NFU elects new leadership team

24 February 2010

PETER Kendall and Meurig Raymond have been emphatically re-elected for further two-year terms as president and deputy president of the NFU.

Former NFU dairy board chairman Gwyn Jones has won the fiercely contested race to join the union’s top table as vice president.

Mr Kendall, from Bedfordshire, defeated outspoken Somerset farmer Derek Mead by 80 votes to three, with three abstentions, according to unofficial figures tonight (Wednesday, February 24).

Pembrokeshire farmer Mr Raymond, who like Mr Kendall, required 75 per cent of the vote to secure a third two-year term comfortably came through what had appeared to be a tough challenge from three highly credible candidates.

He was up against former vice president Paul Temple, Mr Jones and former livestock chairman Thomas Binns but still managed to get over the 75 per cent threshold on the first round of voting by the NFU council.

Mr Raymond’s three challengers secured 19 votes between, according to the unofficial figures.

Mr Jones emerged triumphant in a 10-person contest for the vice president slot. It came down to a head-to-head contest with livestock chairman Alistair Mackintosh in the final round of voting, with the Sussex dairy farmer narrowly prevailing.

The results will put Mr Raymond and Mr Jones in pole position to succeed Mr Kendall when he steps down as NFU leader, possibly in two year’s time.

The elections were held at the end of the union’s annual two-day conference in Birmingham.

Mr Jones, who stood for vice president in 2006 and has been chairman of the dairy board for the past five years, said he was ‘almost speechless’ at the outcome immediately after the event.

“I am highly privileged to be elected to this team and look forward to doing all I can to progress the union along the best course of action over the next two years,” he said,

Mr Raymond said he was ‘delighted and honoured’ to remain as deputy president at a vital time for the union, with the General Election on the horizon.

Mr Kendall said: “I am pleased to be working with Meurig for another term and I would also like to welcome Gwyn to the team.”

All three highlighted CAP reform and tackling bovine TB as the main priorities for the new officeholder team.

The conference was dominated by speeches from key figures from the three main UK political parties ahead the expected May General Election.

Closing what he described as a ‘belting conference’, Mr Kendall contrasted the ‘positive feel’ of this year’s event with the downbeat mood of the 2005 conference, ahead of the last General Election.

“This year’s conference has demonstrated productive agriculture is now at the heart of the political agenda,” he said.

Readers' comments (5)

Anonymous | 24 February 2010 6:51 pm
As the mycobacteria that causes TB is endemiic in the environment is it possible to eradicate TB? Let's hope that Mr Kendall does not concentrate solely on pushing for badger culls. We now have reports from reputable sources that conclude such culls are not good value for money. I suggest that Mr Kendall and all policy makers, NFU representatives and anyone else with an interest in bTB should read the recently published ‘Public Health and bovine tuberculosis – what’s all the fuss about’ by Paul R Torgerson and David J Torgenson. It is a very well researched and referenced article, which concludes that bTB control in cattle is irrelevant as a public health policy and there is little evidence either for a positive cost benefit in terms of animal health of bTB control. It suggests that such evidence is required; otherwise there is little justification for the large sums of money spent on bTB control in the UK. It is time for a radical re-think on policy.
Over the last decade or so badgers seem to have occupied a disproportionate amount of time and resources at the expense of a more sustainable, lasting solution for cattle. The proposed badger cull in Pembrokeshire has serious human rights and civil liberties issues, and it creates a dangerous precedent, particularly if landowners affected have not experienced herd breakdowns and are convinced their local badgers are healthy (Chris Chapman’s new film Bovine TB – a Way Forward, stresses the importance of retaining healthy sets). An unpopular cull, which is now proven to be a waste of tax payers’ money, as well as not being properly backed up by reliable scientific evidence, is bad publicity for farmers and is beginning to have serious implications for tourism and food industries.
Despite a compulsory testing regime for some fifty years, we are told bTB is now endemic in many areas of the UK. This is based solely on the results of a skin test for cattle that has not really changed since it was originally developed and that many now believe may not be as reliable as is claimed. How accurate and up to date is the scientific data behind the claims of its sensitivity and positive productive values? Less than 30% of cattle slaughtered under the existing skin test system are shown to have bTB. Whilst reasons are given for this, they are weak and open to challenge without substantive scientific evidence which is not made available. It is interesting to note too that despite the claims that the disease is now out of control, few people ever contract the disease - even farmers, testers, vets, abattoir workers etc who are in regular and close contact of supposedly infected animals - and many farming families drink their own milk raw, before it is pasteurized. It is generally accepted that nowadays bTB poses negligible risk to human health. The existing policy is all about maintaining TB free status and protecting exports (only 1.4% of cattle are exported and the cost of the existing bTB programme is well in excess of the value of such live exports). It is concerned mainly with meeting targets and deadlines, not protecting human or animal health and welfare. Whilst the government ministers and bureaucrats are busy claiming how successful the TB Health Check Wales has been, the very significant costs for those adversely affected, have been largely ignored. It would probably not be tolerated in any other sector but most farmers are held to ransom because of fear of financial penalties. Are there now too many vested interest groups keen to see the existing system continue for as long as possible?

The human form of Tb has been controlled adequately for decades, so why, after so many years and millions of taxpayers’ money already spent, is there still no vaccination programme for bTB? As the two disease are so closely linked surely the efficacy of such a programme would be similar to the claims made for the existing, unreliable and very time consuming skin test system? Surely the best way forward is for a vaccination programme for cattle to start without further delay and for farmers and unions to be campaigning strongly for this and the necessary change in EU legislation to facilitate?

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Unity Lawler | 25 February 2010 12:42 pm
Yes, a great deal to say, but without a name....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john beattie | 25 February 2010 2:43 pm
havent you noticed none of the pro badger lot do bit confused what nfu vote has to do with tb as the nfu will clearly follow there line they are already undertaking
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tom Varden | 25 February 2010 4:42 pm
...back to the NFU elections, thank goodness Peter Kendall has been re-elected. Every time I have heard him speak, be it in conference, on the radio or in the debating chamber, he has come across as articulate, intelligent, well informed and with the ability to formulate coherent arguments.

UK agriculture is lucky to have such a person in the higher echelons of the industry and he has represented all sectors extremely well.

Let's hope the next election we are involved in delivers a similarly pleasing result....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21 June 2010 11:10 pm
test
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment