U.K. Farmers And The Common Market

Press, Volume C, Issue 29674, 18 November 1961, Page 7

U.K. Farmers And The Common Market

(By M. W. BPTTRRWICK in the "Guardian”!

r THE National Farmers’ x Union has declared its firm opposition to the common agricultural policy of the Common Market. It has continually given the impression that agriculture here will suffer if we go in. There has been talk of “selling agriculture down the river” and so forth. This han probably had an important effect on public opinion about the Common Market, because farmers are a generally popular section of the community and few people would wish to see them adversely affected. At the same time the N.F.U. lias stated that it supports a eonttmuation of the subsidy system of Government support for agriculture. Fallacious

This attitude of the N.F.U. has long surprised me. I believe its arguments are fallacious and the impression on public opinion misleading. For clarity's sake it is worth risking a 'little overeimplifica'tion. Aggregate farming net income will not fall if we go into the Common Market as presently constituted. It will almost certainly rise fairly significantly. According to Mr Colin Clark's estimate Commonwealth and British farmers’ incomes would between them rise by £145 millions. The details of the agricultural policy of the Common Market countries are still being worked out. The target prices for 1967 when the common agricultural policy comes fully into effect are not yet known. It is therefore impossible to be precise about future food prices in the Common Market. (Equally, of course, one cannot accurately predict the level of British food prices in -1967 under the present system). The best one can do is to compare present British farm-gate ' prices will those on the Continent and make suitable allowances for the declared objectives of the Rome Treaty, the forecasts of officials responsible for Its administration, the .political influence of agricultural interests, and so on. Prices On this basis one can conclude that there is every likelihood of cereal prices here being significantly higher than at present, and that beef, bacon and pork production will remain about as profitable as now. The returns from milk and eggs will probably be less; but here we are already selfsufficient and it is very likely the prices will anyway have to be reduced if over-produc-tion is to be avoided. Horticulture will have to become nrore specialised if it is to compete with the very efficient Continental producers. The second important fallacy in the NFU’s argument relates to the merits of the present system of agricultural support. There has been a lot of talk recently about maintaining the prosperity of British agriculture. In fact, farming here has not been all

that. prosperous recently compared with other activities. Aggregate farming net income has been almost stationary over the last 10 years or so, and with the cost of living rising farmers in the aggregate are now slightly worse off in real terms than they were at the beginning of the fifties. Without a change in the present method of agricultural support there is no real likelihood that this trend will be reversed. As things stand it could only be reversed by increasing the cost of support to the Exchequer. Agricultural grants and subsidies already cost about £3oom a year. The Minister of Agriculture has said since that Mr Solwyn Lloyd’s statement on July 25, “we dial! have to look critically at the level of agricultural support during the 1962 review,” should not necessarily be interpreted to mean that the maximum reduction permitted by the 1957 act would be made in 1962. But as some farming costs which have to be covered by the Exchequer are rising, it is hard to see how much progress can be made in reducing the total cost of support without a reduction close to the maximum. The outlook then for farming income under the present system of support is not at all bright. Britain’s entry into the C unmoo Market and the gradual change in agricultural support policy which this involves would therefore seem to be beneficial for British farming. Why then does the N.F.U. so strenuously oppose it? There appears to be two main reasons. First, if any farmers suffer from the Common Market it will be those with small farms who are very dependent on milk and egg production. Fortunately our farm structure is generally much more satisfactory than on the Continent

(particularly compared with Germany), but there are still some 50,000 small farmers whose economic future, whether we join the Common Market or not, is bound to be questionable. The N.F.U. in giving expression to their views should not ignore the striking fact that the number of farmers here, in spite of mechanisation, the reduction in the number of farm

labourers and the other aspects of the agricultural revolution, is almost exactly the same as it was in 1850. Secondly, the NFU must be worried about how it will be, able to make its views known effectively within the Common Market. The rather cosy relationship which it has established with successive Governments will to some extent be lost. It will have to become in effect a part of a European Farmers’ Union. Probably there will be difficulties over this change, and union officials may feel themselves to be less immediately influential. But for the industry they represent the change may well be beneficial. Farmers on the Continent are a more important minority of the population than here (over 20 per cent, compared with 5 per cent here). As such they constitute a group whose claim to a fair share in improving living standards cannot be ignored, even without the specific assurances that exist for them in the Rome Treaty. British farming is confronted with a period of change. It is to be hoped that the N.F.U. will develop a more positive policy to the common agricultural policy of the Common Market, and stop regarding it as a “threat to British farming.” The Common Market is a challenge and an opportunity to get away from the prospect of dwindling incomes. As the largest food importing country in the world we ought to be able to influence the Common Market countries to be more outward-looking in their agricultural policies and more aware of the world-wide problem of food supply and demand.