Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - May - September 1998 > C.1308/94
First Report Session 1998-99
Volume 3 - 1st Report - Session 1998-99
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
Delay in deciding the outcome of applications made for sheep quota from the 1993 National reserve
Matters considered:
Mr X complained about delay and misleading advice on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in the administration of the 1993 National Reserve (NR) of Sheep Annual Premium (SAP) quota.
Summary of case
From 1993 a quota scheme was for the first time applied to SAP. The UK legislation setting up the NR system for the UK was not in place until the end of 1993. Mr and Mrs X established a new flock of 517 ewes in September 1992 on the expectation, but without any absolute assurance, that they would receive a quota allocation from the NR as new entrants to sheep farming. They applied for 1993 SAP in November 1992, 1994 SAP in January 1994 and for quota from the 1993 NR in April 1994. They acquired on lease 250 units of quota for 1993, 400 units for 1994 and 566 units for 1995, before they were told in December 1994 that for 1993 there was no NR available for new entrants to sheep farming in lowland Britain and that they would not be eligible as new entrants for later SAP schemes. During this period—which covered the 1993, 1994 and 1995 SAP schemes—Mr and Mrs X (and other applicants) could not, under the UK regulations, have purchased quota in 1993, as opposed to leasing-in quota, without jeopardising their outstanding NR application. Mr and Mrs X then leased in a further 257 units to cover the shortfall in their 1993 and 1994 SAP claims. By 19 April 1995 MAFF had paid their three years' SAP claims for their eligible sheep in full.
Findings
I found no serious shortcomings in MAFF's handling of an entirely new scheme during the quota trading periods for the 1993 and 1994 scheme years. However I criticised MAFF for the continuing delay and the subsequent failure to inform applicants of the outcome of their 1993 NR applications until after the end of the initial 1995 quota trading period, which resulted in producers who followed MAFF's advice to lease quota incurring additional costs. As that delay could have been reduced I recommended that MAFF should consider compensating Mr and Mrs X, and producers who took similar business decisions, for the additional cost of leasing, as opposed to buying, quota in the 1995 SAP scheme year. I did not find that Mr and Mrs X had been misled about the availability of quota for new entrants, although I criticised some aspects of the information MAFF provided to them.
Remedy
The Permanent Secretary of MAFF apologised for the failings identified and agreed that MAFF would compensate Mr and Mrs X, and compensate producers whose circumstances were similar.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
Full text of this investigation
|
