10
In contrast, the RSPB told us that there had already been a lot of unnecessary...
Conclusion
In contrast, the RSPB told us that there had already been a lot of unnecessary delay to the roll-out of the scheme so far, which added to the urgency of getting the scheme right quickly. It explained that the roll-out of SFI22 needed to make sure it was sending a clear signal as to the direction of travel. The Tenant Farmers Association highlighted that it asked for a delay 12 months ago but no longer thought that now was the right time for it. It instead said it was important that the scheme moved forward and that the Department ensured that there was communication over scheme details, payment rates and how the Department and the Rural Payments Agency, which is responsible for administering payments, are going to deliver the scheme for farmers.22 The Wildlife and Countryside Link, in its written evidence, also told us that, “despite challenges, there must not be a delay in the design, communication and roll-out of Environmental Land Management”. It explained that this was important to minimise the risk that Government will fail to meet its environmental objectives, and also to lessen the risk of disenfranchisement from farmers and land managers that could result from delaying.23
Government Response
A response document is linked to this report, dated 1 March 2022. Response attribution to this conclusion has not been verified. Read the response document.
Source
Committee
Public Accounts Committee
Report
Thirty-First Report - Environmental Land Management Scheme
09 Jan 2022
HC 639
Addressee Bodies
HM Treasury
Timeline
Recommendation age
4.7 yrs
Report published
09 Jan 2022