CRITICISM has been thrown at the Scottish Upland Sheep Support Scheme due to its high number of penalties.

Since its implementation in 2015, the scheme’s penalties for errors made during the claim process have been issued on a rising scale from level one to level five, with level five being a 100% penalty, meaning some farmers receive no funding, for more than one year.

Penalties can be imposed for a variety of reasons, for example a penalty is given if a claim is made for animals that do not meet the rules of the scheme, if there is a difference between the number of animals claimed in a scheme year and the number of animals that are eligible, payment will be reduced using a percentage error rate.

This error rate is calculated by dividing the number of animals found to be not eligible by the number of animals that are eligible. For example: if you claim 100 animals, but 10 of these are not eligible, the percentage error calculation would be 10 (animals not eligible) Ă· 90 (remaining eligible animals) x 100 = an 11.1% penalty. This is considered to be a level three penalty, and means that a premium is paid on 90 animals, and the payment will be reduced by 22.2%.

Some critics have said that these penalties are too severe and not enough leeway is given to farmers who may have made basic errors when submitting a claim – some errors have resulted in farmers receiving a level five, 100% penalty, which they can receive for a number of years, not just the year of the bad claim.

One such critic of the scheme, which is in addition to the Basic Payment Scheme, and is awarded to farmers in less favourable areas, North-east regional manager for NFU Scotland, Lorna Paterson, said: “I feel that it is so easy for farmers to fall into level five because of the regulations that are in place for the scheme.

“Reasons for being placed into level five can be as simple as some sheep being moved to another field, without that movement being recorded and that can happen so easily for so many farmers.”

Ms Paterson added that she is disappointed that such an optimistic scheme has become so negative: “It was supposed to be a positive scheme to help the people of Europe who were farming in less favourable areas, but you simply cannot make any mistakes in this scheme, and if you make a few basic errors, you are penalised for years after and it is awful for the families involved.

“I admit that you do have to make quite a few mistakes to be placed into level five penalty, but it doesn’t take a whole lot to get there.

“The EU Commission’s plan was to deal with the abandonment of land and its intention was good, but the reality for some people, who make some fundamental errors, really destroys the good intention and the potentially good scheme that was intended in the first place.”

NSA regional chairman, John Fyall, also commented: “This is a scheme that is meant to protect the most vulnerable hill farmers, yet a simple clerical oversight can lead to their whole business being threatened.”