Examination of witness (Questions 220
- 239)
WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE 2000
MS JANE
BROWN
Chairman
220. Ms Brown, you have been the ghost at the
feast over the last few visits and now, if you are not the main
course, you are at least the aperitif. Welcome. Perhaps we could
express our thanks, first of all, for the organisation of our
regional visits which were very useful indeed to us. You were
sitting there discreetly, or semi-discreetly, as the chief box-wallah
in London, an expression from Thackeray for those who are not
familiar with it. Perhaps you could begin by telling us what you
do. Perhaps you could introduce yourself for the formalities.
(Ms Brown) I am Jane Brown. I am head of regional
services for MAFF. What that means is that I am responsible for
the nine Regional Service Centres and for the headquarters division
CAP Schemes Management Division. My role is in effect to make
sure that the Regional Service Centres deliver the targets set
out in the MAFF business plan and our more detailed targets, particularly
under MAFF's objective six of the fair administration of CAP payments
in full compliance with EU rules. I am also responsible now for
taking forward the follow-up to the PWC study on CAP administration
and the proposals to get MAFF working more closely with Government
Offices for the Regions.
221. One of the roles you specified first of
all was to make sure we do the job in line with CAP rules. You
will have heard officials say in the regions that they are trying
to do two things. They are trying to be therapists and policemen
at the same time. They are trying to help farmers, though not
to give advice. At the same time, they are the policemen of the
system. You will have heard some of the witnesses say that they
felt the role of the policeman was the predominant role but the
government's terror of disqualification was such that they felt
there was at times quite an obtrusive policing role. How would
you describe the balance between the activities? If you were writing
the job description for a new Regional Service Centre, how would
you describe those priorities?
(Ms Brown) I think the priority is set out fairly
well in MAFF's objective, which is to administer the payments
fairly and in full compliance with EU rules. That brings with
it a responsibility to make sure that we communicate effectively
to farmers what those rules are, what they are entitled to, what
they have to do in order to comply, but it is not our role to
provide them with advice on managing their business. That is very
clearly not our role. We cannot tell them, when they come in and
ask for advice on their forms, "You have to put such and
such in that box." We can explain to them, "The purpose
of that box is for you to fill in this particular sort of information",
but we cannot tell them what to write.
Mr Mitchell
222. Why?
(Ms Brown) Because we would then be taking away their
responsibility for providing us with the information that we need
for administering the claims.
Chairman
223. You would say that your principal customer
is the European Commission, in a funny old way?
(Ms Brown) We have a number of customers, stakeholders.
The Commission and the auditors, the National Audit Office, are
certainly very important people who we have to satisfy that we
are doing the job properly. After all, this is taxpayers' money
that we are administering. It has to be administered correctly
and in full propriety, but we have a responsibility as set out
in our Commitment to Service targets to do that in a way which
is clear and helpful and as easy for the farmer to use as we can
possibly make it.
224. As far as any reorganisation is concerned,
from your point of view, the policing function would be the function
you wanted to make sure was absolutely uncompromised by any change?
(Ms Brown) We must not compromise our ability to administer
the payments in full compliance with EU rules. That is certainly
true, but I do not think that necessarily stops us from doing
it in a way that is reasonably user friendly.
Mr Mitchell
225. There is a difference if you are advising.
I would have thought you were there to help farmers but why can
you not say, "If you do not put such and such in that box,
you do not get the dosh"?
(Ms Brown) We can say, "If you do not fill in
that box correctly, you do not get the dosh." What we cannot
say is, "What you have to put in that box is X." We
can tell them that they must fill it in. They have to decide how
they fill it in.
226. That evades the question. One answer which
they might be inclined to make loses the money; one answer gets
the money. What do you tell them then?
(Ms Brown) It rather depends on what the question
is. They have to put in what is factually correct for their farm
business. It might be, "Is this a partnership or not?"
That could affect their eligibility for the particular scheme,
but we cannot tell them, "You must say you are a partnership"
if they are not or vice versa.
227. That is policing it for the EU rather than
helping farmers maximise their return from the EU.
(Ms Brown) Yes. It is not our job to encourage farmers
to apply for money that they are not entitled to.
228. Of course not. That is tautology, but it
is your job to encourage farmers to apply for the maximum they
can get within the schemes available, which is presumably what
other countries are doing.
(Ms Brown) Yes. What you will find is that in most
other countries the sort of role that you are talking about is
not performed by government. It is performed very often by farmers'
cooperatives or farmers' organisations.
Chairman
229. Who understand it all a bit better?
(Ms Brown) Yes, and who are not the policemen and
have a responsibility to encourage their members to maximise what
they can get.
Mr Mitchell
230. Our farmers have no friends?
(Ms Brown) No, I did not say that at all.
231. You are saying that. They have the cooperatives
in other countries to help, protect and guide them. You are not
prepared to do that. Therefore, they are going friendless.
(Ms Brown) I do not think that is true. The NFU does
provide help to its members for claims. Some farmers, larger ones
admittedly, employ land agents to help them. There are people
who are prepared to help.
Chairman
232. Are you saying that you accept that, in
other countries, the way this is done is likely to be more friendly
towards the farmer and to have less of an emphasis on the policing
role than it is in the United Kingdom? That is what I thought
was the implication of what you said.
(Ms Brown) I am saying it is different in other countries.
Austria is an example where I understand it is compulsory for
farmers to belong to their equivalent of the NFU. Therefore, that
organisation has a very clear role in helping these people who
are required to belong to it.
Mr Jack
233. When the British Cattle Movement Service
started, there was quite a controversy as to whether private enterprise
should have had an opportunity for bidding for that contract.
Putting that aside, what you have lifted the curtain on is quite
a radical thought. If you really were going to be radical, you
could subcontract this whole operation to people like the TFA,
the CLA and the NFU, because the message that has come through
in this inquiry is that farmers like the reassurance of talking
to a human being that the form is filled in correctly. They also
turn to these organisations for technical advice and queries.
Why do you not just get rid of all your superstructure and subcontract
it to these other bodies who are very reputable? If it happens
abroad, why do we not do it here?
(Ms Brown) There are some parts of the process which
certainly cannot be subcontracted under the EU rules. There are
some things which the Member States are required to do themselves:
issuing the payments and authorising the issue of the payments.
There are variations between Member States and restrictions on
what is possible legally.
234. Have you studied any of these alternative
models? You have the PricewaterhouseCoopers report which is one
view of the future but, in being very radical, have you looked
and said, "Of the other EU Members, are there models there
that might be transportable here, that would work effectively?"?
(Ms Brown) We have had a look at what goes on in some
other Member States and there are some interesting developments,
particularly in relation to electronic processing, which we need
to keep in close touch with and learn from. We have not seriously
thought about the Austrian model, for example, requiring farmers
to become members of some sort of organisation which could then
assist them to claim the maximum to which they are entitled.
235. I understand not compelling people to do
things. That is a proper view, in my judgment, but in terms of
other organisations who would be capable of combining an advice
and checking facility have you seriously given any thought as
to whether reputable farming bodies, and indeed co-ops in this
country, could be given that job to do instead of MAFF? I understand
about the central processing. I take that as read, but the front
end of this thing is important, so have you looked at that?
(Ms Brown) Yes. There is this concept in the PwC report
of third parties to assist in claim submission. That is something
that we have been giving thought to and that we would expect to
discuss in some detail with the industry and potential third parties.
236. You say "would expect"; are you
or are you not?
(Ms Brown) The follow up to the PwC report is with
the Minister. When he has decided how he wants to proceed, we
will move on to the next stage. There is a lot of detailed work
which will need to be done if we are going to deliver the sort
of arrangements that PwC are envisaging.
Mr Marsden
237. You say you have looked at other models
in other European countries. What report was produced?
(Ms Brown) When there is bilateral contact with other
Member States, we have internal reports which are circulated within
the Department, to me and to other people with an interest. We
look at these and see if there are ideas that we can learn from.
238. There was a thorough, detailed analysis
conducted in-house as to what models other European countries
have adopted?
(Ms Brown) No, I would not say that. We have had a
thorough look at how the system currently operates. We took the
view that we needed to review the arrangements which have been
in place since 1992. We asked PWC to help us. PWC had a bit of
contact with other Member States. We had some ourselves, but we
are not looking to other people to tell us how we want to run
this.
239. That is very nationalistic but the point
here is that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that MAFF dabbles
with things and looks at things but never does anything properly.
You have massive money recycling centres ongoing in the Regional
Service Centres and what farmers actually want, to return to Mr
Mitchell's point, is good quality business advice. I put it to
you—and I would be interested to see how you respond—that
in every other business sector they would be able to get that
business advice from a good source as recognised by the Government.
That is not available at the moment and the staff within Regional
Service Centres have both hands tied behind their backs because
they cannot give good quality business advice, even though they
want to.
(Ms Brown) The staff within the Regional Service Centres
are not trained or qualified to provide good quality business
advice. That is not their role.
| 
