Ministers - I could write a book on the subject!  And half the big Australian stations now belong to the Japanese anyway - and all the valuable bits of the Gold Coast!  So taxing THEM would be popular with Australians (there are still enough of us who had friends and relatives in Changi!)  And now they're flogging off the big stations not owned by the Japanese to the Chinese!  Well they have agricultural business rates and it is set out in this Spring's Farmers Club Journal with transparent clarity Following Australia's example in ANYTHING (other than - possibly - playing cricket) would finish off the UK!
		
Click to expand...

 Thought you might have taken the patriotic line

It has become so long I have to slip in with red incerts.

The bottom line is simple, you get what you pay for. Bearing in mind only 15,000 people own 80% of the farmed land in the UK, they will never be a viable force with any government. Whereas if all those millions of acres are yeilding rates for the Chancellor, they won't become a sacred cow but certainly a 'steak holder' in the government. Do you see where I am coming from. Nowadays with cheap imports of food, i.e. we are not going to starve, we are not at war with supplies being cut off. The farming vote is neither here nor there. So minority status has to be readdressed as to how the power base is redefined and that is done by farmers paying tax on their land. In return they can call for services. A householder in leafy surburbia has their rubbish bins emptied, a fire service & police force etc for their rates. Thus the agricultural community can demand and expect services for their rates.


----------



## JanetGeorge (20 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Of course I am talking about The Farmers Club in Whitehall Court right next door to DEFRA and the Min of Defence.
		
Click to expand...

A cosy little Club - hardly the heart of farming politics!




			Bearing in mind only 15,000 people own 80% of the farmed land in the UK, they will never be a viable force with any government. Whereas if all those millions of acres are yeilding rates for the Chancellor, they won't become a sacred cow but certainly a 'steak holder' in the government. Do you see where I am coming from. Nowadays with cheap imports of food, i.e. we are not going to starve, we are not at war with supplies being cut off. The farming vote is neither here nor there.
		
Click to expand...

There's much more to farming than just votes and food.  The Government wants farmers to provide more permissive access, for example.  Not much chance of THAT sort of co-operation if it p's all over the farmers from a great height!  It wants more environmental schemes - at less cost! Etc., etc., etc.


----------



## combat_claire (21 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			The bottom line is simple, you get what you pay for. Bearing in mind only 15,000 people own 80% of the farmed land in the UK, they will never be a viable force with any government. Whereas if all those millions of acres are yeilding rates for the Chancellor, they won't become a sacred cow but certainly a 'steak holder' in the government. Do you see where I am coming from. Nowadays with cheap imports of food, i.e. we are not going to starve, we are not at war with supplies being cut off. The farming vote is neither here nor there. So minority status has to be readdressed as to how the power base is redefined and that is done by farmers paying tax on their land. In return they can call for services. A householder in leafy surburbia has their rubbish bins emptied, a fire service & police force etc for their rates. Thus the agricultural community can demand and expect services for their rates.
		
Click to expand...

The trouble with this argument is that we simply cannot continue to rely on cheap food imports. I know most of the books I urge people using this forum to read are a little bit dull, but if you get a chance grab a copy of Last Light by Alex Scarrow; a thriller but nonetheless with recent instability in the Middle East the concept that is raised of 'peak oil' cannot be ignored. UK has to look at issues of self-sufficiency that are just as relevant as in 1929 when the Rating Exemption bill was passed. 

The rating argument itself is an interesting proposal. However the government cannot expect to have its cake and eat it. They are keen for farmers to diversify the rural economy, embark on environmental stewardship schemes and, host renewable energy projects and public access but on the other hand they also sense that they can tap landowners for more cash to try and meet the short fall in revenues that has been caused by the profligacy of past governments with UK debt levels. They also fail to see that although cereal prices are currently high, this has been preceded by years when prices were on the floor plus as other commentators have already picked up - high grain prices = high feed prices for livestock sectors. 

I have also found in recent cases of dispute with the Valuation Office Agency 2010 ratings list that those people who can afford to employ my boss to take issue with the rates demand see a reduction in the RV of their property and thus the eventual bill; while those who do not have the money to employ an agent to formally battle on their behalf lose out on potential savings. 

Whilst recent experience of government efficiency as far as the RPA & the re-mapping of the Rural Land Register has been concerned hardly sets a confident precedent for hassle free transition to a new system. 

The article gives serious food for thought. I have just passed copies round the office which the other agents are reading with interest, but there are serious reservations about how such a system could be implemented.


----------



## marmalade76 (21 March 2011)

You sound like you're all for this, JM.

So we can hunt again if we, sorry, farmers pay - hmm.

What makes you think all farmers and landowner are wealthy? I'm sure some are, but many are land rich and money poor.

Grain prices have gone up, yes, but so has fuel, fertilizer, etc.

I also agree with the comment that not all farmers or their families hunt, most of the farmers my OH works for don't hunt at all, and as for becoming social outcasts if they refuse the hunt!!! Utter tosh! Some farmers cannot stand hunting people, I wonder why?

So, if this comes to pass, poor farmers will have to sell their ground, more than likely to townies (let's face it, they're the only folks who can afford to buy properties in the country these days) who are likely to be anti-hunting!

Or perhaps farmers should start charging the hunts to cross their land....


----------



## Fiagai (21 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			The Deal for Repeal is fundamentally the rating of farmland and bringing farms into the Business Rate envelope.
There have been no rates on farming property or land since 1929.
The Lyons Report of 2007 recommended that the government examine the exemption.
My sources tell me, that it is very likely that an introduction of rating and business rates for all farmland, farm buildings and agricultural businesses will be introduced and it will be linked to a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004. 
Remember where you first heard that!....
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up JM.  I dont want to start shooting the messenger at this stage however I do believe this if it goes ahead will be very controversial (it is already here!).  So I will say nothing until I know more... Any updates would be appreciated.  What time of timeframe do you think we are looking at?


----------



## Judgemental (21 March 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			A cosy little Club - hardly the heart of farming politics!  Come on Janet, you know that is not right - sandwiched between DEFRA and the Min of Defence in Whitehall. You know all the agricultural movers and shakers get in there. Also you should know the Minister herself spoke to the Club on 1 November 2010. The first time a minister had set foot officially for ten years or so

Click to expand...

...


----------



## Judgemental (21 March 2011)

marmalade76 said:



			You sound like you're all for this, JM. It has to be right in order to get the agricultural representation back in focus infront of the government. If there are not the numbers of people, then make it numbers in cash. Money talks and cash strapped politicos will alsways listen. Remember 'he who pays for the wine calls the tune'.So we can hunt again if we, sorry, farmers pay - hmm.

What makes you think all farmers and landowner are wealthy? I'm sure some are, but many are land rich and money poor. The valuations would represent the ability to pay according to production etc 

Grain prices have gone up, yes, but so has fuel, fertilizer, etc. I don't believe a billion pounds levied across the whole nation will be to hard to sustain
I also agree with the comment that not all farmers or their families hunt, most of the farmers my OH works for don't hunt at all, and as for becoming social outcasts if they refuse the hunt!!! Utter tosh! Some farmers cannot stand hunting people, I wonder why? Perhaps

So, if this comes to pass, poor farmers will have to sell their ground, more than likely to townies (let's face it, they're the only folks who can afford to buy properties in the country these days) who are likely to be anti-hunting! Selling of land is a good thing and it brings new blood into farming. Or perhaps farmers should start charging the hunts to cross their land...I once heard of a farmer who made that suggestion. Fine they said but don't bother to call us to pick up fallen stock

Click to expand...

....


----------



## Judgemental (21 March 2011)

Fiagai said:



			Thanks for the heads up JM.  I dont want to start shooting the messenger at this stage however I do believe this if it goes ahead will be very controversial (it is already here!).  So I will say nothing until I know more... Any updates would be appreciated.  What time of timeframe do you think we are looking at?
		
Click to expand...

 I think it will be introduced over a period of five years, the traditional period for any argicultural cycle. If you can access the Farmers Club Website i.e. you are a member and can look at The Journal, Lucy Preston's piece is very interesting. As I said to Janet the minister spoke to the Club in November last year. The first time a minister had set foot in the place for over ten years. You can draw your own conclusions. Lucy's piece was based upon a trip to Australia made for the club and paid for by their charitable arm. She also mentions the Lyons report of 2007.

It is that latter report that has been of interest to all concerned with the running of agriculture since it was published.

Let's look at it another way. The government is cutting back expenditure here, there and everywhere. Every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jill is effected, yet farmers seem to stand in some specially shielded bunker. Take payments for grass margins fo example. A quasi-Conservative goverment backed and in power because of the Libdems, has to be seen not to favoritise it's farming and landowning friends.

I have said before, remember we have a coalition not a Conservative government and coalitions in whatever country you care to name, are unpredictable.

Ask me if will happen, answer: yes. When, answer: Well before the life of this parliament has expired.


----------



## EAST KENT (21 March 2011)

So this Farmers Club thingy..is it the usual stuffy old man`s "Club" ..or something that actually functions in a modern way with DEFRA??
   Bet it is the former..


----------



## rosie fronfelen (21 March 2011)

^^^^


----------



## Judgemental (21 March 2011)

combat_claire said:



			The trouble with this argument is that we simply cannot continue to rely on cheap food imports. I know most of the books I urge people using this forum to read are a little bit dull, but if you get a chance grab a copy of Last Light by Alex Scarrow; a thriller but nonetheless with recent instability in the Middle East the concept that is raised of 'peak oil' cannot be ignored. UK has to look at issues of self-sufficiency that are just as relevant as in 1929 when the Rating Exemption bill was passed. 

The rating argument itself is an interesting proposal. However the government cannot expect to have its cake and eat it. They are keen for farmers to diversify the rural economy, embark on environmental stewardship schemes and, host renewable energy projects and public access but on the other hand they also sense that they can tap landowners for more cash to try and meet the short fall in revenues that has been caused by the profligacy of past governments with UK debt levels. They also fail to see that although cereal prices are currently high, this has been preceded by years when prices were on the floor plus as other commentators have already picked up - high grain prices = high feed prices for livestock sectors. 

I have also found in recent cases of dispute with the Valuation Office Agency 2010 ratings list that those people who can afford to employ my boss to take issue with the rates demand see a reduction in the RV of their property and thus the eventual bill; while those who do not have the money to employ an agent to formally battle on their behalf lose out on potential savings. 

Whilst recent experience of government efficiency as far as the RPA & the re-mapping of the Rural Land Register has been concerned hardly sets a confident precedent for hassle free transition to a new system. 

The article gives serious food for thought. I have just passed copies round the office which the other agents are reading with interest, but there are serious reservations about how such a system could be implemented.
		
Click to expand...

Claire the last time I commented upon one of your posts, I was unwise enough to call you an argicultural Estate agent. Persish the thought I should do the same again. Valuer.

That said a great deal of what you have said is a reflection of the policies of the last administration. 

If you look at the fine detail coming out of DEFRA, the coalition are still getting to grips with policies. Lets face it, there was the Forestry debacle. They are not going to get bitten twice. 

That in my opinion pushed agricultural rates on farmland and buildings much higher up the agenda.

All the valuers were looking forward to a nice little earner, of course you were?  

Currently there is very little on the table to replace it (forestry sales). 

So it (rates) could be a substitute? It would keep the average agricultural valuer for a generation or more.


----------



## Judgemental (21 March 2011)

EAST KENT said:



So this Farmers Club thingy..is it the usual stuffy old man`s "Club" ..or something that actually functions in a modern way with DEFRA??
   Bet it is the former..

Click to expand...

For a moment I was not going to dignify your comment with a reply.

But in the interests of education. You could not be more incorrect. 

Have a look at Lucy Preston's profile at Harper Adams.

Nothing stuffy, old or male there! 

http://www.harper-adams.ac.uk/group...harper-adams.ac.uk/groups/rural/index.cfm


----------



## combat_claire (21 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



			The valuations would represent the ability to pay according to production etc
		
Click to expand...

Which would presumably entail the writing of a complete new Valuation Manual as currently used by the District Valuers. The currents basis of valuation is taken on a gross internal area of buildings without allowance for dividing walls, this is generally then worked out on a price per square foot, with lower rates being allowable for toilets and store cupboards. As far as productive capacity is concerned this is one method that agricultural valuers utilise, but we also rely on the related earning capacity of the holding, where given the nature of the holding how much a competent tenant practising a reasonable system of agriculture could reasonably be expected to earn. For a member of the Valuation Office Agency to complete this work we would expect them to be as a minimum a Fellow of the Association of Agricultural Valuers, at the moment there are just 15 District Valuers in the whole country who have passed these specialist qualifications. 




Judgemental said:



			Selling of land is a good thing and it brings new blood into farming.
		
Click to expand...

The trouble is that we can't attract new blood into farming. Long hours, poor pay, and more and more red tape all combine to put new entrants off.  The youngsters who are keen to enter the industry find that the County Council farming estate is being sold off across the UK as it is seen as an expensive luxury and leaves little 'first rung' opportunities for farmers starting out on their own. The fact remains that the land is being consolidated into fewer and fewer hands. Piss off one of these massive farming investors/agri-businesses and you could shut off hundreds of square miles of land in one fell swoop. 



Judgemental said:



			Or perhaps farmers should start charging the hunts to cross their land...I once heard of a farmer who made that suggestion. Fine they said but don't bother to call us to pick up fallen stock
		
Click to expand...

It does of course work both ways, packs of hounds need the flesh to feed as much as farmers need it collecting. Farmers can call on commercial knackers to pick up the fallen stock; but the only alternative source of feed for most packs if they lost much of their farmer support would be to switch to bakery waste or biscuit. I would guess that even with the rising fuel costs the biscuit would still come out as more expensive than running the knacker round. 

Not to mention the fact that the loss/alienation of enough farmers would soon make the country a lot less accessible to hunts, a major headache to anyone unfortunate to have the letters MFH as a suffix to their name and a hell of a lot less fun to hunt over. You may have repeal, but there aren't exactly going to be epic runs if the hunt country has been broken up by resentful farmers denying access or who have been forced to sell out to big institutional landowners who often don't permit hunting on their land in any form. 

Quite frankly feet and shooting bullets springs to mind...


----------



## Maesfen (21 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



 As I said to Janet the minister spoke to the Club in November last year. The first time a minister had set foot in the place for over ten years. You can draw your own conclusions.        


Click to expand...

That isn't totally surprising considering how Labour had no affinity with any form of rural activity and the Conservatives always have.


----------



## Judgemental (21 March 2011)

combat_claire said:



			Which would presumably entail the writing of a complete new Valuation Manual as currently used by the District Valuers. Probably The currents basis of valuation is taken on a gross internal area of buildings without allowance for dividing walls, this is generally then worked out on a price per square foot, with lower rates being allowable for toilets and store cupboards. As far as productive capacity is concerned this is one method that agricultural valuers utilise, but we also rely on the related earning capacity of the holding, where given the nature of the holding how much a competent tenant practising a reasonable system of agriculture could reasonably be expected to earn. For a member of the Valuation Office Agency to complete this work we would expect them to be as a minimum a Fellow of the Association of Agricultural Valuers, at the moment there are just 15 District Valuers in the whole country who have passed these specialist qualifications. 

The trouble is that we can't attract new blood into farming. Long hours, poor pay, and more and more red tape all combine to put new entrants off.  The youngsters who are keen to enter the industry find that the County Council farming estate is being sold off across the UK as it is seen as an expensive luxury and leaves little 'first rung' opportunities for farmers starting out on their own. The fact remains that the land is being consolidated into fewer and fewer hands. Piss off one of these massive farming investors/agri-businesses and you could shut off hundreds of square miles of land in one fell swoop. No 



It does of course work both ways, packs of hounds need the flesh to feed as much as farmers need it collecting. Farmers can call on commercial knackers to pick up the fallen stock; but the only alternative source of feed for most packs if they lost much of their farmer support would be to switch to bakery waste or biscuit. I would guess that even with the rising fuel costs the biscuit would still come out as more expensive than running the knacker round. 

Not to mention the fact that the loss/alienation of enough farmers would soon make the country a lot less accessible to hunts, a major headache to anyone unfortunate to have the letters MFH as a suffix to their name and a hell of a lot less fun to hunt over. You may have repeal, but there aren't exactly going to be epic runs if the hunt country has been broken up by resentful farmers denying access or who have been forced to sell out to big institutional landowners who often don't permit hunting on their land in any form. 

Quite frankly feet and shooting bullets springs to mind...
		
Click to expand...

There are parts I might argue with, indeed I might at a later date, but I seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time on the issue. Rosie was complaining the otherday I was not posting!

However can I say again, we have a coalition, whose policies are largely unknown.

Libdems are calling the shots. An army of Libdems headed by Paddy Ashdown in the background, looking for the 'right thing to do' to stay in power for years. Look at the last bi-election result and the dreadful Libdem result. The majority of their consituencies are rural, mainly in the West Country. 

Then there is the arithmatic of the House of Commons, I am not talking about the Hunting Act 2004 and any repeal. Plus Proportional Representation in the long run.


----------



## VoR (21 March 2011)

Seems like lots of hearsay and predictions that seem about a plausible at this time as the horoscopes to me. No doubt the coalition government will consider many ways of closing the deficit, most of which will be discounted so we all just have to wait and see what happens making this thread, unless you happen to be a government minister and looking at people's reaction to a potential idea, pretty much redundant.


----------



## combat_claire (21 March 2011)

Judgemental said:



Claire the last time I commented upon one of your posts, I was unwise enough to call you an argicultural Estate agent. Persish the thought I should do the same again. Valuer.

That said a great deal of what you have said is a reflection of the policies of the last administration. 

If you look at the fine detail coming out of DEFRA, the coalition are still getting to grips with policies. Lets face it, there was the Forestry debacle. They are not going to get bitten twice. 

That in my opinion pushed agricultural rates on farmland and buildings much higher up the agenda.

All the valuers were looking forward to a nice little earner, of course you were?  

Currently there is very little on the table to replace it (forestry sales). 

So it (rates) could be a substitute? It would keep the average agricultural valuer for a generation or more.

Click to expand...

The Valuation Office Agency would be the only valuers involved in any rating of agricultural farm land. These are valuers who are employed by the Civil Service. At the present time they deal with valuation questions arising from tricky probate grants, commercial ratings and the like. The only work that would arise for the private sector would be in challenging the rating valuation, which speaking from experience in a case from last week resulted roughly in a 5% reduction grudgingly given. There may be some additional fees for Valuers with clients willing to challenge these RVs but not going to be a huge amount of additional work generated compared to the varied types of work we engage in on a daily basis. 

The fact that there are 15 Agricultural Valuers working for the VOA plus a handful of probationers yet to qualify leaves me wondering how an already stretched civil service department would cope with such a project. 

Hey you have promoted me this time, so I guess it averages out. I am currently still attempting to pass my Ag Valuer exams ;-)


----------



## tootsietoo (21 March 2011)

By golly I've got it.  Judgemental is Lucy Preston


----------



## JanetGeorge (21 March 2011)

Judgemental said:





But in the interests of education. You could not be more incorrect. 

Have a look at Lucy Preston's profile at Harper Adams.

Nothing stuffy, old or male there! 



Click to expand...

So - she's one of two dozen lecturers in the department.  There is NOTHING that suggests she is more than a competent academic.  It does not give anything to suggest that Jim Paice and his colleagues will be hanging on her every word!


----------



## Judgemental (21 March 2011)

JanetGeorge said:



			So - she's one of two dozen lecturers in the department.  There is NOTHING that suggests she is more than a competent academic.  It does not give anything to suggest that Jim Paice and his colleagues will be hanging on her every word!
		
Click to expand...

 Perhaps not, because he is Minister for Foods. However I dare say his boss The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP. The Minister of Argiculture may be paying a great deal of attention to the report. It is a report on the Australian rating system of agricultural land and bulidings in Australia, commissioned by The Farmers Club and makes no recommendations.


----------

