A Rural Practice Blog, by Partner Rory Hutchings.

This is the first of what will a regular blog from me. It is intended not to be a re-hash of legal articles and case law. Instead, I hope it will be a more informal record of opinion of my thoughts on what is going on through the year. I suspect it will be a little hit and miss while I get used to the art of blogging – it seems to me to be a bit like having a conversation out loud in an empty room; I was always told that was a sign of madness.

The subject occupies the most conversation at the moment is almost certainly the weather followed very closely by the Single Payment Scheme and forms that will have just been submitted for the 2011 payment.

The combination of the good weather and the fact that I do not have to fill in the SAF forms means that this is probably my favourite time of year. The countryside looks good, the days are long and we can still try and convince ourselves that we have a nice summer ahead of us and in particular, that it will be dry for the Royal Welsh Show.

Speaking to many clients, the completion of the SAF forms as well as the overall operation of the Single Payment Scheme seems to cause more and more stress and anxiety. Bearing in mind that the Single Payment Scheme was intended to be a simpler way of administering subsidy payments in part to ease the bureaucratic burden, it is ironic that the position seems to be worse rather than better. These days it is not enough to be a good farmer. You also have to be a good bureaucrat. There are enough variations and risks in the farming year as it is. The Single Payment Scheme was never intended to be one of the problems for farmers. It is there to assist and to provide essential income.

It is correct that one aim in the Single Payment Scheme has been achieved – it has de-coupled the payments from production. That was probably a good thing and an essential part of the review of CAP. However, the increasing complexity within the scheme and in particular the draconian penalties that are being applied means that what is given with one hand, is often taken away with the other.

In my view the administration of the scheme is not fair. If a farmer makes a mistake he will often be penalised. If WAG makes a mistake, there is very little redress. The penalties applied are often difficult to deal with and certainly are often not proportionate to the nature of the alleged breach. They do not represent a real assessment of actual damage or harm caused as a result of a breach. There is little discretion in the system and within the penalty matrix for common sense to prevail.

I am sure that WAG would point to the fact that Europe requires them to administer the penalties and certainly there was a review by Europe in 2009 when WAG was criticized for not applying the penalties as it should. That may well be right and possibly I am being cynical, but I rather doubt that France, Spain and Italy for example, applied penalties in quite the same way. If they did do so I imagine farmers in those countries would have made their feelings felt in the manner to which those countries are accustomed.

I also have concerned that WAG does not have the resources to deal efficiently and promptly with applications and with appeals against penalties. I still have Stage 2 Appeals outstanding from the 2009 scheme year. I submitted Stage 1 Appeals in relation to the 2010 payment in the early part of this year and those have still not been resolved. In my view, there is a real argument that if WAG cannot properly administer the scheme, it should not be able to apply penalties. The income from the scheme is much needed and it is simply not accepted to starve farmers of that income whilst appeals are left to gather dust.

That is my first attempt at a blog. Any comments let me know. I will be updating my blog at least monthly.