FARM ASSURANCE schemes were meant to deliver a premium for farmers – but instead they have brought extra work, constant fear of inspections, and the threat of lost business if farmers fall foul of an ever-tightening rulebook that they have no part in writing.

Grass roots discontent over the direction of Scotland’s farm assurance schemes is now getting itself organised. More than 65 farmers packed out a meeting in Old Meldrum last week, to air their discontent with the rules set out by Quality Meat Scotland, Red Tractor and Scottish Quality Crops, and to vote in favour of a national levy payer ballot to reform the schemes.

The results of that meeting have since reverberated around Scotland, with several prominent farming figures standing up to agree that while farm assurance has its place, its operation is now in need of an urgent rethink.

Old Meldrum meeting organiser and chair, Patrick Sleigh, said: “We had a fantastic turn out. I have also had more than 80 telephone calls of support since I called the meeting two weeks ago.

“The message is clear, the status quo will not do for farm assurance. The levy bodies have to get the message they are not doing what they were originally set up to do. It has turned into a monster. There is no accountability.”

The meeting heard from farmers who raised concerns about the focus and frequency of assurance inspections. Bill Keir, of Ladymill, Alford, pointed out that his assurance standard documents were 24 pages long in 2011, and 54 pages long this year.

Also in attendance, vice-president of NFUS, Andrew Connon, said: “We are aware of replication and duplication which we don’t need. I do believe there is a need for assurance schemes as a way to demonstrate our higher standards of production compared to other countries. But we need to acknowledge frustrations – our industry is under huge siege from every direction.”

Afterwards, Mr Sleigh said: “I do hope that this is just the start of change and would encourage other regions across Scotland to create similar forums for debate and discussion. We must not let this opportunity pass and it is our chance to recreate assurance schemes which are for quality assurance purposes, and not for quality ‘control’, as it appears to be heading in that direction.”

Since that meeting, former NFUS president, Andrew McCornick, has spoken out: “There is a real issue with the short notice and quick changes in the assurance standards. There are rules in the standards which need not be the focus of quality assurance as it is being complied with through other regulation. The burden of rules being brought into the voluminous booklet needs to be looked at as some are the responsibility of other bodies.

“We could make this work if the assurance bodies recognise that we are doing much of the work already in other regulatory commitments – and they recognise that without having to burden us with double accounting and adding stress.”

Alasdair Martin, of Horseholm, Bankend, Dumfries, reported: "We had a Livestock meeting in Dumfries and Galloway. I spoke saying we need to change farm assurance and the members agreed. The size of the standards document has doubled in the last ten years, that is the basics of it.

“Farmers are not being consulted with the changes – and we can't seem to get the minutes from the standard setting committee," he said. “One of the big issues is on the environmental requirements – it is basically an nitrogen vulnerable zone by the back door."

Robert Patterson, who farms 100 cattle and 600 sheep at Upper Auchenlay, Dunblane, said: “Well obviously there should be a farm assurance scheme but the way I look at it, there is a fear factor involved in farm assurance in the lead up to inspections. You are terrified you are getting stuff picked out or thrown out of the scheme.

"In the current climate there is enough for farmers to be doing than having extra worries. I know myself when preparing for farm assurance we are sitting up to the small hours to double check again and again to make sure it is okay for the inspection.

"Despite being Scotch assured there is not enough financial benefit to being assured anymore, unless you need to be assured for selling direct to Scottish slaughter house," added Mr Patterson. "We farm close to Stirling but our stock is sold in England where we get more money – Longtown for the sheep and Darlington for the cattle."

Scottish Beef Association chair David Barron, of Nether Aden farm, near Mintlaw, confirmed that this week's board meeting had discussed farm assurance, and concluded that the industry needed a body like QMS and the standards it policed: "But there needs to be a little bit of reform. I have been given assurances from its chief executive Sarah Millar that there will be not be any more work imposed on farmers. But we have to keep up with the times. We can't have the standards from 10 years ago."

Quality Meat Scotland chair, Kate Rowell, commented: “We fully recognise that the revised Quality Assurance standards have come at a challenging time for producers. The standards are developed, with farmers and other stakeholders, to align with domestic and international markets and consumer values, allowing the scheme to remain relevant and advantageous to its members. We welcome feedback on any key concerns that farmers may have, and will take all proposals submitted to QMS into careful consideration.”

A Red Tractor spokesperson said: “All industries and businesses need standards. Standards provide the knowledge that organisations need to succeed and farms that embrace standards can boost profits, cut costs, and reduce the risk of things going wrong.

“Assurance provides maximum market access for minimal audit burden, fewer government agency inspections, and serves as the buying specification of every major retailer and foodservice operator.

“Assurance schemes and standards have successfully driven up confidence in all home grown produce, making British the first choice for consumers.”