Examination of witness (Questions 360
- 379)
WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE 2000
RT HON
JOYCE QUIN,
MP
360. Given that the EU systems that would be
the subject of a new IT system, are common throughout the European
Union, have you studied in detail the IT solutions that other
member states have adopted to see whether there are already systems
off-the-shelf that could do the job here better than the ones
that we have currently?
(Ms Quin) The honest answer is that personally I have
not looked at that in detail, but I have asked for work to be
done to tell me what seems to be happening in other parts of Europe.
The information that I have so far is that in Italy they have
introduced quite a lot of IT in terms of electronic accessing
of forms and schemes. In Sweden too I understand that they are
embarking on a similar process to ours. There are variations throughout
the EU as was indicated to you earlier, but at the same time there
are common pressures that we all face. I believe that we all face
pressures from farmers to simplify the system. Certainly my impression
from visits to other countries is that farmers grumble about the
complexity of the EU's system, as they do here. In some ways that
is not at all surprising. As the Common Agriculture Policy has
developed, in order to deal with changing situations, schemes
have been piled onto schemes and the situation has become very
complex. That is something that is common across the European
Union. However, I totally take what I understand to be the thought
behind your question. We can learn from what other countries are
doing. I followed the earlier exchange about different lengths
of IACS forms with some interest. I know that the Committee is
interested in going down that route. If Ministers are allowed
to encourage Committees, I would certainly encourage you in that
direction.
361. One of the themes that the Government are
following is making IT more easily available and financially affordable.
I asked Ms Brown about the study from Plymouth University, from
the Seale-Hayne faculty, which was reported in the farming press
under the headline, "MAFF moving too fast for farmers, says
report". In your planning do you envisage providing the opportunity
for further training for farmers in the use of IT and for those
parts of agriculture that IT has yet to reach, and do you envisage
helping it to be adopted in a more e-commerce-based world?
(Ms Quin) We certainly want to work with the various
people involved in agricultural training, if we proceed with this
approach, so that they are aware of what we are doing. In terms
of their contact with the farming community, they can build these
requirements into their training courses and training systems.
You will remember the summit held on 13 March. One of the elements
in the action plan was the business advice arrangements, where
MAFF is working with the Small Business Service to set something
up to provide tailored business advice to farmers on a one-to-one
basis, which can include IT. I understand that that will be taken
forward by a joint MAFF/DTI group later on this summer. It should
be up and running by the autumn. The sum of money in the action
plan was something like £6.5 million for that.
362. My final question is about the nature of
the Business Plan. Does it contain a decision for the Minister
to take about whether the private sector or a public/private partnership
or MAFF would be the ultimate developer and deliverer of the new
IT facility in the agency under consideration?
(Ms Quin) No. As I think was indicated to you earlier,
we have not gone down that particular route. I know that route
was not taken at the time of the previous regional reorganisation
either. I think the thrust of what I have been saying is that
we want to work with a variety of other organisations in delivering
the system that we want to set up.
363. Let me be entirely clear about this. The
Minister is considering ideas of a sort of organisational change
nature, but without a clear set of proposals as to how that could
be delivered?
(Ms Quin) No.
364. I gave you three options. IT forms a key
part of the proposal. Either MAFF can do it itself, lock, stock
and barrel with public money; or there could be a public/private
partnership that would deliver against parameters the IT recommendation;
or it could go to a straightforward open competition with the
normal contractual obligations on service delivery for an outside
body to deliver the IT. Those seem to be the three options. There
may be others that you can come up with. Are you saying that the
Minister will not consider options about how the IT model, whatever
it is, will be delivered?
(Ms Quin) Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought, from
the thrust of your earlier questions, that you were talking about
contracting out the whole of the management and organisation.
365. That could be a fourth option.
(Ms Quin) That is how I understood your question.
In terms of providers for services, in terms of information technology,
obviously people can be invited to tender for supplying that equipment.
366. It is not equipment. I am sorry to press
you on this. This is not an equipment issue. We are talking about
a new way of doing business. IT is very complicated. Earlier we
talked about the difficulties in the public sector, and indeed
in the private sector, of setting up complex systems. Only a limited
number of people seem to be able to deliver something that works.
I am interested in finding out which route you may look at. Even
at this juncture you have not made a decision on which route you
will go down. I would want to be reassured that you are looking
at routes that have some kind of proven track record in delivering
what inevitably will be a complex "back office" system,
even though you want it to be simple and farmer-friendly at the
front end.
(Ms Quin) I imagine that once the Minister has taken
a view as to how he wants to proceed, a procurement strategy for
supplying the system and for developing it would be brought forward.[3]
Dr Turner
367. Firstly, on the attitude of MAFF to farmers,
we have received conflicting views. The PwC report envisaged possibly
being electronic by 2008, and some farmers seemed to throw their
hands up in horror at that date. The Prime Minister, in other
areas, is sending out a message to most small businesses to get
IT literate or you will go bust. In your earlier evidence you
took a soft line. Is there not a need to be quite firm and to
say that if there are going to be two systems after year X, the
extra cost of that will have to fall on those who need the extra
hand-holding?
(Ms Quin) I do not think that necessarily I am taking
a soft line on it. I am saying that the trend is already there.
Therefore, while we have not set a target date, which we shall
not do, by which farmers should be IT literate, it seems to us
that given the figures I quoted earlier about what seems to be
the increase in up-take by farmers of IT, that we are looking
at something that already has a strong momentum of its own. I
do not want to make facile comparisons, but one can think of things
like the number of people who have mobile phones compared with
a few years ago. There are so many areas like that where there
is almost a snowball effect. At the same time, we are conscious
that for some farmers that is quite an alien concept and, particularly
at a time that is difficult in agriculture, we are not trying
to make them jump through extra hoops. Let me put it that way.
368. Is that not a matter of saying that we
think you should jump through these hoops and this is how we propose
to help you? Is there not a need to be clear that they need to
jump through those hoops and here is the help to enable you to
do so and if necessary there is some financial support.
(Ms Quin) I think we are saying that it is a good
idea to do this, yes. We are saying that through the pilot projects
that we have already implemented and the work that we did in the
red tape review with the NFU, where there was a strong conclusion
from the different working groups that electronic ways of dealing
with CAP matters was a good idea. I think the message has gone
out, but we are not standing over people with a big stick, saying
that they have to do this.
369. Turning to MAFF's view. Mr Jack mentioned
the point that IT should bring changes in the way that work is
carried out, although it does not always, and should indicate
what is happening as well as how it is happening. I do not know
whether you were as unimpressed, as I was, by the history of what
you inherited in MAFF. Are Ministers confident that the skills
exist within MAFF that need to be supplemented by more than one
civil servant transferring from another department to manage the
change and to make sure that the right decisions are made, or
do you think that you need to go externally and have external
help to ensure that the management is put in place? How do Ministers
view what you inherited and the skill base within MAFF to carry
out that task?
(Ms Quin) To a certain extent what Ministers inherit—I
am aware that there are two former Ministers of the department
in this room—is often shrouded in mystery because one's
access to documents of the previous administration is very limited,
as we know. In a sense, it is difficult for me to judge. My impression
of officials in the department is that they are seeking to grasp
the new opportunities, both through the existence of IT and through
contributions that MAFF is making to the Government's overall
work in this area. I think that the red tape review that I mentioned
was a good stimulus to this wider agenda, as is the PIU report
and the need for all ministries to co-ordinate more effectively
in the regions. So there are a number of pressures in the system
which are stimulating a lot of—
370. To be honest, I was not interested in the
vision and objectives. What I have seen would worry me if I was
in your seat because it does not indicate to me the skills exist
and the knowledge exists to actually ensure that you are in two
or three years time going to deliver. I would like to know whether
you think that you have got the managerial skills within MAFF
or within Government available to you to deliver the large changes
which are implied in what you are proposing? You went to PwC for
specific consultation, to pick out the problems, and looking at
the things they have to say they were pretty damning, were they
not?
(Ms Quin) There were certainly criticisms that they
made. I think the response to those criticisms in the Department
has been to look at ways of overcoming those problems and has
not been to say "oh, well, we reject this", or whatever,
it has not been a defensive reaction. I think that is quite an
important point to make. However, I do feel you are making an
important point in terms of what kind of training and management
strategy we develop to accompany the changes of the kind that
we are talking about. Certainly it seems to me that training of
both existing staff and also some recruitment of well trained
and qualified staff is going to be very important in this process.
Certainly that is one aspect of taking these ideas forward which
seems to me to be crucial.
371. Is there some sort of monitoring mechanism
so that Ministers will know whether it is all going ahead safely?
(Ms Quin) Absolutely.
372. Are you content that you are not going
to get to the end and then find that it falls flat?
(Ms Quin) One of the tests in terms of how feasible
going down this route is is the existing levels of IT skills of
staff and what we need to be able to run a system like this effectively.
It is not just IT skills, it is also management skills which you
have referred to.
Chairman
373. The world is full of exceptional IT projects
which have fallen horribly in the past.
(Ms Quin) Absolutely. We are certainly very conscious
of that.
Mr Drew
374. You have already touched on the role of
the advice facility and I do not want to labour that point but
I think it is fair to say that we have picked up on both sides,
both from farmers and from people who work in Regional Service
Centres, that they find the situation absurd and ridiculous, they
can neither ask for advice nor give it. If you separate the processing
role and the administration role to some extent from the Regional
Centres, does that mean that you can then begin to offer advice
explicitly? At the moment it is because of the regulations that
you cannot offer that advice. Can you give a future vision of
what advice MAFF should give or, as Ms Brown has said, could that
be offered by somebody else, co-operatives for example?
(Ms Quin) On that, I just feel that there are bound
to be different sources of advice that farmers access. I do understand
the point that was being made to you earlier that there is something
of a balance to be struck for people who are working for the Ministry
and who are involved in implementing these European CAP schemes,
that they can give advice in terms of what you have to do to fill
in a form correctly but they are not in the role of giving business
advice to farmers, and indeed many people who are dealing with
the forms in that way would not perhaps be qualified to give business
advice of the kind that you are suggesting. That was one of the
reasons why the bit of the Action Plan for Farming that came out
of the Prime Minister's Summit was introduced, to try to get MAFF
to do something to help what is often a gap for farmers in terms
of business advice. Sometimes there is a bit of a fine dividing
line, so in that sense there is not a hard and fast answer to
your question. If, say, the call centres work well and also the
staff in the processing centres work efficiently, overall farmers
should notice an improvement in the quality of advice that they
get from Ministry officials and added to that will be the further
network of advice which I have mentioned.
375. If we could go on to look at the nexus
with the regional policy and ask some fairly practical questions.
Inevitably if there is a change in the RSCs and you want a closer
relationship with Government Offices, people are going to have
to move. Have you done any strategic work, have you done any real
practical work, on how that will occur? You talk about this transitional
stage but this is real people moving to real places. How do you
see this happening?
(Ms Quin) Yes, we have. I think the answer to that
is that is probably a factor which would make us be more inclined
to look at still a number of offices rather than just a single
site solution, although I cannot prejudge what the Minister is
going to decide on that. Obviously if, say, you were going to
move to a single site there is far more disruption for staff than
if you have got some geographical spread of offices. Remember
we are talking about the Intervention Board as well as the Regional
Service Centres and some of the existing offices perform fairly
discrete functions. It certainly seems to me that we want to try
to minimise the disruption and perhaps also go one better and
actually provide some opportunities for staff in terms of new
work that they might be doing. I think there are some staff who
would be perhaps particularly interested in work on the policy
side in terms of developing the role of development regulation
in conjunction with the Regional Offices and that kind of work
could be very interesting for them. The other point to take into
consideration is in terms of bringing on board the work that the
FRCA do. They are in offices in a number of different places around
the country. It seems to me to make sense to retain some of that
presence in terms of advice and rural support. Therefore, it is
not impossible to devise a scheme that has the benefits that are
outlined in the PwC report but still gives a good and, in fact,
better regional coverage for MAFF.
376. How many staff are we talking about? Are
there any numbers?
(Ms Quin) Obviously you have seen the different numbers
that have been put forward both in evidence to you and in the
report. In overall terms we could be talking about a reduction
of about 1,200 staff but also redeployment of quite a number of
people who are at present involved in MAFF. As I said before,
a lot of this depends on the choice of the number of sites. I
think there is a feeling that we want to minimise the disruption
as much as possible. In this sense it probably would be useful
for me to have access to what happened in the previous reorganisation,
Chairman, because I understand at that time something like 23
offices were reduced to nine. Certainly I have been asking my
officials about that experience and how best to manage a process
of change which is as little disruptive for staff as possible.
Chairman
377. Since I was the author of the plan, if
you buy me a drink I will give you some useful information no
doubt.
(Ms Quin) I might be able to get the answers by a
different route, Chairman. I shall take you up on that offer.
Mr Drew
378. That needs negotiation. Surely there is
a problem in the sense that the Government Offices are in the
cities and it does make a statement about rural policy, for example,
that if there is going to be any discussion, any liaison, any
consultation with farmers, they have to up sticks and go into
the city. That is not either symbolically or practically very
easy, is it?
(Ms Quin) I suppose not all the Regional Offices are
actually in rural areas, although they have got probably rural
hinterlands not very far away. Carlisle is in the city, Newcastle
IB is in the city and so on, so it is a bit of a mixed pattern
around the country. I think, however, although we are wanting
much closer liaison between MAFF and the Government Offices, and
some MAFF people will be in the Government Offices, particularly
in terms of those who will be helping to develop regional policy,
if you like, in those areas and making sure that there is a good
agricultural and rural input into that development of policy.
Nonetheless I think particularly if we are talking about an IT
age people do not have to be chained to office desks in particular
locations in particular cities. Given that we have already got
quite an interesting network of FRCA offices, for example, I think
we can be quite flexible about using some of the offices which
are presently pretty close to the farming customers. It is not
a case of everybody having to go into a Government Office in the
centre of a city, and indeed some people may be partly working
through IT from their home and travelling around.
379. How much of the integration drivers are
dependent upon the new single CAP Paying Agency? Are these totally
unifying decisions or is there a degree of benefit from the integration
of the rural dimension and MAFF playing a leading part there?
Is it all dependent on the single Paying Agency?
(Ms Quin) I am not quite sure I understand the question.
3 Note by Witness: We confirm that we will be
looking at all the options identified by Mr Jack (Q 364) before
deciding how to procure the new IT systems. Back
|
