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.

Dyson defends subsidies to big farms

Sir James Dyson has written to the Spectator in response to an article that said that subsidies 'absurdly' favour bigger farms.

He writes: 'My family's farming business, Beeswax Dyson Farming, farms 33,000 acres directly and has invested £75m in technology, training, soil improvement and environmental stewardship over the past five years. Subsidies we receive go directly into the activities they are designed to support but are dwarfed by our own investments.'

'If Britain wants an internationally competitive agricultural sector, rather than a domestic theme park, we must encourage investment in innovation and stewardship. Removing subsidies from efficient farms simply because they are large would remove their incentive to invest at scale. This will hurt the farming economy as we become increasingly uncompetitive against our EU counterparts.'

The 'big farms bad, small farm good' orthodoxy does need to be challenged. It is also important to raise the issue of international competitiveness which is rarely mentioned in discussion of the future of UK farm policy. Post-Brexit, UK farmers will be competing against farmers on the near continent still receiving CAP subsidies.

However, when one pays out blanket subsidies, there is no means of tracking or ensuring that they are used for investment rather than consumption. Sir James evidently does use them for investment, but this cannot be guaranteed.

Big Blue goes for green farm policy

Liberal Conservative think tank Big Blue has produced the latest analysis of the future of agricultural support in Britain, A Greener, More Pleasant Land. It's certainly in tune with the emerging conventional wisdom. Read the full report here: Green and pleasant

It sets out a vision for a new market-based commissioning scheme for rural payments after Brexit, which would replace the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and fund ecosystem services, such as woodland creation, restoration of peatlands and removing invasive plant species. Under the scheme, ‘suppliers’ would bid to supply ecosystem services to paying ‘beneficiaries’ in specific catchments via online market-places. Suppliers would include farmers, landowners, and land managers.

Beneficiaries would include the general public (represented by central, devolved, and local government), private interests (such as water companies, other land managers, and insurers), and other groups (such as conservation NGOs, civil society groups, land trusts, philanthropists, local communities via town and village halls, or crowd funders). Contracts for supplying ecosystem services would pay quarterly based on results, potentially with incentives to encourage performance.

It calls for ensuring that as current CAP subsidies are phased out, public funding for market-based commissioning scheme and means tested livelihood support is phased in pound for pound.  It advocates the creation of a single rural payments budget from central government that identifies exactly and merges existing government budgets for production and land management support (under CAP), natural flood management, and payments for ecosystem services. Merging these current expenditures into a single rural payments budget would result in at least £3.1 billion being made available per year. It appears that prices for ecosystem services would be derived through an online market place designed by users for users. Striking a price may not be as straightforward as the paper assumes.

Three forms of income for farmers

The elimination of all production subsidies in agriculture would ensure instead that farmers have three forms of income available to them. The first from the new market-based commissioning scheme for rural payments, the second from a form of means-tested livelihood support, and the third from agricultural produce or other monetisable services sold at market prices without production subsidies. These sources of income are not mutually exclusive.

In my view means-tested livelihood support is a matter for the benefits system and not for specific policies directed at farmers. It seems that these are meant for small farmers, but there is a case for keeping area based payments in some form in marginal upland areas.

 

All things bright and beautiful

It is claimed that market-based commissioning of rural payments combined with a properly enforced system of environmental regulations, targeted livelihood support (particularly for smaller farmers), and consumer demand for high-quality UK produce will together drive higher environmental standards across the UK.

Senior Associate Fellow Ben Caldecott, who co-wrote the report, says: 'Commissioning ecosystem services efficiently and effectively using the dynamism of market-based approaches will bring significant public benefits, including a more sustainable farming industry, enhanced natural beauty and landscapes, greater biodiversity, increased carbon sequestration, improved natural flood defences, better water quality, better mental and physical health, and better air quality.'

Commenting, Zac Goldsmith MP, member of the Environment Audit Committee, said: 'The biggest opportunity by far [on leaving the EU] is the ability we now have to redesign the way we subsidise rural activity via whatever regime replaces the Common Agriculture Policy, something environmentalists have long dreamed of being able to do. Instead of simply paying people for owning land, no matter what they do to it, we can finally tailor that support to reward good stewardship of the land to boost biodiversity, minimise floods, improve water quality and access, and deliver food security.' Of course, it could be argued that one of the things that the current system does is support food security.

The usual targets

Press commentary on the report has inevitably brought up the £1.6m in subsidies going to Sir James Dyson. In a sense he is fair game, but he has been investing money in his farms and losing money on them.

No one wants to retain blanket area based subsidies in their present form, but we have little practical experience of pricing ecosystem services (there is one public-private scheme covering forests and peat bogs). As it is, area based subsidies represent the difference between profit and loss for most farms, so one has to be careful how one replaces them if one doesn't want to see a forced restructuring of the industry which might hit food production and would certainly disadvantage smaller farmers.

Hoovering up farmland

Sir James Dyson has bought up thousands of acres of Lincolnshire farmland, reports Farmers Weekly. He is believed to have paid some £150m for more than 6,800 ha./17,000 acres through a new company Beeswax Farming (Rainbow) Ltd. He has purchased much of the Norton estate which was destined to be Britain's largest dairy farm until the plan was defeated by animal welfare activists, backed up by objections from the Environment Agency.

There's nothing new about wealthy investors or even institutions buying up farmland, indeed the institutitional involvement has been greater in the past and led to a report. One of the advantages of owning farmland is that it does not incur inheritance tax. Some critics argue that farm land values are bumped up, making it difficult for 'genuine' farmers to expand or enter the market. Average English farmland values reached £22,500/ha (£9,100/acre) in the last three months of 2012. If you borrowed to buy at those sort of prices, you could not fund the lending out of farming.

There has been a fierce debate in Farmers Weekly about whether young farmers should be given a hand up the farming ladder if they are not going to inherit a farm. The general view seems to be against special subsidies, and indeed one would not want to create a new category of subsidy. Many would-be farmers have to settle for being a farm manager.

One argument in favour of some form of subsidy is the ageing farm population, which applies across Europe. However, the figures may be somewhat misleading as the nominal head of the farm may be semi-retired.

One challenge has been the reducing number of county council farms available for rent. For many farmers these relatively small farms served as the first, but sometimes the last, step on the road. Like many farms, they survived by the farmer's partner working. However, many county councils have been selling off these farms to realise the capital.

Farming is hard work and demands a wide range of skills. The returns are often little better, or even worse, than the minimum wage per hour worked (although not on arable farms in Lincolnshire). Of my two nephews from a Welsh hill farm, one has moved to Manchester where he pursues an urban lifestyle. The other works the farm with his father and evidently enjoys his way of life.