The wider effects of ending farm subsidies | Letters

Huw Jones charts the impact on farming of cuts in support and Michael McLoughlin looks at the causes of suicide among Indian farmersPolly Toynbee (The Tories are split over farming. It's hard not to gloat, 1 August) raises important issues. Subsidies were intended to lower food prices and increase discretionary income for manufactured products. The subsidy fills the gap between production costs and farm-gate prices, which were lowered by imports and by allowing food-chain "efficiencies" resulting in domination by the supermarkets. The inflexibility of EU-wide subsidies resulted a few years ago in tiny farm incomes, despite substantial investment in farms. This, combined with oppressive and chaotic management of subsidies by Defra, resulted in support for Brexit. Loss of subsidies will result in the closure of most affected farms that cannot subsidise themselves with non-farming income. Perhaps the price of rural holidays will have to increase.You also report increased suicide rates amongst Indian farmers due to climate change (Farmers' suicides linked to climate, 1 August), but suicides in response to agricultural depression are not uncommon in UK, either. Meanwhile, BNP Paribas is buying Strutt and Parker (Report, 1 August), famous for major land sales. French bankers clearly see a growing opportunity in selling distressed UK farms. Buyers will keep huge areas under common management, regardless of local land quality and ecosystems. Merged farms will need to use large suppliers, while smaller suppliers will go out of business. Small rural communities and dedicated local infrastructure will become unsustainable, reducing opportunities for tourism or even online businesses. Changes to subsidies will affect far more people than just farmers and will need to be considered very carefully.Huw JonesSt Clears, Carmarthenshire Continue reading...