18 May, 2001

John Sheard muses on the implications of the downfall of MAFF and what it might mean in the future.

THERE is an old newspaper cliché, not much used today, in which jubilant editors boasted about some scoop. It said: "Don't forget, you read it here first." Well you did, on these pages, back at Easter.

In some Easter musings, I suggested that the end of the Ministry of Agriculture was nigh. And, I admitted, it was not a new thought: one distinguished Dalesman, Earl Peel, direct descendent of Prime Minister and police-force founder Sir Bobbie Peel, was recommending the demise of the institution ten years ago.

Well, this week Sir Bobby's much later successor in Downing Street, Tony Blair, took the advice and said that, should Labour win the election, MAFF was to be binned. If the opinion polls are to be believed, the ministry is doomed.

Now this has been met with mixed feelings on the countryside. The NFU, for instance, is being decidedly sniffy about the idea - which may or may not have something thing to do the fact that in some sections of the chattering classes, MAFF has been described as "the political wing of the NFU."

On the other hand, the Country Landowners' Association, whose members own or manage some 60% of England's farmland, is overjoyed. They had called earlier in the week for the creation of a new Department of Rural Affairs - which is exactly what Tony Blair is promising.

Now for ordinary country folk, who have little interest and even less time to worry about shenanigans in Whitehall, this might be just a matter of another MAFF under a new name. That, however, may not be true.

MAFF had already been shorn of its powers over food safety by the creation of the Food Standards Agency after more than a decade of food scandals. It is now the FSA which deals with one of the most powerful - and oft criticised - sectors of the food trade, the major supermarket chains.

And MAFF was not all bad. Some of its more recent innovations, like the Agricultural Advisory Service (ADAS) was set up to help farmers diversify into other crops or lines of business. They encouraged the move which led some farmers into B&B, golf courses, visitors attractions and even to start producing exotic livestock like deer, wild boar - and even ostriches.

But, on the whole, the performance of MAFF in the past twenty years has been little short of catastrophic. Although this will upset farmers, the fisheries branch of the ministry has presided over a decline in the British fishing industry even worse than agriculture.

However, it is too early to start celebrating the brave new dawn of the Department of Rural Affairs (DRA?). For politicians and civil servants being what they are, they are already scrapping over the carcass of MAFF to pick the best morsels for themselves.

Will, for instance, the DRA have powers over planning matters in rural areas, a never-ending course of aggravation? Not if the giant Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions has anything to do with it, particularly if Left Jab Prescott is still in charge.

Will it take over the Food Standards Agency, which is supposed to be independent? Will it represent farmers at vital European agricultural policy summits? Not if the Foreign Office has anything to do with it.

There are many such spats developing in the corridors of power and if DRA is to succeed, it is essential that the Secretary of State is a tough fella (or lady!) capable to standing up to other cabinet heavyweights.

And there's the rub. Even on the Tory benches in parliament these days, there are relatively few members who really understand the way the countryside works as an economic and social unit instead of a sort of rural theme park.

On the Labour benches, as far as I can see, there are none at all. Prescott is a seaman from Hull. Michael Meacher, the environment minister, is a nice enough chap but he represents Oldham, Great Manchester, which is about as rural as Upper Wharfedale is in the inner city. And the present MAFF team appear to be totally discredited.

Let's hope that, somehow, they find someone who has actually made a living from the land, rather than someone who views the countryside from his/her weekend cottage in the Cotswolds before rushing back to the nearest Sainsbury's in Hamgate.

That would be a total disaster. We country folk might as well get out our smocks and straw hats, tie our trousers with string, and start practising our Morris dancing so that we can entertain visiting townies outside the village pub.

The countryside as a living museum - that is the last thing we need now. If they hand us over to the Department of Culture, Sport and the Media, prepare to emigrate. Look what that lot did with the Dome!