Andrea Leadsom is new Defra secretary

Andrea Leadsom, formerly a junior minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, is the new Defra secretary of state. A Warwick University politics graduate, she stood down from the leadership race against Theresa May after her performance in the referendum debates had raised her profile.

She faces a challenging task. Brexit has important implications for the agriculture and food sector. Food processing is one of the country's most important industries and is particularly significant in the North of England. (The writer should declare that he is a substantial shareholder in Cranswick plc, the Hull-based food processor which is a FTSE 250 company).

One of the challenges is that Defra has been hollowed out as a department. Does it have the capacity and the resources to ensure that agriculture and food is taken sufficiently seriously by the new 'Brexit' department (we await its official title) headed by another Warwick graduate, David Davis?

What NFU chief is thinking

It was interesting to hear Meurig Raymond talking at the Great Yorkshire Show. The NFU is, of course, going through a big consultation exercise with its members, but it was possible to see some of his thinking.

The balance of payments argument was used extensively in the 1960s as a justification for subsidies to farmers and with the trade deficit at not far off 7 per cent of GDP, it seems that this is to be used again. Of course, much of the deterioration is due to falls in repatriated investment income. The balance of trade in goods, although in deficit, is broadly stable.

It was interesting that he said it was not necessary to match the current sum paid by the CAP to the UK, but this may just be an acceptance of reality.

He was clearly aware of how relatively well Pillar 2 type payments are viewed, but said these should be more oriented to promoting competitiveness on the farm.

He noted that farmers found it difficult to influence the UK Government, noting the recent decision to turn down a revised and reduced application for the use of neonics. Denmark had permitted 100 per cent use.

In reply to a question, he made it clear that the scope for coalition building with NGOs was limited. The focus would be on the NFU's own members.

Farwell, then, Liz Truss

Liz Truss has been appointed as Justice Secretary to replace Michael Gove, effectively a promotion. It shows how far Defra has fallen down the departmental rankings. Liz was at the Great Yorkshire Show yesterday and met with NFU president Meurig Raymond. NFU types were hoping that the existing team would stay in place.

Who now for the poisoned chalice?

What I told farmers at the GYS

With Meurig Raymond at the Great Yorkshire Show

Here is the text of my address at the NFU breakfast meeting.

Harold Wilson used to say a week in politics was a long time. We have recently learnt than an hour in politics is a long time. Fortunately, we are now entering a period of greater stability as far as the Government is concerned. We have to wait to see who will be Defra secretary. I would expect Theresa May to approach the start of the Article 50 negotiations with some caution. Little preparatory work was undertaken by government, or at least little that was committed to paper. I think that our YAS report is actually quite helpful in terms of highlighting the issues that need to be considered.

Brussels is on holiday in August. Of course, too long a delay could lead to Article 7 being triggered. This invokes sanctions against an EU member for ‘failing to uphold the values on which the Union is based.’ However, I do not think that would be a very likely scenario.

How long the negotiations will take is a matter for speculation. They have to be completed in two years, but could be completed in less. France has a presidential election in April and May 2017, where the outcome is uncertain, and Germany has a federal election in September 2017. France is trying to carve out a leading role for itself in the negotiations and has set up its own task force led by their secretary-general for European affairs.

A few words about the negotiation process. The role of the European Council in the negotiations is to set the guidelines and key conditions while Commission staff will make concrete recommendations. The Council task force on the UK is headed by Belgian diplomat Didier Seeuws. There was some feeling in the Commission that he had been appointed too early. President Juncker’s chief of staff Martin Selymar is expected to be the Commission’s lead, at least unofficially.

The European Parliament won’t be directly involved in the negotiations, but will try to make itself felt before it carries out its official role, ratifying the final agreement. The Commission is likely to issue progress reports on the talks and the Parliament will vote on non-binding resolutions on them. One of our objectives with our report was to try and get greater attention given to agriculture and the food chain in the referendum debate. We were not very successful and I am concerned that this will happen again in the Article 50 negotiations.

The work of the YAS working party will continue and will have two main tasks:

• 1. Monitoring the negotiations in terms of their impact on agriculture
• 2. Contributing to the debate on a new domestic agricultural policy. That will be a policy for England as agriculture is a devolved matter. Up to now the constraints of the CAP have limited the scope for policy divergence. In future I would expect Scotland and Northern Ireland to spend more on agriculture and the rural economy, although budget constraints limit the scope of such divergence. I am less certain about Wales.

I have been asked to be positive today and I will try to be so, but it has to be recognised that farmers face political challenges and no longer have the support of farmers elsewhere in Europe. ‘Time to cut our greedy farmers down to size’ says this article in last Saturday’s Times. It is a very ill informed article and I have criticised it in my blog. The only good point in it is when it says that the NFU is a well organised lobby. But we can expect more of this sort of thing.

Before looking at various areas of policy, I want to say something about sterling. A falling rate against the dollar and the euro brings many advantages to farmers, but also some downsides. Exports become more competitive and the value of EU subsidies rises, but the cost of inputs such as fertilisers and soya increases. Fuel prices also increase, which is why the future of red diesel is something that needs to be watched.

The future of subsidies is clearly a matter for concern as for many enterprises they make the difference between running at a profit and a loss. Pillar 2 subsidies are in many cases protected by contracts that run beyond 2020, but we were also confident in our report that there was a strong domestic coalition of support for the continuation of agri-environmental subsidies, but hopefully putting right some of the failings in the existing scheme. There needs to be some discussion about whether subsidies should move up the hill to livestock farms.

We were much less confident about Pillar 1 or basic payment subsidies. We didn’t think they would be abolished, but we did think they would be a target for the Treasury. It has to be recognised that falls in tax revenue, some of which may be longer term, will put public expenditure under greater pressure, even though the budget surplus target has been rightly abandoned.

Inertia would suggest that a modified form of the basic payment would be used, hopefully with fewer form filling complexities and payments being made to farmers on time. I am clear that there will be no return to the deficiency payments that were used in the past because it is difficult to forecast how much they will cost in any one year.

The justification for general subsidies (or support payements) needs to be articulated. In my view the strongest argument is the need to maintain a level playing field with farmers elsewhere in Europe that will continue to receive CAP subsidies. There are also food security arguments given that our ability to grow temperate foodstuffs has declined over time. One also needs to consider environmental protection and the maintenance of the appearance of the countryside.

As far as regulation is concerned, hopefully we will see the back of the monoculture regulations that interfered in farm decision-making without making any contribution to environmental objectives. I think that it should be possible to eventually get rid of the Nitrates Directive in its present form and some aspects of the Water Framework Directive.

It does need to be recognised, however, that there is a strong coalition of domestic lobbies - environmental, conservation, animal welfare, consumer, public health – that often do not have a good understanding of the challenges that face farmers.

Take the case of badgers and bovine TB which I have written about a lot, indeed I am giving a presentation at the vet school at Surrey University next week. In forty years of working on agricultural policy, I have never encountered such an intractable policy problem in which emotion often trumps the evidence.

Plant protection legislation has not worked well in the EU. The internal market is not complete. Many of the national agencies suffer from very serious problems. There is too great a willingness to accept hypotheses about risk which are not evidence based. However, the UK Government is not necessarily sympathetic, as has been shown by the recent decision to reject a revised application to use neonics this autumn. It won’t be too easy to operate a pesticides regime in the UK that is at odds with that in the EU.

Trade agreements between the EU third countries or groups of countries, of which there are over fifty, provide one of the greatest challenges, although my guess would be that probably only fifteen of these are really important for agriculture. Trade negotiations are very complex and we lack enough experienced trade diplomats, although I believe that the Government is thinking of hiring them in from private firms, which will not be cheap.

There is a major issue about migrant labour which is particularly important in terms of planting and harvesting field vegetables and fruit. I don’t have time to go into this in detail, but in my view the way forward is through a revised version of the SAWS scheme that extends to specific countries beyond the EU. As far as the border with Ireland is concerned, I think that the most likely solution is to move it back to England.

The NFU is undertaking a major consultation with its members, probably one of the biggest it has ever undertaken. I await the results of that with interest, but in the meantime the work of our working party will continue.

Sources close to the NFU suggested to me later in the day that the biggest challenge would be managing the expectations of farmers.

'Time to cut our greedy farmers down to size?'

I am required to be positive when I address the Future Farmers of Yorkshire on Wednesday at the Great Yorkshire Show and I will do my best. When I was going round talking to farmers before the referendum, many of them were confident that there would be plenty of money to carry on paying subsidies at much the same level, presumably from the alleged £350m a week that was going to the EU, and was in any case spent many times over.

The smarter farmers realised that there were a lot of political forces ranged against them and they would no longer have political back up from farmers elsewhere in the EU.

An opening shot was fired in The Times yesterday with an article by Emma Duncan, who is apparently the editor of 1843 magazine. She starts with a good joke about the recent headline on the NFU website, 'Brexit may not be beneficial to UK farmers' which reminded her of Emperor Hirohito's surrender statement in 1945, 'The war has not necessarily developed to Japan's advantage.'

She starts with a critique of the amount spent on the CAP as a proportion of EU spending and levels of tariff protection. Both in my view are higher than can be readily justified.

So far, so good. But then she apparently wants to remove all of this and 'let our farmers compete in world markets just like our manufacturers'. The problem is that most other countries subsidise and/or protect their farmers. The clear exception is New Zealand which has a very favourable climate for farming. Australia is not as clear a case as it appears as drought payments (no doubt justified) have been used as a less transparent form of payment to farmers.

If we cut subsidies, she says that food prices will fall (not necessarily if there is a sharp fall in domestic production). Land prices will fall and more will be released for housing (do we want the better quality land to be used in this way?) Some land will return to wilderness which will be a good thing (scrub and bracken is not good to look at and not good for biodiversity). The only losers will be the farmers, although she thinks that one problem is the strength of the NFU as a lobby.

Farmers do need to develop an evidence based case for support, and also about whether subsidies should be redeployed. Remember that we will now have an English agricultural policy as farming is a devolved matter which has hitherto constrained by CAP. I would expect the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to be willing to pay more to support agriculture and rural areas (the Welsh case is less clear).

What we do need is a debate that is based on policy objectives and identifying the best means of pursuing them.

Is there a migrant labour crisis?

I had to do a pre-record for ITV Yorkshire about the potential migrant labour crisis in agriculture, more specifically in field vegetables and horticulture (there are also many Fillipinos working in the dairy industry).

I think there is a potential crisis, indeed some signs of strain are already emerging, but there is also a potential partial solution.

The pound is 13 per cent weaker against the Polish zloty since January and salaries are rising there. Polish shipping agents are reporting increased business.

The solution would be to restore a version of the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS), but to extend it outside the EU. As far as I am aware, this could be limited to specific countries.

A SAWS type scheme does impose additional administrative costs compared with the free movement of labour. There is also some risk of those on temporary work permits disappearing into the illegal labour market.

However, the alternative scenario is a reduction in the quantity of fruit and field vegetables grown in the UK, reducing even further the percentage of temperate foodstuffs we can supply ourselves. Prices would be pushed up, as imported fruit and vegetables are generally moe expensive, especially if sterling is weak.

Looking to a positive future

The emphasis will be on the positive aspects of Brexit when I join Meurig Raymond, president of the National Farmers Union for a breakfast presentation at the Great Yorkshire Show next Wednesday: Looking to the future

As I have said before, we need to have a debate about the objectives and mechanisms of what will be an Englsh agricultural policy given that agriculture is a devolved matter hitherto constrained by the CAP.

Brexit and food security

Tim Lang from City University raises food security concerns in an article on Brexit: Feeding ourselves

Lang argues: 'If the UK really does want “independence” and to “take back control”, we might like to think about how our current food system, according to an Aberdeen University study this year, has 70% of its cropland located abroad, with 64% of its climate change impacts there too. Others feed us here and pollute there on our behalf.'

'UK self-sufficiency has been inexorably dropping from the high point that EU membership took it to in the early 1980s. Then it was more than 80%. Now it is down to 61% according to Defra’s statistics.'

'The UK imports 30% of what we eat from the EU. A huge amount of that is the good stuff for health: fruit and veg. We export whisky, biscuits, fat and meat. History suggests that a country which only just feeds itself is in a potentially fragile state. Just-in-time logistics means supermarkets operate on about three to five days’ stocks.'

NFU looks to the future

The National Farmers Union has sought assurances that existing EU schemes for British farmers can remain open until 2020: Reassurance sought

However, they also think there will be an opportunity to build a new domestic agricultural policy that is more adapted to national needs. Plant protection regulations are clearly one area of concern.

Along with NFU president Meurig Raymond, I will be addressing a breakfast meeting on the consequences of Brexit organised by the Future Farmers of Yorkshire at the Great Yorkshire Show on 13 July.

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.

What would Brexit mean for British farms?

My last contribution to the referendum debate: Brexit and British farms

It has already been condemned by one commentator as a piece of agit prop, but we think that our report represented an honest appraisal of the evidence and that it is difficult to see clear gains for British agriculture from Brexit.

If there is a Brexit decision, hopefully we will have a thorough debate about the objectives of a domestic agricultural policy and the policy instruments that can best achieve them, but the pressure of events will probably dictate otherwise.

Consequences of Brexit for UK agriculture

This article summarises a contribution I made to a recent edition of EuroChoices on the consequences of Brexit for UK agriculture, along with summaries of contributions by Alan Matthews and Alan Swinbank: Brexit uncertainties

The need for a Common Sustainable Food Policy

An authoritative and informative survey of the CAP by Alison Bailey, Tim Lang and Victoria Shoen concludes with a call for change and the formulation of a Common Sustainable Food Policy: Common Food Policy

Whatever else the referendum debate has done, it has stimulated some excellent work on the future direction of policy.

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.

Is CAP beneficial for UK?

Alan Greer of the University of the West of England has written a particularly good contribution to the referendum debate in relation to agriculture for the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Agriculture, Food and Rural Policy. He covers a lot of ground in a relatively short space.

He notes that there is at least consensus about what the key issues are. Much of the debate reflects disagreement about whether or not the CAP is beneficial to the UK.

Looking at the views of the farmers, he says that the evidence is contradictory. However, the Farmers Weekly poll he refers to was based on self-selection rather than a sample. Supporters of Brexit are more likely to respond. I would place more reliance on the NFU poll.

Single market is key for agriculture

The importance of the single market to agriculture was emphasised by Martin Haworth, deputy director-general of the NFU, in a presentation earlier today at a conference in London organised by the UK in a Changing Europe programme. Subsidies to farmers were not the most important issue. 65 to 70 per cent of agricultural exports from the UK went to Europe and there was no other alternative. He also noted that the EU had over fifty trade agreements with third countries.

The uncertainty inherent in the Article 50 process was of itself damaging and the CBI had estimated that it could lead to a fall in GDP of 0.75 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

UK agriculture required 20,000 - 25,000 seasonal workers and there were another 35,000 full-time EU workers in agriculture. Analysis by Oxford University of the effects of a point system showed that 96 per cent of the workers would not get through.

Governments of other EU member states showed more sympathy with agriculture. Britain was a more urban society than most of the rest of Europe. He noted, 'I get much more access, interest and sympathy in Brussels.'

Farming formed part of a food chain and virtually the whole chain was in favour of staying in the EU. Food manufacturers would have to consider relocating in the event of Brexit. The catering industry was highly dependent on migrant labour.

He had not heard a credible argument on agriculture that suggested we would be better off leaving.

Responding to questions he said that the Ciolos reform had not offered a strategic vision of agriculture, but was a tactical attempt to green the CAP to attract more support. The division between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 had been blurred.

Britain in the EU had been sullen and budget obsessed and had never punched with the weight we should have done.

Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, said that going around the country food issues had been raised relatively rarely. However, she occasionally heard the demand 'We must take control of our fish' which created the vision of a fish swimming round with a passport tucked under its fin. We now had a reasonably sustainable fisheries policy that took account of the biological capacity of the ocean. The fact that we had been able to reform the CFP raised hopes for the reform of the CAP.

What is very clear is that fishers want to get out of the EU, in contrast to the more divided views of farmers: Fishermen and the EU

As for the referendum debate, it had degenerated into a Tory leadership contest masquerading as a EU referendum debate.

Big data could be the next big thing

'Big data' could foster the next wave of agricultural innovation, but there are some impediments that arise from the nature of the industry. Developing low cost measurement capabilities is key: Innovation

What is the Common Agricultural Policy?

CAP expert Robert Ackrill (there aren't many of us) explains in a very useful review: What is the CAP?

No bonfire of controls

Here are some extracts from a presentation I made at a conference at the British Academy on 'The EU and the UK: the Wrong Kind of Regulation?

Farmers find the most negative aspect of the European Union to be what they perceive as the excessive burden of regulation. There is particular complaint about the ‘gold plating’ of EU regulations in the UK, adding to what is required by the EU, although when farmers and their representatives are asked to come up with examples they can usually produce very few and some of those are trivial.

There is no doubt that regulations impose transaction costs on farmers, taking them away from the activity of farming. My brother-in-law is a sheep farmer and I have seen the paperwork associated with the movement of his animals. However, regulations are there for a reason and those farmers who anticipate a bonfire of controls if there was a Brexit would probably be disappointed. There are four main drivers of the regulation of agriculture and food:

• The protection of human health
• The protection of animal health and welfare
• The protection of the environment
• The protection of the consumer

It is worth noting that the UK has been in the forefront of pushing the EU’s smart regulation agenda which emphasises:

The need to take impact assessments for significant proposals

The desirability of seeking alternatives to legislation

The need to evaluate current legislation, so-called fitness checks

The importance of consulting on proposed regulations

Another defining characteristic of UK policy has been that risk management should be based on robust science and evidence. This has led it at times to question risk management decision as being unduly risk averse leading to disproportionate legislation, for example in relation to plant protection about which I will say more later.

Farmers receive substantial subsidies from the EU. The payment of these subsidies by the Rural Payments Agency is often badly delayed with consequences for farmers’ cash flow. This is partly the responsibility of the agency, but it also reflects the complexity of the regulations and the difficulty of applying them. Simplification of CAP rules has been objective of the EU for some time, but progress has been slow. In part, this reflects the fact that the regulations are the result of an often messy compromise between different interests.

The EU has effectively prevented the commercial use of genetically modified crops. However, whether this represents the right or wrong kind of regulation depends on where you stand on this controversial issue. Regulatory issues are not just questions of burden reduction but also of political judgment.

As far as food regulation is concerned, the emphasis has been on free movement and food safety. It has been argued that the regulations are safe and comfortable and not that useful. In particular, there has been a relative neglect of nutritional issues which are important in relation to obesity. However, that in turn reflects defects in the scope of the Common Agricultural Policy. Good policy instruments in the form of regulations rely on well thought out and comprehensive policy objectives.

David Baldock of the IEEP, also on the panel, and I agreed that the main areas in which regulations might be relaxed after Brexit were GM crops, the Nitrates Directive and some aspects of the Water Framework Directive.

Food culture and Brexit

The March meeting of the Food Ethics Council Business Forum considered the consequences of Britain remaining in or leaving the EU for food and agriculture and have now produced a concise report on the meeting: Business Forum

An interesting point is how the UK's food culture has strengthened since the country joined the EU. How much this is to do with the EU and how much due to other factors such as more sophisticated and informed consumers is a moot point, although the report argues that European food culture has had a beneficial effect which might be lost after Brexit.

In addition, Dan Crossley gives his reflections on various events on the subject (one of which I participated in) organized by the Food Ethics Council: Enough time to decide?