Mr. Barclay Bell:

The Senator also mentioned subsidies and asked if there is the political will in the UK Government to continue with subsidies. It comes back to the point about food security and to the point that the UK is only 61% self-sufficient and all indications are the British consumer wants food produced to a high standard. It is very much a red line issue, as far as the farming unions go, that we cannot accept that there would be food coming in to the UK produced to lower standards. I suppose one has to think of whether a trade deal should be struck with the US. There is the hormone-treated beef and the chlorinated chicken. Those are the sorts of issues. That is really a red line issue for us. We all recognise, both in the UK and Ireland, that we are producing food to some of the highest standards probably in the world. Why should that be jeopardised and why would one even consider exporting an industry to some other part of the world where, maybe, on welfare grounds or on environmental grounds, they cannot come up to the standards that we have to satisfy? That maybe covers the Senator's point around veterinary, that is, about such matters as the hormones and chlorinated chicken.

We still believe the issue of immigration and labour is one that the UK Government could sort out fairly quickly. This is low-hanging fruit that affects a huge range of industries right across agrifood, hospitality - you name it. The labour requirement is huge. One need only ask some of our agrifood processors if they were to try to employ local labour whether they could they get it. The answer is simply "No." The labour issue is a big one.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile also mentioned the labour issue. We made the point that it is one of the first issues that could be sorted. I suppose it is right up there in the top three. Michael Barnier has indicated that both the Border issue and the labour issue have to get sorted fairly quickly. We feel this is one where we need a clear statement from the UK Government.

Obviously, I agree there are concerns around customs posts and how this would work out. That will build costs into the system. It will slow down the transport of product to the South. I refer to anything that will build costs into the system, if there are to be some sort of customs checks. In any of our discussions with officials from here, there seems to be electronic methods to get around some of this but, as I stated, on costs or those sheer logistics on a daily basis, we have got so used to just driving up and down the road that nobody wants to go back to where one would have to stop or whatever.

On funding support, as farming organisations right across the UK, we have a major job to convince the UK Government that this is an industry worth supporting. We have to go right back to the fact of food security. Food security is important to any government. Why would one consider exporting an industry to somewhere else in the world? Over the past ten years, we have seen the issue of horse meat and some of the food scares there have been. That tightened everything up in the UK. There was this big focus on short supply chains. Those are some of the points we have to hammer home, as well as the fact that currently 30% of our payment is linked to environmental stewardship of our farms. We fully accept we have a responsibility to deliver such environmental stewardship and that is something we can demonstrate. Anyone would say that if one takes the farmers out of the countryside, one will soon see the countryside completely changed. Therefore, farmers have to be kept in the countryside. It is not only about producing food. It is about the wider rural communities. If one takes the farmer out of the countryside, rural communities will suffer big time in all of this.

Senator Mulherin mentioned the unfair distribution within CAP and how we might see a new model of delivery. We have a discussion document, which, as I said, we are happy to share with the committee, that the 15 committees within Ulster Farmers Union considered. What we are suggesting is that any new delivery model has to be geared towards those who are being productive, who are active and are looking after the countryside, but key to all of this is that they have to be productive. We are suggesting that there would be some sort of baseline payment which would satisfy baseline environmental standards. That baseline pot of money would also deliver around education and training. It might deliver around marketing. For the farmer who really wanted to move his business on, I suppose there was this thinking that the old system of subsidies did not incentivise anyone to be efficient, to be productive and to move one's business on. We are saying that, on top of this baseline, one would then have these different pillars or modules, or call them what one may. Should that be possibly a capital grants system to assist one in driving efficiencies on? Should it be, for example, producer organisations? There would be a pot of money for that. There would also be a pot of money if one wanted to raise one's animal welfare or plant health to a higher standard, if one wanted to really go for that.

There could be another pillar for those wishing to reach higher environmental standards. One could broaden the range of issues to include rural broadband and diversification. Take tourism, it is not for everybody but if there was money available it would allow people to make choices. There should be something for everyone. The farmer has to decide whether he wants to make himself more proficient and his business more efficient, more productive and more sustainable. We would try to put forward a policy to drive that sort of thinking in the industry.

The document was only released last week. We intend to canvass our members and the wider industry in the next number of months to get their opinions on it. I think part of the problem with the CAP is that it does not reward the person who wants to be productive and efficient. This is a way that we would see agriculture moving forward.

The British Government may decide that it wishes to import low-cost product from the rest of the world, but it goes back to the point that we cannot accept imports from countries, where the product is produced to a lower standard. I think that is a red-line issue for us and I think it is a red-line issue for the four UK unions. Why would one consider such a proposal? We are strong on that issue.

On the issue of unsubsidised agriculture, it is always a threat. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ms Andrea Leadsom, and Ms Theresa May have played their cards reasonably close to their chest. We do not know what will happen after 2020 at this stage. We hope that under the changes we will still get continued support. Change takes time. If there are proposed changes in agriculture, there must be a transition period. We cannot go over a cliff edge. We all know that farming is a cyclical business. There is a lead-in period so we cannot change overnight. That is a fear for the farming industry.

Some of the indications from Brussels are that the pot of money for reform of the CAP will be under pressure. When the UK leaves the European Union, there will be a big hole that must be filled in some way or other. Some of the conversations would suggest that the money will start to move east to some of the less productive countries in the European Union in the next round of CAP negotiations. There are those considerations.