In the summer newsletter I suggested that the best thing that you could do was get on with your core business of farming. Whilst that still stands, the extent to which the RPA is up to its neck in ordure is becoming clear: the former chief executive, Johnston McNeill has refused to appear in front of the Public Accounts Committee citing stress; the National Audit Office has produced a damning report; the current interim chief executive has stated that the system may not be on track until 2008; and a provision of some £131 million has been put aside by Defra to pay any disallowance imposed by the Commission – and we’ve not yet seen anything published by Europe.
To me it is clear that the RPA has failed to ensure that its original data capture was accurate. We have all heard stories of fields being missed off or figures transposed; this was partly because the HVDC (high volume data capture) was a mechanistic process carried out by people who had no need to understand the system, operating under extreme pressure to complete the task. This is significant as 2005 is the base year for the SPS and establishes the number and initial value of entitlements. Therefore any initial errors will be perpetuated throughout the scheme period.
From discussions I’ve had within the industry it’s clear that many of you know your maps are incorrect or that you have received a number of entitlements that did not equate with the number that you were expecting. You have sought clarification/rectification but, in the absence of a reply or an unsatisfactory one, have given up. My message to you is: don’t!
As an accredited paying agency paying out European money, RPA is legally obliged to do so accurately (and on time). If it fails to do this it will be censured by the Commission, it will have to make good the data, and will have to recover any monies incorrectly paid. We know at present that some £6.5 million has been identified as being overpaid, and £17.4 million underpaid. RPA has no option but to recover that money and any other money identified in the future as being overpaid, however, it may take the same amount of time to make good the under-payments. In addition, if you are farming land that does not appear on the RLR and that is not on your pre-populated form, on the face of it, if an inspection identifies that land, the starting point for RPA will be to impose a penalty.
Therefore, if you think your maps are still wrong, entitlements statement is incorrect or the payments are flawed, it is in your interest to pursue this with the RPA and seek clarification/rectification. You should write to RPA with as much information as you can (even if already given), quoting your SBI, and stating the problem. You will receive a pro-forma response. Do not leave it at this, follow your query up at regular intervals, each time rehearsing the issue and quoting your SBI. If you have pointed out the discrepancies to RPA, you cannot be penalised (although overpayments will still have to be paid back). However, if the RPA discover the discrepancies in the future, and you were aware of them, there may then follow an uphill struggle to prevent penalties being imposed.
Good luck!
For more information, contact Paul Rice
