The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Revealed: how we pay our richest landowners millions in subsidies

Prince Charles, Serco and the Duke of Westminster - an NS investigation reveals who benefits from the EU's Common Agricultural Policy.

Prince Charles with the Duke of Westminster.
Prince Charles with the Duke of Westminster, both of whom benefited from the CAP last year. Photograph: Getty Images.

Were David Cameron to announce tomorrow that some of the wealthiest landowners in the country would receive millions in subsidies from the taxpayer, there would be predictable outrage. Yet, in the form of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), such a programme already exists. The average British household contributes £245 a year to the CAP, most of which, a New Statesman investigation has found, is handed to the wealthiest landowners. Originally established with the intention of supporting small farmers and reducing Europe’s reliance on food imports, the CAP, which accounts for 43 per cent (€55bn) of the EU budget, has become a slush fund for assorted dukes, earls and princes.

A freedom of information request by the NS to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found that claimants last year included the Duke of Westminster (net worth: £7.4bn), who was paid £748,716 for his ownership of Grosvenor Farms, the Duke of Buccleuch (£180m), who received £260,273, the Duke of Devonshire (£700m), who received £251,729, and the Duke of Atholl, who was paid £231,188 for his 145,000 acre Blair Castle Estate.

It was also a lucrative year for the Windsor family. The Queen received £415,817 for The Royal Farms and £314,811 for the Duchy of Lancaster, while Prince Charles was paid £127,868 for the Duchy of Cornwall. Similarly well remunerated was Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar, who netted £273,905 for his 2,000 acre Glympton Estate in Oxfordshire, alleged to have been purchased with the proceeds of the 1985 Al-Yamamah arms deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia.

Revealed: what we paid out in 2011 to the landowners of the United Kingdom

Payments are based on acreage alone, and take no account of wealth, making the scheme one of the most regressive imaginable - the more you own, the more you get. In addition, since the EU’s definition of “farmer” does not require individuals to actively produce food or other agricultural products, many recipients are, in effect, paid not to farm. The largest individual UK beneficiary is Sir Richard Sutton, who was paid £1.7m for his Settled Estates, the 6,500-acre property he inherited with his baronetcy in 1981, despite net assets of £136.5m.

Other unlikely recipients include Eton College, which received £4,622, Severn Trent Water, which was paid £779,436, and outsourcing company Serco, currently cashing in on the government’s privatisation of NHS services, which, courtesy of the public, received £2.7m.

With the exception of Spain, there is no European country in which land is more unequally distributed than Britain, with 70 per cent of acreage held by just 0.28 per cent of the population, or 158,000 families.

Aware that it cannot legitimately sustain such corporate welfare at a time of austerity, the EU has vowed to reform the programme by capping direct payments at  €300,000 and by ensuring that only "active" farmers receive subsidy. But even under these proposals, due to be implemented in 2014, aid will still be provided to landowners who derive just five per cent of their annual revenue from agricultural activity, whilst, in the case of the cap, the biggest farms will simply avoid it through restructuring.

The Conservative Party now rarely misses a chance to bash Brussels bureaucrats, yet, due to its enduring ties to the landed gentry, one hears little from it about the inequity of the CAP or the order it helps sustain. But as the Thatcherite dream of a property-owning democracy recedes, it should recognise that land reform is now both a political and an economic necessity.

The full version of this piece appears in tomorrow's New Statesman.

9 comments

Huw Sayer's picture

Time for a land value tax on all land that is currently eligible for CAP payments - the tax should be set at the level of CAP+20% to claw back this iniquitous subsidy from those who can most afford it. (We should also remove the tax-haven status of forestry, which also encourages hoarding.)

This is not a socialist bash the rich suggestion either - it is based on Adam Smith's well understood objection to monopolies and oligopolies because they distort markets, deprive the consumer of fair prices and lead to the mis-allocation of scarce resources.

If the big landowners don't like it they can sell - that would bring down the price of land and encourage new farmers, small holders and market gardeners to enter the market (something even some in the farming industry insists we need). That would be good for competition - and help stimulate growth in the rural economy (particularly for rural estate agents and land management companies) - something every good free market liberal should applaud.

Pav's picture

Any mention of more "palatable" large scale claimants such as, say the RSPB, National Trust, the Co-Op or the various CoE diocese? No? They probably don't claim anything then.
They of course do claim the same subsidies, perhaps in various devolved forms or in the names of their tenants but they are certainly beneficiaries.
I'm all for abolition of subsidy payments but I'm also for fair and balanced reporting.

Orthodoxcaveman's picture

Of course you are.

pedrojoven's picture

Having read the full article on Kindle I would like to make an observation on the dire economic consequences of this ancient land grab and its seemingly unchanging perpetuity - an aspect not touched on in this excellent, illuminating and disturbing article.
The hugely inflated value of the urban plot - the consequence of controlled scarcity - and the mere 20% of it used for buildings - described as that available for houses, factories etc - puts a permanent brake on UK economic development at micro and macro levels. A - if not the - main barrier to entry for any small business is the real estate cost. How many more small businesses might we have in the UK - generating millions of jobs and income - were the start up cost related to real estate not such a daunting challenge? Think retail store (village, high street or corner store), restaurant, care home, accommodation at any price point - you name it - all have a massive fixed cost resulting from high real estate price. The high street would be a changed scene were it not for prohibitive real estate "value".
Instead of receiving a "non-use benefit" - the landed cousinhood should be paying a non-use TAX. "Make it generate jobs and income or sell" would be a pretty practical message (as well as "fair") to send to the Dukes, their imitators, their friends and their families. Better that - and more British - than an eventual UK 1789 and our own Madame Gullotine (also drily known as "The National Razor"). Talk of taxing assets is in the air. First stop a tax on unproductive land. Mr Clegg? Mr Miliband?

DavidC's picture

simple, abolish the CAP, and keep the money in the country. Tories would love it, LibDems hate it, and Labour hate it - they had many years to abolish it but didn't.

Come on Eurosceptics, over to you to push this!

Indu Pendent's picture

George

Its a valid point. What did Labour do about it during their 3 terms in office? Thatcher laid into the subsidies.

The issue is this money is going to wealthy across Europe not just the UK. Happy to see the UK CAP subsidy cut in return for these payments to stop. But then, that would not very Keynsian tax-and-spend (George, may be you can be converted from the dark side after all).

Sergeant Matron's picture

Good work NS, but this is only one set of payments that the landed classes get. I was wondering if you could research and publishe details of the various 'environmental scheme' payments that go to landowners please? Often these payments are paid (with little or no accountable checking) so that landowners do not damage the environment instead of fining them if they do. In addition to this approach, and arguably worse, these subsidies are commonly used to fund the landed classes 'fun-killing' activities, particularly grouse moors where a lot of public money is used to manipulate the moorland to maximise the number of grouse so that the fun-killers can shoot them.
As your article pointed out; one never hears the Tories banging on about 'landowner scroungers'.

RH47's picture

Labour cannot pose an alternative unless it fixes more on the realities of the economy and highlights the massive support offered in different ways to the wealthiest - rather than trying discomfit the Tories with 'me-tooism (but less nasty)' attacks on the poor.

Richard Thomas's picture

Don't forget wind turbines which are the quickest route for government to give more money to the landowning class.

Latest tweets