DAVID RICHARDSON
DAVID RICHARDSON
Politicians could learn a
great deal about
farming history – from
Ancient Egyptian times
right up to World War II
LAST weeks Crops conference at Chilford Hall, near Cambridge, was one of the best I have attended. It didnt solve the economic problems of arable farmers. It was never likely to do that. But it did discuss them and challenged preconceptions. And it pointed possible ways to at least some of the solutions. The speakers were excellent and it was a day well spent.
One of the speakers was Robert Gooch, of the EU consultancy, Eurinco. He speculated on policy changes for agriculture from the mid-term review of the CAP. And he drew attention to the history of and reasons for governmental involvement in farm policies. UK governments have, since the 16th century, he said, adopted free trade when imports are cheap and supported prices to maintain production when imports were expensive. He was referring particularly to the Corn Laws imposed and abolished by turns from the Middle Ages onwards.
It set me thinking about the lessons politicians could learn from history if they would take the trouble. The first example I could remember was long before the 16th century. Recorded in the Book of Genesis it is the Biblical story of Joseph in Egypt who advised the pharaoh to store grain for seven good years (in the first ever intervention stores) in preparation for seven lean years. It paid off, and Egypt was able to feed its own people and sell grain profitably to other countries.
There are numerous stories of grain being used and tithes being levied on grain from the Roman Empire onwards. Back then and until a couple of hundred years ago, agriculture was the major industry. But gradually, as populations migrated to towns, there developed a struggle between the producers of food, who needed to get reasonable prices for commodities, and urban consumers, who wanted to acquire them as cheaply as possible. English governments as far back as the 12th century imposed penalties for importing or exporting grain according to supply and demand at the time.
The Corn Laws we learned about at school were introduced in 1571. At different times, to fit different circumstances, they involved bounties being paid on exports and occasionally on imports. The Corn Laws were attacked by Adam Smith for interfering with the natural course of trade. But as Arthur Young confirmed they had virtually eliminated price fluctuations and, by encouraging farmers to expand production, had brought about a steady fall in prices.
Various amendments were made to the Laws every few years, according to circumstances, such as the Napoleonic wars that coincided with a series of poor harvests, until 1846 when Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, repealed them. Panic set in but it was not until the fast expanding production of North America could be transported efficiently across the Atlantic in the 1870s that the absence of the protection provided by the Corn Laws became serious. Farming became a disaster from then until the outbreak of the First World War, during which exports were once again controlled and grain prices guaranteed.
This policy ended in 1920. Imports were again freely allowed and agriculture went into deep depression. It lasted until 1939, when Adolf Hitler drove his tanks into Poland and caused the Second World War. At which point farm prices increased and farmers were able to make a profit again. Two world wars in such quick succession must have taught the politicians of the late 1940s that feeding the nation should not be left to chance nor be reliant on imports.
They decided to try to stabilise the farming industry by introducing legislation under the 1947 Agriculture Act, which at least held things relatively steady for several years. Although by the early 1970s most of the steam had gone out of that policy and if Britain had not joined the Common Market in 1973, farmers would have suffered badly. As it was there was a food shortage in the second half of that decade, brought about by a mixture of climatic and political problems.
Most farmers are old enough to remember the years since and to recognise that we are now back in a depression as deep as the 1930s. And the lessons of those years and repeated experiences are clear. Farming and food availability are cyclical. Sometimes the weather has a hand in the cycle, more often it is governments. Behind the governments are two groups of people – the producers of food who have been squeezed to a tiny minority who ask only for reasonable prices for their goods and urban consumers, who dominate the population and have become distanced from the realities of food production. They take food for granted and demand that it be cheaper every year.
Populations and production may have increased. But the fundamentals remain. In order for consumers to enjoy food security it is necessary for farmers to receive economically sustainable prices. The balance of the struggle is weighted so heavily in favour of consumer power that in a free market, food producers are bound to lose. It is the duty of enlightened government to hold the balance between producers and consumers. Free trade is not appropriate. All it does is create volatility of prices and, eventually, supplies. *