David's Digest

David,

Despite some recent DEFRA efforts it's hard to get away from the notion that most of what it does is driven by office-based officials who have little if any knowledge of, let alone practical experience of practical farming.

Increasingly driven by similarly desk-bound anonymous EU people and environmental lobbyists, it churns out vast amounts of literature which no day-to-day farmer can be expected to read and absorb, even were they so inclined.

One of the latest "cut & paste" exercises in this respect can be seen here:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/cogap-rev/consultation.pdf

At least in earlier MAFF days there was an element of semi-direct connection to the land via NAAS and subsequently ADAS. But that's all been swept away.

So to answer your question I'm tempted to say 'yes'. But what would you put in it's place?

Oops! The penultimate word in my previous comment has a superfluous apostrophe.

(Really just testing my colleagues in the office! :))

Time for a bit of self correction at
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/flutefriend/
methinks.

David Richardson is correct to criticise DEFRA. Though it might be more appropriate to refer to it as DAFTA, it has posed a bigger threat to farmers in the current FMD fiasco than the disease itself.

Its self-opinionated views on controlling FMD were just that much worse than the report which followed the 1967 outbreak. By destroying the sheep marketing season it has probably achieved more than the Government and supermarkets combined in destroying the British farming industry.

"Virtually everything it has touched since it came into being five years ago it has messed up" Messed up? No their success is amazing.

First, they are finally getting rid of pesky livestock and dairy farmers who question the ever cheaper imports of food and disease. Then, think of all that lovely release of land for other more right-on "post agricultural era" purposes. Best of all they are delivering a much needed and prolonged kick at the tweedy trouser seats of those landed toffs who still control what the ruling office-dwellers long to get their hands on.

Well - perhaps not. But that leaves only the one alternative theory - that leadership at DEFRA really is displaying dizzying, dazzling arrogance, ignorance and incompetence - and, as David Richardson implies, terrifying short sightedness too - since things are changing.

The world is getting to the end of cheap oil - which will mean the end of cheap everything else - including transport. And this means an end to globalised trade. And this means an end to the cheap food so beloved by the government. We have never needed our decent, skilled farmers more - never needed the bone-headed and impertinent bureaucrats less.

One wonders glumly if anyone in the Opposition parties appreciates what will happen when the farming expertise dies in this country. Have they an alternative to put in place of poor bewildered DEFRA? And what is the mechanism for a humane cull of the poor beast, actually? Perhaps the Chief Scientist knows. We could ask our Debby - but she seems - like Macavity - to be mysteriously absent these days.

The old Min.of Ag.may have had its faults,but at least it was staffed by people who had a lifetime of experiance in all types of Agriculture.That is what DEFRA lacks,coupled with the fact that there is just about nobody in the House of Commons who has a clue about farming,and ,of course,the people in the House of Lords,who did know a thing or two,are no longer there...!
Mrs Beckett was useless,of course,and wrecked the whole shooting match.
However,what do you put in its place?..anything must be better than the present set up....
A.Lyle

At the very least the word "farming" or "agriculture" should feature in the Department's name. Its removal is symbolic of a disregard of an industry which is considered the backbone of many other nations. we lose sight of its relevance at our peril,
Noreen