report

Transcription

report

BUSINESS FOCUS ON
ENFORCEMENT
A review by the NFU of
livestock farm inspections in
England
MARCH 2015
NFU review of livestock farm inspections in England
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 3
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 6
Business Focus on Enforcement ................................................................................................ 6
Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 6
UK agriculture and livestock coverage ....................................................................................... 7
Other recent programmes of study ............................................................................................. 8
Key domestic regulators .............................................................................................................. 9
Evidence gathering ..................................................................................................................... 10
SECTION 2: OUR FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 12
Good practice .............................................................................................................................. 12
Finding 1: Number of visits ........................................................................................................ 14
Finding 2: Local authorities’ interaction with livestock businesses ....................................... 16
Finding 3: Potential for overlapping checks between regulators ............................................ 20
Finding 4: Earned recognition and farm assurance ................................................................. 23
Finding 5: Communication around visits .................................................................................. 24
Finding 6: Impact of visits .......................................................................................................... 25
Finding 7: Competence and knowledge of inspectors ............................................................. 27
Finding 8: Attitude and behaviour ............................................................................................. 29
Other experiences....................................................................................................................... 31
ANNEX A: SCOPE OF THE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 33
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) was one of three trade associations selected in July
2014 to lead a Business Focus on Enforcement review. This report identifies the impact on
livestock farmers of current enforcement practices, examining the potential for duplication
and overlap between national and local regulators. As a result of the offer made by the
Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) the findings and evidence gathered
will be presented directly to Ministers and the regulators responsible for this area of
enforcement. Ministers and regulators will then be asked to respond to the findings set out
in this report and, as appropriate, propose reforms and improvements to the way in which
the regulations are enforced.
This is not the first time that enforcement burdens on farmers have been reviewed. This
review follows on from the Farm Regulation Task Force’s report on reducing burdens for
farmers and food processors published in May 2011 and the National Audit Office review
on farm oversight visits published in December 2012. This Business Focus on
Enforcement review was a chance to gather evidence from an industry perspective for the
first time on livestock inspections, current enforcement practice and whether the
recommendations from previous reports have been progressed.
We received considerable feedback on livestock inspections with the evidence gathered
mainly focusing on the potential for duplication and overlap, the frequency of inspections,
the impact of regulatory visits and the attitude and competence of the inspectors.
In gathering evidence it was clear that the need for regulation and inspection is understood
and accepted by farm businesses. In terms of avoiding duplication and overlap we heard
some positive feedback with the local authorities we spoke to receiving data of planned
visits from the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) in order to avoid multiple visits. We heard
that local authorities are using risk assessments on which to base their routine visits to
livestock premises. Some authorities are building extra criteria into these so they focus on
premises where there is little or no confidence that the business will be complying with the
legislation. However, this did not seem a universal practice which would help provide
consistency.
From a farmers’ viewpoint we heard that more could be done to promote joined up working
but many were positive regarding joint inspections. We were also told of cases where
there had been consistency with the same inspector visiting the farm, which helped in
developing a positive relationship with the inspector.
In addition to this positive feedback and good practice we also heard considerable
evidence from farmers with concerns about enforcement processes and effectiveness.
These findings are summarised below and outlined in more detail in the ‘Our Findings’
section of the report:
Finding 1: Number of visits
Livestock businesses told us they had been subject to a variety of visits over the past five
years, with an average of 5.6 visits over a five- year period. We found these inspections
can have a major impact on the business, especially micro businesses who that told us
they will often be without the extra resource and manpower to help reduce the impact and
time taken up. This impact clearly multiplies when the business is subject to more than one
3
inspection in a short time frame. Our data also showed that nine per cent of respondents
to the survey have not been subject to a regulatory visit in a five-year period.
Finding 2: Local authority interaction with livestock businesses
We heard about livestock farmers’ interaction with local authorities for the purposes of
animal health and welfare visits and food and feed hygiene inspections. Information we
heard indicates that respondents to the survey stand around a one in ten chance per year
of being visited by their local authority with farmers telling us they viewed these as
‘inspections’ rather than advisory led visits. We were also told that farmers in the North
East region are subject to a greater number of local authority visits than elsewhere.
Finding 3: Potential for overlapping checks
We heard that many areas checked by local authorities are also checked by other
inspection regimes leading to a perception of overlap and duplication. Our data showed
there is the potential for duplication, most often between farm assurance and local
authority inspections. Farm businesses are also concerned at the potential for repeated
checks between the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) and
RPA.
Finding 4: Earned recognition and farm assurance
In recent years farm assurance schemes have developed. These are voluntary schemes,
funded by producer membership fees. They have been established to support food chain,
traceability and food safety. The Red Tractor scheme covers production standards
developed by experts on safety, hygiene, animal welfare and the environment amongst
other things. Every farm assured farm is regularly checked by independent inspectors who
verify compliance with the relevant standards.
Our data showed there is the potential for duplication most often between farm assurance
visits and local authority inspections. The data also shows that farm assurance has a
greater presence on farms than any statutory national or local regulator. In practice earned
recognition is in place for a number of inspection regimes for farm assured members. This
includes agreements with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) for food and feed hygiene
inspections, which local authorities carry out on behalf of the FSA. However, there is no
co-ordinated inspection plan or earned recognition agreement in place for local authorities’
animal health and welfare responsibility.
Finding 5: Communication around visits
We found that there is confusion and a lack of clarity over the responsibilities of each
agency and why some businesses have been selected for an inspection. There was also
inconsistency reported regarding communication pre and post visit. We heard there is a
lack of communication and transparency around inspections which would help improve
understanding and ensure a better experience for the farm business as well as the
regulator.
Finding 6: Impact of visits
Farmers we spoke to agreed that continuous checks are a burden to running an
agricultural business. We heard this was especially the case for micro businesses and
those who are self-employed and not able to rely on outside help; some farmers said that
regulators seemed to assume a secretary or office manager would be available. It was
identified that the average total time for a local authority animal health and welfare
4
inspection is more than 3.5 hours. Other key impacts on the business we were told about
included loss of earnings and financial penalties; time; stress; and provision of labour.
Finding 7: Competence and knowledge of inspectors
We heard that farmers felt the knowledge and competence of farm assurance auditors was
generally better than national regulators and local authorities. Farmers felt the Farming
Regulation Task Force recommendations around the training of inspectors (to ensure they
are equipped with the right skills and knowledge of farming) hadn’t progressed sufficiently.
For example we heard of an inspector arriving dressed for work in a field in a business
suit.
Finding 8: Attitude and behaviour
We were told that in some cases the attitude and behaviour of the inspector was unhelpful.
This has created the perception that in some cases the inspector is working against the
industry and comes out to farm with the sole intention to find something wrong. We heard
that this does not help to encourage cooperation and an open and transparent dialogue on
such visits.
The evidence also indicates that despite sharing of data between some regulators,
multiple inspections are still occurring. Farmers felt there should be data shared between
regulators to minimise the possibility of duplicate visits. We were also told that joint
inspections would be welcome especially where this involves the gathering of cattle.
5
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND
Business Focus on Enforcement
In July 2014 it was announced that the NFU had been selected as one of three trade
associations and business representative organisations to lead a Business Focus on
Enforcement Review.
Business Focus on Enforcement is a new initiative, building on the Focus on Enforcement
reviews conducted by BIS. This new initiative is giving trade associations and business
representative groups, instead of civil servants, the dominant role in identifying
enforcement issues and driving reform to benefit their industries. Each review is a short
investigation of stakeholder experiences, involving a concise period of fieldwork and
evidence gathering.
This report identifies the impact of current enforcement practice on livestock farmers. As a
result of the offer made by BIS the findings and evidence gathered will be presented
directly to Ministers and the regulators responsible for this area of enforcement. Ministers
and regulators will then be asked to respond to the findings set out in this report and, as
appropriate, propose reforms and improvements to the way in which the regulations are
enforced.
As a result the NFU believes there is a real opportunity for Government to take these
findings into account in considering how best to create a better regulatory experience for
farmers. There needs to be a meaningful change for livestock producers to ensure that
future enforcement practices lessen the burden and time impact for compliant farmers.
Scope
The aim of the NFU review was to gather evidence from an industry perspective on
livestock visits and inspections, to examine the extent to which there is potential for
duplication and overlap to occur between national regulators and local authorities. We
defined regulatory visits as any visit on farm by a national and local regulator, for example
visits to check or provide advice on compliance with regulations, including disease
surveillance.
It is understood that there are a number of visits that are undertaken where there are
similarities of checks being made by different regulatory bodies, and similar types of
information being collected during regulatory visits. In scope for this review were dairy,
beef and sheep farms in England.
The NFU review therefore set out to gather evidence on the duplication and overlap often
cited by farm businesses, and whether this is a real or perceived issue. The review also
looked to gather evidence on:




The frequency and range of oversight visits faced by livestock farmers
The impact of oversight visits on farm businesses in terms of time and resources
Whether there are any inconsistencies across different regions
The interactions livestock farmers have with regulatory bodies
6

Whether there has been an improvement regarding on-farm inspections and visits in
the past five years
UK agriculture and livestock coverage
Agri-food is a significant sector of the economy. According to official figures, the agri-food
sector in the United Kingdom accounted for a total estimated Gross Value Added (GVA) of
£97 billion in 2012; 7.1 per cent of national GVA in 2012. In 2013 the Total Income from
Farming recovered from the dip in 2012, due to the bad weather, to £5.6 billion. This is the
second highest since the mid-1990s.1
Agriculture’s importance to the UK economy is emphasised by the fact that the UK has
142,000 businesses that are registered as farm businesses for VAT purposes 2. The
farming sector is also a major employer. The Defra June Survey figures show that in 2013
the national agricultural workforce stood at 464,000. One of the factors that characterises
agriculture is the dominance of family businesses, with more than 90 per cent of
businesses run as sole traders or family partnerships.3
According to latest statistics from Defra there are a total of 7,091 dairy holdings in
England, with 12,528 grazing livestock (LFA) and 32,029 grazing livestock (lowlands)
holdings across England4. These businesses will vary in terms of size and number of
people employed.
In terms of the structure of the industry there are more than five million head of cattle and
nearly 15 million head of sheep across England5. The main dairy producing areas in
England are in the South West, with livestock coverage focused in the North West and
South West. Indeed, in terms of stock the South West is home to more cattle, calves,
sheep and lambs than any other region, with its dairy and beef herds accounting for almost
a third of the national total. There are nearly 1.8 million cows, and over three million sheep
in the region. The North East region is also home to over 1.8 million sheep which is more
than any other region in England6.
On a European basis, the UK is among the most significant food producers in the EU. The
UK is the largest producer of sheepmeat in the EU, with 2013’s production of 290,000
tonnes of lamb and mutton more than double that of Spain - the EU’s second largest
sheep producer. The UK is the fourth largest producer of beef in Europe and the third
largest producer of cows’ milk with more than 13bn litres of milk produced annually; only
Germany and France have a greater dairy output7.
1
Defra Agriculture Accounts Publication
ONS – UK Business: Activity, Size and Location 2012
3
Defra Farm Business Survey 2012/2013
4
Defra Agriculture in the English regions statistics note 2013
5
AHDB 2013
6
Defra Structure of the agricultural industry in England and the UK at June
7
Defra Agriculture in the UK 2013
2
7
Other recent programmes of study
There has been long standing concern expressed by livestock farmers about current
inspection arrangements resulting in potential duplication of effort. A couple of recent
Government instigated reviews have put forward recommendations to tackle the burden
and frustration experienced by farmers as a result of inspections.
The independent Farm Regulation Task Force in 2011 heard concerns about the time
taken up with inspections as a result of overlapping visits by central Government
inspectors, local authority inspections and private sector audits. It was felt poor coordination; duplication and frequency of inspections were systemic problems.
The Task Force included recommendations in its 2011 report to Government, to ensure
that local authorities are not carrying out inspections for the same purpose as another
regulatory body. The recommendation also stated that ‘in the case of such duplication,
only one body should carry out the inspection’. It believed that ‘this will reduce the
likelihood of farmers having more than one inspection of the same issue’.
The Task Force also argued that private sector audits could be better used to reduce the
regulatory burden by a system of ‘earned recognition’. Its report stated that ‘Business
already invests in third party checks that verify, through regular independent and
accredited inspections, that members are meeting stated standards that, as a minimum,
reflect regulatory requirements. We believe that scheme membership should serve as an
indicator that the participant has a good level of understanding and competence. It makes
sense that regulators should take account of the evidence of this commitment when
considering risk’.
In its 2012 annual report Assured Food Standards stated the Red Tractor assurance
scheme penetration represented a significant proportion of UK production in all of its
sectors covered. Across the beef, lamb and dairy schemes its coverage is as follows:
Scheme
Dairy
Beef
Lamb
per cent penetration of
total UK production
82%
82%
65%
Members in these sectors will be audited every 18 months.
The National Audit Office (NAO) carried out a review of farm oversight visits in December
20128. During its review it established there were an estimated minimum of 114,000 visits
made by Government bodies during 2011-12. The NAO report outlined that the cost of
regulation represents around one-tenth of an average farm’s net profit, with an average
annual cost of £5,500 per farm in England of complying with Defra’s regulations.
8
National Audit Office – Streamlining Farm Oversight report December 2012
8
The National Audit Office report also highlighted duplication of effort and put forward
recommendations to reduce this. These recommendations included building upon existing
work to achieve stronger co-ordination and improved intelligence sharing and collection.
This Business Focus on Enforcement review was a chance to gather evidence from an
industry perspective for the first time and to see whether these recommendations have
been progressed with a perceptible difference to businesses on the ground.
Key domestic regulators
The report and evidence captured information on the following Defra agencies:

The Animal Heath and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) 9 carry out animal
disease surveillance, diagnostic services, veterinary scientific research for government
and works to improve the health and welfare of animals. Main areas of regulatory
activity include licensing and approvals, inspection, surveillance, testing, movement
restrictions and the slaughter or seizure of animals.

The Environment Agency (EA) was established in 1996 and its purpose is to protect
or enhance the environment and promote sustainable development. The EA inspects
farms to drive practices which protect and improve the environment. Its main regulatory
areas include water quality, pollution prevention, waste management, and water
resource management.

Natural England (NE) has responsibility for ensuring the natural environment including
land, freshwater, geology and soils is protected and improved. Its main regulatory
activities are agri-environment schemes, wildlife licensing, and to protect SSSIs.

The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) was created in October 2001 and is responsible
for administering and distributing the Single Payment Scheme to farmers in England.
As a result it ensures compliance with EU and UK regulations through farm inspections
under cross-compliance. Further regulatory activity includes livestock traceability,
single payment scheme eligibility and animal identification inspections. The RPA will
also undertake elements of agri-environment scheme inspections.

The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) is responsible for developing and
delivering veterinary medicines policy in the UK. It inspects feed business operators to
minimise the risk to animal and human health from feedstuffs containing veterinary
medicines and certain additives.
Other Government inspectors included:

Local authorities are required by law to enforce regulations that protect animals,
businesses and consumers and to check that legislation is being complied with. This is
9
The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) was launched on 1 October 2014. This
merged the former Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) with parts
of the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) responsible for plant and bee
health to create a single agency responsible for animal, plant and bee health.
9
done through regulatory advice, inspections, and compliance monitoring. They work
closely with AHVLA and carry out inspections on behalf of FSA. During the review they
were mainly referred to by farmers as Trading Standards.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is required under EU legislation to ensure that
farms are working within the rules of EU hygiene legislation. This is to protect the
nation’s milk supply from the risk of contamination by potentially harmful bacteria and
other substances. It is also responsible for ensuring human health is not put at risk by
animal feed – however these inspections are carried out by local authorities.
Private / third party schemes covered:

Assured Food Standards (Red Tractor) is a food assurance scheme which covers
production standards developed by experts on safety, hygiene, animal welfare and the
environment amongst other things. To achieve certification farmers must meet
hundreds of individual standards which are independently audited on a regular basis.
Evidence gathering
Formal evidence for the review was gathered through different phases which included
face-to-face discussions and telephone interviews. The different channels used to gather
this evidence meant that businesses and other stakeholders across the industry could
have their say, ensuring that the formal evidence gathering process wasn’t just restricted
to the NFU membership base.
Formal evidence gathering was conducted across the following stages:

Phone based questionnaire (30 July – 22 August)
The questionnaire was conducted between July and August and involved speaking to 780
farmers who kept livestock (sheep, beef or dairy). Information was obtained about
Government regulatory visits and duplication from 771 people. NFU livestock members
were selected at random and contacted by telephone between 30 July and 22 August
2014.
In order to qualify for the full survey which focused on local authority visits, questions were
asked to obtain if respondents had received a local authority inspection in the past five
years. As a result 442 qualified to take part in the survey, and data was obtained from a
total of 283 who agreed to complete the full survey.
The survey was made widely available – including on the Government website – in order
to allow for the widest possible participation. The survey was produced by the NFU
Research Manager with independent analysis from BIS economists.
The NFU survey can be found via the following link:
www.nfuonline.com/websurveys/breonline/breonline.htm
10

Agri-Chat Twitter debate on livestock inspections (4 September)
Agri-Chat was started in April 2011 as the first UK based agricultural hashtag to facilitate
discussions amongst farmers on Twitter. A discussion takes place every week on a
different subject area based on a series of questions. The session on livestock inspections
took place at the beginning of September. The session was based on eight questions
around livestock inspections. The session had 166 tweets, from 44 tweeters with a reach
of 62,000.

Workshops (18 September to 3 October)
A total of six workshops were held across NFU regions over a two-week period. These
were facilitated by an independent market research organisation and consisted of focus
group type discussions with livestock farmers who had expressed an interest in attending.
Promotion of these events was communicated through national agricultural trade press,
local regional press, NFU newsletters, NFUOnline and social media. The workshops were
a chance to hear farmers’ recent experiences and thoughts of inspections they had been
subject to and asked for views on how the inspection experience could be improved. A
total of 36 farmers attended the workshops.
The BIS Focus on Enforcement website also provided the opportunity for industry and
other stakeholders to feed into the review anonymously online. The NFU page on this
website also provided further details on the workshops. The NFU also contacted six local
authorities to ask for data and information on the number of inspections they had
conducted over the past five years, the risk assessments they use and what data sharing
agreements are in place with other regulators.
11
SECTION 2: OUR FINDINGS
This section summarises the key evidence gathered during the review. The first section
sets out areas which were identified as good practice before focusing on areas that were
identified as concerns and issues for change and development.
Good practice
Those participating in the evidence gathering sessions recognised that statutory legislation
was needed, and the requirement for inspections to ensure compliance with these
regulations was fully understood. During the workshops and Agri-Chat debate we heard a
number of examples of good practice. These are outlined below:

We found that farmers generally had a good understanding as to the responsibilities of
the RPA and Environment Agency and the different inspection regimes for which they
are the competent authority.

We found that the impression of local authorities in the West Midlands was an
improving one. Farmers in this region were more positive about their local authority’s
attitude and had noticed a changed approach regarding inspection. We were told they
were more approachable and more prepared to work and help businesses rather than
prosecute.

Participants at the workshops recalled having repeat visits from the same inspector for
farm assurance audits and local authority visits. This was regarded as a positive as
they could develop a relationship with the inspector.

While we were told at all regional workshops that more could be done to promote
joined up working, farmers in the South West, East Midlands and West Midlands had
experience of, or had heard that TB and Cattle Identification inspections were being
combined and felt this approach should be taken more widely.

Some local authorities told us that they receive copies of the cattle and sheep and goat
inspections from the RPA and will avoid programmed inspections of these farms where
possible. However this data sharing did not seem to be consistent between national
regulators and local authorities.

From the local authorities we spoke to we heard that most are using the principles of
the Defra Risk Assessment for selecting the premises to visit. Some authorities,
including Warwickshire and Staffordshire, have built on this and have adopted a
regional risk assessment policy of focusing inspections on premises where they have
little or no confidence that the owner will comply with legislation. Others such as Dorset
operate a postal record check scheme for farms that have not been visited for some
time.

We found that farmers were generally positive regarding farm assurance annual audits
and their approach was seen as ‘working with industry rather than against it’. We found
this experience was in contrast with other agencies (see findings 7 and 8). While these
12
are industry schemes and this view could be expected, further feedback was provided
on the knowledge and competence of the inspectors with many famers telling us that
farm assurance inspectors had a good understanding of the practicalities of the
industry.
In addition to these positive outcomes we also heard many concerns regarding on-farm
inspection regimes and the processes of these visits. These main findings are outlined in
the next section.
13
Finding 1: Number of visits
Livestock businesses told us they had been subject to a variety of regulatory
visits over the past five years. It was reported during the workshops that these
inspections can have a major impact, with farm businesses expected to drop
everything to deal with the inspector. This impact clearly multiplies when the
business is subject to more than one inspection in a relatively short timeframe.
We found that nine per cent of livestock farms surveyed had not received
regulatory visits during the past five years.
We found around a quarter of farms in the past five years received two or
more inspections in the same year. We were told that compliant farmers
across the country should be subject to a consistent risk assessment and
not be receiving visits from the same or different agency within a short
period of time.
We heard that farmers felt there is limited recognition given to farm
assurance. Farmers we spoke to believe that it is right that the effort and
cost that farmers contribute to meeting and passing their farm assurance
audits are also recognised by statutory inspectors in recognition of the
lower risk that these businesses pose.
During the phone survey and workshops, we heard that livestock farmers can be subject to
a variety of different regulatory visits. We were told that these visits are irregular (apart
from farm assurance). The chart below shows the range of the number of visits and
inspections that can take place over a five year period.
How many inspections from any agency are livestock farmers subject to over a five-year
period?
Number of visits over five years (base 283)
14%
12%
12.7%
12.7%
11.7%
9.9%
10%
9.2%
8.8%
8.5%
7.4%
8%
6%
5.7%
4.9%
4.6%
3.9%
4%
2%
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
More Don't
than 10 know
14
The data above relates to those farmers that have had at least one local authority visit
over the past five years. Using this data, the average number of visits for a livestock
farmer over a five year period, is 5.6 visits. However, while around half of all respondents
received between one to five visits over the last five years (i.e. up to an average of one
visit per year) the other half received six or more visits (i.e. more than one visit per year on
average). This indicates the spread of visits is not evenly distributed and some farmers are
being subject to multiple visits for whatever reason. This suggests that greater data
sharing and communication needs to take place between regulatory agencies in planning
visits and sharing intelligence and information about livestock farms.
When speaking with the wider sample of 771 respondents we were told that nine per cent
of livestock farmers had not received a visit from any agency in the past five years. This
figure implies that the vast majority of livestock farmers are receiving some kind of an
inspection or visit from a regulatory body (including farm assurance) on a regular basis.
We also heard that some farmers receive multiple inspections in the same year. The chart
below shows the number of visits per year including farm assurance audits, based on 283
respondents.
Number of visits per year including farm assurance
Number of visits per year (base 283)
2009
43%
2010
38%
40%
2011
37%
36%
2012
45%
31%
2014 to end
August
42%
49%
0%
No visits
20%
1 visit
17%
37%
29%
2013
13%
2 visits
60%
3 visits
6% 2% 1%
17%
6% 4%
17%
7% 2% 1%
11% 5%1% 1%
80%
4 visits
4%2% 1%
18%
33%
40%
4%1% 0.4%
100%
5 or more visits
The chart above shows that in the past three full years (excluding 2014 as a part year)
over a quarter (27 per cent) of livestock farmers have been subject to two or more visits in
the same year. In 2010 nearly a quarter of livestock farms (24 per cent) had been subject
to multiple visits. As this data includes farm assurance audits it may indicate that farm
assurance membership is not being fully taken into account by regulators in all cases
when selecting premises to visit.
The concept of earned recognition has been introduced for a number of inspection
regimes over the past couple of years, but it may take time for this to be reflected in terms
of reducing multiple visits. However in looking at the 2014 data, when earned recognition
15
should have been fully embedded across several inspection regimes, 18 per cent of
livestock farms have already received two or more inspections. This data is only for a part
year up to August, so has the potential to increase in the last third of the year.
This data may again indicate that greater data sharing between regulators is needed, with
more consistent risk assessments needed to take into account farm assurance
membership.
Finding 2: Local authorities’ interaction with livestock businesses
Livestock businesses told us about the frequency and purpose of local
authorities’ engagement over the past five years. Information we heard
indicates that farmers stand around a ten per cent chance of being visited by
their local authority on an annual basis, with farmers in the North East subject
to a greater number of local authority inspections than any other region. We
also heard that farm businesses see local authority visits as ‘inspections’
rather than advisory led visits which could increase the impact of the visits,
resulting in apprehension.
We were told by local authorities that they use some form of risk
assessment when planning routine visits. However data from the survey
may indicate that a consistent methodology is not universally used.
Farmers told us that risk models used by regulators need to take
sufficient account of farm assurance.
Frequency of visits
The information obtained from local authorities gave the impression that the number of
visits they conduct is reducing. While there could be a number of reasons for this, the
impression generally was that budget cuts and the reduction in local authority resources
have had a significant impact on animal health and welfare work. We also heard from
some local authorities that they are also becoming more targeted and advice led in their
visits, with some using risk and confidence in management to ensure inspections are
aimed at those that pose the highest risk.
Staffordshire Local Authority informed us that inspections had been decreasing year-onyear over the past six years, with total visits now less than half of the number carried out in
2009/10. While local authorities said they are still conducting routine inspections there is
significant inconsistency in the level of reduction for these visits. This is shown in the table
below:
Number of planned visits per year by Local Authority to livestock farms
Local Authority
Year
Warwickshire
Dorset
North Yorkshire
2009/10
133
373
2010/11
109
274
1067
2011/12
200
348
617
2012/13
66
272
484
2013/14
105
282
484
16
This shows there has been a 55 per cent reduction in a four-year period in North Yorkshire
but routine inspections have not decreased as much in other areas and have actually
increased slightly in the past year in Warwickshire and Dorset. This would indicate that it is
up to each local authority to determine the importance they place and resource they
dedicate to routine livestock visits.
Out of 771 respondents to our phone based survey, we heard that 436 had received a visit
from their local authority over the past five years. This shows that just over half of livestock
farms (56.5 per cent) will have received a recent on-farm visit from their local authority.
The data obtained from 283 respondents through our phone survey showed when farm
businesses had received a local authority visit. This is shown in the table below:
When did Local Authority visits take place
Respondents
2014
2013
2012
283
(this
(last
(2
year)
year)
years
ago)
59
81
88
2011
(3
years
ago)
2010
(4
years
ago)
2009
(5
years
ago)
Don’t
Know
73
69
53
45
These figures show that inspections and visits conducted by local authorities may be
increasing with a rise in 2013 and 2012 compared with previous years. However it should
be noted that it may be difficult for people to recall visits and the year they took place
where this is a number of years ago. The figures above also include all types of visit
carried out by local authorities and not just routine inspections.
The NFU survey data also showed that 61 per cent of farmers who had received a local
authority visit had done so within the past two years, compared to 48 per cent who had
received one or more visits between 2009 and 2011. This again may suggest the number
of visits carried out is increasing.
In further analysing the data we received from 771 respondents we can see the proportion
of livestock farmers that receive a local authority visit per year.
The proportion of livestock farmers that received a local authority visit per year
12%
10%
8%
Percentage of livestock farmers receiving a local authority visit per year
(base 771)
11.4%
10.5%
9.5%
8.9%
7.7%
6.9%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2014 to end
August
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
17
This shows on average, the chances of any livestock farmer surveyed receiving a local
authority visit in any year since 2009 is 9.7 per cent. Therefore a livestock farm has a one
in ten chance of being selected for a local authority inspection. The average chance of a
visit matches closely with some of the data we received from local authorities in terms of
their planned inspections against their population of livestock premises.
The data we obtained from 771 respondents about receiving a local authority inspection
can be put alongside the data obtained from 283 respondents regarding visits from other
agencies. The table below shows the average chances of livestock farms being subject to
a visit from regulatory bodies in any year since 2009.
Average chance of any livestock farmer receiving a visit in any year
since 2009
Agency
Average
Farm Assurance
42%
RPA
11%
Local Authority
10%
AHVLA
6%
Environment Agency
4%
This clearly shows that farm assurance is visiting farms more regularly in any given year,
compared to national regulators and local authorities. We heard that farm assured farmers
will be increasing their costs and efforts to ensure they pass their farm assurance audit,
which is carried out by an independent inspector who verifies compliance with the relevant
standards. Farmers told us it therefore should be given greater recognition in local
authority risk assessment models to reduce duplication and overlap.
We also heard that over a third of livestock farmers (35 per cent) have received two or
more inspections from their local authority in the past five years. This data is shown in the
table below (based on 283 respondents).
Total number of local authority visits since 2009
Number of local authority visits since 2009 (base 283)
70%
65.0%
60%
50%
40%
30%
22.3%
20%
5.3%
10%
0.4%
2.5%
4.6%
4 visits
5 visits
6 visits
0%
1 visit
2 visits
3 visits
18
Those receiving six visits will have done so in 2014 (part year), 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010,
and 2009. This data indicates that 65 per cent have received a single visit in the last five
years whilst 35 per cent had received two or more in the time period we focused on. We
found that 7.5 per cent of respondents have received between four and six visits.
This data suggests that not all livestock farms will receive an inspection and we were
informed that local authorities are using some form of risk assessment to target their
inspections. We also heard that some local authorities will use additional criteria, based on
a local understanding in addition to their risk assessments, which could lead to variations
in the number of businesses being inspected. While this may help target and prioritise
inspections for some local authorities, it did not seem a universal practice and does not
provide a consistent risk-assessment to be used across all local authorities.

Main purpose of the visit
We heard from those responding to the survey that the main purpose of the visits
conducted by local authorities over the past five years were for animal health and welfare
checks (69 per cent) followed by food and feed hygiene inspections (24 per cent).
Farmers responding to the survey said that advisory visits and request (when they had
asked local authority to come out) visits were low with only nine per cent and four per cent
respectively, suggesting this was the main purpose of the visit. This is significant as it
shows the majority of farm businesses regard visits carried out by their local authority as
an ‘inspection’ rather than an advisory-led visit.

Regional visits
The chart below shows the number of local authority visits taking place across regions in
the past five years. This indicates the North East and perhaps the North West may have
been subject to a greater number of visits in this time period. We heard similar reports
regarding the North East in the workshops with farmers there generally having more
frequent local authority visits – with participants citing a visit every year.
Percentage of livestock farmers receiving a local authority visit over
the last five years by region (base 771)
South West (192)
37%
South East (55)
63%
51%
East Anglia (32)
49%
47%
West Midlands (108)
53%
54%
East Midlands (78)
46%
59%
North West (160)
41%
63%
North East (146)
38%
81%
0%
20%
One or more local authority visits
40%
19%
60%
80%
100%
No local authority visits
19

Size of farm
In total the number of livestock managed by those that have had a local authority visit was
circa 140,000 compared to 88,000 for those that have not had a visit. This is based on 771
respondents and broadly indicates that it is the larger farms that have more chance of
being selected for an inspection.
Finding 3: Potential for overlapping checks between regulators
Farmers told us that many areas checked by local authorities are also
checked by other inspection regimes leading to overlap and duplication. We
heard that there is the potential for duplication most often between farm
assurance and local authority inspections. Farm businesses are also
concerned at the repeated checks between AHVLA and RPA.
We found there was a lack of joined up thinking between regulators
with many farmers telling us there should be better cross-agency
communication to avoid coming onto farm to ask for the same data.
Farmers informed us of the main processes and equipment frequently checked during a
local authority visit. The table on the next page outlines these and whether they are
checked by the local authority only or other agencies. While the table below only shows
farm assurance and RPA other agencies asked about were AHVLA, EA, FSA, NE and
VMD.
20
Item
per cent of
relevant
farms
where the
item was
checked by
local
authority
Only
checked by
local
authority
per cent of
respondents
that had
each item
checked by
their local
authority
and RPA in
the last five
years
33%
per cent of
respondents
that had
each item
checked by
their local
authority
and farm
assurance
in the last
five years
49%
Movement
records on farm
Registration and
holding
information
Sheep /goat
records10
89%
81%
35%
48%
25%
71%
36%
43%
30%
Cattle passports
70%
28%
52%
26%
68%
57%
56%
33%
28%
27%
50%
48%
58%
25%
27%
22%
25%
11
Medicine records
Cattle tags
Feed storage and
records
We heard that in the majority of cases there is the potential for other inspectorate bodies to
check the same processes and equipment as the local authority.
“There is far too much cross over between Trading Standards and other visits”
South West workshop
There were very few areas where it was reported by farmers that the local authority would
be the sole inspectorate body checking. We were told these included TB records, with
46% of respondents outlining that it was only the local authority checking this, transport
records (38 per cent); sheep identification (38 per cent) and bio security (34 per cent).
Respondents to the survey told us that the biggest area of potential overlap was with farm
assurance, where in some cases the above checks stood more than a one in two chance
of also being looked at. For example 68 per cent of respondents had medicine records
checked by their local authority during a regulatory visit, with 50 per cent of these also
having it checked by farm assurance and 25 per cent also having it checked by the RPA.
We were also told that where local authorities were inspecting bio security measures and
10
11
Based on 157 that hold sheep
Based on 247 respondents that hold cattle and / or dairy cattle
21
livestock buildings and equipment farm assurance had also checked these areas (55 per
cent and 56 per cent respectively) in the timeframe asked about.
There is also the potential for duplication with the RPA. For example where sheep and
goat records were checked by the local authority (71 per cent of respondents), 30 per cent
of these respondents also experienced having these checked by the RPA in the timeframe
asked about. Similarly where local authorities were checking movement records and cattle
passports, farm businesses also told us that these were checked by the RPA (25 per cent
and 26 per cent respectively) over the timeframe in question.
We also heard similar experiences in the workshops with farmers referring to a range of
potential duplication between national regulators and local authorities. These included
passports (checked by RPA); movement records (checked by RPA and farm assurance);
medicine records (checked by VMD, farm assurance) and animal health and welfare
(checked by farm assurance and AHVLA).
Away from local authority visits and inspections we also heard there was a feeling that
having a professional person or organisation check an area of the farm should be enough
to prevent this area from being looked at again or double-checked by another inspectorate
or organisation. The example put forward during different workshops was around TB tests
and cattle inspections. Participants at the workshops couldn’t understand why they should
be subject to further cattle inspections if AHVLA are on-farm reading every single ear tag
number for TB testing purposes. It was argued that if they were carrying out a whole herd
test they would be checking on the system that they have captured every single animal.
We were told it would then make sense for the RPA to come onto farm at a different time
and check other areas of the farm for their inspection purposes, but it wasn’t necessary for
them to spend further time gathering the cattle which impacts on the farmers’ time greatly
to check ear tags again (and create unease in the cattle herd too from over frequent
handling).
We were also told about duplication during the Agri-Chat debate with a tweet outlining that
farm assurance and VMD want the same information regarding medicines but for different
reasons.
22
Finding 4: Earned recognition and farm assurance
Farm businesses told us that they had received an inspection from the
local authority and farm assurance within a short timeframe.
Farmers told us they want to see local authorities taking full account
of farm assurance membership in their risk selection when
conducting animal health and welfare inspections. We also found
that farmers weren’t aware of some current earned recognition
practices in place for farm assurance membership.
With many areas checked by local authorities having the potential for duplication with farm
assurance we analysed data on how many respondents were subject to inspections from
their local authority and visits from farm assurance scheme since 2012. Of the 174
respondents to the phone survey that said they had received a local authority visit since
2012, 55 per cent have also been visited by farm assurance during this period. The
majority of these businesses told us that their last visit from the local authority had been an
animal health and welfare inspection.
We heard that farmers felt that farm assurance should offer them benefits and reduce the
likelihood of being inspected by statutory regulators but they generally hadn’t noticed any
difference as a member of the scheme.
We did hear at the workshops, that one area where farm assurance had made a difference
was for dairy hygiene inspections. Farmers in the North East and South West made the
observation that currently the FSA and farm assurance work together so that businesses
will not receive a dairy inspection from the FSA for a number of years if they are farm
assured. It was felt the same system should be in place for other checks to help limit the
amount of duplication.
“Farm assurance goes across all the areas that the other regulatory bodies check.
So if those regulatory bodies were to consult with your farm assurance status and
see if there is anything that hasn’t been looked at or sorted then they can come”
South West workshop
In practice earned recognition is in place for a number of inspection regimes for farm
assured members. This includes agreements with the Food Standards Agency for food
and feed hygiene inspections, which local authorities conduct on behalf of the FSA.
However, there is no co-ordinated inspection plan or earned recognition agreement in
place for local authorities’ animal health and welfare responsibility.
We also heard that of the 174 farm businesses that had received a local authority
inspection since 2012, 28 per cent of these have also been visited by the RPA during this
period. While we were told that local authorities and RPA share planned inspection lists on
an annual basis this may indicate that data sharing is not universal across all local
authorities or that inspections between these two inspectorates can still occur in a short
period for the same farm, even if it is not in the same ‘inspection year’. We were also told
that of the 174 respondents that have received a local authority inspection since 2012, 14
23
per cent have also been visited by the AHVLA during this period.
Finding 5: Communication around visits
While we found farm businesses understand the need for inspections in general, it
is clear that there is some confusion and a lack of clarity over the responsibilities
of each agency and why some businesses have been selected for an inspection.
There was also inconsistency reported regarding communication pre and post
visit.
We heard there was a lack of communication and transparency around
inspections. Farmers said they would welcome further guidance setting out
a summary of inspections, to help improve understanding and ensure a
better inspection experience for the farm business as well as the regulator.

Responsibilities of inspection bodies
It was clear that farm businesses do not always have a full understanding of the inspection
responsibilities of each agency. While we heard the majority of farmers were clear on the
responsibilities of the RPA, there was confusion at times whether British Cattle Movement
Service (BCMS) were a separate agency conducting inspections or whether it was part of
the RPA.
We heard that the biggest area of confusion was between the VMD and AHVLA with many
farmers confusing the VMD responsibilities with the AHVLA. There was also a lack of
clarity regarding the Food Standards Agency responsibility with many farmers not clear
about the relationship between the FSA and local authorities who have been contracted to
carry out the Animal Feed and Food Hygiene inspections on behalf of the FSA.
 Communication of Visit
We heard from farm businesses that there can be a lack of communication prior to the visit
which can lead to a lack of clarity over which agency is inspecting and why the inspection
is taking place.
For example, during the survey we heard from six businesses who felt they couldn’t
complete the survey as they were unsure whether it was the local authority that had
carried out the inspection or whether it was another agency. A small number of other
businesses also expressed uncertainty regarding inspections from national regulators. We
also heard similar things during the workshops and Agri-Chat debate.
“He (the inspector) just drove into the field. I didn’t know who it was.”
West Midlands workshop
There were also mixed opinions when it came to the perceived reason why farm
businesses were being inspected. Some felt it was completely random, while others felt
there wasn’t a particular reason. Other businesses felt they were an easy option due to
their location or a soft option due to their previous good compliance history while others
24
thought every farm got visited. There was also the impression amongst some that it could
be prompted by a poor visit from a previous agency or due to a public complaint.
The conclusion that could be drawn is that farm businesses have no consistent
understanding as to the reason of the inspection taking place. This can (and has in some
regions) create cynicism towards the intentions of visits.
 Notice period given
Farmers also told us that there is no fixed notice period given prior to an inspection. The
majority of businesses recognised that the RPA were restricted in terms of notice provided.
However notice varied hugely between regions for other inspection regimes particularly
from local authorities. The majority of farmers attending the workshops in the North East
stated they received reasonable notice, compared to those in the South West who stated
they received no notice and often had to shelve their working day plans to accommodate
the inspector.
 Communication post visit
The evidence we heard indicates there is a level of inconsistency when it comes to
communication and feedback post-inspection. Some farm businesses reported an over
complicated 20-page summary from an RPA visit, while others received a one page basic
acknowledgement of the visit. Generally, we heard that feedback somewhere between
these two extremes would be welcome post inspection. We were told this would give the
impression that inspectors ‘are doing their job thoroughly’, and allow the farmer to remedy
any deficiencies.
There also seemed to be no consistency of the lapsed time between visit and feedback.
This varied significantly from one week (RPA visit in the South East) to nearly one year
(RPA visit in North East).
Finding 6: Impact of visits
We heard that continuous inspections and checks are a burden to running an
agricultural business, especially for micro businesses and self-employed farm
businesses are not able to rely on manpower and outside help. Key impacts
on the business identified were loss of earnings and financial penalties; time;
stress; and provision of labour.
It was felt these impacts could be reduced through ensuring inspections
fit with the way the business works, where possible fit with the business
calendar and provide adequate notice where this is allowed.
As part of the phone based survey farm businesses were asked how long they spent pre
and post visit dealing with administration and preparation and also the duration of the
actual visit.
25
The table below provides an average of the time needed for a local authority inspection.
An average figure is also provided. We heard during the Agri-Chat debate and workshops
that inspections from other agencies could take much longer depending on the size of the
farm with some farmers reporting that RPA inspections, where they will be checking all the
aspects of the farm business, have taken over a week.
Animal
health and
welfare
inspection
Base (n)
152
respondents
Food and
Advisory
feed hygiene visit
inspection
Mixed
purpose
visits
35
respondents
13
respondents
27
respondents
The actual visit
Pre and post
visit
administration
1 hr 49 mins
1 hr 5 mins
1 hr 17 mins
1 hr 29 mins
2 hrs 0 mins
45 mins
48 mins
1 hr 14 mins
Total time
required
3 hrs 49
mins
1 hr 50 mins
2 hrs 25
mins
2 hrs 44
mins
The above data suggests that it is the animal health and welfare inspections that will have
the biggest time impact on farm businesses as a result of local authority inspections. One
of the possible reasons that these inspections may take longer could be the result of
collecting and gathering animals.
During the workshops it was indicated that this was a time consuming exercise with
farmers reporting that they will need to do this for a number of inspectorate bodies. It was
suggested this part of the inspection process could be made easier if it was conducted at a
time that would impact less on the business. We heard similar responses across a number
of the workshops with one example quote below.
“It would be so much easier if cattle inspections took place during the winter when
your cattle are in.”
South East workshop
The fear of financial penalties could also add time to the inspection process. We heard
from farm businesses in the North West, North East and South West that there is a
tendency to check things over and over again as there is a fear that a mistake could result
in an unfair penalty or punishment.
Farmers in the South West told us about the challenges that no or little notice present for
the running of their business (noting that some were given notice and some not). It was
perceived that the rules and regulations come from the angle that businesses have a farm
secretary. However, we heard that the majority of farms in the South West are selfemployed working 12 hours a day, which meant it was difficult to drop everything when an
inspector arrived. It was felt there was a lack of understanding about the businesses
farmers were running. The feeling of intrusiveness into the business is also compounded
26
by the fact that the business is also the family home. We heard many farmers raise
concerns about lengthy periods of the inspection taking place at the kitchen table or in the
family home.
Farmers in the East Midlands also expressed similar concerns about the impact on micro
businesses with the expectation to drop everything with no notice for the inspector. The
lack of notice around visits was a general trend on the Agri-Chat debate, with a feeling that
unannounced visits can cause a major problem due to other workloads on the farm. Some
participants on the Agri-Chat debate commented that “we make plans for the next few
days and we have lives, why do we have to drop everything at their whim?” and “If I want
to make appointment with a govt body I'm looking at a month's notice, why is it different
the other way round.”
One participant in the workshops also informed us that he received a visit from the RPA on
a Sunday which could be seen as an inconvenience and intrusion to a farmer’s family life.
Finding 7: Competence and knowledge of inspectors
We heard that at times an improvement in the competence and knowledge
across all regulatory bodies could be beneficial. At all workshops we were
told that the knowledge of farm assurance inspectors was far better than
national regulators and local authorities which may suggest there is a lack
of understanding across national and local regulators about the
practicalities of running a farm business
The Farming Regulation Task Force 2011 report recommended that ‘Government should
Farmers to
told
us that
they have
greater
confidence
inspectorswith
who the
are necessary skills and
continue
train
inspectors
and
ensure
they areinequipped
knowledgeable about the industry.
knowledge of farming and land management’. We heard across all workshops that this
recommendation on the whole had not been progressed and as a result should still be
considered by national regulators and local authorities.
We heard in the discussions at the workshops that participants in the South West, North
West and North East didn’t feel this recommendation had made a difference, with many
feeling that inspectors needed a deeper understanding of farming and land management.
“They haven’t a clue! Their knowledge doesn’t extend beyond the question that’s in
front of them.”
North East workshop
It was clear from other comments that participants in other regions were not fully satisfied
that regulators had full knowledge of farming.
One particularly striking example was in the South West where we were told about an
AHVLA inspector with concerns about a Jersey cow after it has been sent to the abattoir.
The inspector was concerned about “dark, bulging eyes on the Jersey Cow” and triggered
an inspection as they felt “something was wrong with it”. The farm business felt this
showed a clear lack of knowledge on the inspector’s behalf as this was a characteristic of
27
this particular breed. No breaches were reported following the inspection which took up
half a day of the farmer’s time with both AHVLA and the local authority present.
Some farm businesses reported that some inspectors can have experience and come from
‘farming stock’ but there was a perception and concern that some can be ‘failed farmers’,
which can make the situation worse. We also found there was a perception that some
inspectors straight from college don’t always have the necessary experience to understand
the practicalities of farming and take a sensible approach.
“Assume they’ve got the rule book with them, but less practicable knowledge to
interpret it.”
AgriChat debate
It could be concluded the industry’s confidence in inspectors would increase if they receive
regular and relevant training.
The view on inspectors in general was in contrast with farm assurance audits and
inspectors. It was felt they had more of an understanding regarding the business and
industry as a whole.
However participants were able to recall some positive experiences from their recent
inspection. We heard that in the West Midlands farmers felt the local authorities in that
region understood and were empathetic about the business, and in the East Midlands it
was widely agreed that statutory inspectors demonstrated good background knowledge of
farming and land management, with specific reference made to the RPA and Environment
Agency. Those in the North East felt local authorities in their region provided help and
advice post inspection.
From the evidence we heard it suggests that it very much depends on who the inspector is
as to how much knowledge and experience they have of farming. Certainly no one
regulator seemed to fare significantly worse or better than others. We did, however, hear
that some farmers recalled repeat visits from the same farm assurance inspector or local
authority inspector, which can increase understanding and help develop a relationship. It
was felt where there was this continuity the regulator would be in a better position to have
an opinion or make a decision when something is wrong as they would know the farm and
character of the farmer.
28
Finding 8: Attitude and behaviour
We were told that in some cases the attitude and behaviour of the inspector
was unhelpful. This has created a perception in some cases that the
inspector is working against the industry and is out to find something wrong.
This does nothing to encourage cooperation and an open and transparent
dialogue on such visits. These occurrences can also damage the reputation
of the regulator.
In the workshops we heard farmers express opinions about the behaviour of some
We heard that
farmers
want
to see
inspectors
working
withand
themnot
rather
than
inspectors.
While
these
might
only
be isolated
cases,
apply
toagainst
all regulators or
them.
inspectors, the experience has in some cases created a level of cynicism towards the
intention of the visit.
“They just come to find something wrong so that they can claim back some of the
Single Farm Payment.”
South West workshop
“Inspections should be more like how farm assurance [works], in that the inspector
comes in to work with you. It can come down to personality, but generally when it
comes to a regulatory visit versus a farm assurance visit, it tends to be, what can
we find wrong.”
South East workshop
We were told by farmers in several of the workshops that they wanted inspectors to work
with the industry and not against them. However, there was an overriding feeling which
was clearly expressed in the South West and East Midlands that the intention of the
inspector is to look for something wrong in order to impose a financial penalty. In several
workshops we heard that farmers were often made to feel like criminals by regulators, with
different regulators determined to find something wrong.
The perception was that in these cases the RPA in particular was coming onto farm with
instructions to reduce the farm budget and claim back payment from farm businesses. This
gave the farmer a sense of fear and resentment towards the inspector.
While there were a lot of points made similar to the quote above directed towards RPA
visits we also heard similar comments regarding other regulators. There was general
recognition that it was ‘pot luck’ depending on the inspector and the behaviour and
attitudes could often come down to the personality of the inspector.
For example, in both the North West and North East farmers reported that a local authority
inspector had arrived wearing inappropriate attire for a farm visit. One participant reported
that “she knew nothing at all about farming and arrived wearing a full business suit and
heels [for walking a field]”. We were also told that regulators can often give no warning and
can be quite aggressive in expecting farmers to drop everything immediately to carry out
the inspection.
29
We also heard a particularly bad experience from a farmer in the South West, which is
illustrated below:
“We had them [local authority inspector] turn up in the yard and we’ve been
dressed to go to a funeral. They wanted to see something now. And we had to say
we were on the way to a funeral and we actually had to argue the point. You
shouldn’t have to argue the point when dressed in black going to a funeral. It was
pretty obvious”
South West workshop
Similar to the competence and knowledge of inspectors we also heard cases and
examples where the behaviour and attitude of inspector was flexible and encouraged
cooperation. Attendees at the workshops told us that farm assurance inspectors always
made an effort to work with the farm business and tried to be helpful.
When specifically asked about local authorities we heard that participants in the North
West generally found them to be helpful and able to provide advice. Those in the East
Midlands and West Midlands had found them to be helpful and polite with those in the
West Midlands particularly noticing an improving picture with understanding and
empathetic inspectors.
30
Other experiences
We heard several points made across a number of workshops regarding
inspections and regulatory visits which we felt warranted inclusion in the
report. These are outlined below
 Joined up inspections and data sharing
We heard that farmers across the workshops felt more should be done to encourage joint
inspections and data sharing. Participants in the North East, South East and North West
felt there was little being done to combine inspections in their agencies and felt there
should be better cross-agency communication to help limit the necessity to gather
livestock during every inspection. Farmers in the West Midlands, East Midlands and South
West also felt more could be done, however some within the workshops had experience of
this happening in the past although this was ‘hit and miss’.
We heard that in some cases farmers felt that instead of joint visits, greater cross agency
sharing of information would help reduce the burden. There was a general question as to
why RPA need to physically check every animal when these have been checked
previously by a professional person or organisation as part of the TB inspection. We heard
this data should be passed to the RPA.
Where discussions focused specifically on local authority inspections we were told of
examples where different inspectors from the same local authority had come to the farm to
look at different areas within a short space of time. An example was provided in the North
East where a farmer had received three visits from the local authority with different people
looking at cattle records, veterinary records, and feed records. Others in the same
workshop had not experienced this and had the same person checking more than one
area during their visit. A farmer in the East Midlands also told us he had received a feed
inspection and a routine animal health and welfare visit in the same year. We were told in
these cases more joined up working and greater in-agency communication was needed as
this would benefit the farmer as well as the resources of the regulator.
We also heard in the South East workshop that a farmer had holdings in Oxfordshire and
Buckinghamshire where they had to deal with both local authorities. It was felt they didn’t
speak to each other even though they were effectively looking at the same business. The
farmer commented “I deal with both trading standards, and they don’t talk to each other.
It’s completely confusing”.
 Penalties and enforcement
We found that farmers felt the regulatory enforcement could be improved with a more
proportionate penalty regime. We heard at the workshops that there was fear around the
financial penalties that could be imposed, primarily by the RPA through cross compliance,
and there was a perception that farmers were ‘guilty until proven otherwise’.
Farmers told us that the financial penalties through the Single Farm Payment were
disproportionate, especially for tagging breaches. It was felt cattle losing tags was a
31
common problem and having this penalty apply across the whole of the business (where
the business also had arable and environmental schemes) was disproportionate.
We heard during the workshops that farmers and regulators are all working towards the
same objectives so there should be an opportunity to put things right rather than what they
saw as a determination from regulators to find something wrong.
 Consistency of decisions
Farmers raised concerns about the level of consistency from regulators and felt that
enforcement decisions often come down to the regulators interpretation of the rules and
regulations. Examples were provided in the workshops of different inspectors providing
different answers around the same types of issue.
We were told that in some cases regulators could lack expertise on the ground and instead
of being left to their own devices could perhaps do with some more guidance and
background to ensure a level of consistency.
Farmers made specific references to sheep tagging and felt it was an issue as to how
inspectors kept up with new and changing regulations and whether regulators are always
up to speed.
 Notice provided
One of the biggest frustrations we heard about was the lack of flexibility around the
amount of notice that could be provided for inspections. While it was recognised that
legislation prevents more notice from being provided in some cases, it was felt the level of
notice that is provided was not ‘user friendly’. We were told inspections did not occur at a
time that was convenient to the regulator and the business. Where visits were
unannounced we heard this can impact severely on the farmer’s working day and the
running of their business. This was in contrast with farm assurance inspections where it
was felt sufficient notice was provided and would provide flexibility to fit in with the running
of the business.
Examples were provided where the inspector requested the farmer accompanied them for
the whole day which prevented the farmer from carrying on with running their business.
We heard in some cases that this insistence could actually be deemed a breach of other
regulations (in effect regulators potentially contradicting each other) with the farmer not
being allowed to feed and check their stock.
32
ANNEX A: SCOPE OF THE REVIEW
Focus on Enforcement – Livestock visits
Scope
The team may adjust the following scope statement as the review progresses, to ensure
that the review covers a coherent and manageable range of issues.
The review will look to gather evidence from an industry perspective on the potential for
and the extent to which overlap and duplication can take place between national regulators
and local authorities when conducting oversight visits to farm businesses.
In scope
The review will cover oversight visits made by local authorities and national regulators to
livestock premises across England for the purposes of food, feed and animal welfare
regulations. This will include activities undertaken on-farm to check, or provide advice, on
compliance with regulations including animal disease surveillance.
The review will look to gather evidence to obtain whether the duplication and overlap issue
often cited by farm businesses is a real or perceived problem. There will be an emphasis
placed on local authority visits and the processes and equipment checked and data
requested during these visits.
The review will also aim to learn about:





The frequency of overview visits faced by livestock farmers
The impact of visits on farm businesses in terms of time and resources etc.
The risk assessments used by local authorities in determining which farms to visit
The interactions livestock keepers have with regulatory bodies
Whether there has been an improvement in this situation over the past five years
Out of scope



Regulations themselves
The review is focusing on on-farm oversight visits only so will not include inspections or
visits elsewhere such as markets, slaughterhouses, and processing plants etc.
Other regulatory activity carried out by local authorities which is not particular to a
business operating in the agricultural industry such as planning
The review will avoid duplication of effort with other recent or current reviews of similar
subject matter. Defra is currently undertaking a review of on-farm inspections. Evidence
gathered during this review will contribute to this.
33
© Crown copyright 2015
You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the
Open Government Licence. Visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence, write to the
Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email:
[email protected].
This publication available from www.gov.uk/bis
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to:
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Tel: 020 7215 5000
If you require this publication in an alternative format, email [email protected], or call 020 7215 5000.
BIS/15/191

report

Transcription

Similar documents

Market Plan

JOIN US! Thursday, March 13th 9:00 am

Heifer International

FIU`s Veterans and Small Farmer Outreach (VeSFO)

Homemade Probiotics Flyer (To Print)

ENVAC case study_v3_PRINT.indd

How to Gain Business Connections

The Barn

found here - Northern Colorado Food Incubator

Poster 1: Lessons from farmers in eastern New Zealand