Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner.

Producers vote for reform of farm assurance ‘monster’

OVERWHELMING: Farmers aired their frustration at the meeting.

Industry anger over the ever-increasing demands of Scotland’s farm assurance schemes led to a gathering of more than 70 farmers voting overwhelmingly to demand reform.

A protest meeting at Oldmeldrum, organised by seed potato grower Patrick Sleigh, attracted farmers from as far afield as Moray, Angus, Speyside and Deeside.

Mr Sleigh said he had also taken more than 80 calls from worried producers from Caithness, Dumfriesshire, Mull, Fife and the Isle of Skye.

Quality Meat Scotland’s (QMS) assurance scheme attracted the most criticism from speakers, who complained about duplication of inspections and lengthy demands on their time and resources every year.

Patrick Sleigh organised the meeting.

One farmer said rules and conditions had grown from 24 pages in 2011 to 51 in 2022, “and we’re getting no benefit from it” he said.

Farmers talked about a lack of accountability by the various scheme operators and claimed individual inspectors appeared to adopt different rules.

However, despite the frustration, there was little appetite for completely scrapping the QMS, Scottish Quality Crops (SQC) or Red Tractor schemes.

Robert MacDonald from Grantown, NFU Scotland’s Less Favoured Areas committee chairman, said: “Most complaints we get about QMS are about the constant extra add-ons every year. It was fine when they were monitoring all the legal requirements, but now they’re loading the schemes with extras that are costing us money and getting backs up.

Robert MacDonald from Grantown-on-Spey said QMS schemes are now “going above and beyond”.

“We realise we need assurance and have to be inspected, but what’s happening now is going above and beyond.

“We backed it because we got a Scottish premium that is now gone, so we’re getting no benefit from QMS.”

Mr Sleigh insisted the meeting was just a starting point for a wider national debate.

He said he would “get the ball rolling” by sending questionnaires to all those who had attended the meeting, and suggested producers in other parts of the country should hold meetings to ensure their views were also heard.

“NFU Scotland (NFUS) has a role, but it’s too close to the assurance organisations and we need some independence,” said Mr Sleigh.

“The assurance bodies need to get the message that they’re not doing what they were set up to do.

“They’ve turned into a monster with more and more rules and no accountability.”

However, NFUS vice-president Andrew Connon said the union was awareof replication in the schemes and assured the farmers he would take their concerns to QMS.

NFUS vice-president Andrew Connon said schemes should be simple and accountable.

“We need to highlight the frustration and I acknowledge the number of people in the room tonight,” he said.

“I believe there’s a need for assurance schemes to give a baseline, but they need to be simple and accountable.”

Agrico executive director, Archie Gibson, who helped moderate the meeting,
said his business complied with Red Tractor’s Safe Haven and organic assurance
schemes, which were important for consumers and the supply chain.

Archie Gibson said there need to be balance and proportionality in schemes.

“I fully support the conversation about the future of schemes and how there has to be balance and proportionality,” he said.

“AHDB reached the point where it lost the confidence of its levy payers and as a result, the potato and horticulture sectors were wound up.”

A collection for rural charity, RSABI raised £152.

Already a subscriber? Sign in