READERS LETTERS
READERS LETTERS
Farewell to our Queen Mum…
What a wonderful journey through life the Queen Mother had (News, April 5). She was a lovely lady with an incredible personality who was loved by many families in Britain because she was like their very own grandmother.
All of us, and indeed the country, will miss her. A person who was so British has now gone. If only more of us today had her set of values in life, there would be not nearly so many problems in Britain today. Farewell Maam.
Jim Braid
Croft House, Bridgend, Perth.
Assurance is one-sided
Am I alone in finding articles relating to farm assurance intimidating? They smack of the same minority lead approach of animal rights extremists; if something is repeated often enough it is accepted as truth.
One article (Livestock, Mar 29) quotes the FABBL chairman as saying: "If the market demands them (standards) we must deliver."
The people who are demanding these often unrealistic, onerous conditions are the same assurance organisations, groups and firms who, as founder members of the massive, burgeoning, national enforcement industry, have most to gain from such propaganda.
When UK assured products are displayed on supermarket shelves alongside cheaper but similar goods from abroad the public, by everyones admission, buy cheaper and, often, inferior imports.
The minority who want, and can afford, perceived organic quality and prices, will always be that. A minority. And the rest of us will look for value.
Luckily, that value is present in home-produced foods whether or not an enforcement inspector has been round the farm to tick 100 largely irrelevant squares on his check list. And taken his fee.
In time there will be consolidation within this new industry. Most if not all schemes will come under one umbrella. The sooner that happens the better because the present situation generates little, if any, extra income and creates pointless and unrewarded effort.
Unless the farming industry takes the lead, which one briefly (and mistakenly) hoped was imminent with the NFU little red tractor, I can see but one outcome.
The government will step in and initiate a joint enforcement executive to allow all these schemes unity under its favoured licence to farm. Then Big Brother will be here. Whether many farmers stay to see it is another question.
Nick Adames
Chessels Farm House, Flansham, Bognor Regis, Sussex.
Why the Lords threw out Bill
Lord Whittys comments (News, Apr 5) on the reason for the House of Lords rejecting the Animal Health Bill were a total but sadly predictable distortion of the facts. The truth is that the Bill was voted down because it was a thoroughly bad piece of legislation which should never have been brought forward.
The vote had nothing to do with the foxhunting debate -π the Lords voted by a massive majority to allow hunting to continue under licence. Rather it had everything to do with peers listening to the arguments and voting accordingly. The successful motion was led by Lord Moran, a distinguished diplomat and former ambassador to Hungary and Portugal.
He was supported by two bishops, a past Chancellor of the Exchequer and foreign secretary, the ex-president of the European Parliament and chairman of the NFU and two former ministers of agriculture and leader of the Welsh Assembly. All the peers who voted attend the House of Lords regularly.
Lord Whittys demeaning attempt to twist the truth reflects discredit on him and on the government he serves.
Lord Willoughby De Broke,
Ditchford Farm, Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos.willoughbyl@parliament.uk
Youngsters, use your bank
I write in connection with your article (Opinion, Apr 5) "Why doesnt UK help its young farmers?" It understandably focuses on taking advantage of European funding to help young farmers get started but there is also the Government Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme (SFLGS) which is accessible to new farmers.
Having used this scheme to help clients raise funds in other industry sectors, I know it can work. This scheme is not, however, widely known in agricultural circles and I have yet to put forward an application to DEFRA although I shall hopefully be putting one forward shortly.
I would like to encourage young farmers wishing to start an agricultural business to approach their bank manager so that we can take advantage of the SFLGS wherever possible.
Will Organ
Senior agricultural manager, NatWest, Banbury, Oxon. Oxfordshire.
Majority not the minority
I want to respond to John Gandys letter (Mar 29). Although I appreciate that the government is seeking to fulfil its manifesto commitment on hunting, Mr Gandy is incorrect when he states that: "It is the essence of democracy that the minority abides by the wishes of the majority".
One only has to look at the moral difficulties which surround activities such as abortion, homosexuality and ritual slaughter to realise that to discriminate against minorities in favour of a majority is a dangerous path.
A section of the populace may disapprove of a minoritys way of life, creed and beliefs. But if that minority is living within the law, albeit by a set of moral codes which differ from the majoritys, the majority should not seek for that minoritys way of life to be proscribed. The true test of a democracy is how the minority are treated by the majority.
Far better to embrace a culture of inclusiveness and tolerance at all levels, as proposed by Tony Blair, rather than resort to the divisiveness seen all too clearly in certain government policies.
Kenneth Bartlett
Blakesley, Northants.
Dont rely on snares & traps
If hunting were abolished, the control of foxes would depend on poisoning, snares and traps. I saw a fox in a trap driven crazy by pain. It had eaten half of one leg and was not a pleasant sight.
C Radclyffe
Lew, Oxfordshire.
Country life banned forever
So the government has decided that hunting is to be banned on the principles of cruelty and utility. It will be banned except where it can be shown it is necessary for pest control and is less cruel than poisoning and shooting.
The same arguments must apply to all field sports including shooting and angling. For the same rule not to be applied lacks intellectual integrity and smacks of the most crass hypocrisy.
Make no mistake, if hunting falls to these arguments, the same arguments will in turn finish all field sports and many elements of country life forever. Not to mention our equine industry and the sounding of the ultimate death knell for all foxes and much of our countryside landscape previously cultivated for the sport is yields.
Our collective voices have to be heard. The government shows no indication of negotiating and is taking six months to work out how to tackle the Lords. We have tried and peacefully, we must try again. Ultimately unjust legislation has a history of civil disobedience. Be warned Mr Blair.
Simon Mountjoy
Overton Farmhouse, Wellingore Heath, Lincoln, Lincs.
RSPCA has no such marksmen
I refer to an article which appeared in farmers weekly written by Peter Hogg (Arable Farmer Focus, Mar 1). The article stated: "The RSPCA, in conjunction with other conservation agencies, already has its own marksmen creeping around blasting away at foxes and deer."
The RSPCA does not employ marksmen for such a purpose. The article was therefore factually inaccurate and a blatant untruth.
Kenneth Currie
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex.
Grain contract change needed
I read your article (Business, Mar 15) on the NFUs "Fair Deal" grain contract with disappointment, but not surprise. The NFU proposal of a revamped grain sellers contract is overdue.
The NFU should be applauded for having the courage to prepare a revised contract with the knowledge that some sectors of the trade would object. UKASTA and Glencore should use their wealth of experience and market dominance to assist in the revision, rather than criticise it. The need for change is not new; a member of our NFU branch remembers calling for it 30 years ago.
In the past 10 years much has changed in the production of grain traceability, ACCS, tighter controls on pesticides and nitrates. It seems only good and professional practice from national and international companies that a grower should be advised on the quality of the product he is delivering. It is a recognition of his success or otherwise. Growers must be rewarded for achieving a level of quality, or a penalty, should it not reach the buyers standards. To suggest that would cause an increase in administration costs, when the quality on intake is already measured and documented, is wrong.
The notion that grain prices would have to be lower to accommodate this revised contract is also wrong. Most milling wheat and malting barley growers are professional businessmen who know who their customer is. The farms investment in money, time, variety choice and husbandry is well thought out. Thus, Mr Kerrs comment is untrue, unnecessary and unhelpful. Well done NFU, you have our support.
Robert E Bache
Moulsham Lodge, Waterson Vale, Chelmsford, Essex.
Yes to Paris show success
Contrary to suggestions made in Mr and Mrs Wyatts letter (Apr 5) the stand organised by MLC at the Paris Show, SIA, was extremely successful in helping to restart large-scale exports of British meat following foot-and-mouth.
Export marketing of British meat and meat products operates at the trade/wholesaler/supermarket-buyer level, not directly to the consumer. The displayed products on the stand reflect this business.
The Paris Show, as well as operating at a trade and business level, is a marathon nine-day event that caters for the French public to glorify food and drink production and consumption. We have learned from experience that the late opening of the show on Friday nights is a wining and dining night out for the Parisian people.
The business people we are there to see have gone home. Paying to keep the stand open late to feed the Parisian populace with freebies would achieve little and waste British farmers levy money.
Bob Bansback
Corporate strategy director, Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Winterhill House, Snowdon Drive, Milton Keynes.
Format change in F&M area?
I read with interest your article "F&M committees soft on witnesses" (News, Apr 5). You justifiably criticise the structure of the public hearings and the lack of cross-examination of witnesses.
That criticism has been anticipated by myself and fellow MEPs. As UK co-ordinator of the committee I am endeavouring to change the format. One of the ways to improve hearings would be to reverse the order of the speakers so that we have the politicians last and the vets and farmers first.
I think that this would encourage officials to respond to the testimonies of those affected and make them more likely to attempt to justify government decisions rather than give an account of the crisis. For example, we need more of the kind of thing we heard from agricultural lawyer Alayne Addy, who represented over 200 farmers hit by the cull. She spoke of the dubious legality of the cull and the fact that farmers had no right of appeal against the policy. Had she spoken before Mr Brown the issue might not have been so neatly side-stepped by the minister.
However, the hearings have been constructive. Although Mr Brown could have won an Oscar for his ability not to answer questions, there were some illuminating admissions from the minister. He conceded that not only were mistakes made over the closure of the countryside, but that the governments decision not to vaccinate was determined by supermarkets and big business such as Cadbury. That decision should have been taken on the basis of scientific evidence.
Robert Sturdy
MEP, European Conservative spokesman on rural affairs, UK co-ordinator on the foot-and-mouth committee, Bureau 14 E 258, Rue Wiertz 60, 1047 Brussels, Belgium.
Lets dump the disgraced CAP
The CAP, on which the European Union spends so much of its money, is a disgrace because it impoverishes poorer lands through tariffs and dumping. It is also a financial burden because it raises the price of food inordinately in the EU. It benefits only a small minority.
It is unlikely that all our European partners will be willing to relinquish it, for some are intimidated by their militant minorities.
If they are not prepared to do so, Britain should renounce the Treaty of Rome and its successors, which would make the CAP unmaintainable. We Europeans would then nearly all benefit from enhanced prosperity and repute.
Colin R Merton
Savile Club, 69 Brook Street, London.
Use money to best effect
Mrs Beckett is right to ensure that the money spent on farming is used to best effect (Talking Point, Apr 5). Sir Donald Curry in his evidence to the agricultural select committee said that the cost of administering his policy could reach 25% of the total budget.
That, at £500m and an average wage bill of £18,000/person, is equivalent to an extra 6944 civil servants. Put another way it is 25% of the total number of full time farmers in Wales.
On modulation, each farm could have its own farm funds backed by government match funding on the basis of the old standard cost scheme. If after three years the fund was unused it would revert to DEFRA for general environmental improvement.
W O D Tilley
Gwern Elwy, Henllan, Denbigh.
Time to replace archaic NFU
While I agree with comments (Letters, Mar 22) suggesting that the NFU does not adequately represent arable farmers, I do not believe the proposed solution of setting up an arable association to work separately from the NFU is the best way forward.
The structure of the NFU is so archaic, and the thinking of its leaders so reactionary and inflexible, that the only progressive option is dissolution. In its place we should see a Conference of British Agriculture. This could be comprised of representations from each of the major sectors of British agriculture that would all have equal access to a centralised structure. The brief of this centralised structure should be to lobby government on farmers behalf, and to control direct spending and policy for public relations issues, advertising and research and development.
The best person to lead this new federation is unlikely to be a farmer. More could be achieved by someone who spoke the governments language, and did not enter every debate with the fixed preconception that the government is trying to put one over on farmers. Working with the government to find a solution, rather than opposing every suggested change, would increase the chances of finding a way forward that is acceptable to both parties.
Like many others I watched in disbelief as current NFU leaders were re-elected at a time when their stock could hardly have been lower. To have no electoral route to express my disgust at the way the Curry report was dismissed out of hand exposes in graphic detail the way in which the NFU can misrepresent its members with impunity.
Frank Thorogood
Skeggs Farm, Writtle, Chelmsford, Essex.
NFU is simply undemocratic
Recent letters show the acrimony that exists between some farmers and the NFU. That exists simply out of frustration with the undemocratic way the union conducts itself. That coupled with the low calibre of men who have risen to prominent positions in the union show the disaster.
During the foot-and-mouth crisis the union colluded with a government ministry which had no idea how to control a disease. Ten million animals were slaughtered, 9m needlessly.
As regards BSE, there have never been more that about 20 cases a year. Before BSE there were always 12-15 cases of CJD and doctors now diligently look for the disease.
Turning to the CAP, Instead of being able to use Anglo-Saxon ingenuity and inventiveness (like our New Zealand and American cousins), this policy has straitjacketed British farmers on the one hand. And, of course, on the other hand, we have an open market policy to anyone who wants to export to us.
Because the leadership is so inept no politician takes any notice of when it negotiates. One negotiates only from strength and that comes in different forms – demonstrations, labour withdrawal, vociferous outcries after a tragedy and commercial muscle as shown by the fuel protest. If David Hadley threatened to take action in a cause Mr Blair would take more notice of him than any NFU representative.
The union should allow a one-man/one vote and allow some time for all the people who have left the union to rejoin.
F Wakefield
Parlour Farm, Bisley, Stroud, Glos.
I welcome an open debate
According to Oliver Walston (Letters, Mar 15) I am Essexs Robert Mugabe. Certainly, the image of my hardened war veterans marching over the border to Thriplow to persuade him of the error of his ways will have a certain appeal in some quarters. But it is, like much of his letter, nonsense.
My original letter (Letters, Mar 1) said: "There was a strong move among his fellow East Anglian farmers to have him chucked out" of the NFU. That is true, mainly because of their belief that his TV programmes and other comments had caused great damage to their businesses and had made the unions task, of representing their interests, more difficult.
However, I and my fellow NFU office holders resisted those calls precisely because we felt that it would interfere with his right to free speech. Not that it should bother him, after all it was his threat to leave the NFU that started this correspondence. I welcome debate at anytime. What a pity we were not given the opportunity of a debate before his TV series.
I retired as Essex NFU chairman last January but my successor, Peter Hawes, tells me he would be delighted to arrange an open discussion.
J.A. Jolly,
Southminster Road, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex.
Where is our co-funding?
In his persuasive presentation at the Farmers For Action seminar (News, Mar 29) as well as in his new book The Death of British Agriculture, Richard North puts forward some figures to explain the financial plight of British farming.
He said the CAP is a common policy. If the fault lay there, farmers in all EU countries would be impoverished. That is not so; only the UK is suffering. There will be no reform of the CAP. Everybody elses farmers like it as it is.
Dont forget, for every amount of EU subsidy received direct by British farmers, an equal amount is available via co-funding. Every other EU country provides maximum support to is farmers via co-funding. The British government provides none.
Dr North says the Fontainebleu agreement in which Britain obtained a rebate of its EU contributions contained a poisoned pill aimed at British farmers. If the UK co-funded its farmers it would have to pay not 50% but more than 80% of payments from the Treasury because of the terms of the agreement.
The robustly eurosceptic, Dr North, is currently working inside the belly of the beast itself in Brussels, presumably so that he can find out for himself just what is going on since no one else here seems to know.
British farmers are paying for the EU rebate. It has been calculated that if the British government supported our agriculture to the equivalent extent that every other EU country supports its own farmers, British farmers would be entitled to a further £3.5bn/year. No doubt readers could do with some of that.
The British government and especially the Treasury do not want you to know this.
Stuart Pattison,
Church Lane, Calstock, Cornwall.
Best methods are natural
My sympathies are with Ian Duncan Millar (Business, Jan 18) on the subject of the use of vaccines in sheep. We too are converting to organic and this is the one thing that strikes me as unnecessary and non-welfare friendly.
The use of wormers is doubtless overdone and risks a build up of resistance. I trust that we can eventually do without by lower stocking and mixed grazing. Vaccines are another matter. Their routine use can do no harm and can save a great many losses. To allow their use once a problem is diagnosed is a case of stable doors and bolted horses.
I applaud the principle of a return to avoiding or curing diseases by natural methods but this seems to be carrying a principle to excess.
David Griffiths
Piper Farm, Smithy Lane, Long Whatton, Loughborough.
Dont stifle our goodwill
I would like to praise Mrs Bannon for buying British products and I hope it continues (Letters, Apr 5). But a serious look at these so-called "public footpaths" is long overdue.
Many were historic routes and shortcuts. Numerous in number, they often criss-cross each other ending up at the same destination.
When many routes were first registered, correct procedures should have been followed. If that was not carried out fully then the legitimacy of some of these routes could be put into question.
In New Zealand there are waiting lists to go on paid walks for up to four days in length with facilities on route.
What other industry would allow the general public and their dogs, schools and college parties to go into their workplace?
They can walk in areas in the countryside without direction where animals can become dangerous and machinery work at speed. Crops are sprayed and guns are offloaded.
Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill sanctions against landowners and tenants for allowing paths and bridle ways to become overgrown and blocked have been toughened considerably.
Is it any wonder that rural people are accused of being inward looking when attitudes and ever increasing legislation will stifle the goodwill that exists already in the countryside?
Gareth Jones,
Old Radnor, Presteigne, North Wales