Payment timings for Mid/Higher Tier

[farmerm]

Post brexit the minister will have to answer to the questions from our mps without the excuse that it is the Eu at fault because they have insisted and enforced fines on Defra for wrong payments over £500000000 so far

A few years after Brexit there will be no questions to answer on late payments as there will be no payments being made to farmers...

 

[yellow belly]

A few years after Brexit there will be no questions to answer on late payments as there will be no payments being made to farmers...

so where will all the environmentle payments come from for stewardship icannot see a government stopping them to then have the sh!t storm that the government has scrapped all the wild life benefits

 

[yellow belly]

a neighbour who started mid tiers in 18 having had hls before has been told that they will start paying mid tier in januarry
any one else asked them and what answer

 

[Wooly]

a neighbour who started mid tiers in 18 having had hls before has been told that they will start paying mid tier in januarry
any one else asked them and what answer

Bet they didn’t mention which January!!

 

[farmerm]

The agreement I signed up to offered no indication of when payments would be made beyond the first payment!!

At least the 2018 manual has this... but hold on, read it twice, does that mean agreement holders sign up to get paid by 15th May or has the language been fudged so it really means payments will be made at some unknown, indefinite point in the future providing the applicant has submitted a valid claim by 15th May for that year??

No private company would be permitted to use contracts of this nature!

 

[farmerm]

so where will all the environmentle payments come from for stewardship icannot see a government stopping them to then have the sh!t storm that the government has scrapped all the wild life benefits

I think they will honour existing agreements, eventually, but my point is where does it say a government has an obligation to pay land owners to comply with whatever future environmental rules they decide to make law? I live in a house that is unfortunately and unnecessarily a listed building. I can't simply rip out my drafty, single glazed windows and stick in UPVC double glazing. I have to comply with listed building rules and put in less efficient timber windows at 3 times the price, I don't get any payments to cover the extra expense, I have to suck it up. Freed from the shackles of more rural influenced EU politicians, it will be easy and cheap for Westminster to move the cost of "environmental enhancement" onto land owners rather than tax payers. It will be cross compliance ++ but controlled with a stick rather than the combined carrot and stick we have under BPS. Brexiters talk about our government taking back our Sovereignty but with an urban centric parliament that is what I am afraid of!

 

[Brisel]

I think they will honour existing agreements, eventually, but my point is where does it say a government has an obligation to pay land owners to comply with whatever future environmental rules they decide to make law? I live in a house that is unfortunately and unnecessarily a listed building. I can't simply rip out my drafty, single glazed windows and stick in UPVC double glazing. I have to comply with listed building rules and put in less efficient timber windows at 3 times the price, I don't get any payments to cover the extra expense, I have to suck it up. Freed from the shackles of more rural influenced EU politicians, it will be easy and cheap for Westminster to move the cost of "environmental enhancement" onto land owners rather than tax payers. It will be cross compliance ++ but controlled with a stick rather than the combined carrot and stick we have under BPS. Brexiters talk about our government taking back our Sovereignty but with an urban centric parliament that is what I am afraid of!

The government are keen to get industry to pay for the public goods. The ferric phosphate slug pellet schemes by the water companies are the best current example of this. They can only control us effectively by removing a carrot i.e. the payments. The stick of dragging us into court is very expensive - the current practice of the HSE getting the book thrown at a few high profile employers who've had an unfortunate incident is an example of providing a warning to others. Cross compliance is not law as such, it is used as a set of conditions attached to a payment to us. Remove the payment & they remove the control.

Why put the cost back to the landowners? They are the ones providing the public goods. We've always had an urban slant from Westminster. I fail to see what's changed other than removing the CAP which is a big change in itself. UK farming is <0.5% of GDP and < 1% of the electorate.

 

[yellow belly]

The government are keen to get industry to pay for the public goods. The ferric phosphate slug pellet schemes by the water companies are the best current example of this. They can only control us effectively by removing a carrot i.e. the payments. The stick of dragging us into court is very expensive - the current practice of the HSE getting the book thrown at a few high profile employers who've had an unfortunate incident is an example of providing a warning to others. Cross compliance is not law as such, it is used as a set of conditions attached to a payment to us. Remove the payment & they remove the control.

Why put the cost back to the landowners? They are the ones providing the public goods. We've always had an urban slant from Westminster. I fail to see what's changed other than removing the CAP which is a big change in itself. UK farming is <0.5% of GDP and < 1% of the electorate.

but every one in the uk consumes uk farmings out put on most days
when we are paid park keepers and lost the food producing infrastructure it will cost a lot to get food production back on the park keepers agenda

 

[Brisel]

but every one in the uk consumes uk farmings out put on most days
when we are paid park keepers and lost the food producing infrastructure it will cost a lot to get food production back on the park keepers agenda

That's not the interest of our policymakers. They take food for granted & will keep our borders open to imports. Sorry, I don't believe that for one minute the average shopper gives a flying feck about British Food unless it's cheap or the supermarket shelves are empty. The average taxpayer is more interested in where they can let their dogs run wild & roads not covered in mud. They'd be prepared to pay a bit towards that too, or so Gove thinks. I'm not on the kind of soil that does 4 t/ac of wheat or 2 t/ac of osr so green payments will help keep me in work.

 

[farmerm]

The government are keen to get industry to pay for the public goods. The ferric phosphate slug pellet schemes by the water companies are the best current example of this. They can only control us effectively by removing a carrot i.e. the payments. The stick of dragging us into court is very expensive - the current practice of the HSE getting the book thrown at a few high profile employers who've had an unfortunate incident is an example of providing a warning to others. Cross compliance is not law as such, it is used as a set of conditions attached to a payment to us. Remove the payment & they remove the control.

Why put the cost back to the landowners? They are the ones providing the public goods. We've always had an urban slant from Westminster. I fail to see what's changed other than removing the CAP which is a big change in itself. UK farming is <0.5% of GDP and < 1% of the electorate.

It doesn't have to go to the expense of court! If you get a speeding ticket do you stump up and pay the fine or stand your ground and make them take you to court?

 

[Brisel]

It doesn't have to go to the expense of court! If you get a speeding ticket do you stump up and pay the fine or stand your ground and make them take you to court?

It depends on the level of the fine as to whether it is worth fighting. The evidence too. Your double glazing on your listed house is there for years on display.

What's the risk of a cross compliance inspection? About the same as being caught by a manned police car if you're speeding. The devil is the technology - camera vans capable of earning thousands of £/hour or daily satellite images catching slurry tankers out when they shouldn't be.

 

[farmerm]

It depends on the level of the fine as to whether it is worth fighting. The evidence too. Your double glazing on your listed house is there for years on display.

What's the risk of a cross compliance inspection? About the same as being caught by a manned police car if you're speeding. The devil is the technology - camera vans capable of earning thousands of £/hour or daily satellite images catching slurry tankers out when they shouldn't be.

I know I drive slower these days because of tech. I used to know where the cameras where on my usual routes and there was little chance of getting pulled over by a cop doing 80(ish) on clear motorways.

Low risk of catching breaches can be countered by having high penalties... Fly tippers have a low probability of being caught so the fine if caught should start at a minimum £1000 plus costs and 7 nights at her majesties pleasure.

 

[Brisel]

The free Waze navigation/traffic app has all the camera sites

I agree with the rest of your post It's a numbers game if you want to break the rules, but there will be less humans involved in policing anything in the future & the tech is slow to catch up. Look at the RPA's IT systems as a shining example of the civil service!

 

[Overby]

Anyone been paid yet?

 

[Jim t]

Nothing yet

 

[Martyn]

No

 

[marshbarn]

No

 

[worker]

got a strange amount for 2017 which I cannot reconcile with anything, but nothing for 2018

 

[carpenter1]

Nothing here

 

[Charlie--chalk]

Had all of 2017 now, not had any of 2018.