A Defra task force has launched a consultation to find ways to simplify farming regulation and unnecessary rules - and its asked FW to collate suggestions from readers as to pointless/unfair/unduly bureaucratic rules and regs.

So here's your chance. We'll feed all your suggestions back to the task force.

Whether it's related to animal movements, farm inspections, the RPA, planning... tell us about what frustrates you and stops you doing your job! 

As with any business it is uncertainly that is the real killer.  While there are a great many rules and regs I'd like to see stripped away, what I'd most welcome is a moratorium on new ones -of any sort - so that I can get on with things knowing some random new rule isn't just about to leap out at me.  Subsidiary to that, I would like all the existing rule books made as transparent as possible and for the various legions of government inspectors and enforcers to be properly trained in these so that we can all understand the how, why, where and when of the application or these rules.

Once we have stability, transparency and consistency then we can look more closely at what isn't needed or doesn't work properly.

Having been dealing with DEFRA since its inception, I still find it difficult to believe how incompetent they are, and how consistently incompetent at that. I find it equally difficult to believe that any committee composed of DEFRA staff will ever make things better or simpler. I would ONLY allow people who actively and personally farm on the committee, and preferably those from the smaller end of farming, because proportionately they suffer more from bureaucracy than those that farm on a large scale.

 In some instances it is not the rules that are the problem - more the difficulty of trying to work out what the rules are. My own personal bugbear is filling in an SPS form. I don't think it is unreasonable to fill one out - you do get subsidy in return. But the guidance booklets drive me insane. If you have a query there is no real index. The explantions of what you should do are often vague and there is a tendancy to issue updates booklets which tell you which rules have changed, but leave you puzzled if you want confirmation that the rule in 2009 still applies. Quite often you are left to assume a rule is the same on the basis that they haven't told you it has been updated.

I understand printing and sending out completely updated guides each year would be too expensive. But it would be good if all strands could be drawn into one massive online guide with everything in the one place.

 Tim.

June returns, bin them.

Burn all government forms.

  RPA inspectors, sack them.

  Natural England close it down.

  FSA bin them.

. Make all bureaucrats redundant and only reuse them as self employed contractors.

 Close down most Planning Offices

. Make strangulation by red tape a  very serious offence with punitive fines because although it may suprise Civil Servants but the self employed are also human beings and ought not to be discrimated against or harrased by Bureaucrats in pursuit of Marxist ideals.

Well you did ask!

Dick. 

Some weeks ago I wrote to the Better Regulation Task Force setting out the reason why the individual identification of sheep was unecessary and served no purpose except for those breeders who wish to do so. I also pointed out that the electronic identification (except for those who want it) is no no practical benefit to the pursuit of public health.

In short. Take away the statutory need for the individual identification of each sheep and take away the statutory need for the electronic identification of sheep.

I can however, see reasons why the flock number should be visible on the animal.

 

I'm sure there are masses of regulations farmers would like to get rid of but personally I'd like to see the the situation that farmers experienced in the early seventies when MAFF or ADAS were there to assist farmers and make sure they received all they were entitled too. Unlike today when we are in the "If it deviates an inch from what Defra says to hell with commonsense lets penalise them to the hilt---balls to food production "

Peter Wells:

I can however, see reasons why the flock number should be visible on the animal.

Sorry, Peter. but I can't.  The only possible disease control purpose served by knowing where a sheep was born would be Scrapie and I have not seen any indication that that would be one of the diseases the regulations are designed to control.

The truth is that most regulations emanating from the EU are drawn up by bureaucrats trying to tell people (and I know that farmers tend to believe they are singled out - but try asking any other trade and you will get the same tale of woe) how to do their jobs properly, precisely and to the nth degree.  I have two problems with that - firstly the people doing the regulation have no real idea what is involved in any working activity outside their own offices, and secondly that the very fact of there needing to be such precise regulation implies that no-one other than a bureaucrat can be trusted to do anything right. 

Take the regulations regarding C & D of animal transport.  Last weekend I used my trailer to move five tup lambs from one part of the farm to another.  Afterwards the regulations require me to wash out and disinfect the trailer.  Then on Monday I took a tup, which had been living in the same paddock as the tup lambs, to the sheep event 2010.  I was again required to wash out the trailer.  The trailer stayed in the vehicle park at Malvern until required to transport the tup back home on Tuesday, and then be washed out again.  On Thursday the trailer was used to transport four sheep, including the tup which had been at Malvern, to Burwarton Show and home again, it was again required to be washed out.

Through all of this nothing had been in the trailer but me and the sheep which live on my farm.  How was my bio-security improved by all that waste of water, disinfectant and straw?  The answer is simple - it wasn't and water which we are constantly reminded is a valuable resource, was required to be wasted for no valid reason whatsoever.  Why?  Because some bureaucrat deems it so because I cannot be trusted to decide for myself when bio-security is an issue and act appropriately.

My solution to cutting red tape - cut anything which tells us what we should or must do or how we should do it and leave only those regulations which state what we are not allowed to do.

It is an opportunity for us to get our message across to the authorities about these needless and onerous rules. I intend to to write to them about the requirement to keep seperate sheep movement books and complete records for each holding  and send licences in for a movement 100yds down the road. It is an absolute nightmare,I would have all my land on 1 holding number if I could but it is impossible being cross border.

I have looked on the website where we are supposed to send our comments. It filled me with great despair when I read the first comment sent in by a farmer. Instead of less red tape she is demanding MORE! She wants the SFP etc only paid to active farmers, so that means more red tape as Defra investigate the ins and outs of applicants. I hope to goodness Farmers will use the opportunity to cut red tape by clearly telling Defra things that have to go not asking for more regulation. That silly woman has really p******* me off.

I think farmers lives would be made easier if there was just one inspection be it annual or bi-annual that covers everything, Cross Compliance, ACCS, FABBL, ELS and every other scheme going, that way they all have to sing off the same hymn sheet and its then not 1 rule for 1 and another for someone else. If this happens then it needs a really big push from the NFU and other farming groups to really promote to the public the quality of British farming and produce, there are so many schemes with different rules that as a consumer it could be confusing, Freedom Food, Red Tractor, FABBL etc etc how are they supposed to know 1) Which is best and 2) What the farmers have to gone through to get the produce to that level.

 

 

Absolutely no sir.

 If you want inspectors roaming over your place interfering in your businesses, and having the power to ruin your whole enterprise  thats fine by me but please exclude the rest of us from your suggestion. . The willingness to be regulated and ruled by Bureaucrats I find astounding and even more astonishing when I observe customers buying food in the local Lidel and Netto with absolutely no apparent interest in little red tractors,assurance schemes or any other such nonsense, just the price. Foreign food producers must find our masochistic behavior amazing and quite inexplicable.

Dick

They have no interest because I suspect they have no idea what all the symbols mean as like I said there are too many schemes.

 If you have nothing to hide and believe your produce is worthy of a decent price then 1 inspection a year shouldn't be anything to worry about, how do you expect the consumers to pay a fair price for British produce if there is no regulation?

SDM, we have plenty of regulation, that is the point. We are trying to get stupid rules thrown in the bin. As farmers we ought to be trying to get rules ditched not suggesting we have inspections for everything.

Sorry about the underlining in my last post, computer glitch. It is not so much an inspection that I fear as the bizzare petty regulations that I may have failed to comply with that I worry about. I recently had a sheep inspection (which I passed), I would not have relished an inspection for FABBL,NVZ, boundaries etc and all the rest on one day, it was stresssful enough just being inspected on the one front.  Surely SDM, we should be looking to reduce red tape, I dont think your suggestion helps in the least. 

Dick for president!

down with SDM. What an idiot.

glasshouse:

What an idiot.

Steady on glasshouse, we all say idiotic things at times but that doesn't make us idiots. Mind you I have to agree that we have to be careful what we say to the bureaucrats. You can bet your bottom dollar that anything we say to them is taken as an opportunity to justify their continued existence.

I do like the idea of Jacobus's that we draw a dinstinction between all those regulation that tell us what to do and those that simply tell us what we can't do.

 

SDM, 

I am right behind you on this one, and slightly disturbed by the responses.

If you want British farmed products to be different to other products on the shelf and command a premium you must have a difference you can prove (better welfare etc) If you want the tax payers support then you must meet their requirements. To prove your doing this you need inspection. Combine all the inspections into one yearly audit save yourself and the tax payer some time.To the doubters if you are willing to live without the governments support then feel free to do what you like, and please return your SFP cheque.THE BEAST

 

 

As a farmer member of the regulation task force I can reassure 2658336 that the whole panel is made up of independant non Defra people. I am pleased to see that Fwi has got the consultation process off to a flying start. Please keep it up, your contibutions will be very useful. Please also take part in the formal consultation this autumn. We need real examples of unneccessary, duplicated, over complex regulations and ideas about how they can be simplified, changed or removed.

 

Glad The Beast understood what I meant.

I agree that there are many stupid rules and regs that have to be adhered too, but my point was not really about the red tape but how it is managed by various bodies, surely One clear set of rules and regs would be better than FABBL asking for one thing, RSPCA Freedom foods another and the RPA something else? Hopefully one clear set of Sensible rules would help everyone??

SDM the Idiot!!

SDM, what annoyed me about your idea of an annual audit is that it would more than quadruple inspections. FABBL and freedom foods are 2 different things and are voluntary, nothing to do with Defra. I have had IACS inspections lasting 3 days. Beef inspections 2 days and Sheep inspections 1 1/2 days. Thank goodness these are often 6 years in between. Your idea could mean an annual audit checking everything lasting 2 weeks. Let us farmers give Defra ideas to cut red tape not make things worse!

 As far as more regulation helping get better prices what rot!  It is all about supply and demand, the recent lift in lamb prices is due to New Zealand lamb running out and strong demand from Europe taking huge numbers out of the Country, which has led to Supermarkets bidding up to secure supplies. Likewise the rise in Wheat prices is due to international factors and nothing to do with the housewife dipping into her purse from the goodness of her heart. 

the beast:

If you want British farmed products to be different to other products on the shelf and command a premium you must have a difference you can prove (better welfare etc) If you want the tax payers support then you must meet their requirements. To prove your doing this you need inspection. Combine all the inspections into one yearly audit save yourself and the tax payer some time.

 

When the market conditions are such that supply exceeds demand, the producer can either simply accept the market price or try, in some way to persuade the market that his product is different and worth a better price. There are many ways to try and do this.

Product differentiation is one way and this can include selling on breed, animal welfare, local service are just three of many ways. All attempts at differentiation however require the public to believe that 'the difference' is worth paying a premium for. This is where the various Assurance Schemes' come in.

Organisations such as the RSPCA have cultivated a 'brand image' and capitalise on that by 'selling' a stake in that image to farmers who join their Freedom Foods Scheme. To protect the image of a scheme, its owners insist on inspections to verify that is being used in accordance with contracted criteria. For them not to inspect would, because of human nature, soon lead to their scheme's criteria being ignored, and this would then reduce the public's confidence in their 'brand.'

If you don't want inspections, don't rely on someone elses assurance scheme but develop your own. This is best done by supplying local outlets with the 'cream' of your products and, whilst you are building that part of your business, selling the remainder on the 'commodity' market.

Much of the red tape associated with Assurance Schemes is therefore inevitable, and this is because farmers are using the 'brand image' of other organisations.

Some government red tape (probably most of it) is also associated with the desire of politicians to give Assurances, about issues such as human health and animal welfare. The logical justification for Assurance Schemes and their attendant inspections is pretty well developed and so attempts to reduce red tape will prove difficult unless the public can be persuaded that specific assurance levels are too high or unecessary. This will be difficult given the ease with which the public can be whipped into a state of frenzy over health and safety issues.

Some useful work might however be done whilst making efficiency and effectiveness savings, and in consolidating some schemes.

I do not have much hope for a wholesale reduction in red tape. We shall be lucky if it is reduced by 20%. Whereas it is the 80% they won't reduce which is the killer.

 

I agree with everything you have said-

I would like to add that even when developing your own assurance scheme unless you have farmers who can self regulate (which I am affraid is not practical or safe) you will still require an independent regulator to ensure standards (red tape)- how you define those standards might be where you can make the farmers life easier.

 THE (wet) BEAST

i suspect neither sdm or the beast are farmers, or engaged in business to any meaningful extent, hence their lack of comprehension of the stupidity of farm assurance.

Retailers will buy product wherever it is cheapest, and couldnt give 2 hoots about assurance, unless it happens to suit them at the time.

The classic example is scotch whisky. When i used to grow malt barley, i had to be farm assured to supply the maltsters, but they imported barley and wheat, unassured, from all corners of the earth, to malt or distill next to mine, and lower my price.

They then called the resulting product scotch whisky, a total lie, but thats another argument.

Farm assurance bodies are merely another pointless cost we have to bear. There are plenty of laws out there already to catch people who poison people or the environment, and jobsworths filling in forms are not required.

l have to agree with Peter Wells on this one.

Little if anything will be the result of all this energy and money going into regulation reduction.

Regulation is like a huge train, going down a track, being loaded up with more and more rules. No one knows where the train is going or why, and more of a problem for us, no one knows how to stop it or change the direction.

Having met and listened to our esteemed new agriculture minister, l doubt he really has the will   to change much at all

 

Sheep EID...nuff said!