Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-153)
LORD BACH,
MR JOHNSTON
MCNEILL,
MR IAN
HEWETT AND
MR JOHN
O'GORMAN
11 JANUARY 2006
Q140 (11.01.06) Chairman: There was
an announcement, Minister, by your Department in July that you
were going to prioritise the mapping work for the Single Payment
Scheme ahead of that for the Environmental Stewardship Scheme.
Given you have had a long run into the point at which you made
this announcement, it must have become very clear to you that
your real problems lay with the volume of basic farmland applications
for the single farm payment, so why did it take you until July
to change the priority?
Lord Bach: We gave priority for
a couple of months to the ELS scheme.
Q141 (11.01.06) Chairman: Let's go
back a second. You started off with a priority which was agricultural
land for the scheme and then you changed it for two months to
the stewardship scheme and then you changed it back again.
Lord Bach: As a priority.
Q142 (11.01.06) Chairman: Is that
what you did?
Lord Bach: It is what we did,
yes.
Q143 (11.01.06) Chairman: Why? Why
did you decide to make the change?
Lord Bach: We did it because we
were committed to implementing the recommendations of the Curry
Commission, which very much included ELS, and the decision had
been made we were going to introduce that and not delay it, because
it is such an important part of the future. The agri-environment
scheme had already been taken up by a large number of farmers,
and the huge additional environmental benefits offered by the
environmental scheme were such that it was appropriate to press
ahead with that rather than delay it whilst working on the SPS.
Q144 (11.01.06) Chairman: You took
that judgment on the basis of the advice that was given to you
that you could also deliver against your original payment timetable
for the single farm payment scheme, yet two months later you are
trumpeting you have changed your priorities.
Lord Bach: It was not an easy
decision to put that priority there for two months because both
had a lot of claim on our attention. One was a direct result of
the Curry Report and the other the need to get the Single Payment
Scheme paid in time. I am delighted to say the ELS has taken off
in that there are a large number of farmers, to all of whom we
will effectively pay a special payment scheme[12],
who are now part of the agri-environment scheme as well. We did
realise two months later that we ought to change that. We started
with the priority—
Q145 (11.01.06) Chairman: But, with respect,
you must have received a piece of advice that changing from the
single farm payment as the top priority issue to the environmental
stewardship scheme was not going to damage your chances of hitting
the targets for the single farm payment, yet two months later
you change back in terms of priorities. Does that not raise some
issues about the quality of advice you had?
Lord Bach: I do not think it does
because the first piece of advice we took, because it was important
to get the ELS, the entry level scheme, off the ground, was it
was absolutely vital to do so. When, a couple of months later,
it seemed that the Single Payment Scheme might be put at some
risk as a consequence of that, we then removed the priority. It
seems to me, Mr Chairman, that is the way one can quite properly
do things.
Q146 (11.01.06) Chairman: Refresh
my memory, how much money is involved in the ELS scheme and how
much in the single farm payment?
Lord Bach: £1.6 billion on
the single farm payment.
Q147 (11.01.06) Chairman: And the
entry level scheme?
Mr Hewett: I am not responsible
for it but the base payment is £30 a hectare. It depends
how many applicants come in.
Q148 (11.01.06) Chairman: I think
it is probably about £200 million as a figure.
Lord Bach: I am sorry not to have
that figure in front of me. Of course in terms of money there
is no doubt. We thought, when we decided to give the priority
for those couple of months to the ELS, it would not have any adverse
effect on the Single Payment Scheme. When, after two months, it
seemed it might, we then changed the priority. But I think Mr
McNeill will argue, as he already has, the fact that giving priority
for two months to the ELS has not, as it turns out, made any difference
at all as to whether we meet the February date or not.
Q149 (11.01.06) Chairman: Then why
did you change back?
Lord Bach: Because at the time
we changed back we thought it might.
Q150 (11.01.06) Chairman: You thought
it might?
Lord Bach: Yes. Mr Chairman, it
is only fair to me to listen to my response. After that, we realised
that we should outsource the Single Payment Scheme element13,
and that is what we have done, and therefore it has had no ill
effect.
Mr McNeill: There was tremendous
pressure coming through to the RPA's customer service centre from
farmers who were very frustrated that because they did not have
their land information they could not make applications under
the stewardship scheme. That was quite a growing voice of concern
on the part of farmers, that they could not get on to that scheme
which, after all, was at the stage of application and could be
processed much quicker than the longer term SPS. As a consequence,
the Department and ministers were aware that was a growing area
of concern. The decision to prioritise was the subject of discussion
and it was felt it was important that that scheme was up and running,
given it was a Government achievement and priority, they wanted
to get it in place, so we did prioritise that and we were able
to relieve a lot of that pressure by giving them priority. That
was a very hot issue at that time and there was a lot of concern
that it should be dealt with, and once that decision was taken
we were able to move to the SPS situation. As I mentioned earlier,
we had considered that we could scale up our existing Rural Payments
Agency and get our own staff to deal with the SPS backlog, which
was growing—we were writing out to farmers, it was not just
a one-off understanding of it, asking farmers for more maps, asking
them to explain why they had more parcels of land, and so more
and more [13]
information came in—then we were able to say,
"This is a very major task and that prioritisation, if we
are to succeed, will have to come to an end", and that was
the decision taken. As it happened, the volume of claims continued
to grow as we worked our way through the claims and had a better
understanding of what both existing and new claims were put in
place, and we had to take the decision, with the risk involved,
that we would outsource the work because it was not going to be
done in-house, and that was a series of events.
Q151 (11.01.06) Chairman: Let's try
and draw matters to a conclusion. We have explored in some detail
the rocky road you have traversed and where you are at the moment.
You are not able to tell this Committee definitively whether the
deadlines you aspire to are going to be met. You hope by the end
of the month the Minister will have some advice so he can make
a decision. Minister, are you able to give us any hint as to when
you will be able to say something on the record and in public
as to what the fate of this project is going to be?
Lord Bach: I can say this definitively,
there will be a payment by the end of February, whether or not
it is a full payment or the first part of a partial payment.
Q152 (11.01.06) Chairman: Bearing
in mind Parliament will have its week off in the middle of February,
are you hoping before then you will be able to say definitively
and in public what kind of a payment it is going to be?
Lord Bach: I hope very much to
be able to say that by the end of this month.
Q153 (11.01.06) Chairman: Fine. Minister
and members of the RPA, can I on behalf of my two colleagues who
are the rapporteurs again reiterate their thanks for the candour
and the quality of the assistance they received. They have asked
me to say that because they were truly impressed with what you
did to aid them in their inquiry. Can I thank you all for answering
our questions today. For those who have found this an interesting
experience, you will within the next few days be able to re-read
all the words that people have said on this matter on the Committee's
website, and the Committee will in due course be considering how
best to present this evidence, whether it be on its own or with
some additional comments by way of a report. Thank you all very
much indeed for your contributions and that brings the session
to a conclusion.
Lord Bach: Thank you very much
indeed, Chairman.
12 Note by witness: should be "most of
whom will also be paid under the special payment scheme". Back
13
Minister refers to the digitised mapping work related to the SPS. Back
| 
