Brexiteer Dyson sees his farm business make a profit

The farm subsidies given to vacuum cleaner entrepreneur Sir James Dyson's extensive estate have attracted a lot of criticism. In 2017 he received CAP subsidies of £2.8m, up from £2.4m the previous year because of land purchases.

It is thought to be unfair that one of Britain's richest men should be given such amounts, although in fact they go to his farm business (Beeswax Dyson Farming) rather than to him personally. The estate is made up of 35,000 acres of land in Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire. No doubt his example has given some impetus to the reduction of subsidies for larger farms after Brexit.

Now the Financial Times has revealed that the business generated a pre-tax profit of £747,000 last year, compared with a loss of £1.53m the year before. Turnover went up 11 per cent to £15.7m. This represents a return of just under 5 per cent. The cost of sales fell by 12 per cent.

He was one of the few prominent Brexiteers from the world of business in the referendum campaign. He has said that he needs EU subsidies to compete against continental competitors. Over the five years he has put £92m into improving the farms, including renewable energy projects. Investment has been directed at such areas as soil health, technology and infrastructure.

A critical look at the CAP and its possible replacements

A number of papers have been produced on the consequences of CAP and the policies that may replace it, but this is one of the better ones. It takes a critical look both at the pathologies of the CAP and the cases that have been put forward for continuing forms of subsidy: Dieter Helm

The paper points out that no other economic sector outside defence has received so much government money. It points out the CAP was the result of a very political deal, reflecting a very particular historical context. The reforms that have taken place addressed some of its deficiencies, but remain sub-optimal.

The paper subjects the three main arguments for subsidy to critical scrutiny: food security; a shift towards environmental subsidies; and public money for public goods. It points out that food security arguments still embody production maximisation. The paper then goes on to consider the key issue of a workable transition.

This is very much an economist's perspective and as a political economist I tend to take a somewhat different perspective. For example, I sometimes think it is necessary to accept a 'satisficing' (in Herbert Simon's terms) rather than an 'optimal' solution. However, I will certainly take its arguments seriously as I prepare my paper for a Welsh Assembly committee public seminar next month.

National Trust pitches into farm subsidies

Britain's largest membership organisation, the National Trust, has demanded a complete reform of farm subsidies after Brexit. The idea is that the basic payment would be scrapped and farmers would just be paid for ecosystem services or public goods: Reform call

I heard Dame Helen Ghosh, the director of the National Trust and one time permanent secretary at Defra, interviewed on Radio 5 this morning and she did say that subsidies would have to be phased out over a five or six year period. I would favour seven years and the use of a bond scheme I outlined in an earlier post.

She argued that farmers deserved a better return from the market. No doubt they do, but would the market respond, given retailer power and the limitations of the supermarket ombudsman? Governments in practice welcome oligopolistic price competition between retailers because it holds down food prices for families who are already struggling with tight budgets.

Her views are certainly not without merit and will receive wide support from those who want to see an agricultural policy that places greater emphasis on sustainability. Farmers who voted for Brexit may now start to realise what they have unleashed.

The NFU has responded saying that farmers take their role as custodians of the countryside seriously, but we need to recognise how vital food production is: NFU response

Brexit report out

The report from a working party set up by the Farmer-Scientist Network of the Yorkshire Agriculture Society on Brexit and agriculture is now out: Brexit

The working party was made up of academic specialists from the fields of law, agricultural economics and political science, as well as farmer members.

The report highlights the complexities and uncertainties associated with Brexit, particularly given the absence of any Plan B for agriculture produced by the UK Government.

Among the topics covered are the future of farm subsidies, international trade, the devolved administrations, plant protection, animal health and welfare, GM crops, geographical indications and migrant labour.

Mind the gap

HSBC head of agriculture Allan Wilkinson has drawn attention to the gap between returns from the market and costs of production, particularly in livestock enterprises. For beef the cost of production is £3.20/kg liveweight compared with a market price of just £2.10 so that only 60-70 per cent of production costs are recovered from the market. It costs £2.30 to produce a live kilo of lamb while market prices are at £1.75-1/85 kg lw. Thus, only 75 per cent to 80 per cent of production costs are met by the market.

These are, of course, average production costs and Mr Wilkinson emphasised the gap between the best- and poorest-performing farm businesses. He warned that unless the gap between the cost of production and returns can be closed, the size of the red meat sector will fall further and the industry will continue to decline.

Once again these figures show how dependent important sectors of British agriculture are on CAP subsidies which are bound to decline in the long run.

Can Scottish farmers be weaned off subsidies?

One of the claims being made in the Scottish independence referendum debate is that if Scotland had a seat at the negotiating table, its farmers would get much more way in the way of CAP subsidies. But is such a dependence on subsidies desirable when English farmers are being urged to orient themselves towards the market? This provocative piece from a New Zealander suggests that it can become tantamount to an addiction: Subsidies

Of course, as the writer recognises, farming in the remoter parts of Scotland faces special challenges, but these are better tackled under the umbrella of a rural development/remote areas policy rather than through blanket subsidies. Moreover, the treatment of the Highlands and Islands has not been ungenerous, particularly when compared with England's isolated Scilly Isles, a subject I have been tackling in a series of articles for Scilly Now and Then. The magazine's website is here: Isles of Scilly

Fields of gold

English farmland has gone up in value by more than 10,000 per cent in the last 60 years. Research from agent Knight Frank shows that an investor who paid £56 an acre for land when the Queen ascended the throne in 1952 would get £6,073 if they sold today, although that is slightly below last June's average figure of £6,156.

Land values started to soar once the UK joined the European Community in 1973. Farmers were then able to benefit from CAP subsidies and land values rose by 390 per cent between 1972 and 1982. There had been subsidies before then, of course, but deficiency payments were more closely related to market fluctuations than blanket EU subsidies. Another consideration was that farmland looked like a relatively safe asset class against the background of the economic turmoil of the 1970s

The 1980s were less buoyant, but in the 1990s demand started to outpace supply, pushing up prices. In 1995 flexible farm business tenancies were introduced which made it more attractive for farmers to rent out land. This led to less land being available on the market at a time when demand was rising.

The recent debate over global food scarcity has reawakened interest in land, along with the drive for alternative fuel sources. However, it may be that prices have peaked. Yields are very low, 1 per cent at best, and farm businesses have an erratic performance due to the impact of the weather and other factors beyond the control of the farmer.

There were important tax incentives relating to land ownership, relating principally to income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. Measures to cap reliefs from trading losses at 25 per cent of income or £50,000 whichever is the greater, will restrict the possibility of offsetting losses on farm businesses.

Many purchases are, however, are lifestyle related. The British tradition of spending a weekend in the country has survived and one way to demonstrate that you have arrived is to buy a country estate. There will always be a strong demand for estates with sporting rights, particularly if they are within an easy drive of London.

The other side of the coin is that it is difficult to break into farming other than by inheritance. Tenancies do not become available that often and local authorities are cutting back on their portfolios of entry level farms to release their capital value. Whilst statistics sometimes exaggerate the ageing profile of British farmers because some of them are in semi-retirement, the industry needs a constant influx of innovative younger people.

It's not an easy life, though. Hours can be long, there is a high rate of deaths and injuries from accidents and there is a lot of often monotonous work. To succeed you need a combination of farming, technological, business and marketing skills. But for some people it is the only life. Two of my nephews grew up on a very successful Welsh farm that has been in the family for generations. One stayed on the farm and loves it. I will be visiting an exhibition of pottery by the other one later this month.