Where do we go from here?

Britain, or more specifically England and the devolved administrations, now need to think about what sort of domestic agricultural policy they want to have outside the European Union. I do not think that the decision to leave will be good for agriculture and the food industry more generally, but we now need to move on. Talk of a second referendum is in my view a distraction.

Of course, at this stage, we do not know what shape Britain's future relationship with the European Union will be. However, as a working hypothesis, I am assuming that we will have a domestic agricultural policy and that, hopefully, there will be no tariff barriers against British agricultural exports such as sheepmeat.

It is an opportunity to re-think what the objectives of a domestic agricultural policy should be, and which policy instruments could best achieve those objectives. However, there are many other items on the Government's agenda and agriculture is not likely to be their top priority, just as it was very much a secondary issue in the campaign outside farming areas.

Path dependency theory would suggest that the most likely outcome in terms of subsidies is a scaled down version of the single farm payment. I say scaled down because there are already considerable pressures on public expenditure and the economy is likely to grow more slowly than it would otherwise have done in the short to medium term following Brexit.

In an ideal world, farming as an economic activity would not be subsidised. However, we are faced with volatile prices and for many farms the subsidy payments make the difference between running at a profit and a loss. There are food security and environmental arguments for not reducing the total area farmed.

One could return to deficiency payments which made up the difference between the market price and a target or guaranteed price. However, the expenditure involved is unpredictable which means that they do not find favour with the Treasury as a policy instrument.

There are a series of difficult questions to be faced. For example, do we want to concentrate subsidies more on marginal upland farms which make an important contribution to landscape? The counter argument is that efficient arable farms would be disadvantaged in terms of competitors elsewhere in Europe if they did not receive similar subsidies.

There are also difficult questions about how the horticultural sector is to secure the unskilled or semi-skilled labour it needs for planting and harvesting? Could we and should we revive a version of the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS)?

What we certainly need is a debate about what sort of domestic agricultural policy we could and should have in terms of both objectives and policy instruments.

Deficiency payments unlikely to return

Writing in The Spectator Matthew Parris cites as one of his six arguments for Remain that 'The EU good has been good for farmers and good for the countryside.' It's quite unusual to see agriculture mentioned in the general debate.

He then goes on to say 'Leaving the EU, the UK would probably have to revert to pre-membership system of "deficiency payments" to support farming. It was a costly, ill-controlled nightmare which the Treasury hated.' That's one good reason why it won't come back.

Deficiency payments do at least take some account of market prices. The problem is that the guaranteed price, with farmers paid the gap between that and the market price, was often set too high as a result of lobbying.

Path dependency theory suggests that what we are most likely to get is a scaled down version of the basic payment (formerly single farm payment). In the event of a Brexit, what we really need is a debate about what the objectives of a domestic agricultural policy should be and which policy instruments could best achieve them. However, we are unlikely to get it. Expediency and rushed decision-making is likely to prevail.

The European crisis, Britain and the CAP

The outcome of the eurozone crisis remains unknown, although none of the measures taken so far have really tackled the fundamental problems of sovereign debt and structural uncompetitiveness in Southern Europe.

What effects will the exercise of the British 'veto' have on attempts to reform the CAP? NFU policy director Martin Haworth is one of the most experienced individuals in agricultural politics and policy and he told Farmers Weekly that only time would tell if Britain would be marginalised in Europe and hence have less influence on a range of issues.

He made a distinction between Britain's largely unsuccessful attempts to secure CAP reform and broader efforts on regulation. He noted, 'The UK has pursued CAP reform policies ... which have pursued UK negotiators on the margins of the debate, so it is unlikely that Mr Cameron's actions will change the way in which the UK is already viewed with regards to CAP.'

'However, on broader regulatory matters where the British voice has been heard in recent years, for example on environmental and market regulation matters, Mr Cameron's actions may affect Britain's influence in the EU.'

The NFU is concerned about a scenario in which agricultural powers were repatriated to the UK, although Eurosceptics have focused mainly on various forms of labour market protection and the Common Fisheries Policy.

A NFU briefing document states that 'A worst-case scenario would see the UK remaining in the single market but regaining autonomy over support arrangements.' The NFU fears 'That would allow the Treasury to achieve its long-standing goal of removing direct payments altogether.'

Supposing Britain left the EU or repatriated CAP payments, the withdrawal of subsidies overnight would cause chaos in agriculture. In principle one might want to see a return to a deficiency payments system which was the more market attuned form of subsidy that existed before Britain joined the EU.

However, in practice, it would be costly to dismantle the existing (albeit rather inefficient) administrative apparatus and replace it with a new one. One would therefore have to pay farmers the SFP on an historic basis, tapering the amount paid over time so that one might start at 90 per cent of the existing payment.

More radically one could compensate farmers for the subsidy by issuing them with interest bearing bonds which could also be sold on the market but that would probably be unacceptable to the parties involved.

Meanwhile British farmers who had opted to be paid in euros have been converting them into pounds on the spot market rather than waiting for a more favourable rate (which, of course, might well not materialise).

It is generally larger farmers who take payments in euros and they usually have some form of relatively sophisticated risk management in place, including hedging.

The crisis has also injected some uncertainty into the market that trades in English Single Farm payment entitlements. If CAP reform is not agreed in time for the 2014 claim, which in my view is more than likely, the purchase of entitlements now would give buyers access to claims for the years of 2012, 2013 and 2014 for little more than the value of one year's SFP.

Leading broker Webb Paton is reported to be doing about 15 deals a day. The existence of such a secondary market might seem to be perverse but, given that we have farm subsidies, it is a 'second best' solution that facilitates their more efficient allocation.