![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
Another Countryside: Agricultural Subsidies in England
Editorial Comment, Guardian Weekly April 1 - 7, 2005
A little bit of history was made last week when the government finally published
details of the £1.7 billion (US$3.2 billion) in support payments that farmers
and agricultural companies in England receive from the taxpayer. The most
glaring subsidy was more than £120 million received by Tate and Lyle in a single
year. According to Oxfam, this was mainly in export subsidies, which enabled the
company to dump excess production on world markets, thereby preventing poor
countries from competing. Other recipients read like a roll-call from Debrett's:
the Duke of Westminster (£799,000 over two years), the Duke of Marlborough (£1
million over the same period), and the Duchy of Cornwall (£30,000).
Two questions arise. The first is why payments of this kind by the taxpayer to
subsidise agriculture were ever regarded as secret. In the United States such
details can be read on an official website. The second, more important, question
is why are we paying these subsidies at all? Globally, governments shell out
US$350 billion a year - equivalent to 32 percent of farming revenues - to get
domestic farmers to grow crops that often could be produced more cheaply by poor
countries, generating huge job opportunities.
One of the worst abuses is Europe's sugar regime, from which the likes of Tate
and Lyle earn big profits. According to Oxfam, the European Union (EU) spends
3.30 euros to export sugar worth 1 euro, a 300 percent subsidy that would be
laughed out of court if applied to any other industry. The World Bank says that
sugar costs 25 cents per pound to produce in Europe compared with 8 cents in
India and 5.5 cents in Malawi. If Europe gave up sugar production, then everyone
would gain not least some of the poorest nations in Africa.
It would be nice to think that the UK figures, showing that most subsidies go
not to small farmers but to large agribusinesses and wealthy landowners, would
at least kick off a serious debate. Europe needs a long-term programme to phase
out subsidies and to use part of the money saved to manage the countryside in
the interests of ordinary people. They are not even getting improved access
rights to the former farming land that is supposed to be being managed in their
interest.
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
Royal Farms get £1 million in Subsidies
David Hencke and Rob Evans, Guardian Weekly April 1 -7, 2005
Rich landowners reap bulk of taxpayers' cash at the expense of most needy
farmers
The Queen and Prince Charles received a total of more than £1 million in
European Union (EU) farm subsidies in the past two years, it was revealed last
week.
The figure emerged as the government for the first time published the amount of
subsidy each farmer in Britain receives, after a request from the Guardian under
the Freedom of Information Act. It showed that major landowners receive the
largest subsidies from the taxpayer. Seventeen farmers and agricultural
enterprises received more than £1 million each last year in help from the
taxpayer.
The figures also reveal that hundreds of millions of pounds go to subsidise
Britain's agricultural exports, while many developing countries are unable to
compete, adding to the huge debt facing Africa.
The largest export subsidy goes to Tate and Lyle, which over two years received
£233 million from the taxpayer to sell sugar overseas.
A spokesman for Tate and Lyle said the company was put at a disadvantage by the
European Union's pricing structure on sugar. "[The company's] only option is
therefore to export sugar it is unable to sell in the European Union and these
payments compensate the company for lower prices it can achieve in the world
market."
The scale of taxpayers' subsidies has reopened the arguments on why wealthy
landowners and multinationals should receive such generous help.
Michael Wills, the former minister in charge of freedom of information, now
running the Help Africa campaign, said: "The release of these figures only
reveals what we long suspected - that taxpayers' money is going to people who
don't really need it. It is time this was changed."
Ministers brushed aside objections from landowners to publish the figures, which
have for years been a closely guarded secret within Whitehall.
Phil Bloomer of Oxfam said the figures showed that "East Anglian grain barons
and the landed gentry enjoy a bumper cash harvest, while small British farmers
struggle to get by."
The Queen's main farm at Sandringham in Norfolk has been paid £769,000 in
subsidies in the past two years. A spokesman for the Queen rejected any
suggestion that she received too much money from the taxpayer. "The Queen is a
landowner and a farmer. She receives subsidy, just as any other farmer would
do."
A total of £168,000 was given to Prince Charles's organic farm at Highgrove in
Gloucestershire during the past two years.
One of Britain's richest men, the Duke of Westminster, who is worth £5 billion,
received £799,000 in the same period.
The Coop Group is one of the top companies receiving the subsidies, but has been
pressing for reforms of the payments.
© The Guardian Weekly 2005 www.guardianweekly.com
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)