Post-brexit world should bring in three incomes

Farmers should get their returns through three income streams in the post Brexit world: the sale of their products and goods at unsupported levels, the supply of ecosystem services through a tendering process – and means-tested income support.

That was the conclusion of a report published yesterday by the right-of-centre think tank, Bright Blue.

While the report’s main author, Ben Caldecott, an academic and senior associate with the organisation, argued that the bulk of support payments should be made through the provision of environmental services, he said this should be underpinned with means-tested income support which would help smaller farmers.

Stating that the income support should be made through the existing tax and benefits system he said such an approach would “end the current situation where public subsidies are paid to owners of very large estates without any public good being received in return”.

Turning to the wider thrust of the report he said:

“A key point is that production subsidies, which currently claim the majority of public CAP funding, would be eliminated under this framework,” said Caldecott.

However he said that while overall support levels should be maintained at their current levels, the vast majority of this should be delivered through the provision of ecosystems services, such as farmers undertaking to reduce fertiliser and pesticide usage, making environmental and access improvements and other “services” such as the reintroduction of species like beaver and lynx. l The proposals were announced as the UK government moved to clarify its position on animal welfare. Following criticism Parliament’s rejection of an EU bill to recognise sentience in domestic animals threatened the country’s high welfare standards, Environment Secretary Michael Gove yesterday issued a statement countering such suggestions:

“Voting against the EU amendment was not a vote against the idea that animals are sentient and feel pain - that is a misconception,” said Gove.

He said that the vote had been a rejection of a “faulty amendment”, which he said would not have achieved its stated aims of providing appropriate protection for animals.