Animal welfare standards at risk after Brexit

Animal welfare standards are at risk after Brexit according to a report from the Food Research Collaboration at City University: Low standard imports

Macron is president of cities says French farm leader

Just as England's NFU has a woman leader for the first time, so does France's leading farm lobby, the FNSEA. Christiane Lambert, a 56-year old pig farmer, does not hold back in giving it large to President Macron. She says that his image is as a president of the cities who had no idea how farmers lived and worked.

She thinks that French farmers stand to lose €5bn over the next budgetary period if cuts in the CAP budget are confirmed. She thinks that Macron is dithering over the issue. Last year the number of farm bankruptcies in France rose by seven per cent.

More competitive countries such as Germany and the Netherlands have pushed down the prices of beef. dairy and pork products and gained market share abroad. Ms Lambert thinks that labour intensive farming activities have suffered from distorted competition from German producers who employ cheap labour from Bulgaria and Romania.

French farmers are resorting to their usual direct action tactics, planning to block 13 oil refineries tomorrow. The farmers are protesting against imports of palm oil to make biofuels.

Committee report criticises Defra

The House of Commons Defra Committee has produced a report in response to the Government's consultation on the future of agriculture: Report

It states, 'The evidence from a range of agricultural businesses indicates that their sectors will face significant impacts from the proposed withdrawal of Direct Payments. The level of impact will vary by sector as the economics of each are so different. There are likely to be particularly damaging effects on grazing livestock, cereal and mixed farms and the withdrawal of support and any subsequent closures of businesses could have wide reaching impacts on the rural economy and its communities. As in our Brexit: Trade in Food report, we were disappointed that these impacts have not been thoroughly assessed by Defra on a sector-by-sector basis, to then inform future agricultural policy.'

The report notes, 'The consultation paper lacks discussion of wider food policy and has failed to link agricultural policy to wider public health goals and reducing diet-related diseases. Healthy food makes a wider contribution to public health, which is in the public good and we recommend it should be supported as such under the new model of awarding payments to farmers.'

The future of agriculture

The Defra consultation on a future domestic agricultural policy received 44,000 responses, among them that from the Farmer-Scientist Network of the Yorkshire Agricultural Society which you can read here: Consultation response

I think that we submitted particularly strong sections on public goods, international trade and animal welfare.

Choices on food policy

The House of Lords European Committee has published a report on Brexit: Food Prices and Availability: Food Prices

The report finds: 'If an agreement [with the EU] cannot be negotiated, Brexit is likely to result in an average tariff on food imports of 22%. While this would not equate to a 22% increase in food prices for consumers, there can be no doubt that prices paid at the checkout would rise. To counteract this the Government could cut tariffs on all food imports, EU and non-EU, but this would pose a serious risk of undermining UK food producers who could not compete on price.'

'At least as significant as tariffs are the non-tariff barriers that may result from Brexit. The Government remains confident that it can secure an agreement that would allow ‘frictionless’ imports of food from the EU to continue, but it is unclear how that would be possible outside of the customs union. Any such agreement would be likely to require the UK to mirror all EU standards and regulations; a condition the UK Government may find politically difficult to accept.'

'If no agreement is reached, and food imports from the EU are subject to the same customs and border checks as non-EU imports, the UK does not have the staff, IT systems or physical infrastructure to meet that increased demand. Any resulting delays could choke the UK’s ports and threaten the availability of some food products for UK consumers. The Government’s proposed alternative is to allow EU imports through with no, or very few, checks: this raises safety concerns as well as questions over how customs charges would be processed.'

'As well as securing a deal with the EU that will allow continued tariff-free, frictionless imports of food, the Government must also secure agreements with the non-EU countries from which the UK currently imports food as part of EU trade agreements. 40 such agreements are currently in place, covering 56 countries and accounting for more than 11% of UK food imports. The Government’s belief that most can be simply and easily ‘rolled over’ is not shared by those who have given evidence to previous EU Committee inquiries.'

The report concludes, 'The Government should develop a comprehensive food security policy for the UK. A long-term view is needed on whether to prioritise food standards or food prices, whether to reverse the UK’s declining self-sufficiency or increase imports. Other factors should include workforce shortages, priorities for investment, and bigger, global issues such as the impact of climate change on food production worldwide.'

CAP budget to be cut by 5 per cent

The European Commission's proposals for the 2021-27 EU budget suggest a 5 per cent cut in CAP funding. (Some analysts think that the cut is actually bigger). Direct payments would be reduced by four per cent and Pillar 2 payments would take a fifteen per cent hit: Budget cut

Payments to farmers would be capped at €60,000. This is at the lower end of the €60,000-€100,000 spectrum suggested in the original communication on the CAP last autumn. The relatively low capping figure favoured by the Commission will reassure UK farmers concerned about being put at a competitive disadvantage by the reduction of direct payments after Brexit.

The Basic Payment Scheme will be renamed the 'Basic Income Support Scheme'. This is the first time the EU has explicitly identified area payments as being for the purpose of income support. It is an inefficient means of supporting income as the relationship between farm size and household income is far from straightforward.

Risks for food and drink sector from Brexit

A report from a House of Commons Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy highlights some of the risks that the processed food and drink sector faces after Brexit.

'The processed food and drink sector is the largest manufacturing sector in the UK and contributes £28.8 billion to the economy. Exports were worth £22 billion in 2017 and they continue to grow. The sector directly employs 400,000 people throughout the country, a third of whom are EU nationals. It is characterised by just-in-time delivery of products with short shelf lives and is heavily integrated with supply chains spread across the UK and the EU for sourcing raw materials, processing goods and selling them. Many manufacturers have factories in both the UK and the rest of the EU.

The success of the UK processed food and drink sector has been so far highly dependent on participation in the Single Market and Customs Union: free movement of goods and people have tipped the UK export balance towards an over reliance on the EU as a trading partner with 60 per cent of UK exports going to EU markets. 50 per cent of total UK food and drink exports go to five countries, four of which are EU member states.

It is crucial that the sector is able to remain competitive when we leave the European Union as failure to do so would not only impact businesses and workers but also consumers at the till point and the choice available to them in shopping aisles all year round.

The sector would undeniably suffer from reverting to WTO tariffs in the event of a ‘no deal’ scenario. The EU’s Most Favoured Nation tariffs under WTO rules would be disastrous for UK exports and must be avoided at all cost. It is unrealistic to expect that the sector will stop relying on the EU as its main export destination at least in the short term. Consequently, the negotiation of a free trade agreement with the EU should be the number one priority for the Government. Should the UK lower or remove its tariffs on imports in the future, the consequences for British farming could be extremely damaging and the positive impact on prices for goods to households is likely to be very limited.

UK competitiveness would also be adversely affected by any additional delays and bureaucracy encountered at the UK-EU border, given the prevalence of cross-border just-in-time supply chains in the sector. The Government should seek to secure as few additional impediments to trade between the UK and the EU as can be negotiated. Frictions at the border between Ireland and the UK are of particular concern as the sector is highly integrated across the two countries. A credible solution to avoiding a hard border must be found as soon as possible.

The EU regulatory regime in food and drink is also highly integrated, and the UK is a full member of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EU food regulation is associated with high safety and quality standards and already allows divergence. The majority of the evidence was in favour of remaining aligned with EU regulation as it is favourable to exports amongst other things but some opportunities from divergence were identified in a few sectors. Nevertheless, all were unanimous in rejecting any ‘race to the bottom’ as UK consumers would not tolerate any lowering of standards. Most stakeholders also supported the UK continuing its membership of EFSA after Brexit.'

The full report can be found here: Report

The future for agriculture

At last week's Agricultural Economics Society meeting, Jonathan Brooks of the OECD convened a panel on the links between agricultural market prospects and policy challenges at the global, European and UK levels.

At the global level, food prices increased sharply in 2007-8, sparking fears about food security as well as about the earth's capacity to produce enough food for a growing and increasingly wealthy population.

World population growth is slowing. The growth in consumption has halved over the last ten years and is not coming from per capita income growth with the exception of Africa. This pattern is different for dairy, sugar and vegetable oils. India is driving dairy demand. Cereal demand is driven by animal feed.

Since 2007-8, world agricultural markets have stabilised, with prices of most commodities well below the peaks of a decade ago. The return to lower prices has led to resurgent demands for agricultural protection, with several large emerging economies now adopting policies previously pursued by high income countries. PSE levels have increased in those countries.

Markets also remain vulnerable to periodic shocks, and many countries have sought to find ways of managing the risks such shocks pose to both producers and consumers, often via policies that may have a significant impact on world markets (such as public stockholding).

Over the next ten years, the demand for most agricultural commodities is projected to slow. This will provide relief to the supply side challenge of feeding a rising world population and provide greater room for policy makers to focus on the parallel requirements of using the world's resources sustainably and making an effective contribution to climate change mitigation.

One interesting point was that a small number of countries dominate the production of particular commodities which does lend some reinforcement to food security arguments. Russia and Ukraine are increasingly important in world grain trade, but could withdraw exports to protect domestic markets in conditions of tight supply.

What can we learn from New Zealand?

One of the most interesting panels I attended at the Society of Agricultural Economists conference at the University of Warwick was on what, if anything, we could learn from the reforms in New Zealand, often held up as an example of the benefits to be obtained from a radical eradication of subsidies. Interestingly, the position first taken in the discussion was that the experiences were so different in terms of geography, the prevalence of cooperatives, the timing and form of subsidies etc. that little could be learnt. However, as the discussion progressed, some lessons were extracted.

It is important to understand the context in which reforms took place. New Zealand was suffering from fixed exchange rates, the Think Big energy projects and high inflation, leading to a fiscal crisis. The subsidies were in place for a relatively short time and were also offered to manufacturing to offset the effects of a high exchange rate. Capitalisation into asset prices did not have the same impact as elsewhere.

For a long time New Zealand agriculture enjoyed preferential access to UK markets at guaranteed prices, but in the 1960s commodity prices fell. There were some really sad cases among farmers, but not that many went bankrupt. Because most farms were family farms, some use was made of unpaid labour.

New Zealand had first mover advantage with exports to China, but failed to follow through on that and let others capture market share. Hence, the first mover advantage was squandered.

New Zealand had 67.8m sheep in 1985 and 29.1m in 2015. The dairy herd has expanded, particularly on the Canterbury Plains, but this has led to concern about environmental impacts in terms of climate change and water pollution.

It was pointed out that the structure of cooperatives allowed the rapid transmission of intelligence from external markets to producers.

Some specific mitigation measures were provided. For example, although subsidies on interest payments were withdrawn, the actual payments were kept at the same level. There was also help with farm business plans.

The UK should aim for value added growth, but what sorts of policies did this imply? One approach might be to enhance the knowledge base.

Food, Brexit and Northern Ireland

Tim Lang and his colleagues have produced an important briefing paper on the issues that arise from Brexit for food in Northern Ireland: The critical issues

They argue, 'Food is central to the economy of Northern Ireland, and the continuing supply of safe, high quality, healthy food is currently dependent on the absence of border controls between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and the rest of the European Union. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of food criss-cross these borders every year. They are currently free from inspection because of shared, underpinning EU Single Market regulation. An unplanned or mishandled food border imposition is likely to have powerful, destabilising consequences for the integrated nature of food supply, trade and access within Northern Ireland for many years to come. It would raise important challenges for food safety, put jobs at risk, potentially constrain Northern Ireland’s access to health-supporting foods such as fruit and vegetables, and create opportunities for food fraud and crime.'

They rightly rule out technological fixes for which specific details have never been provided.

Devolution choices after Brexit

The Institute for Government has issued a report on relations with the devolved administrations after Brexit which focuses on agriculture as one of the areas in which key decisions will need to be made. Some of the main points are reproduced below. The report as a whole can be accessed at: Devolution after Brexit

In particular, how can funding be distributed? Option one would be to use the Barnett formula, which would give greater flexibility to the devolved administrations, but leave devolved budgets more vulnerable to UK government cuts.

Distributing this funding through the Barnett formula would mean that the future level of agricultural funding available for the devolved administrations would be tied to policy decisions made by the UK government. While the devolved administrations would gain greater day-to-day control over how their budget is spent, they would run the risk of their budgets being squeezed in the event the UK government chose to cut the English agriculture budget.

Option two: The UK could decide to create a ring-fenced agricultural support budget, which would be the least change to the current arrangement An alternative approach would be for the UK to establish a new agricultural support budget, protected and separated from the wider devolution budget settlement and ‘block grant’.

The initial distribution would likely reflect the current split through CAP and these levels would be maintained until 2022; reflecting Michael Gove’s commitment to match-fund agricultural support payments. After that, there would need to be an agreement on how the budget was agreed for future years.

The Barnett formula would be one option, but the creation of a new, separate budget is an opportunity to take a different approach. A new budget could allow the governments to create a new funding mechanism, taking into account some of the criticisms of Barnett. The budget could be negotiated periodically, formally and at a four-nation level, as part of the UK government’s spending review.

A ring-fenced agricultural budget for each nation would offer a greater guarantee to farmers in the devolved nations, with funding levels set for a specific period of time. It would protect them against money being reallocated to other policy priorities. A ring fenced budget would also make the UK rather than the devolved governments responsible for resolving the difficult trade-offs between agriculture and other policy areas. Ultimately, from the devolved administrations’ perspective, agreeing to this type of budget could be a missed opportunity for greater autonomy in spending decisions, preventing them from making their own decisions around policy priorities and funding.

An important first step will be reaching consensus on what the UK ‘internal market’ is, and where divergence becomes market distortion. Just as the EU’s single market contains provisions to ensure a ‘level playing field’, the UK Government and the devolved administrations will need to consider what a UK level playing field should look like.

Back to 1947?

Today I attended a Defra consultation meeting on the agriculture and food green paper in Harrogate. There was a good attendance of over eighty people,including a large contingent of farmers.

Defra personnel insisted that 'nothing was set in stone', but they also said that the secretary of state had set a very clear direction of travel.

The clear view of farmers in the direct payments breakout session was that they wanted an across the board reduction in support, i.e., no capping.

There did seem to be a hankering for the world of the 1947 Agriculture Act. In particular, deficiency payments were mentioned. However, the Treasury would never endorse them as the spend is so variable.

I am not convinced that all the money saved by capping will be transferred to new farm schemes. Many of these schemes may not be accessible to all farmers, so the idea that any money lost in direct payments will be compensated elsewhere is optimistic.

It was argued that the figures that showed a high level of dependency in support payments were too optimistic, i.e., the level of reliance was even greater.

It was evident in a discussion on knowledge transfer that many farmers were benefiting from small self-help groups where they could see new methods tried out in practice. However, it was probably the more efficient farmers that were making use of these arrangements.

Above all, a great deal of uncertainty prevailed given that we do not know the shape of any trade deal with the EU and third countries.

Fruit and vegetable production should get post Brexit boost

The Landworkers' Alliance has issued a report arguing that fruit and vegetable production should be boosted after Brexit: New deal for horticulture

It argues that directing more of the budget towards fruit and vegetables will deliver much of what Mr Gove wants in terms of health and sustainability.

However, it is already difficult to secure labour to pick such crops. Google searches by Romanian, Bulgarian and Polish citizens looking for agricultural jobs in the UK dropped by 34 per cent in the past year, according to a study by GK Strategy and OneFourZero.

The fall in interest from overseas has not been matched by an increase in searches from UK workers for UK farm jobs. Bulgaria saw the largest drop, with 2,000 fewer searches for UK jobs in January 2017 compared with the same time the year before.

The two companies said Google search data was a good early indicator of changing behaviour patterns because people increasingly looked online for job vacancies.

The UK agricultural sector already has a 29 per cent shortfall in seasonal workers. The Government has so far failed to introduce any kind of special scheme.

RPSCA calls for two tier animal welfare support after Brexit

The RSPCA has published a report Into the Fold discussing how animal welfare could be supported as a public good justifying taxpayer support. It suggests a two tier system that limits support to those who go 'above and beyond' the minimum in animal welfare: RSPCA proposals

The RSPCA argues that producers should not be rewarded for 'business as usual' or for being legally compliant. Tier one would be a transitional payment awarded to producers for things such as improving buildings, better stocksmanship or to compensate for higher running costs.

Tier two payments would be awarded to members of a higher welfare assurance scheme, such as RSPCA Assured, covering the whole life of the animal.

The report gives some examples of payments that could be made to farmers and how much they would cost. For example, allowing all pigs access to straw might cost £70 a weaner and would amount to £20m if 25 per cent of the national herd not currently weaned on straw were to take up the support.

Implementing a veterinary plan to cut lameness in sheep might cost £10 a ewe, giving a total bill of £89m annually based on a 25 per cent uptake of flocks not currently covered by RSPCA standards.

These are quite substantial sums given the amount that would be released by 'capping' payments to larger farms and the fact that there will be other claims on that money.

Defra to get big staff boost

Defra gets the second largest additional sum of any department (after the Home Office) to prepare for Brexit, an additional £310m. About 80 per cent of its work is affected by Brexit, given that its main task in the past was to seek to influence EU policy and implement directives It needs to develop new systems for agricultural policy, fisheries management and environmental protection. In particular it needs to develop the Government's rather vague green paper on food and farming into a set of viable policy instruments.

Staff will be boosted by 65 per cent. Of course, in the interim, many experienced staff have been lost. Under New Labour I had a period of secondment with the animal welfare team, and I was impressed by the way they integrated veterinary expertise with more generalist skills. But, like the rest of Defra, they were subsequently hollowed out.

Stakeholders such as the NFU will be giving evidence to the House of Commons Defra committee about the department this morning. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say. The initial discussion seems to be about farm policy rather than Defra's capabilities, but I will watch some more later.

The grass isn't always greener in New Zealand

As Brexiteers point to the sunlit uplands, they draw attention to the way in which New Zealand agriculture has flourished since the withdrawal of subsidies. A number of caveats are necessary. The original measures were accompanied by a devaluation of the New Zealand dollar and an end to restrictive practices in ports. Even so, some farmers did take a big hit and went out of business.

What strikes me today about the New Zealand economy today is how dependant it is on exports of dairy products and in turn how important the Chinese market is. Admittedly, the share of dairy products in exports peaked a couple of years ago at 35 per cent and has dropped to just under 30 per cent, but that is still a heavy reliance on one set of products. New Zealand does, of course, have an ideal climate for dairying, although there are environmental concerns about levels of water abstraction for irrigation and the pollution resulting from intensive dairy farming: Green image threatened .

The co-operative Fonterra is New Zealand's largest company and the world's biggest dairy exporter. It supplies almost a quarter of New Zealand's exports. China is its biggest customer, consuming a quarter of the milk produced by Fonterra farms.

It will be recalled that in 2008 Sanlu, in which Fonterra held a 45 per cent stake, was involved in a scandal involving infant feeding power which led to the deaths of six babies and left tens of thousands and others in hospital. The Chinese authorities did not hold back and executed two of those involved and jailed others. The scandal helped overseas companies dominate China's powdered milk market. Foreign brands account for about three quarters of powdered milk sales in China - worth $19.7bn a year.

Now Fonterra has lost out in a different way through its minority stake in Chinese infant formula manufacturer Beingmate. It has lost 70 per cent of its market value in three years and has made losses in the last two years, $152.5m in the year ending December 2017. There have been problems with pricing after a clamp down on price fixing, the distribution network and the discovery of counterfeit powder by the Shanghai police which hit revenues.

Farmer members of Fonterra are getting increasingly concerned and urging the co-operative to drop the investment.

A shortage of experts

The Sunday Express once named me as one of the five hundred most influential people in Britain because I was the only person who understood the Common Agricultural Policy. This was wrong on two counts. First, I have never fully understood the CAP: I am always making new discoveries about its complexities.

Second, there are a dozen or so academics in Britain who understand the CAP better than I do from the disciplines of economics (Alan Swinbank, Alan Matthews), law (Michael Cardwell) and political science (Alan Greer). Conspiracy theorists may wish to note that three of them are called Alan: is this a derivation of 'alien'?

Sometimes the media contact me on the assumption that as I know something about the CAP, I must understand the Common Fisheries Policy as well. It is a mystery to me. I know that we have had enough of experts, but the one academic expert on the CFP that I knew has long since retired. I am aware that there are some conflicts about fishing stocks between marine biologists and fisher folk. The best short account I can find of the CFP is here: Senior European Exp**ts

What is clear is that fishermen (they are mostly male) do follow a very dangerous and demanding occupation and live in tight knit communities. They have been vociferous in their criticisms of the CFP and bringing it to an end is one of the core demands of Brexiteers who see it as an affront to British sovereignty and an area where we need to take back control.

The fact that the EU now appears to be using the CFP as a bargaining chip in the negotiation is potentially politically explosive. Continued access for EU fishing vessels to UK territorial waters in accordance with existing fishing rights is being advanced as a trade off against tariffs on agricultural products and, more importantly processed food and drink products to the EU.

But we should remember that this is a negotiation. Each side is going to push its own interests and perspectives, but ultimately there is a mutual interest in finding common ground. Hopefully.

'Flexitarians' are the real challenge

In the latest Farmers Weekly a 'Cotswold farmer' argues that the vegan movement can be defeated by a lack of publicity. 'I would suggest that we as farmers stop trying to justify our industry and ignore the vegan militia. The press will become disinterested with no televised arguments or public squabbles, and the issue will fade from the public eye.'

I think that the issue is more fundamental as it involves moral or lifestyle choices, changing conceptions of personal identity and what constitutes a well lived life. That moral choice is in my view undermined if people are pressured to eat only particular types of food, rather than making a choice based on an assessment of the issues.

The number of vegans (people who consume no animal products, including dairy or eggs, has trebled in the last decade according to the Vegan Society but still only make up about one per cent of the population). About five per cent of people are vegetarian, but 55 per cent of meal alternatives are eaten by non-vegetarians. I prepare vegetarian food for vegetarian friends or a vegan picnic for a vegan friend.

The AHDB states that 'flexitarianism' is a bigger issue than vegans or vegetarians. 'There are more people looking to limit the amount of meat they eat.' They are concerned about health issues and the contribution of livestock farming to climate change. There is an effort to go without meat on at least one day a week (which, of course, used to be Catholic practice). Concern about animal welfare is also on the rise, particularly among younger people.

The decline in per capita meat consumption has been masked by population growth. But there should be more marketing opportunities for fruit, vegetables and pulses - if farmers can get the staff to harvest them.

NGOs seek full ban on neonics

Please note that the following is a press release from Pesticides Action Network Europe:

'The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published today [28 February] 3 reports on the new scientific findings on the toxicity of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin (neonicotinoids) to bees. The Authority highlights that most studies show that neonicotinoids have a negative impact on bees’ health, from damaging their orientation capacity to impairing their reproductive ability. On 24 March, the European Member States will have the possibility to vote for a ban on neonicotinoids; hopefully these reports will contribute to a total ban.

In the frame of the restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids in 2013, the European Commission committed to initiate a review of the ban within 2 years. The EFSA was given a mandate to collect all available scientific evidence on the toxicity of neonicotinoids on bees. The data were then analyzed by the Authority and today, it has published an opinion on imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin.

The Authority concludes that the majority of the studies show a negative impact to honey bees, bumble bees or wild bees. Furthermore, the Authority points at the high level of contamination of the environment as the majority of the studies could not be included in the opinions as their controls were contaminated with neonics.

Based on a November 2016 report from the EFSA, the European Commission has made a proposal to Member States to ban neonicotinoids except for glasshouses. The report at the time indicated that, based on new industry data, there was no safe use of the 3 substances. The proposal was nevertheless not put to a vote in the Standing Committee on phytopharmaceuticals as several Member States asked to wait for the publication of today’s report.

Martin Dermine, PAN Europe’s pollinators expert said: "In 2013, there was enough evidence to totally ban neonicotinoids. In the meantime, an impressive amount of additional evidence has been piling up over the last years and the EFSA reports are a small glimpse of such evidence as the EFSA limited its study to bees and to the evidence available until June 2016. EU pollinators are facing a dramatic decline and neonics have now clearly been shown to be one of the major causes. Member States have no choice but to ban neonicotinoids".

As a member of the Save The Bees Coalition, PAN Europe will be advocating, together with nearly 100 NGOs across Europe, to finally obtain a full ban on neonicotinoids.'

I do not have any reaction from farm organisations at present.

Gove goes for low hanging fruit

The briefing surrounding today's consultation paper on domestic agricultural policy has made it clear that direct payments will be reduced to bigger farms to free up money for other purposes. The paper sets out various ways in which this might be done which then form the basis of consultation questions. At this stage I don't want to get bogged down in the detail, but instead consider the principle.

There is no doubt this will be politically popular. Why should wealthy individuals be subsidised to farm? My sense is that most of the public have rather a sentimental view of agriculture made up of small farms. Another issue here is the vegan campaign run on social media in January. I think this was rather effective and has rattled livestock farmers who often failed to respond very effectively. But that is another story.

I also think that one of the issues here is that tax breaks encourage individuals to buy farms and farmland for tax avoidance reasons. This is a complex subject, as one does not want a tax structure that inhibits succession.

What is interesting is that the issue of competitiveness has dropped off the agenda to some extent. It appears in a form in debates over poor productivity, but they are not a central focus in the way that public goods are. Competitiveness is mentioned nine times in the document, for example in relation to the opportunities offered by new technology, and productivity forty times.

Large scale grain farmers in Northern France and Northern Germany will continue to receive CAP subsidies, albeit somewhat reduced because of the loss of the UK contribution. To over simplify, the international grain market is driven by supply and demand considerations, but price is clearly a factor. The UK needs to be very careful not to use pesticides prohibited in the EU or they may find their exports of grain blocked.

I think there is a better clarity/hierarchy of objectives in the Government's thinking that one found in the CAP. I am not against caps on subsidies. But I do think we need to be aware of the consequences.