Post 2020 CAP

Mad_maxx

Just wondering what the room thinks of the following theory.

My widowed mother has a farm let to a dairy farmer since 2013,since the current subsidy programme began in 2015,her tenant has returned the single payment to her on top of the land rent.

As 2019 is the final year of the current programme and the signals seem to be suggesting that armchair farmers might be front of the queue for cuts, this seems correct and proper though of course no one really knows.

Question is this, were my mother to sell her entitlements next year as a way of monetising her assets for fear those assets might outright disappear under a new scheme which directed funds away from armchair farmers, would this be a reasonable gamble?

Presumably she might get paid twice what her annual payment currently is worth through her tenant.

Young95

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Just wondering what the room thinks of the following theory.

My widowed mother has a farm let to a dairy farmer since 2013,since the current subsidy programme began in 2015,her tenant has returned the single payment to her on top of the land rent.

As 2019 is the final year of the current programme and the signals seem to be suggesting that armchair farmers might be front of the queue for cuts, this seems correct and proper though of course no one really knows.

Question is this, were my mother to sell her entitlements next year as a way of monetising her assets for fear those assets might outright disappear under a new scheme which directed funds away from armchair farmers, would this be a reasonable gamble?

Presumably she might get paid twice what her annual payment currently is worth through her tenant.

The entitlements belong to your mother and she has them leased to the current tenant also with the land I presume ? Heard from one man that leasing entitlements post 2020 won’t be aloud. Could be bull either

Donnielighto

It's a ridiculous scheme anyway. Pure laziness that it's let sit like it has been this long but I think it was just to avoid the farmering lobby going against govs at the time.

Mad_maxx

Donnielighto wrote: »

It's a ridiculous scheme anyway. Pure laziness that it's let sit like it has been this long but I think it was just to avoid the farmering lobby going against govs at the time.

Completely agree ( though instinct tells me Phil hogan will bat for older farmers) but you couldn't blame someone for cashing in while they still have something with value.

By the same token would stripping armchair farmers of this privilege make long term leasing less attractive?

Mad_maxx

Young95 wrote: »

The entitlements belong to your mother and she has them leased to the current tenant also with the land I presume ? Heard from one man that leasing entitlements post 2020 won’t be aloud. Could be bull either

Is 2020 the final year of the current scheme, thought it was next year?

148multi

Donnielighto wrote: »

It's a ridiculous scheme anyway. Pure laziness that it's let sit like it has been this long but I think it was just to avoid the farmering lobby going against govs at the time.

I see both sides, here is one local situation, two farmers in their early 40s one took over home farm in his 20s, other worked in England at construction, came home a few years ago, has two houses in England and under new system his payments are increasing, man that farmed all his life here and built up good payments are getting reduced, now the man that farmed all his life brought in these payments to the country and are being given to a farmer that made no effort to bring in any payments. Leveling payments in this situation doesn't seem fair?. I believe that young farmers need to be looked after and encouraged.

jaymla627

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Completely agree ( though instinct tells me Phil hogan will bat for older farmers) but you couldn't blame someone for cashing in while they still have something with value.

By the same token would stripping armchair farmers of this privilege make long term leasing less attractive?

How could it make long-term leasing less attractive, can’t see lads the wrong side of 70 going back farming ffs....
It’s been a golden goose for the 15 odd years for lads Leasing and getting the sfp on top, to what end should older farmers be batted for its a road to ruin

Mad_maxx

jaymla627 wrote: »

How could it make long-term leasing less attractive, can’t see lads the wrong side of 70 going back farming ffs....
It’s been a golden goose for the 15 odd years for lads Leasing and getting the sfp on top, to what end should older farmers be batted for its a road to ruin

Allowing the land owners who entered into long term leases to collect payments through the tenant made it a sweeter deal for retired farmers , ending this might perhaps make some land owners sell instead of lease?

arctictree

To be fair, leasing out entitlements is a bit of a crazy system anyway. You should only really get paid if you are actively farming. Defining an 'active' farmer is another discussion altogether.

Mad_maxx

arctictree wrote: »

To be fair, leasing out entitlements is a bit of a crazy system anyway. You should only really get paid if you are actively farming. Defining an 'active' farmer is another discussion altogether.

Completely agree, it's redicolous.

Asked earlier, is next year or 2020 the final year of the current BPS scheme?

Donnielighto

148multi wrote: »

I see both sides, here is one local situation, two farmers in their early 40s one took over home farm in his 20s, other worked in England at construction, came home a few years ago, has two houses in England and under new system his payments are increasing, man that farmed all his life here and built up good payments are getting reduced, now the man that farmed all his life brought in these payments to the country and are being given to a farmer that made no effort to bring in any payments. Leveling payments in this situation doesn't seem fair?. I believe that young farmers need to be looked after and encouraged.

Sorry for the late reply. You are looking at circumstances outside of farming and its support to justify the current system in that example.
I'm saying the current system is bizarre in the it has no relation to productivity or land use. The farming sector would be better incentivising within itself if there was a connection to usage and/or production. If you have a third option that you think is better than my suggestion I don't see it from your post and don't see a justification of the current system in it either.

Your scenario seems to take issue with two things, one that one guy went to England and has now two houses providing external income. Good for him, he's secured income to supplement himself and planned properly it seems. The farmer appears to have put his eggs in the payments basket, if the farm is viable he should be able to survive if not then he will either need to expand, close up, or get external income. These are the realities of it and I can't really have much sympathy for government or such making bad policy decisions based farm's that aren't able to support themselves. As mentioned above I think you'd see long term letting cheapen or possibly the price itself fall after an initial shock. It's risky but so is any business and unless you have supplementary income you have to treat it like a business.
My father for years farmed without focus or a properly close eye on operations, profitability of crops including grass etc but now my brother is beginning to take the reigns more he is bringing that in and it's made farming both easier due to focus on specifics and more profitable, particularly per man hour.

wrangler

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Is 2020 the final year of the current scheme, thought it was next year?

end of 2020