Red tape survey:
Red tape survey:
Keep those
examples coming
The response to our survey and featured articles has
been amazing, with over 50 e-mails and letters a week
pouring in, explains Guy Opperman, who this week looks
at partnership and pollution
Update on the MAFF Partnership forms scandal
I am indebted to the many farmers who wrote in with more examples of the Ministrys Dickensian approach to partnership. Perhaps the simplest and best point was this: Why does MAFF insist that all partners have to sign one of their forms, regardless of where they live or the extent of their role in the farm?
Are they not aware of the Partnership Act which empowers one partner to sign for all? Is this the only government department that ignores both a 110-year-old act, normal business practice and the logic of a situation?
One theme is consistent throughout all the letters and e-mails I receive. Almost every farmer, even in these troubled times, has no problem actually being a farmer. It is a job you love, are very good at and want to continue with. The problem is that each farmer spends less and less time actually farming and more and more time filling in forms. This strangulation by red tape and the schoolteacher approach of the Ministry are both physically obstructive and mentally destructive of morale.
However, things are beginning to change. To our delight this survey was mentioned in the Houses of Parliament recently and the government indicated that they would await the final outcome of our survey before deciding what action they would take. In other words prepare yourself for another review!
My optimism is not so much for the lacklustre government response but in the fact that this issue of red tape in farming is beginning to get the notice it deserves. So dont despair – there are people out there both in this magazine and elsewhere determined to set farmers free.
The integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive.
This directive is a classic example of red tape by the back door – it was introduced by the Prevention and Control of Pollution Act of 1999.
The problem is that this act – which requires and was given parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in the House of Lords – is three pages long. It is supposed to be concerned with industrial pollution and not agricultural pollution; but their Lordships expressed concern about this Act subsequently loading regulations in respect of permits and emissions on pig and poultry farmers – not through a parliamentary Act but through an implementation order of a statutory instrument.
Surprise, surprise, this is exactly what Michael Meacher did last summer and the statutory instrument became law last August. I rang the DETR to discuss the application of this huge and incomprehensible statutory instrument (and I am a lawyer!) and they said that not only did they not know but also that they expected it to be implemented on a local level.
Any feedback from farmers would be gratefully appreciated because this piece of legislation is so widely drafted, so little debated in the House and of such potentially huge impact. Contact me at 3 Paper Buildings, Temple, London EC4 7EU.
Fax: 020-7353 6271. Email:go@3paper.co.uk