Andrew Arbuckle: The same old story - industry's only constant is change LAST Tuesday was a wonderful day. You could feel the heat from the February sun. The snowdrops and aconites lining the road from the hotel were bravely waving their heads, heralding the coming spring. Although it was just halfway through the month, I can report seeing my first grain seeder in operation; admittedly this was on light land which could have been cultivated by hens scratching about. All of this should have lifted the heart of this old peasant who rejoices at the arrival of another year bringing, as it does, a fresh beginning. Yet, my mind was troubled. There are storm clouds on the horizon, and even if they are not weather related they will affect the fortunes of the farming industry. I had just left the annual meeting of the National Farmers Union and, truth be told, it was a pretty low-key affair. That state of affairs was easy to predict, as the mood of such meetings operates in inverse ratio to the profitability within the industry. If all is going well then the debates are muted, but if the industry is taking a financial hammering, then fireworks tend to fly. This year there were no tales of economic hardship and there was not a single question on poor commodity prices. The delegates were left with three issues where there was some discussion; these being the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, new entrants and tenancies. Although the debates were separate, all three have strong links. If anyone was not worried about CAP reform before they listened to the emissary from Brussels, then they should have been concerned after his speil. Time and again, he stuck to the line that farmers should accept the main principles of change and the details would then slot in behind. The message was akin to being told to just look at the colour of the tractor you are buying and do not worry about the workings of the engine. One example of this off-putting style came when Brian Pack, Scotland's own CAP guru, asked the logical question as to how new entrants could get into the reformed package throughout its lifetime as the only gateway observed in the proposals seem to be at the time of its adoption. Answer came there none, and yet one of the major flaws in the current scheme is the hurdle newcomers to the industry face with no entitlement to the level of support their established and often retired neighbours are getting. On his visit, Scottish Government minister Richard Lochhead announced that he will put together a working group to look at how to help young people into farming. As I fear a complexity of rules coming along in the wake of this new body, I can save the minister the bother and expense. All he needs to do is ensure that the forthcoming CAP rules are fair and equal and they allow entry on level terms and ensure exit if and when someone ceases to produce. Whenever you create special circumstances some opportunist uses them and, by implication, other, more worthy people lose out. Mr Lochhead was not around to listen to the panel of next generation farmers the union had put together. It was one of the better conference moments and it was clear that they did not want or expect any special favours; just a level playing field. One did mention the restrictions the current tenancy legislation imposes, but we now have assurances from both government and union that the complexities will be sorted quickly. I remain unconvinced. Mr Lochhead said landlords had a "moral duty" to let out land and this phrase produced the sort of reaction from the landowners that it deserved - that is to say it was "unhelpful." I am not a big fan of political morality preaching and wondered how far this line of thought would be taken. Why should a landlord be treated differently from an owner-occupier farmer, I pondered. I also listened to the oft-repeated phrase that "this country needs a vibrant tenanted sector." Does it, I wonder, as other countries have very successful agricultural industries without having a tenanted sector. The minister did reject any suggestion that existing tenants might have a right to buy their farms but perhaps a more radical government distant from the pre-occupation with independence might see a new form of land ownership without the need of the current tenancy legislation. All these worries despite the sun shining.