APPENDIX 4
Memorandum submitted by The Royal Association
of British Dairy Farmers (E4)
1. I respond on behalf of the RABDF to the
opportunity to provide written evidence on the above enquiry.
From my consultations with farmer members from various areas of
the country, it is clear that the performance of centres varies
as does the attitude of farmers to their local centres. I will
make a number of points without reference to any individual Regional
Service Centre.
2. The location of Centres influences the
frequency with which farmers visit them.
3. Many will argue that a local centre is
not necessary provided a central office would perform efficiently.
However, when new schemes are introduced, assistance to farmers
is often required. Such a need could be met by adequately trained
MAFF officials operating within the regions but not necessarily
from large regional offices.
4. Regional offices of MAFF used to serve
as an interface between MAFF and the farming industry. In recent
years for various reasons, eg the privatisation of ADAS and disbandment
of the Regional Panels, that role has regrettably almost disappeared.
5. The efficiency of Regional Centres in
relation to scheme work appears to vary considerably. For some
Centres farmers report a high degree of satisfaction with the
speed of turn around of correspondence, of the officials' understanding
of the schemes themselves, and of the overall relationship between
farmer and officials. In the case of other Centres less satisfactory
reports have been received. There are examples of schemes not
understood by MAFF managers, of farmers believing they must have
face to face contact to ensure accurate assessments, and of slow
response to written or telephone queries.
6. The user-friendliness of Centres also
varies. In some cases the arrangements for and manner in which
farmers are received for interviews are less than encouraging.
They can even be a deterrent.
7. I will summarise the RABDF position.
The present arrangements do not meet the farming needs in all
geographical areas. Relationships with farmers and the apparent
efficiency of operation vary considerably from Centre to Centre.
From the point of view of efficiency, central processing of scheme
work by highly trained staff appears attractive. However, complete
removal of regional offices would further reduce the already declining
interface between MAFF and the farming industry. The two different
needs, efficient scheme processing and good farming interface,
may well require different solutions.
I hope these few remarks are helpful in your
deliberations. The RABDF would be pleased to enlarge on any of
the issues raised.
2 May 2000
| 
