Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 11
11
Given the serious problems the Committee has reported on previous agricultural payment schemes, and the...
Conclusion
Given the serious problems the Committee has reported on previous agricultural payment schemes, and the impacts of COVID-19, we asked the Department whether it had considered a delay, and whether its timetable for delivering SFI22 included any contingency to allow this as some stakeholders had asked. The Department assured us that it would “make sure there is not a problem” and it would not launch a scheme that was going to be a “delivery car crash”.24 It told us that its main contingency was to ensure that it was delivering things that worked was through its testing process and that it undertook “continuous and regular reviews” which had been “really helpful in moving us along to make us most likely to be successful”.25 The Department confirmed that it would not introduce something that it had not tested and that it was managing the scheme to ensure that elements such as IT changes were only implemented if they did not put the Christmas 2022 deadline at risk. It confirmed that it could push back the deadline if its reviews raised a red flag for delivery of the scheme, but that this had not yet been the case. Its current view of the risks to delivery was that a delay was not necessary as, while there were risks 20 Q 26; EMS0004 – Environmental Land Management Scheme, The National Farmers Union, 22 October 2021 21 Q 27 22 Qq 27–28 23 EMS0009 – Environmental Land Management Scheme, Wildlife and Countryside Link, 22 October 2021 24 Qq 57, 95, 127 25 Qq 57, 127 Environmental Land Management Scheme 13 for it to manage, it was on track. It recognised, however, that if its reviews showed that either it was not in a position to deliver SFI22 as planned, or to make payments ahead of Christmas, or if it was clear that farmers, having seen the final details of the scheme, were not ready “to engage with the scheme”, this would “raise a question about what the contingency is”.26
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
Despite the tight timescales and continuing uncertainty around the launch of SFI22 next year, the stakeholders we heard from were divided on whether a delay to the roll-out and to the reduction in direct payments was necessary. The National Farmers’ Union recommended a delay to ensure that the scheme is ready to work for both farmers and the environment. In its written evidence it said: “The NFU does not believe that a delay of the transition is the solution. A delay would only extend the period of uncertainty, and potentially push the worst impacts of the transition further down the line.” The government wants to deliver a smooth transition for farmers and these views have been fully taken into account.