DAVID RICHARDSON
DAVID RICHARDSON
From the governments
point of view it is
easy to see the appeal
of removing milk
quotas – but without
them Britains milk
markets would
descend into chaos
Yet another DEFRA commissioned report has advocated the removal of milk quotas when the present arrangements come to an end in 2008. The decision to phase them out should be taken during the mid-term review of the CAP in 2006, it says.
It needs only a little imagination to work out that those who wrote the recommendation knew well the answer Margaret Beckett was looking for. Lord Whitty could hardly contain his glee at the reports conclusions when he was interviewed on the subject on BBC Radio 4s Farming Today last week.
For those who know no better, or have not bothered to think through the implications, or do not care what happens to dairy farmers, it is easy to see the appeal of removing quotas. They cost a bit to administer, although peanuts compared with the benefits they bring. They help manage the milk market, but that is politically incorrect in a world obsessed with free trade.
But without quotas the milk markets of Britain would descend into chaos. Supplies of what is arguably the shortest shelf life commodity our industry produces would swing from surplus to shortage and back again. Many more British dairy farmers would be forced out of business and consumers would be pushed further into the hands of possibly unreliable and probably unethical imports.
A free-for-all of the kind DEFRA seems to favour would be a return to the conditions before the Milk Marketing Board was formed – only worse.
My father produced milk in the early 1930s without a guaranteed market. He had to hawk it round the village selling it for what he could get to householders who could choose to buy from any one of several other farmers in the village. My mother poured what he could not sell into separating pans, skimmed off the cream and churned it, by hand, into butter. There were no refrigerators in those days, so the butter pats were hung in pails on ropes down the well until the next Friday when mother would deliver them to Wymondham market on the bus. She returned each week with whatever the townspeople would bid, less auctioneers commission, and usually it was not enough to pay the costs.
But in the early 30s my father had only about 15 cows. Imagine not having a market for the produce of a 150-cow herd or more. The Milk Marketing Board, which transformed the situation I have described, has gone. The private dairies that replaced it have no statutory duty to buy milk from anyone. Some already import fresh milk from across the Channel because the strength of sterling makes it cheaper than buying in Britain.
If other EU countries maintained their production, as we can safely assume they would – with their governments help – British dairy farming as we know it would be decimated.
The milk market, more than any other needs supply management for the good of producers and consumers. The situation without the MMB is bad enough, as any dairy farmer will tell you. Remove quotas as well and the entire industry could implode.
Milk is not the only commodity threatened by double standards. Almost everything UK farmers produce is scheduled for similar treatment. For the political juggernaut of the WTO, backed by the United States which says "dont do what we do, do what we say", and Britain, which does anything the US tells it to do, is about to push us over the precipice called free trade. The trouble is, we may be the only western country obeying all the rules. Many of the others comply with only those that suit them.
The worst aspect of the situation British farmers face is that whereas barriers to international trade look like being progressively removed over the next few years, the regulatory burden on domestic producers is growing ever bigger. If all production standards, to do with the environment, food safety and ethics, both international and domestic, were removed, British farmers would have no choice but to try to compete with overseas suppliers, whatever their climatic advantages.
We all know that is unrealistic. The domestic consumer society in which we live and work demands ever tighter regulations, standards and assurances. The only changes we can confidently expect are that there will be more, not less, in this country and that the costs of complying will increase. So, it is inconsistent, contradictory and unfair to expect UK producers, whose unit costs are in many cases higher to start with, to compete with overseas producers, many of whom are substantially exempt from such costs. It must not be allowed to happen.
Then there is the other glaring contradiction of food miles. The British government paid lip service again last week to the need to reduce greenhouse gases and reverse global warming. But it has no problem, it seems, with promoting policies that will inexorably lead to the necessity to import more food for the people who inhabit these islands. We should be producing and processing more food in this country, not less. It would be better for the landscape, the environment, for consumers and, yes, for farmers too, but most important of all, for food security.
We should be producing and processing more food in this country, not less.