Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Trusting Defra
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jackov Altraids" data-source="post: 7870508" data-attributes="member: 3566"><p>It is clear from the many discussions on TFF, that there is concern that the one-sided relationship we have with our ruling department means we our powerless and open to abuse.</p><p>Payments under CAP were made unless we failed to meet basic legal requirements whereas there is a subtle but significant change to be paid for specific actions in future schemes. This means making capital investments/ spending upfront and incurring loss of productivity before payment. This means we have to trust we will be correctly rewarded.</p><p></p><p>I have 3 proposals that I think will cement that trust.</p><p></p><p>1) All agreements should clearly state one of the 3 options;</p><p></p><p> i. This agreement will not hold the landowner to any requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement.</p><p> ii. This agreement may hold the landowner to some requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement.</p><p>or iii. This agreement will commit the landowner to some requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement.</p><p></p><p>2) I understand why it may be necessary to be able to change the T & C's at anytime, so if that situation remains, they should add;</p><p></p><p>If any changes are made to this agreement at any time that decrease or delay payment, or give added or extra requirements, the agreement holder has the right to cancel the agreement without penalty and be paid pro-rata, up until the date of cancellation.</p><p></p><p>3) There must be a means of independent arbitration in the case of any major dispute and the results available to the public.</p><p></p><p>This would make it clear if the main issue were farmers chancing their luck, failures at the department or systematic errors with the schemes. It would then be possible to have a clear and open discussion about addressing any significant problems.</p><p></p><p>I would appreciate any thoughts on my musings.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jackov Altraids, post: 7870508, member: 3566"] It is clear from the many discussions on TFF, that there is concern that the one-sided relationship we have with our ruling department means we our powerless and open to abuse. Payments under CAP were made unless we failed to meet basic legal requirements whereas there is a subtle but significant change to be paid for specific actions in future schemes. This means making capital investments/ spending upfront and incurring loss of productivity before payment. This means we have to trust we will be correctly rewarded. I have 3 proposals that I think will cement that trust. 1) All agreements should clearly state one of the 3 options; i. This agreement will not hold the landowner to any requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement. ii. This agreement may hold the landowner to some requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement. or iii. This agreement will commit the landowner to some requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement. 2) I understand why it may be necessary to be able to change the T & C's at anytime, so if that situation remains, they should add; If any changes are made to this agreement at any time that decrease or delay payment, or give added or extra requirements, the agreement holder has the right to cancel the agreement without penalty and be paid pro-rata, up until the date of cancellation. 3) There must be a means of independent arbitration in the case of any major dispute and the results available to the public. This would make it clear if the main issue were farmers chancing their luck, failures at the department or systematic errors with the schemes. It would then be possible to have a clear and open discussion about addressing any significant problems. I would appreciate any thoughts on my musings. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Trusting Defra
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top