New handling system by the Rural Payments Agency (From Gazette & Herald)

New handling system by the Rural Payments Agency

IT may not be as yet Harold Macmillan's "wind of change" but there is a small breeze stirring in the Whitehall corridors of the RPA instigated, I hope, by the new chief executive Mark Addison.

Up to now there has been a "task-based" approach to enquiries which meant that when the millions of different queries came up before the RPA staff, they were dealt with by whoever was available at the time. Or perhaps not, as the case proved to be.

Significant change, which can only be for the better, now perceives one person as responsible for processing an entire claim; and so seeing it in the round, and able to discuss it with both farmer and agent.

Enquiries now will be directed according to its SBI number and this should mean more efficient handling of questions in future. Keep your fingers and everything else crossed.

The latest figures as at April 4 show that a mere 36,000 farmers (30 per cent) have been paid 18 per cent of the total money due to the industry.

Most of those paid comprise of the original 39,000 fully-validated statements in late February and the RPA is now entering a regime of paying newly validated claims.

The validation process is painfully slow and apparently only 2,000 claims were dealt with last week.

At this rate, the RPA will fall some £500 million short of its completion target which is set for June 30 before EU penalties are triggered.

Something radical needs to happen if many farmers are not going to go into financial freefall.

The general pressure of paperwork and RPA incompetence is building up at an alarming rate but we, somehow, have to turn our attention to look forward to the SP5 claims that need to be sent in before May 15. Here are a few more pointers:

Don't be surprised if you haven't had your SP5 application form as only 38,000 were despatched by last weekend; and this left the remaining 82,000 forms to send before the RPAs target date of April 18.

My advice would be not to panic this week, but if you haven't received your form by, say, the middle of next week you should be making approaches to the customer services centre pretty rapidly.

There will be situations where the farmer is in dispute with the RPA over their entitlement statement or that the SP5 detail is simply wrong.

The best advice seems to indicate you should complete the SP5 with the information you believe to be correct and send in a covering letter.

Changes in land areas. The same approach should also be taken where there are outstanding disputes with the Rural Land Register and the plans you have been sent.

Set Aside is another area which many have failed to grasp.

The basic principle is that the new set aside system is based upon your number of set aside entitlements and not upon any percentage rate at all.

The most practical method is to match the area of set aside entitlements and record the division of the field and a balancing area with a sketch map.

If the set aside area is found insufficient, then the RPA should look first for other land that qualifies, and this means that your adjoining area should also be managed in a way compatible with set aside rules.

The penalties for late submission are different this year in that you can still submit your form up until June 9 but subject to a late penalty of one per cent per working day. This figure is very different to last year's four per cent and only ends up with a maximum penalty of some 25 per cent.

Although only some 230 SP5 forms have been received by the RPA, nearly a quarter of these have had errors in them and had to be returned.

The most common faults lie in not recording land uses, activated land or activated entitlements. Please be careful.

After months, if not years, of unjustifiable delay, the beef export market finally reopens on May 3. And we mustn't forget to send our thanks to Jacques Chirac, whose Government played such a leading role in preventing British beef from reaching Calais.

Against some predictions demand is growing for our beef on the continent and trade in the live market has certainly reacted strongly over the past few weeks.

At York on Monday, the price for OTM cattle moved to over 100p a kilo for the first time, and the general level of prices in the live market makes it the natural choice for marketing stock at the moment.

Following the foot and mouth shambles of 2002, Defra introduced a mandatory order that animals had to be killed within 48 hours of arriving at a slaughter house. Despite industry protestations that there would be occasions when this was impractical, they naturally went ahead with the legislation.

Three years later, it has reversed the rule which now reads that "the slaughter of animals must not be unduly delayed".

It may not sound much but it is the end of another situation in which we who operate the business have been forced to break the law.

Somehow Defra and the EU never learn from its mistakes and as of last Wednesday there are new batty rules regarding sheep movement.

Farmers are now required to have separate individual holding numbers for land more than five miles from their main holding. Worse still, they have to report all sheep movements between these holdings which then involves the rest of the complex movement paperwork.

It is utter nonsense and I am due to meet Bill Madders, who is reviewing the whole livestock movement regime next week.

It would be very helpful if any reader has any bad experiences to relate regarding movement or separate holdings.

Often it is interesting to take a look at how others see us and I was sent a very amusing letter written by a Cornish man about his farmer friend who has received a cheque for £3,000.

The letter was not very technical but I presume it was to do with the Single Payment and the fact that the farmer had received £3,000 for not rearing pigs.

His view from outside of the industry was that this sounds too good to be true and he would like to start a business not rearing animals.

He goes on to speculate as to what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs upon and which breeds are best for not rearing. He goes on to consider expanding into not milking cows, but then recalls that the hardest part of this exercise will be keeping an accurate record of how many animals haven't been reared or not moved.

I think the above view-point reflects how misunderstood farmers are and how much communication work we still have to do.

Forward 151 cattle including 47 bulls, 11 cows, 2,554 sheep including 153 lambs and 381 ewes, light steers to 119p L Thompson, Fimber, medium steers to 135p, G I Marwood, Harome, ave 114.3p; heavy steers to 125p, D R Jackson, Carnaby, ave 114.3p; light heifers to 136p, G I Marwood Harome, ave 109.6p; heavy heifers to 138p, R H Mason, Wold Newton, ave 114.6p; medium bulls to 128p R Mason, Ling Hall, ave 113.8p; heavy bulls to 129p, P & I Beal, Settrington, ave 113.2p; black and white bulls 112p, D Kirby, Ebberston, ave 104.2p; standard lambs to 175p, N Tattersall, Ellerton, ave 167.4p; medium lambs to 172.5p, J Keith, Seamer, ave 161.8p; heavy lambs to 151p C W Marwood, Whenby, ave 150.2p; standard hoggs to 138.9p, P & I Beal, Settrington, ave 129.9p; medium hoggs to 145.5p, R Aconley, Cropton, ave 127.9p; heavy lambs to 150p R Aconley, Cropton, ave 126.4p; overweight hoggs to 130.9p, W R Owen, Helperthorpe, ave 116.5p; ewes to £62, E Boddy, Ebberston, ave £44.80; OTM cows to 89.5p, G R Marton, Riseborough, ave 78.1p; OTM heifers to 106p, G R Marton, Riseborough, ave 105.5p.

Updated: 15:36 Wednesday, April 12, 2006