MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE COUNTRY LANDOWNERS'
ASSOCIATION (E15)
REGIONALISATION OF
POLICY AND
THUS INSTITUTIONS
1. CLA has long supported the idea that
agricultural support based on commodity programmes must change
to become rural support with large emphasis on agri-environment
and rural development. It has always been clear to us that as
this is done, there has to be a much greater devolution of policy
from the national level to regional level. The objectives and
operation of environmental and rural development programmes are
bound to vary greatly between regions, and furthermore, their
success will greatly depend on the active participation of organisations
at the regional level. For these reasons the institutional arrangements
for the delivery of the "new" CAP as it slowly emerges,
must adapt. For this reason we welcome the Agriculture Committee's
review of the regional organisation of MAFF.
2. The CAP reforms of 1992 and 1999 were
small, but important, moves in the direction for which we have
been arguing. In particular the creation of the Rural Development
Regulation and within this, the Rural Development Plans, is an
important, and correct, redesign of the architecture of the CAP.
Now we must adapt the regional organisation of the relevant government
departments to reflect this change in policy. It is pure coincidence
that the regionalisation of rural policy has happened at the same
time as Government has decided to devolve political power in the
UK to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Ireland
Assemblies, and, more half-heartedly, to the English Regional
Development regions and their Agencies. It is sensible in this
context that the Rural Development Plans are based on these new
regions, but it is also sensible that this be followed up with
a regional realignment of all government departments and agencies
with responsibilities for rural policy in the same boundaries
as the RDAs.
3. This must mean that MAFF regions and
regional service centres should be redefined to the RDA regions.
The same should also be true for the agencies of MAFF, the Farming
and Rural Conservation Agency and also for the DETR and its rural
agencies (the Countryside Agency and English Nature). Because
the extent of resources transfers to the Rural Development second
pillar is small, and is phased on over many years, this allows
an adjustment period for the proposed realignment of the regional
boundaries for these organisations. It might even be counterproductive
to effect the changes all at once (even if this were possible)
as it might create expectations about what the new policy could
deliver which are grossly in excess of what it is capable of delivering
given its meagre resources.
4. As far as the location of the RSCs is
concerned, the optimal location in each region is something which
must be discussed regionally. We are therefore unable to advance
a universal recommendation whether the MAFF RSCs should be in
or near RDA offices, or Government Regional Offices or neither.
The important point is that RDA offices, Government Offices in
the regions and the local offices of government agencies should
be sited where they can best discharge their function. This must
take account of their ability both to serve their individual clients—primarily
farmers and land managers in the case of MAFF—and to ensure
there is strong and effective co-ordination of the work of the
different departments and agencies.
5. To develop this a little further, it
is important that there is provision for face-to-face contact
between farmers and officials who process their contracts (for
IACS claims, Countryside Stewardship, Woodland Grants and so on).
As these schemes become more complex there is greater need for
direct contacts between the regulated and the regulators. There
can be no doubt that the form filling required of farmers; the
importance of the funds to their net income; the harshness of
the penalties for making mistakes, and the absence, still, of
an independent appeals mechanism to adjudicate disputes; all induce
considerable stress. Telephone call centres do not provide the
whole answer to deal with this. There must be mechanisms for farmers
to meet the appropriate MAFF staff to resolve questions and difficulties.
Imagination is required to find the most case effective solutions
for achieving this using sub-regional offices, mobile offices
or peripatetic staff who can arrange meetings in suitable public
buildings in different localities. The use of Information and
Communications Technology, (ICT), can and should be more widely
used for farmers and MAFF and its agencies, to contact one-another.
In urging the greater use of ICT we make two qualifications. First
that the provision of the necessary hardware (eg ISDN lines) and
information and training must precede the extension of electronic
exchange of information. Second, given the high failure rate of
new IT systems, existing information systems must be run in parallel
with the new ones until the latter have been shown to be working
properly. It should also be noted that electronic communication
reduces but does not eliminate the need for face to face contact
both between farmers and MAFF and between MAFF and other departments
and agencies.
6. As the RDA regions are now defined we
have to make them work rather than engage in debate about how
we might prefer to have seen the boundaries drawn. The important
point is that some, regions, particularly the SouthWest, are so
large and with such difficult communications that particular care
must be taken for the sub-regional provision of farmer contact.
MAFF REGIONAL PANELS
7. The CLA believes that the MAFF Regional
Panels should be reinstated. The new arrangement whereby Regional
Panels were scrapped in order that Ministers can visit regional
areas to discuss problems has not worked. This is because Politicians
may not be so well briefed as Civil Servants on the intricacies
of Sheep Premium, IACS or the complexities associated with the
supply control regimes of the CAP. Many of the problems raised
when the Regional Panel meets the Minister could be better dealt
with by local MAFF officials. It is often the actions of those
officials which are the subject of discussion. The old system
was better in that a farmer chaired the meeting and civil servants
who understood the system discussed problems with farming organisations.
The civil servants and the Chairman of the Panels were able to
report back to Ministers in a language that politicians could
comprehend. This meant that much good work could be done administratively
without the need for political input.
STAFF MORALE
AND QUALITY
8. We have mixed reports from out regions
as to the quality and calibre of staff. Generally there is a feeling
that the motivation of regional staff has deteriorated as their
responsibilities have been diminished. This, in turn has been
caused by the defensiveness of MAFF and its substitution of rules
and rigid bureaucratic procedures for discretion in the application
of its programmes. We often hear from our members that regional
staff are unwilling or unable to solve local problems. They pass
the buck up the line saying that they are allowed no room for
discretion. This is partly a result of the sheer complexity of
the rules which local officials don't always understand themselves.
Our main criticism is that many of the RSC's seem to have become
regulatory operations appearing to have little or no guiding or
policy role for the local farming population. We are concerned
by the increasingly reactive rather than proactive on the impact
of the problem associated with IACS and the two-metre rule currently
receiving media attention for its environmental effects and impact
on smaller farmers. We are also concerned by the lack of MAFF
proactivity on issues relating to the Meat Hygiene Service and
the closure of smaller abattoirs. These are issues where we would
have expected more input as the regional level for MAFF staff.
This regional responsibility will be increasingly important as
the policy changes in the way we have argued, which emphasises
the future increased role for the RSCs and the importance they
have high-calibre staff.
9. The CLA believes that MAFF's consultation
procedures have worsened over recent years. For example consultation
periods seem to have become shorter leaving little time for organisations
such as ourselves to liaise with our members in order to get a
good response back into the Ministry of Agriculture. As the policy
is regionalised then the consultations must be regionalised too,
and this takes more time. For example the RDR was handled badly
and there was a completely inadequate time given for our organisation
to respond to MAFF. We Accept that this was determined partly
by the Brussels timetable and the central MAFF decisions, but
it also signified the attitude that regional consultation was
not that important.
11 May 2000
| 
