Farmers slow to get registered

Looking round the room, I realised with a shock that I was probably one of the oldest professionals attending. I can remember rationing and for the years right up until 1954 when fatstock came into our livestock markets only to be allocated around the country by Government officials.

Sixty years later we seem to be headed back the same way, introducing the crop diversification rules combined with tighter soil protection regulations, all of which smack once again of more state control.

That aside it was nevertheless an interesting meeting and put some flesh on the bones we already knew.

At the end of the day, we all agreed the rather startling conclusion that the programme has slipped by two to three months and how difficult will be the road ahead.

Here are a few matters to mull over:

• Entitlement Transfers – When the window for transfers closed on October 21, we were told it would reopen again in mid-January. The RPA was swamped with 37,000 RLE1 forms which staff have been wading through and most farmers are still awaiting confirmation. It is unlikely they will be able to start to transfer entitlements under the BPS Scheme until March 1.

• Registration – This initiating process was meant to have been completed by the end of January and although 90 per cent of agents are logged on, farmer registration currently runs at 18,000 out of a probable 90,000 to 100,000 total. – only 20 per cent.

• Programme – The new phased release of the programme was given as follows: January – registration of farmers; February – check land details including land use and cover; March – sort entitlements and eligibility; April – make claim. Even if the RPA was able to stick to the timetable it would not be easy, but there will always be the uncertainties of the fragility of new software, the unfamiliarity of the system itself, errors that have yet to be discovered, and not least of all your availability as farmers to input the data.

• Land use and cover – In the next phase, we are going to have access to the current details of our land holdings which will all have to be checked field by field. In addition, you will be required to allocate a general heading of Land Cover dividing it into arable, permanent grass, permanent crops, or non-agricultural use. The next task will be to add Land Use, a crop specific designation to each field which has to be done this year as we enter the crop diversification era.

The old crop codes will be redundant and a new set available.

• Ineligible features – You will be required to show all your permanently ineligible features (PIF), which will include a variety such as buildings, tracks and ponds.

• Mapping – This is an area of real concern because the new mapping programme started to appear last autumn and as a user it seems to have not progressed at all. We were told that the mapping programme will start to come online this month but with limited features. However, it is essential that we have it available as soon as possible because of the need to map our land use, PIFs and greening areas.

Of most concern was the announcement that the print button was not working and therefore you cannot take a copy of what you have on the screen.

• Soil protection measures – Although it was proudly announced that soil protection reviews were now a thing of the past, the compliance guidance refers to a whole raft of subjective requirements dealing with soil erosion and structure damage. For example, if an inspector spots any soil erosion which adds up to more than a hectare over your total holding then you are in breach. Similarly livestock damage now becomes a serious offence whereby you are prohibited from “trampling along a continuous stretch of more than 20m x 2m”. It would be hard to find a livestock farmer who did not qualify for this misdemeanour.

I don’t wish to over dramatise the situation, but we all came away last Friday knowing the path to making a claim on May 15 is going to be far more difficult than we hoped and than the RPA told us.

We somehow have to get this message across and the first step has to be registration. If you haven’t done it, do it now; and if you are struggling take advice. This is the one year where there is no room for error and if you don’t use your entitlements, you will lose them.

100,000 sign petition

Some months ago I mentioned that the British Veterinary Association had launched a petition to end non-stun slaughter of animals and it needed 100,000 signatures to be considered for a debate on the subject in the House of Commons.

I am pleased to report that this target has now been passed and it is up to Parliament to honour its pledge and debate the issue.

Throughout my lifetime there has always been concern in this country about this unnecessarily cruel practice but the case for the defence on religious grounds proved to be too hot a potato to handle.

It seems to me an ironic travesty that we as farmers are subject to every conceivable welfare regulation in raising our animals and yet when they go into a slaughter house they can have their throats cut without stunning.

To give you a flavour of the numbers involved, there were 45,000 sheep sold into the Halal market in one week in September. Thank you to those who voted.

Lifetime assurance

I have always been a supporter of Farm Assurance and the Red Tractor branding promoted by the NFU.

Up until now farm assured cattle have to come off a farm assured holding where it has been for the last 90 days of its life, which qualification satisfied what was called consumer concerns, but in reality was driven by supermarket buyers.

Now the Red Tractor assurance association has agreed to progress to deliver Lifetime Assurance, “in order to meet the expectations of consumers”.

They are going out to consultation wanting responses by March 27, and if you are a beef farmer I would suggest you give serious thought to making your views known.

The implications are that a new cattle rearing register together with a cattle rearing scheme would be set up and any breeder or producer of assured cattle would have to be a member subject to fees and inspections.

The effect would be to debar finishers from purchasing young stock from farms which are not assured and thus create a two tier market.

There has been one open meeting so far in the south west attended by 230 farmers. and the only voice in favour came from John Dracup of St Merryn Foods, which was no surprise.

The National Beef Association said that to get on board the 15,000 store and suckler producers not currently assured would cost the industry £23m.

They even questioned the need for assurance bearing in mind that we now have a cattle tracing system, sheep movement licences, 13 statutory cross compliance management requirements and 11 agricultural environmental conditions.

For me I would agree that there is far too much paperwork about and I don’t want any more; but more importantly this proposal smells of pressure from the big retailers and that always worries me.