Meeting with AHDB about cereals assurance: What do you want us to say?

[Grass And Grain]

Personally I'm of the opinion that its pointless trying to 'engage' with the 'NFU/RT/AHDB' Blob, they are all massively vested in maintaining the status quo and will not voluntarily do anything to change that. Short of extremely expensive and protracted legal proceedings, the outcome of which would be by no means guaranteed, I can see that they will just fob complaints off and use bureaucratic inertia to make sure nothings happens.

Far better IMO spend any money that people would be prepared to put up for a legal challenge to create a new assurance scheme that merely recreates the import tick box process for UK producers. Then all UK farm output can be 'assured' and compete on exactly the basis as imports. The UK buyers cannot discriminate against the new scheme as they accept exactly the same assurance process for imports, so if they did there would be a slam dunk case against them by the Competition Authorities.

Stop going cap in hand to these bodies, begging for changes, instead create our own organisations to confront them directly. Two out of the 3 are voluntarily funded, and are vulnerable to competition. RT is dead in the water if an import parity assurance scheme is available as an option. And I suspect the NFU would be severely hit by the introduction of a farming representative body that purely worked on providing a team of people to engage with the media at all times to put the farming perspective. Dealing the AHDB is a different issue, its funded by statute, so would have to be a campaign in the same manner that @White rabbit ran to remove the horticulture levy.

Of

Agree with all of that, tbh if the ADHB haven't scheduled a meeting for 9am tomorrow to look at replicating the import standard for domestic producers as fast as possible, then they're not fit for purpose.

AHDB cite four priorities as their main objectives, no.1 is:

1. Competitiveness: Inspiring British farming and growing to be more competitive and resilient

They're categorically failing on this, British farmers are not as competitive in their home market as foreign farmers exporting to the UK, solely because of RT.

Keep up the good work @Grass And Grain , really think the focus should be on a UK standards 'tick box' assurance as a competitor to RT.
As it is, we have different RT standards for the different devolved nations, for example farm in Scotland NSTS required once every three years, farm over the border in Northumberland and NSTS required annually, so not even level playing field on our own isles.

Stick with us for now, although as you say it would nearly have been easier to create a compeitor scheme to RT, run by farmers for farmers. If we don't get what we want, it might still need to be done (but I hope not).

Lots of work to do. The 'tick box' method is what we're asking for.

 

[4course]

Stick with us for now, although as you say it would nearly have been easier to create a compeitor scheme to RT, run by farmers for farmers. If we don't get what we want, it might still need to be done (but I hope not).

Lots of work to do. The 'tick box' method is what we're asking for.

god speed in your endeavours, im all in favour of a tick box approach to the grower asserting they follow the legal recquirements of growing a crop ,lets face it the early years of rt did improve standards however now its going too far for no reward. As the ahdb are keen to remain ,an idea could be that any buyer insisting on buying rt grain paid a levy to the ahdb as the infrastructure is already in place and this levy should be re imbursed to the grower say annually on a /t basis less an administration charge . thus the ahdb would remain in place as well as getting an income stream ,rt would still be there for those who want it ,all growers would benefit and the trade would have a choice of rt or not,If assured the grower would get an increase in price /dividend if not a rt member at least a market would be created in line with imported non assured grain which is the biggest bone of contention as I see it ,

 

[Grass And Grain]

god speed in your endeavours, im all in favour of a tick box approach to the grower asserting they follow the legal recquirements of growing a crop ,lets face it the early years of rt did improve standards however now its going too far for no reward. As the ahdb are keen to remain ,an idea could be that any buyer insisting on buying rt grain paid a levy to the ahdb as the infrastructure is already in place and this levy should be re imbursed to the grower say annually on a /t basis less an administration charge . thus the ahdb would remain in place as well as getting an income stream ,rt would still be there for those who want it ,all growers would benefit and the trade would have a choice of rt or not,If assured the grower would get an increase in price /dividend if not a rt member at least a market would be created in line with imported non assured grain which is the biggest bone of contention as I see it ,

Interesting idea. I'll think about that.

 

[Flat 10]

I know but surely there must be a way we can force a ballot

I believe we have the power to cause a yes/no ballot @An Gof . I think 5% of levy payers writing in 3 months to ask for one causes this to occur. 2 potential problems;
1. The tossers don't know who the levy payers are, so possibly will require more than 5% as I believe they have over estimated the numbers.
2. They are looking to get rid of this option. Please fill in the consultation asking for this feature to remain.
@Chris F has the link. As said before I will be disappointed to see ADHB disappear but will vote for this if they don't help us and I believe its important for us to have this option in case they lose the plot further.

 

[Drillman]

Cutting to the chase, I cannot for the life of me, see why health and safety now has to be reviewed annually as part of RT. It is of course an essential part of our business systems but it is way beyond the initial remit of RT which is food safety. The HSE are already paid to police and review our health and safety policies so why on Earth should we paying twice for this function?
The same argument holds for environnental protection on everything from rat baiting to nutrient management plans to the IPM. We are now spending time annually reviewing environmental aspects with RT that are already policed by other agencies and have no direct bearing on food safety yet all of these extras, all of this mission creep was given away on the watch of the NFU without any meaningful consultation of the membership. Where’s the commercial hard headed sense needed to protect members livelihoods and commercial viability? Seems to be sadly lacking.

Why is a private fee charging company taking upon itself the role of a multiagency inspectorate on an annual basis when in reality all of these functions are already well served by taxpayer funded government inspectors?
If this isn’t an unnecessary cost, a “nice to have” giveaway then I don’t know what is. And it’s all be sanctioned by “our” union. Disgraceful in my view.

I think on my next inspection when asked about various HSE requirements etc I will politely point out that as it’s uk law I’m bound to abide by it, and leave it at that, The inspector can’t Really say a lot as there not employed by a legally enforceable agency.

 

[Drillman]

god speed in your endeavours, im all in favour of a tick box approach to the grower asserting they follow the legal recquirements of growing a crop ,lets face it the early years of rt did improve standards however now its going too far for no reward. As the ahdb are keen to remain ,an idea could be that any buyer insisting on buying rt grain paid a levy to the ahdb as the infrastructure is already in place and this levy should be re imbursed to the grower say annually on a /t basis less an administration charge . thus the ahdb would remain in place as well as getting an income stream ,rt would still be there for those who want it ,all growers would benefit and the trade would have a choice of rt or not,If assured the grower would get an increase in price /dividend if not a rt member at least a market would be created in line with imported non assured grain which is the biggest bone of contention as I see it ,

Interesting idea. I'll think about that.

Now I’ve been thinking bout this and note that even though we’re paying red tractor to sell our produce as assured they also have managed to charge some processors a fee to have the logo on the packet. That fee could (it should be anyway imo) be fed back to farmers as a premium. And is maybe a way forwards if red tractor want to remain in the assurance market as a viable option.

the snag I see is the fee from processors is not massive, I think (correct me if I’m wrong please) is around 2 million into red tractor coffers Annually. that wouldn’t go very far distributed round all the growers of rt produce. So rt would need to work a lot harder than they do now to make it worth while keeping members.

 

[Chris F]

I believe we have the power to cause a yes/no ballot @An Gof . I think 5% of levy payers writing in 3 months to ask for one causes this to occur. 2 potential problems;
1. The tossers don't know who the levy payers are, so possibly will require more than 5% as I believe they have over estimated the numbers.
2. They are looking to get rid of this option. Please fill in the consultation asking for this feature to remain.
@Chris F has the link. As said before I will be disappointed to see ADHB disappear but will vote for this if they don't help us and I believe its important for us to have this option in case they lose the plot further.

This is link for consultantion:

Defra: Open consultation Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB) reform

Consultation description We want to know what you think about proposals to reform the AHDB to end statutory levies in the horticulture and potato sectors in their current form in Great Britain. We also want your views on proposals to improve the accountability of the AHDB to other levy paying...

thefarmingforum.co.uk

 

[White rabbit]

Personally I'm of the opinion that its pointless trying to 'engage' with the 'NFU/RT/AHDB' Blob, they are all massively vested in maintaining the status quo and will not voluntarily do anything to change that. Short of extremely expensive and protracted legal proceedings, the outcome of which would be by no means guaranteed, I can see that they will just fob complaints off and use bureaucratic inertia to make sure nothings happens.

Far better IMO spend any money that people would be prepared to put up for a legal challenge to create a new assurance scheme that merely recreates the import tick box process for UK producers. Then all UK farm output can be 'assured' and compete on exactly the basis as imports. The UK buyers cannot discriminate against the new scheme as they accept exactly the same assurance process for imports, so if they did there would be a slam dunk case against them by the Competition Authorities.

Stop going cap in hand to these bodies, begging for changes, instead create our own organisations to confront them directly. Two out of the 3 are voluntarily funded, and are vulnerable to competition. RT is dead in the water if an import parity assurance scheme is available as an option. And I suspect the NFU would be severely hit by the introduction of a farming representative body that purely worked on providing a team of people to engage with the media at all times to put the farming perspective. Dealing the AHDB is a different issue, its funded by statute, so would have to be a campaign in the same manner that @White rabbit ran to remove the horticulture levy.

Personally I'm of the opinion that its pointless trying to 'engage' with the 'NFU/RT/AHDB' Blob, they are all massively vested in maintaining the status quo and will not voluntarily do anything to change that. Short of extremely expensive and protracted legal proceedings, the outcome of which would be by no means guaranteed, I can see that they will just fob complaints off and use bureaucratic inertia to make sure nothings happens.

Far better IMO spend any money that people would be prepared to put up for a legal challenge to create a new assurance scheme that merely recreates the import tick box process for UK producers. Then all UK farm output can be 'assured' and compete on exactly the basis as imports. The UK buyers cannot discriminate against the new scheme as they accept exactly the same assurance process for imports, so if they did there would be a slam dunk case against them by the Competition Authorities.

Stop going cap in hand to these bodies, begging for changes, instead create our own organisations to confront them directly. Two out of the 3 are voluntarily funded, and are vulnerable to competition. RT is dead in the water if an import parity assurance scheme is available as an option. And I suspect the NFU would be severely hit by the introduction of a farming representative body that purely worked on providing a team of people to engage with the media at all times to put the farming perspective. Dealing the AHDB is a different issue, its funded by statute, so would have to be a campaign in the same manner that @White rabbit ran to remove the horticulture levy.

The problem now is the goal posts have moved, getting rid of them is not on the table only how the money is spent, shades of Owen Patterson comes to mind

 

[simon w]

The problem now is the goal posts have moved, getting rid of them is not on the table only how the money is spent, shades of Owen Patterson comes to mind

Hi white rabbit good to hear from you. What a shambles in the AHDB it looks like they will try anything to keep the gravy train rolling. Now everyone can see what the potato and horticultural sectors faced when calling for a vote and eventually voting them out, even so they still try to clutch at straws and charge us more money to save their necks. Thank you and fellow petitioners for your hard work in getting a vote. They now say they have listened and learnt from the vote but they are still up to their old tricks. I have sent them 4 emails and had no reply and they say the promised vote is on how we want our money spent ! .What would you say the odds are for cereals getting a "yes no" vote.

 

[Grass And Grain]

The problem now is the goal posts have moved, getting rid of them is not on the table only how the money is spent, shades of Owen Patterson comes to mind

Firstly, I'll take this opportunity to say well done with your campaign, although I see they're trying to wriggle out of it.

What do you know about a cereals vote? Is it still possible to trigger a ballot? Sounds like they are trying to stop this happening? Is there a date from when this is prevented?

 

[ajd132]

I read the AHDB arable review today and wasn’t particularly impressed with the content to be honest.

 

[Steevo]

Firstly, I'll take this opportunity to say well done with your campaign, although I see they're trying to wriggle out of it.

What do you know about a cereals vote? Is it still possible to trigger a ballot? Sounds like they are trying to stop this happening? Is there a date from when this is prevented?

I did the consultation yesterday and one of the questions in it is asking to remove the vote. It’s a secondary question to “would you like a vote on how to spend the money every 5 years?”.

 

[teslacoils]

My view of the next step, it's taken from lyrics by The Exploited (aka farmers) song Beat The barstewards. Hold on. It's apt:


Slaves to the system there's no way out
Slaves to the system do you have a shout
You've got to beat the barstewards and beat 'em now
Sick of policies putting me down

Beat the barstewards, beat them now

 

[White rabbit]

Thank you for those comments everyone, fighting the ahdb took over 2 years for the 3 of us and was all consuming, they are still draining the cash out of our two sectors saying they need the money for redundancy and closing down costs. They are also taking a hard line on growers who are unable to pay, there is a considerable amount who owe thousands of pounds (certainly after these last 2 years) and are demanding payment in full and not in instalments, the horticultural sector in south Lincolnshire is in meltdown but the ahdb couldn’t care less.

 

[robbie]

Having read the other thread about the winding up of the spud and Hort board. I do wonder if they are taking a hard line with payments from growers and making a big deal of how much money they need to close down and pay redundancy just to scare us levy payers who want the same to happen the cereals board.

 

[simon w]

Having read the other thread about the winding up of the spud and Hort board. I do wonder if they are taking a hard line with payments from growers and making a big deal of how much money they need to close down and pay redundancy just to scare us levy payers who want the same to happen the cereals board.

I believe the AHDB will try to make changes to the law so farmers will not be able to call for a ballot in future. It is worrying that an organisation supposedly set up to benefit us, is also responsible for taking us to court for non payment which could lead to the closing down of some businesses. Can't they understand that we voted them out of hort and pots because they just wasted our levy and were of little benefit. Being the only sectors to have to make an annual payment we were well aware of the costs. Why should an organisation that is for our benefit not be accountable to us or are we too stupid to know what is for our own good. They will now embark on a PR campaign using our levy to tell us how good they are, as seen with lamb and beef sectors now and cereal to follow. Don't let this happen. Do the DEFRA consultation, then make sure the farmers views are not twisted and hold them to the results.

 

[White rabbit]

Such generosity from ahdb, pig producers are in the same situation that veg producers are , what magic formula have they come up with , not charge one months levy , now pig men get on and stop complaining all your problems have been solved, who said ahdb didn’t know what day it was.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Such generosity from ahdb, pig producers are in the same situation that veg producers are , what magic formula have they come up with , not charge one months levy , now pig men get on and stop complaining all your problems have been solved, who said ahdb didn’t know what day it was.

Think my blood would be boiling if I were a spud or horticulture grower.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Personally I'm of the opinion that its pointless trying to 'engage' with the 'NFU/RT/AHDB' Blob, they are all massively vested in maintaining the status quo and will not voluntarily do anything to change that. Short of extremely expensive and protracted legal proceedings, the outcome of which would be by no means guaranteed, I can see that they will just fob complaints off and use bureaucratic inertia to make sure nothings happens.

Far better IMO spend any money that people would be prepared to put up for a legal challenge to create a new assurance scheme that merely recreates the import tick box process for UK producers. Then all UK farm output can be 'assured' and compete on exactly the basis as imports. The UK buyers cannot discriminate against the new scheme as they accept exactly the same assurance process for imports, so if they did there would be a slam dunk case against them by the Competition Authorities.

Stop going cap in hand to these bodies, begging for changes, instead create our own organisations to confront them directly. Two out of the 3 are voluntarily funded, and are vulnerable to competition. RT is dead in the water if an import parity assurance scheme is available as an option. And I suspect the NFU would be severely hit by the introduction of a farming representative body that purely worked on providing a team of people to engage with the media at all times to put the farming perspective. Dealing the AHDB is a different issue, its funded by statute, so would have to be a campaign in the same manner that @White rabbit ran to remove the horticulture levy.

I think you're right, concentrate efforts on setting up direct competition to RT.

Of

Agree with all of that, tbh if the ADHB haven't scheduled a meeting for 9am tomorrow to look at replicating the import standard for domestic producers as fast as possible, then they're not fit for purpose.

AHDB cite four priorities as their main objectives, no.1 is:

1. Competitiveness: Inspiring British farming and growing to be more competitive and resilient

They're categorically failing on this, British farmers are not as competitive in their home market as foreign farmers exporting to the UK, solely because of RT.

Keep up the good work @Grass And Grain , really think the focus should be on a UK standards 'tick box' assurance as a competitor to RT.
As it is, we have different RT standards for the different devolved nations, for example farm in Scotland NSTS required once every three years, farm over the border in Northumberland and NSTS required annually, so not even level playing field on our own isles.

SQC are going to 1 year sprayer testing this year. And in Canada, USA, Brazil? Nah, no such requirement.

god speed in your endeavours, im all in favour of a tick box approach to the grower asserting they follow the legal recquirements of growing a crop ,lets face it the early years of rt did improve standards however now its going too far for no reward. As the ahdb are keen to remain ,an idea could be that any buyer insisting on buying rt grain paid a levy to the ahdb as the infrastructure is already in place and this levy should be re imbursed to the grower say annually on a /t basis less an administration charge . thus the ahdb would remain in place as well as getting an income stream ,rt would still be there for those who want it ,all growers would benefit and the trade would have a choice of rt or not,If assured the grower would get an increase in price /dividend if not a rt member at least a market would be created in line with imported non assured grain which is the biggest bone of contention as I see it ,

Good idea, if purchaser requests RT, then to provide a premium for this, they could foot the bill for our AHDB levy.