Jim Paice is arguably the most down-to-earth member of government. That he is also the most qualified for his ministerial berth is probably no coincidence.

Mr Paice is a farmer and the Farming Minister. Straight-talking, authoritative and boasting few airs and graces, his 12-month tenure has no doubt played well with the farming community, a constituency with very similar characteristics. The perception was his Labour predecessors, by comparison, would struggle to distinguish one end of a cow from another.

But it appears to be a blessing and a curse. "I'm very much aware, because of my own farming background, the industry puts a huge burden of expectation on me," the Conservative MP for Cambridgeshire South Easttells the Western Morning News in an interview to mark the first anniversary of the coalition Government.

"There is some frustration I am not delivering. I can understand that. All I can say is we are delivering but it is taking longer than I would have liked."

To put that into context, it is worth flicking back through the coalition agreement, the policies that bound the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats together a year ago this week.

Some of the most demanding pledges under the aegis of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs fall on Mr Paice's watch.

The two parties signed up to reducing "the regulatory burden on farmers". The coalition would look to share with farmers the responsibility of "outbreaks of disease", promote "high standards of farm animal welfare" and ensure public sector food buying "meets British standards of production".

Perhaps the most significant for the Westcountry, and comfortably the most controversial overall, was the pledge to tackle the scourge of farmers across the region.

"As part of a package of measures, we will introduce a carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of bovine tuberculosis," it stated.

While Mr Paice claims promoting a "profitable and sustainable farming industry" is now at the heart of Defra thinking, TB in cattle is perhaps where the industry's "frustration" creeps in. In September, farmers hailed a watershed moment in the fight after Mr Paice, an employment minister in the John Major government, announced he was considering handing out licences to cull sick badgers. Thousands of cattle are slaughtered annually in the Westcountry as a result of the virulent disease, which is said to be carried by badgers.

The "comprehensive package" of proposals would allow groups of farmers and landowners in TB hotspots to apply for a badger control licence. This would allow them to either vaccinate badgers or administer a programme of vaccination and culling.

Since then, a public consultation has been and gone and there have been no public pronouncements on whether they will actually go ahead with the plan. A House of Lords debate heard this week that a decision will be made before July.

Responses to the consultation have thrown up "challenges", Mr Paice admits today. "I know there is concern in the industry that we haven't got on with it as quickly as many people would have liked. And indeed as quickly as I would have liked."

The delay stems from the likely outcry from animal welfare campaigners. Legal challenges made by the Badger Trust over a trial cull in Wales have caused major problems for the Assembly government there.

"Don't forget, at the same time we've had the Welsh government pulled before the courts on several occasions. And it's happening again. All of which emphasises to us that we must, whatever conclusions we come to, if they involve culling badgers, then we must make sure we can withstand judicial review.

"That means we've got to answer the questions I described publicly at the National Farmers' Union AGM that have come out of the consultation. The principal one being: how do we ensure that the cull once started is finished." The inference is that, sensing another Defra backlash following the embarrassing U-turn over the forests sell-off, ministers have got cold feet.

"We have not got cold feet," he says, without hesitation. "What we have perhaps taken is a recognition that the legalities of it are very important.

"I know it's frustrating for farmers who want to be able to get on with it, and want to know what our own full-picture proposals are. But that's the reality of the world we live in. It's a litigious society and people will take us to court. And the government is not above that law."

The legalities are not to be taken lightly."Farmers have to understand that, if we lose a judicial review, culling badgers will be off the agenda for a very long while."

The figures are striking. Bovine TB led to 25,000 cattle being slaughtered in England last year at the cost of £63 million to the taxpayer.

But Mr Paice stresses that a targeted cull of sick badgers is only "part of the solution". He said: "It's not a magic bullet. So we are working up a range of other measures, primarily on the cattle-to-cattle transmission. That will be published at the same time as our conclusions on badger culling."

Unlike Labour, Mr Paice is clear in his mind that the science backs a badger cull, so long as it is in a wide enough area over a long enough period. "We believe that, from the basic science of the ISG (Independent Scientific Group) trials, and the ongoing studies from them, the science demonstrates culling badgers could make a useful contribution to combating bovine TB.

But there are big practical issues, which the consultation has thrown up. Clearly we have to make sure they are resolvable before we decide whether we go ahead. If we cannot resolve those problems, the cull is off."

Another problem inherited from Labour was the malfunctioning Rural Payments Agency (RPA), the arms-length body that processes £2.3 billion of farming subsidies. Delayed payments, specifically of the Single Payment Scheme, have pushed thousands of farmers close to the edge.

Mr Paice has staked his political reputation on finally getting subsidies to farmers on time, six years after the agency was set up. He said: "A lot of people thought I was mad to volunteer to be chairman of the RPA oversight board. I felt it needed a clear demonstration of political concern and accountability."

Despite a promising start, payments due in March were delayed. Mr Paice reckons there are 50,000 cases that needed to be revisited, and his judgment is that accuracy should take priority over speed. Unresolved claims would simply bank trouble for later.

He said: "We have now begun to get a grip. The new chief executive, Mark Grimshaw, has been in post two-and-a-half months now. I believe he's really grasping the job and really making a difference. I know farmers have had to wait longer for their money this year than they have in the past, and I am extremely sorry about that, but I took the view we could just not go on chasing targets without regard to accuracy."

Next year's should be more straightforward. "We won't have got rid of all those historical corrections this year, but we will have got them down dramatically and we'll get rid of the rest of them over the next 12 months or so."

The third major project has been to find a way through the financial mire caused by animal disease as Defra currently spends £330 million annually on animal health.

Last month, it was announced that a new independent board is to be set up to advise ministers on animal health and welfare issues. Labour's threat to impose a punitive animal "disease tax" on farmers has been dismissed, but the board will consider charging farmers.

Mr Paice said: "I think it's got a huge role in the more mundane but nevertheless important economic diseases we've got in a lot of our stock. I've always taken the view that the first thing is to get the industry to have ownership of the policy, and then for the board to advise on how it will be implemented.

Only then can you talk about the costs and where the costs should fall. It's not automatic that there will be a system of charging to follow. I'm the first to accept it will be a probability."

It will be different for big epidemics, such as foot and mouth, which devastated the region in 2001, and even extreme diseases like bovine TB. "Those clearly stand alone," Mr Paice said.

Foot and mouth cost taxpayers £8 billion, and compensation paid to farmers for culling of cattle infected by bovine TB is a huge chunk of the £80 million paid out each year to tackle viruses. But farmers should not be too alarmed.

"God forbid if there was a repeat of 2001 – and I don't think there will be because we've got much better plans now – it would clearly be unrealistic for the industry to pick up on that."

Other priorities have kicked on. He is pleased with the level of voluntary agreement on country-of-origin food labelling and is "fairly close" to getting all government departments to buy British. Richard McDonald's report on slashing the regulatory burden on farmers is imminent and, despite a hold-up, a draft Bill to form a supermarket overseer is taking shape.

"Give or take, I think about the first anniversary of my appointment to Government we will have achieved or be very close to achieving most of the principal issues that I set out to address."

As the short-term prospects for farming are tough, there is much more to do. "Someone once said miracles you can do once, the impossible takes a little longer. That's where we are at."