Pronóstico del paciente quemado crítico 48

7.4.1 Image and role

In terms of its broader role, government was often felt to be in a position to take decisive action to streamline of the number of agencies regulating agriculture. Many farmers found current arrangements confusing, creating too much work for farmers, and discouraging innovation. Part of this issue was about a need for joined-up government, and for cross-departmental contradictions to be identified and eliminated.

A common view was that DEFRA tended to be associated with red tape rather than political leadership, a role that sat in tension with the expectations that farming communities had for their Ministry. Political uncertainty could provide an added cause of stress for farming communities, and many wanted rapid and decision action from DEFRA on issues like BSE and FMD, and greater direction and support from government more broadly.

7.4.2 Regulation

One of the most frequently cited policy recommendations, and certainly the one that was made with the most vigour, was that the situation with milk prices had become unsustainable for dairy farmers and that some form of price regulation was urgently required. As described in section 5.4.3 the monopoly of the food market by a small number of large supermarkets had enabled them to force down the price that farmers receive for milk, to such an extent that dairy farmers were often working at a loss. This was particularly frustrating for dairy farmers as they could do little to counteract this fundamental disadvantage. The point was made repeatedly that if farmers were able to achieve a fair price for their milk, that a lot of their other stress issues would be dissipated or reduced.

There was also some support for tighter regulation on imports, which it was felt would creating a more level playing field for farmers, but which would also have health and safety benefits. A

specific suggestion was that import controls be tightened on meat, a domestic agricultural product which had received particular scrutiny in the context of recent stock crises.

In terms of issues such as environmental regulation, one suggestion was for a move from penalty culture to an incentive-driven one: for example, providing financial inducements for farmers to take a lead on innovation and good practice.

7.4.3 Paperwork

Paperwork pressures provided one of the major sources of stress for farmers and farmers’ wives, and there was substantial support for the government to take a proactive role in streamlining and simplifying administrative systems. In part this was a language issue, in that instructions needed to be clear and uncomplicated. Underpinning this were basic skills issues, but the point applies equally for farmers operating in time-poor workplaces, as for example, small farmers increasingly found themselves. Farmers commented that signposting on forms was often over- complex. Difficulties with paperwork were exacerbated by post-submission problems and mistakes made by administrators, and there was a strong feeling that DEFRA needed to lead by example in its return and quality of paperwork dealings with farmers.

There may be some scope for developing computer programmes that ease administrative burdens, for example in terms of Single Farm Payments. However, many farmers remain uncomfortable with IT and reliance upon computerised submission would be likely to increase their stress. Paperwork resources therefore need to be multi-dimensional. One alternative might be to offer an option of telephone completion, with documentation to be returned to farmers for checking and signing, in the way that motor insurance and many mortgage applications now operate.

While interviewees were in favour of telephone support for practical difficulties with paperwork completion, the helplines associated with particular administrative systems sometimes came in for criticism. In particular, it was frustrating not to be able to easily access someone who could answer queries, and farmers were strongly in favour of a single point of contact for administrative support, and for helplines to be easier to navigate. Greater resources directed at helplines, including resources invested in briefing staff and in identifying points of contact for specific issues, would be likely to support farmers’ efforts to meet submission deadlines.

There was also strong support for government to take action to coordinate the various administrative systems so that farmers did not have to duplicate their efforts, a policy direction that is currently underway with the piloting of the Whole Farm Appraisal system. This would have particular benefits for mixed farmers, for whom the administrative burden could be particularly onerous. One major pressure on farmers was that submission deadlines sometimes clashed with natural agricultural calendars, and there was support for systems to be tailored to the seasonal demands of farming.

There was also a need for some degree of flexibility on deadlines, to take into account the unpredictable nature of farming, and the fact that small farmers in particular will have little leeway in terms of reconfiguring their labour supply to respond to crises, but that an imposition of automatic penalties is likely to heighten existing stress. Finally, support for farmers with literacy difficulties needs to be robust and easy to identify. This is in part a presentational issue, and now that departments are obliged to offer support for disabled people, there is greater scope to discreetly cover other needs under the general heading of ‘special needs’.

Chapter six has shown that farmers’ first contact with support agencies often involved practical issues (such as contacting helplines for support in completing forms), and the quality of the support received at this time informed their subsequent willingness to discuss broader problems and to trust outside agencies. Consequently it is vital that this first contact meets with a satisfactory outcome.

7.4.4 Communication

The research uncovered evidence of a feeling that communications had broken down between the government and farming communities. Common themes were that government spoke to agricultural communities only indirectly, were disdainful of their interests, and that there was a greater need for consultation on agricultural policy. One way of addressing this problem would be to develop an intermediary role between government and farmers, a role that ADAS was previously perceived as filling.

There was a strong feeling that farming communities wanted more information on the direction of future policy and regulation detail, particularly as farmers ideally needed to plan several years in advance. For example, more information was needed on CAP reform and Single Farm Payments, and farmers commented that if they were forewarned with this knowledge, they could be adapting their farming practices accordingly and allaying future stress.

7.4.5 Education

A popular suggestion in terms of combating farming’s negative public image was an integrated series of education programmes, aimed at informing and empowering consumers. This was an aspect of government policy which was felt to have lapsed in recent years (the Milk Marketing Board was often referenced in this kind of role), and which was evident in other countries. Education programmes might include activities through the NFU, national curriculum, DEFRA, and supermarkets, and also be aimed at educating parents in terms of diet, and include school visits to farms. Farmers felt that such actions would have positive outcomes for British farming per se, but would also go some way towards tackling demoralisation within the agricultural industry.

The research uncovered evidence that a number of people had moved into farming following family pressures, a decision that they to some extent regretted. At the time of time critical career decisions young people had often lacked professional careers advice on alternative options. This is a clear area in which the government could have an impact, focusing on the quality of career advice in rural areas, perhaps combined with placement schemes to give young people a ‘taster’ of a range of occupations. This is likely also to have benefits for young women who want to farm, but who are prevented from taking on family farms by gendered transferral processes.

7.4.6 Specific initiatives

One issue that emerged was the difficulty of retirement for many older farmers, who lack the pension and housing security to leave work. While working after state pension age may be desirable on some levels (for example, in terms of maintaining the intrinsic satisfactions derived from paid work and in maximising occupational knowledge and transfer: Barnes et al., 2004; Smeaton and McKay, 2003), there was also evidence of farmers working on beyond the point when they wanted to retire, with negative impacts for their health, farm safety, and for the career progression and financial security of the next generation of farmers. Government

schemes offering retirement support, such as the Age Positive campaign, would help address these issues.