TENTH REPORT
The Agriculture Committee has agreed to the following
Report:-
REGIONAL SERVICE CENTRES
Introduction
1. The way in which the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food delivers services to farmers, polices public
expenditure under Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) programmes
and contributes to broader strategic policy in the English regions
is about to change dramatically. At the moment these functions
are performed by nine Regional Service Centres (RSCs). On 24 July
2000 the Minister set out proposals for restructuring his Department's
regional activities.[1]
The announcement came as the Committee was completing an inquiry
into the role and performance of the regional service centres.
This investigation highlighted several important issues which
need to be addressed if the Minister's plans are to be implemented
successfully. We regret that the Committee did not have the opportunity
to express its views fully before the announcement was made. The
plans comprise three elements which are: to establish a new CAP
Payments Agency operating from five sites around the country;
to place a senior representative of MAFF with appropriate staff
support in each Government Office for the Regions; and to restructure
firstly the work currently carried out in the Farming and Rural
Conservation Agency (FRCA - responsible for policies on farming,
conservation, environmental protection, rural land use and diversification)
and secondly the non-CAP payment functions of the RSCs.
Functions
2. What are the functions MAFF should perform
in the regions? We summarise these as accurate, cost-effective
and efficient processing and policing of claims for CAP subsidies;
reassurance to farmers that forms have been completed and officially
received; general advice; and regional representation, particularly
in rural development strategies. We have been struck by the extent
to which farmers regard the RSCs as the public face of MAFF and
as the natural first contact point for information on many Government
activities. In particular, a substantial minority of farmers,
not invariably those close to the centres, strongly prefer to
deliver their claim forms by hand and appreciate the low level
help and advice which their local RSC can offer. The proposed
new organisation of MAFF's regional services, which is likely
to mean the closure of the RSCs at Bristol, Cambridge, Crewe,
Nottingham, Reading and Worcester, must be judged on how well
it is likely to be able to deliver these functions, both separately
and in relation to one another. The three elements of the Minister's
restructuring plan broadly cover all the functions. We believe
that there is a strong case for re-organisation to enhance MAFF's
policy-making role at regional level, to make the processing of
subsidy applications more efficient and to make advice more accessible
to farmers. We also believe that there is an indisputable case
to employ new technologies on those tasks, provided that they
are introduced with proper care, consideration and trialling.
But we have serious concerns about the clarity of MAFF's vision
and the ability of its management to implement the proposals.
We note that no vision statement is included in the business case
and that the statements given to us in evidence on how services
were to be delivered lacked clarity and precision.
The CAP Payments Agency
3. The Comprehensive Spending Review 2000 cleared
the way for MAFF to create a new executive agency for the administration
of CAP schemes. Based on recommendations from the report produced
by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) which was submitted to MAFF in
January 2000, the Minister has proposed that the paying agency
functions of the RSCs and the Intervention Board should be merged
and delivered by a single service operating from five sites. One
of the processing centres will also house a national customer
call centre and responsibility for management of individual schemes
will be divided between the four sites at Carlisle, Northallerton,
Exeter, and the IB centre at Newcastle, with the agency headquarters
in Reading. The aim is to take "full advantage of the benefits
of electronic services delivery", moving towards achieving
95% electronic service delivery capability by March 2004.[2]
We welcome the invitation to farmers' and traders' organisations
to comment on some detailed aspects of the transition and operational
arrangements of the new agency. We support the principle of the
agency and believe that it has the potential to offer a better,
faster, more efficient service to farmers at a lower cost to the
taxpayer. A central point of contact, where staff can answer questions
on all CAP schemes and have instant access to the caller's records,
has much to recommend it and we believe that the move to electronic
forms will also benefit farmers in the long-term by speeding up
the process and reducing errors, provided either that those who
wish to retain the right to submit applications on paper can continue
to do so for a reasonable period or that help will be provided
locally for farmers who are not confident with new technology.
4. However, our observations during our inquiry
have left us with severe doubts as to the ability of MAFF to deliver
this project. In the past, the management of the RSCs' CAP administration
function has been criticised by the Committee of Public Accounts
on the ground of major variations in efficiency, and more recently
the PwC review identified a number of structural and operational
issues, including the use of new technology, which led to inconsistent,
inefficient and inadequate work processes.[3]
The failure of management at MAFF headquarters to address or even
be aware of these issues does not inspire confidence as MAFF takes
on the oversight of a much more ambitious project, such as is
now in prospect. We recommend that to address this issue, a new,
high quality project team be put in charge of the implementation
of the proposals for a new agency. MAFF must recognise that to
define and deliver a project such as this will require skills
and expertise not currently available in-house. We believe that
MAFF should evaluate whether the core data processing and management
function would be better carried out by a private sector contractor,
while reserving claim authorisation to public officials.
5. Public sector IT procurement projects have
too often turned out to be disastrous. We are fully aware that
failure in this instance would seriously disrupt payments on which
farmers are often dependent and would incur financial penalties
in the form of disallowance by the EU as well as other costs.
It is therefore essential that, as part of proper management of
the project and its implementation, the project team undertake
thorough risk analysis, draw up a tightly-defined process and
system specification and ensure comprehensive testing and trialling
of the computer system. We cannot emphasise too strongly our belief
that the transition to the new agency with its promised benefits
for farmers and taxpayers will need a far higher degree of commitment
to change and the ability to see that through than MAFF's past
record has demonstrated.
Regional strategy
6. Structural policies are now generally co-ordinated
at regional level, with the Government Offices for the Regions
playing a key role. It makes obvious sense as the rural development
strategy is introduced to integrate some of the functions of the
RSCs and senior MAFF officials within the Government Offices (GOs).
MAFF's influence on regional strategy has previously been hampered
by the physical isolation of the RSCs and their non-alignment
with standard Government regions. Of the nine RSCs, just three
are located in the same city as the GO headquarters (Nottingham,
Cambridge and Bristol) and many if not all of the RSCs have to
deal with more than one GO. Looking at it from the other point
of view, three RSCs were involved in co-ordinating the South West
regional rural development plan and in only one instance, that
of the East Midlands, was input restricted to just one RSC.[4]
We appreciate that the location and scope of each MAFF office
has been determined historically by factors which do not apply
to other Government departments, for example, the type and extent
of farming or responsibility for flood defence. This situation
evolved before the establishment of the Government Offices which
themselves integrated departmental regional services. However,
this is now clearly an inherent disadvantage and we welcome
the new relationship proposed by the Minister. The MAFF representatives
in the Government Office must be carefully chosen and trained
if MAFF is to pull its weight in the organisation. At the moment,
we have the broad outline of what is intended but devoid of detail.
We await amplification with interest.
Local services
7. Certain functions currently performed by the RSCs
can only be delivered on a local basis. Under the restructuring
programme, such work is to be carried out by "a single, nationally
managed but largely regionally based service", which will
"be set up so that it relates effectively to Government Offices".[5]
The new service will be responsible for delivering rural development
policies and programmes. It will also undertake regulatory functions,
as well as the key task of ensuring that MAFF retains a presence
locally in order that farmers might still have face-to-face contact
with MAFF staff. We know that this proposal will be welcomed by
the rural community which greatly values MAFF's local presence.
But as yet we have no detail as to how the new service will work
and its role in providing advice and assistance to farmers or
how this will relate to other key initiatives such as the development
of support through the Small Business Service (SBS). Farmers consistently
urge a simpler relationship to the advisory and support services
offered to them - a "one stop shop". It is not clear
that this is what will emerge. We note in particular that MAFF
intends to review these arrangements in 2003 "to consider
at that stage whether full integration with the Government Offices
would be sensible".[6]
This implies that the measure is seen by MAFF as a stop-gap to
smooth the transition to the new structures and the closure of
individual RSCs. As such, it could well be a missed opportunity
to bring services closer to the farmer and enhance the access
of the rural community to information and advice on a wide range
of Government and other programmes. We hope to see some lateral
thinking from MAFF in this respect, for example on the use of
mobile or temporary offices in auction marts and the use of rural
post offices, on encouraging home-working or on the awarding of
contracts to small companies formed by teams of MAFF officials
to offer their services. We believe that MAFF should explore these
options positively and with a view to their being introduced on
a permanent basis. These facilities should be developed in association
with services offered by the SBS. It is important that local knowledge
is retained for the delivery of environmental services. MAFF establishments
in the regions other than the RSCs also need to have a clear idea
of who they are reporting to in terms of management.
The role of MAFF
8. The establishment of an executive agency for CAP
administration and the integration of other RSC functions into
the Government Offices for the Regions raises the wider issue
of the role of MAFF itself in supporting agriculture. The drivers
for change are well known and include the implementation of the
rural development regulation, the Modernising Government agenda
with its support for greater use of electronic communications,
the increasing view of farming as a business requiring access
to general and specialised business advice, and the development
of regional strategies and policies, rather than nationally-defined
programmes. In responding to these pressures, MAFF will have to
face fundamental questions about its purpose and the delivery
of its objectives. We limit ourselves to highlighting these issues
in this brief report but we will return to them in future.
Conclusion
9. In general terms, we believe that the Government's
proposals for restructuring its work in the regions are sensible
and could potentially deliver benefits for all concerned. We support
the setting up of a new agency for the administration of CAP schemes
and believe that MAFF's regional impact will be strengthened through
senior representation within the Government's main regional offices,
thereby ensuring that the interests served by MAFF are taken fully
into account in developing regional policy, and through the merging
of FRCA and other parts of the RSCs.
10. Our central message is that the success of
the entire project will depend on effective formulation of the
strategy and delivery of the service. It must be demonstrated
that the new systems work both technically and in their ability
to respond to customers' needs, and clear evidence must be provided
that the development of policy on a regional basis is more co-ordinated.
We seek the earliest clarification on details of the changes to
regional and local representation, particularly as to how the
various initiatives fit together. For the new agency itself, however,
we expect MAFF to take full account of our comments and reservations
in developing its implementation plans over the summer. We look
forward to giving a detailed scrutiny to the business case and
receiving a report on the consultation at an early opportunity,
when we shall revisit this inquiry and examine how similar functions
are carried out in other parts of the European Union.
1 HC Debates, 24 July 2000, cc 472-4W. Back
2 HC
Debates, 24 July 2000, c473W. Back
3 PwC,
MAFF CAP Administration Review, pp. 28-29, 89-93, 11, 14. Back
4 Ev.
p. 110, para 6. Back
5 HC
Debates, 24 July 2000, c474W. Back
6 Ibid. Back
|
