Memorandum submitted by The National Farmers'
Union of England and Wales (E9)
INTRODUCTION
The NFU represents some 55,000 farmers in England.
We are conscious that MAFF regional service centres provide a
first contact point for farmers into MAFF over a wide range of
issues. However, for most farmers it is the RSC's role in operating
CAP schemes which represents by far the most important of these
contacts. Successful submission of claim forms is crucial not
just because of the size of the support payments but because flawed
applications can lead to very substantial disallowances of claims
or even their total exclusion.
We are aware that MAFF is considering a major
reorganisation of RSC's and of the administration of CAP claims
and payments and have made our comments in the light of the impact
of these changes on the farming community.
THE ROLE
OF REGIONAL
SERVICE CENTRES
RSCs provide a key interface between farmers
and MAFF. Farmers direct most of their queries over MAFF's operations
to RSCs. They visit them and use the RSC as the point to submit
claim forms such as IACS and the related livestock applications.
They seek information over the interpretation of difficult points
as they complete their forms. Moreover, for the many who submit
their forms in person, RSC staff not only give a receipt for the
safe application of forms but give a preliminary check which can
allow them to correct obvious omissions and errors on the spot.
The service provides an important source of re-assurance to farmers
who take the threat of loss of their claims very seriously indeed.
Once the forms are being processed, RSC staff
provides a point of contact over the progression of claims. Farmers
will naturally be very concerned that there are no delays in the
payment of their claims.
The role of RSCs in managing claims is of key
importance to most farmers. The present system does meet most
of their concerns over the efficient management and payment of
their claims. In short the current system has a high degree of
"customer satisfaction".
CHANGED REGIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS
The NFU's priority in considering any change
in MAFF's RSCs is that the new arrangements should engender at
least an equally high degree of satisfaction amongst farmers and
that any changeover should be made with the minimum of disruption.
We have recommended to senior MAFF staff that
they should ensure that any new system maintains the best features
of the old. A key element in achieving this will be to retain
local sites at which farmers can present their IACS, sheep and
suckler cow claim forms, receive an initial check and know that
their forms have entered the processing chain. Moreover, if telephone
contact with a RSC is to be replaced with communication through
a national call centre then farmers will wish to see arrangements
which ensure that they receive the current levels of information
and assistance.
Even if RSCs in their present form are closed
MAFF will maintain staff and offices throughout England in order
to carry out tasks such as farm inspections and the management
of the Rural Development Programme. We believe that as many as
possible of these sites should be used as collection and initial
check points for farmer applications to CAP and other schemes.
Moreover, as the need for this service reaches a few peaks through
the year, MAFF should consider using temporary or mobile premises
in addition. Coverage on specific days at local auction markets
or at other centres remote from continuing permanent offices would
very considerably assist farmers in adapting to a new system.
We recommend that MAFF must now consult locally
to design a cost-effective network of claim reception facilities
before it closes existing regional offices.
We also see some advantages, if a major change
is to be made, in MAFF redesignating its regional boundaries to
coincide with those of other Government departments. However,
great weight should be given to the ease of access from rural
areas when determining the location of any new MAFF offices.
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION
The NFU is adamant that any farmer must retain
the right to submit a claim through the existing paper-based routes
in any new arrangements. But, a substantial upheaval in MAFF's
existing regional structure will only lead to an effective service
to all farmers if those farmers who wish to use electronic communication
of their claims are able to do so. Moreover the greater the assistance
MAFF provides for the training of farmers to use electronic submission
the greater the uptake will be from the farming community.
We welcome this year's trial for the electronic
submission of IACS forms which MAFF has organised out of its Cambridge
RSC and look forward to considering its outcome with MAFF staff.
However, we also attach considerable significance to the Kington
project in which the scope for encouraging farmers to use the
internet for other business purposes as well as submitting claims
to MAFF is being assessed.
Provided MAFF designs its electronic forms carefully,
many of the services which farmers now receive from the RSC can
be provided automatically as they submit claims. Moreover data
handling by MAFF becomes easier and we believe that it should
be possible to speed up payments, not just to those farmers submitting
electronically but to others as well. The current failure of MAFF
to make payments under CAP schemes as fast as some other member
states are able to disadvantages our farmers.
TRANSITION TO
ANY NEW
ARRANGEMENTS
The NFU cannot over-emphasise the importance
to farmers of MAFF successfully managing the CAP schemes and delivering
the Rural Development Programme. Moving towards electronic form
submission, at least partial closure of RSCs, and the development
of national date-handling, a call centre and a single payment
agency which brings together MAFF and Intervention Board functions
is a very considerable challenge.
Any changes must be properly funded and tested
before moving on line. Adequate fall backs must be available if
there are unforeseen problems in any changeover. MAFF should ensure
farmers have access to clear information about how any change
in its regional structure will affect their businesses. Moreover,
MAFF should consult widely on local implications, including the
provision of sites and offices for the submission of time-limited
applications such as IACS, SAPS and the suckler cow premium.
INFORMATION TO
FARMERS
We are concerned that there is currently a very
substantial lack of information to farmers over possible changes
in services which are vital to them and their farm businesses.
We recommend that at the earliest possible date the Minister informs
the farming community of the strategy behind his department's
plans for change and opens a discussion on the details. Even if
change is to be made over a three-year transition period there
is an urgent need to meet farmers' very legitimate concerns over
the future of Regional Service Centres and of the services that
the RSCs provide them.
5 May 2000
| 
