His paper, A Policy for Agriculture: Ending State Interference, published this week by the right wing Centre for Policy Studies, makes interesting reading. In it, Sir Richard argues the market is distorted, where it should be free; that subsidy is high, where it should be non-existent; and that prices are kept high by government while farm incomes are low. He may well be right on all three counts. But is he really the man to tell us this? Is he really the man to predict that the Policy Commission will produce a bland report that will simply recommend more of the same interventionist policies that have caused today's problems? Is he really the man to warn the government not to repeat past mistakes?' Not according to one former MAFF insider. During his days there, Sir Richard is remembered as someone who kept a tight grip on his MAFF fiefdom while he was permanent secretary. A Sir Humphry type figure who, through his long days at the ministry, instinctively knew better than ministers of either persuasion what was right in terms of agricultural policy. This inability to always see eye to eye with ministers was cited as one of the reasons why Downing Street was accused of forcing him to quit. This may be a caricature. But he certainly was highly influential at a time when there was little, if any, attempt to create a free market in agricultural produce; when subsidies remained high and farm incomes low. We will have to wait and see, of course, how bland the Policy Commission's report turns out to be, but perhaps, after all, Sir Richard is exactly the right person to warn of not repeating past mistakes. {{NEWS }}