FOOD FOR THOUGHT
SIR,—As your correspondent, Colin Hands (Spectator, April 10) in his criticism of our article points out, it is certainly true that the present system of support, while giving the British farmers a price for their pro- duce which is among the highest in Europe, offers it to consumers at prices which are among the lowest. This is not magic; the difference is financed by taxa- tion. But the alternative is not dear food; this would only result if the present system were replaced by tariff barriers. The price the consumer pays in Britain is governed by the prices of imported food and it seems unlikely that the gradual reduction of support would alter these much in the long run, especially as the present danger is a threat of surplus supplies rather than shortage.
In referring to other industries, one cannot justify agricultural protection on the grounds that two blacks make a white. But in any case, while a support ratio of about 25 per cent. in agriculture represents the industry's inability to compete, this is not so with the majority of tariffs found in other industries. Thus while the motor industry has a tariff of 30 per cent., its products sell abroad at very competitive prices, as the recent successes in America illustrate. Indeed; car producers for the most part seemed to welcome the prospect of a Free Trade Area.
British agricultural protection seems to have little relevance to the difficulties in the underdeveloped countries. The problems are not technical or mechani- cal, but financial. Indeed, the £300 million spent on British agriculture would serve humanity far better if even a part of it were offered as a loan to these countries.—Yours faithfully, University College of Wales
Previous page
