Public Accounts Committee enquiry into ELMS

renewablejohn

Member
Location
lancs
Hi - I feel your pain on keeping up with the threads, I feel like I am woefully failing on that front despite best efforts!

The delivery partners (sorry for using unhelpful jargon) are the RPA, who administer schemes, and also Natural England, Forestry Commission and Environment Agency who provide expert input to scheme design (along with farmers, stakeholders and other experts) and have a role in providing statutory advice (and other functions) eg in respect of SSSI sites, woodland creation and maintenance, and watercourse protection
Come on Janet your having a laugh. I dont think you will find an expert anywhere within Natural England, Forestry Commission or Environment Agency and if you actually asked farmers their opinion on such bodies I bet 90% of farmers would vote for there abolition. They have certainly not done anything to help the farming community. Just remember who flooded the Somerset levels it was not farmers but the Environment Agency in partnership with the RSPB.
 
Yes, this. Not, necessarily across the board, but rather on any specific options within the SFI where merit was seen in such a tailoring of the rate.

(please don't apologize, your head must hurt with all this :ROFLMAO: )
Ah right ok - thanks for clarifying and your understanding - we have done something like this on the moorlands standard where you get a flat rate for coming into the standard (recognising there are fixed costs of entry / being in the scheme, particularly for those farming on commons) plus a per hectare rate. So we're not averse to the principle. We don't think there's a need to do that on the other standards because we don't see a fixed cost of entry in the same way based on what we know at this point, but have seen the suggestions and have said we'll will keep all payment rates under review as part of the pilot and early rollout.
 

renewablejohn

Member
Location
lancs
Ah right ok - thanks for clarifying and your understanding - we have done something like this on the moorlands standard where you get a flat rate for coming into the standard (recognising there are fixed costs of entry / being in the scheme, particularly for those farming on commons) plus a per hectare rate. So we're not averse to the principle. We don't think there's a need to do that on the other standards because we don't see a fixed cost of entry in the same way based on what we know at this point, but have seen the suggestions and have said we'll will keep all payment rates under review as part of the pilot and early rollout.
Brilliant Janet. Now just apply the same logic to ALL farmers as a fixed cost of entry to the scheme (say 10k) then add the crumbs your already proposing for Elms and I think you will get a good response from farmers. Can easily be funded by scrapping the nonsense of the "15" projects which appear to be brown envelope promises. Farmers will do 30 year comittments but not if their going to be shafted as in my case by the Forestry Commission and other cases reported on TFF by Natural England. That really is down to English Law. The terms and conditions need to be as of the day the contract is signed. You cannot run any business with an open ended clause which allows for changes in the rules without any redress which is what the government have got away with in the past.
 

delilah

Member
Ah right ok - thanks for clarifying and your understanding - we have done something like this on the moorlands standard where you get a flat rate for coming into the standard (recognising there are fixed costs of entry / being in the scheme, particularly for those farming on commons) plus a per hectare rate.

Sorry, no, this isn't what I am suggesting. The Moorlands standard as described in the guidance notes is thus:

Draft moorland and rough grazing standard – summary

Introductory level

Indicative payments: £148 fixed per agreement per year, plus additional variable payment rate of £6.45 per hectare




You had it right in your earlier post, to which I replied yes, that is what I mean:

Do you mean a higher rate of payment for the first x hectares?


You see the difference ?
On the Moorlands standard you get the same £/Ha however many Ha you have.
That is why the payment rate is so low. You have had no choice but to put it that low; you know how many Ha there are above the moor line in England, you know how much money you wish to allocate to this standard, you have simply divided one by the other.


This is completely different to what you initially correctly identified as being what I mean.
A higher £/Ha on the first xHa.
I wish to pursue this line of thought, but cannot do so until we know we are talking about the same thing. Yes ?
 

BrianV

Member
Livestock Farmer
Sorry, no, this isn't what I am suggesting. The Moorlands standard as described in the guidance notes is thus:

Draft moorland and rough grazing standard – summary

Introductory level

Indicative payments: £148 fixed per agreement per year, plus additional variable payment rate of £6.45 per hectare




You had it right in your earlier post, to which I replied yes, that is what I mean:




You see the difference ?
On the Moorlands standard you get the same £/Ha however many Ha you have.
That is why the payment rate is so low. You have had no choice but to put it that low; you know how many Ha there are above the moor line in England, you know how much money you wish to allocate to this standard, you have simply divided one by the other.


This is completely different to what you initially correctly identified as being what I mean.
A higher £/Ha on the first xHa.
I wish to pursue this line of thought, but cannot do so until we know we are talking about the same thing. Yes ?
Think you may find that by the end of May there will be a new tenant in number 10 having the crappy wallpaper painted over & a big shake up & change of leadership in Defra's work force, the best thing is to sit tight do nothing concentrate on farming & watch the fireworks play out!
 

delilah

Member
Think you may find that by the end of May there will be a new tenant in number 10 having the crappy wallpaper painted over & a big shake up & change of leadership in Defra's work force, the best thing is to sit tight do nothing concentrate on farming & watch the fireworks play out!

ELMS matters to less than 1% of the electorate. Any incoming Govt, of whatever colour, will leave it to the civil servants.
 

steveR

Member
Mixed Farmer
Brilliant Janet. Now just apply the same logic to ALL farmers as a fixed cost of entry to the scheme (say 10k) then add the crumbs your already proposing for Elms and I think you will get a good response from farmers. Can easily be funded by scrapping the nonsense of the "15" projects which appear to be brown envelope promises. Farmers will do 30 year comittments but not if their going to be shafted as in my case by the Forestry Commission and other cases reported on TFF by Natural England. That really is down to English Law. The terms and conditions need to be as of the day the contract is signed. You cannot run any business with an open ended clause which allows for changes in the rules without any redress which is what the government have got away with in the past.
101% Yes.
 

BrianV

Member
Livestock Farmer
ELMS matters to less than 1% of the electorate. Any incoming Govt, of whatever colour, will leave it to the civil servants.
Not sure I really believe that, it's surprising how an MPs survival can change minds pretty quickly, a dramatic drop in farm incomes does not stop with the farmers, we will all be passing that loss down the line of supply affecting many other families!
 

delilah

Member
we will all be passing that loss down the line of supply affecting many other families!

OK, like the way in which Asda have just put our £/kg up for beef ?
Nah, the only link of the food chain to benefit from rising food prices will be the cartel. No point having a cartel otherwise. Which comes back to the futility of Defra talking about our long term prosperity being based on, to quote @Janet Hughes Defra ,'shortening the supply chain'. ELMS is important. The survival of what is left of our critical mass as an industry depends on getting it right. But it is merely a sticking plaster over the need to reform the food chain.
 

Steevo

Member
Location
Gloucestershire
OK, like the way in which Asda have just put our £/kg up for beef ?
Nah, the only link of the food chain to benefit from rising food prices will be the cartel. No point having a cartel otherwise. Which comes back to the futility of Defra talking about our long term prosperity being based on, to quote @Janet Hughes Defra ,'shortening the supply chain'. ELMS is important. The survival of what is left of our critical mass as an industry depends on getting it right. But it is merely a sticking plaster over the need to reform the food chain.

Maybe shortening the supply chain means cutting out those pesky farmers?! :rolleyes::LOL:;)
 

Steevo

Member
Location
Gloucestershire
I'm surprised (and impressed!) by that reply!

Partly surprised/impressed that a reply was given, but mostly because it was so succinct, unambituous and straight to the point.

@Janet Hughes Defra - I've said this before but it's worth repeating. Your approach is so refreshing compared to usual government departments/civil servants attitudes in general. I hope you can achieve those aspirations. (y)
 

delilah

Member
Sorry, no, this isn't what I am suggesting. The Moorlands standard as described in the guidance notes is thus:

Draft moorland and rough grazing standard – summary

Introductory level

Indicative payments: £148 fixed per agreement per year, plus additional variable payment rate of £6.45 per hectare




You had it right in your earlier post, to which I replied yes, that is what I mean:




You see the difference ?
On the Moorlands standard you get the same £/Ha however many Ha you have.
That is why the payment rate is so low. You have had no choice but to put it that low; you know how many Ha there are above the moor line in England, you know how much money you wish to allocate to this standard, you have simply divided one by the other.


This is completely different to what you initially correctly identified as being what I mean.
A higher £/Ha on the first xHa.
I wish to pursue this line of thought, but cannot do so until we know we are talking about the same thing. Yes ?

bump
@Janet Hughes Defra
 

delilah

Member
I was referring to the fixed rate (£148) that you get regardless of how many hectares - I appreciate that's not exactly the same as a different rate for the first x hectares, but I was thinking it was in the same general ballpark of ideas given it involves a flat rate for all and then an additional payment for hectares - don't you think so?

A flat rate of £148/yr, plus £6.45/Ha.
is identical to
£6.45/Ha.
That is to say, £148 is such a tiny sum of money it isn't worth Defra administering it or a farmer claiming it. What will £148 buy me ? A tyre for the van ? Half a dozen energy buckets ? A pot to p!ss in ?

So, no, it's not remotely the same as a higher rate for the first xHa.
No matter, I think we both see where I am coming form, so I will plough on (don't think it's banned yet :ROFLMAO: ).


I have dug out a fair few Govt papers pertinent to ELMS. I consider this one to be the most important of the lot.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/666713/structure-june-eng-lessfavouredareas-13dec17.xls#:~:text=Less%20Favoured%20Areas%20(LFA)%20were,Disadvantaged%20Areas'%20(SDA).


I really, really hope that your team are familiar with the contents, and are constantly referencing it as they carry out their desk top studies into different ideas for ELMS.

We have to keep those farms farming. If we don't, then ELMS fails. We need to go further than that. We need to see the number of farming businesses increase. If we do that, then ELMS is a success. Critical mass.
https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/critical-mass.358840/


The crux of it is this:
- You need to develop standards that pay a high enough rate in order for those farms to survive.
- If you pay that rate on every Ha, you exceed your budget.
- There is only one way to square that circle; a higher rate on the first xHa.
Yes ?
 

tepapa

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Wales
A flat rate of £148/yr, plus £6.45/Ha.
is identical to
£6.45/Ha.
That is to say, £148 is such a tiny sum of money it isn't worth Defra administering it or a farmer claiming it. What will £148 buy me ? A tyre for the van ? Half a dozen energy buckets ? A pot to p!ss in ?

So, no, it's not remotely the same as a higher rate for the first xHa.
No matter, I think we both see where I am coming form, so I will plough on (don't think it's banned yet :ROFLMAO: ).


I have dug out a fair few Govt papers pertinent to ELMS. I consider this one to be the most important of the lot.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/666713/structure-june-eng-lessfavouredareas-13dec17.xls#:~:text=Less%20Favoured%20Areas%20(LFA)%20were,Disadvantaged%20Areas'%20(SDA).


I really, really hope that your team are familiar with the contents, and are constantly referencing it as they carry out their desk top studies into different ideas for ELMS.

We have to keep those farms farming. If we don't, then ELMS fails. We need to go further than that. We need to see the number of farming businesses increase. If we do that, then ELMS is a success. Critical mass.
https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/critical-mass.358840/


The crux of it is this:
- You need to develop standards that pay a high enough rate in order for those farms to survive.
- If you pay that rate on every Ha, you exceed your budget.
- There is only one way to square that circle; a higher rate on the first xHa.
Yes ?
£148 is barely more then the price of one quality finished lamb or two store lambs. A farmer could make that by keeping one/two extra lambs alive at lambing time instead of spending all day in the office, well till 6pm that is.
 

Cheesehead

Member
Livestock Farmer
Unless you are a quango.
You have said that NE can claim ELMS, even though they are already under statutory obligation - and funded by the taxpayer - to maintain NNR's and the like.
Yet when we asked if we could apply for HLS on NNR ground we were grazing, we were told no as it would be 'double funding' .
When did the rules change ?
Or a pothole contractor etc then you submit two invoices for the same work and rubs hands together while giving an evil laugh when the council etc pay twice.

I think you can write to any MP you like

You should always contact your local MP about your case or about an issue you would like to be raised at Parliament.

If you wish to find out which MPs take a special interest in a particular topic or campaign you could:


Ours would be useless he is a pure lemming he is pushing for a new town to be built with no extra aquifers or reservoirs in a water stressed area, no upgrades to the Victorian sewerage system no new treatment plant houses to be built before schools or doctors though they already are lacking GPs that several surgeries have closed due to no staff though their books are full. We are told it is to house locals and meet the needs of housing those in the area that work here yet they are pushing for fast links to London and the literature seems to be aimed at those looking to leave London and commute.

All on over 500 hectares of prime farmland and SSSI habitat which had its wildlife count done in the middle of winter on the coldest day last year. While the latest estates had trees and hedges netted then chopped down even preserved ones as there were no nesting birds.

Come on Janet your having a laugh. I dont think you will find an expert anywhere within Natural England, Forestry Commission or Environment Agency and if you actually asked farmers their opinion on such bodies I bet 90% of farmers would vote for there abolition. They have certainly not done anything to help the farming community. Just remember who flooded the Somerset levels it was not farmers but the Environment Agency in partnership with the RSPB.
The only thing EA are interested in is if a farm is letting slurry into the water course otherwise they don't want to know, oil from a road through a council drain and you just get the phone put down quicker on you than a call from Crown Prince Ramala wanting to give you sixty nine million pounds.
 

Latest Poll on TFF

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 14.9%
  • No

    Votes: 126 85.1%

JCB launches Fastrac ‘iCon’

  • 160
  • 0
Written by Charlotte Cunningham from CPM Magazine

JCB has launched new Fastrac 4000 and 8000 Series tractors with an all-new electronics infrastructure which is claimed to deliver higher levels of performance. According to JCB, the new Fastrac iCon operator environment has three key features: iConfigure – creating a bespoke control experience for every operator iConnect – integrating advanced precision agriculture technology iControl – redefining operation through new driveline software The 175hp to 348hp (133kW to 260kW) Fastracs feature the new iCon armrest console and touch-screen display to provide flexibility in operator allocation and operator information, as well as a new transmission control strategy to enhance operator comfort and powertrain efficiency, says the manufacturer...
Top