David Richardson

MOST FARMERS resent the disclosure of what they perceive as private business to public scrutiny. Celebrities spend fortunes trying to protect their privacy. Wealthy individuals erect fences around their properties to prevent snoopers.

Both groups become upset when they fail because confidentiality is not respected and scandal sells newspapers. Farmers have felt themselves in a similar situation and experienced the same emotions as IACS payments were made public last week in response to the Freedom of Information Act that came into force on Jan 1.

 six figures

 It is difficult to escape the suspicion that the disclosure had a political purpose – that it was convenient for the government to let it be known a few big farmers and other businesses receive sums that run to six figures. To the ordinary person such sums, which, it is implied, enrich the undeserving, seem obscene.

 They have no idea of the economics of farming, nor the costs of maintaining the countryside.

 Meanwhile, the entire farming industry feels guilty for accepting subsidies that taxpayers have been forced to contribute to the Exchequer. And the next time aid is cut the public applauds even louder.

All of which raises a number of issues. First, should the payments have remained confidential between the RPA and individual farmers? Most of us would rather that were the case, for reasons already discussed. But we have to accept it is public money and under different circumstances, in other words if members of another profession were paid large sums by the Treasury, we might insist on knowing the details.

 That”s the kind of society we live in these days. Everyone thinks they should know everything, whether it does them any good or not. So, trying to get such information suppressed was always going to be a waste of time.

More important, should farmers feel guilty at receiving aid?

Absolutely not. In my view, instead of trying to prevent disclosure, the industry should have mounted a campaign before the figures were released, to explain that while payments are, for convenience, made to farmers, they are for the benefit of consumers.

In 1947, when subsidies were introduced, they were to help hold down the price of food. In the 1970s, when Britain joined the EEC, intervention payments were to help provide food security for the member states. In neither of those cases did the aid do a perfect job. But that was the fault of the politicians who administered them, not the farmers who received them.

changing priorities

 Today, priorities have changed. The EU does not want farmers to produce the quantities of food they have delivered in the past. Instead, we are required to produce a better environment for ourselves and for wildlife. To pay for it we will receive single farm payments whether we produce food or not. Once again, the scheme is designed to benefit the public whose taxes will pay for it. Do you suppose 1.8% of the population of Britain that works on farms could have persuaded the other 98.2% to part with their cash if that were not so?

So, we will fulfil our obligations of cross-compliance, we will collect our points to qualify for the Entry Level Scheme, and we will do what taxpayers want – as interpreted by the government. In return, we will receive reducing amounts of money each year from Brussels and Whitehall. It is a business transaction like any other and there is no need for feelings of guilt.

If any taxpayer questions the validity of or the need for such payments to farmers they should be reminded that virtually every country in the world subsidises its farmers. Some do it with money, some by turning a blind eye to regulations, some by allowing farmers to exploit both labour and environment.

 And those who allege food prices are too high need to be reminded that the share of profit through the food chain is unequally divided.

Many farmers, even after their aid cheques, are lucky if they make a profit at all. Most processors are doing rather better.

 But the top retailers are making huge margins at the expense of those below them in the chain. Meanwhile, the average proportion of household income spent on food consumed at home is just 9%.