I’m fed up with talking about the weather, but I can console myself with the fact we have grabbed every opportunity so far and progress is not too bad.NFU 2010: Tories set out election pledges
THE Conservatives set out their election promises to farmers at the NFU conference in Birmingham this morning (Tuesday, February 23).
Its promises include a pledge to reform the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) and to launch a review of red tape surrounding the farming industry as well as reiterating the Party’s pledge to carry out a badger cull to help control bovine TB.
It also sets out new plans to establish a planning framework to prevent development on the UK’s most fertile land in a bid to keep land in production.
Speaking ahead of the conference, shadow environment Secretary Nick Herbert said: “Labour has persistently under-valued British agriculture, failing to understand that we all depend on the production of food, while the countryside relies on farmers’ stewardship of the environment.
“Despite its importance to our food security, the protection of our best farmland has been downgraded and the Government has over-ridden councils who have sought to keep in place local protection of this valuable asset. In this new age of agriculture, we need to strengthen the protection of our most fertile farmland and recognise its importance as a national resource for future generations.”
The policy document, ‘A New Age for Agriculture’ promises to commission an industry-led review of red tape within three month should the Conservatives come to power in the next general election.
It pledges to ‘minimise on-farm inspections through much greater consolidation of inspections and improved information sharing, reducing costs to both taxpayers and farmers.’
It also proposes to put the farming Minister at the head of the RPA’s management board, making the agency more accountable to the public.
Other pledges made by the Tories as they set out their stall just weeks before an expected general election, include:
- To abolish the Agricultural Wages Board
- To push for the removal of all CAP subsidies linked to production in Europe and to press for a shift of resources towards the EU rural development plan.
- To develop a long-term research agenda across the food chain.
Share
Readers' comments (9)
victoria starke | 23 February 2010 12:31 pm
I am glad a conservative MP has realised this, Labour have been poison to supporting anything british. Lets start supporting our own country, and make our inhabitants realise how important it is.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
M. Pearson | 23 February 2010 12:45 pm
Unfortunately they did not cover the food pricing controls. No matter how well meaning, unless a reasonable return is given on the price of food production there is not a future for food production in the UK.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 February 2010 2:16 pm
They appear to be following Labour in advocating removal of production subsidies which are percieved to be a barrier to efficiency. We are in a global market with unequal cost bases. Therefore if we cannot compete on cost, farmers will not produce at a loss ,and UK production will suffer ( not the same thing as inefficiency, just not a level playing field.) Production subsidies should underpin and regulate the market. Decoupling has seen a very substantial drop in cattle and sheep numbers, and yes prices have improved. But the UK cannot afford the imports that will have to make up the deficit.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Hosking | 23 February 2010 3:43 pm
Alternative market mechanisms will be requried to balance supply and demand at a sustainable price in the event of removal of Single Farm Payment. Such market intervention will maintain productive capacity and provide food security, the ability to adequately feed the Nation from domestic production without fear of economic, terrorist or millitary exploitation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Payne | 23 February 2010 3:58 pm
(a).Food is expensive to produce, yet relatively cheap to buy in the shops.
(b).The cost of food is closely linked to inflation
(c). There is no "level playing field" between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, let alone the rest of the world.
The next government has a dilemma. Does it want an unregulated market, without support? If it does, farmers will not produce at a loss for long, and the price of food will escalate and inflation will go out of control. UK Agriculture could cease.
If the government wants to keep food affordable and inflation under control, it will have to subsidise production. Either way, we taxpayers have to pay for the food, directly or indirectly.
What we musn't allow is for food production to be exported due to unfair or loaded business practices, or due to Government apathy and waste in the delivery of subsidy.
It will not be straight forward.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Butler | 23 February 2010 6:25 pm
Will a stronger farmland protection policy extend the PPG2 guidance to cover more grades i.e. lower soil quality than 3a? This would remove a lot of land from built development pressure.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 February 2010 8:00 pm
Maybe the Conservative party should consider the huge costs of the existing bTB control programme and at a time when we are being told we will have to suffer cutbacks in many areas. We now have reports from reputable sources that conclude culling of badgers is not good value for money. I suggest that all policy makers, 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
Joe Webster | 24 February 2010 7:33 am
There may be some good stuff in that policy document, but as long as agricultural policy is decided in Brussels, the Conservatives can really only tinker at the edges. The same, of course, is true of Labour and LibDem.
How well do your readers think UKIP's "Food, Farming and the Countryside" policy compares with the tories' latest offering?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25 February 2010 12:40 pm
Would be good to see someone looking at the preservation of good agricultural land. Hopefully most building will be done on brownfield sites, we cant keep eroding our food producing land with houses (green towns are a disguise for just more housing) and roads. No more building on flood plains either, it is absurd!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment