APPENDIX 9
Memorandum submitted by Holstein UK &
Ireland (E11)
BACKGROUND
Holstein UK & Ireland (HUKI) is the largest
cattle breed society in the British Isles with some 13,500 practical
dairy farmers as its members (8,000 in England and Wales). Thus
the Agriculture Committee enquiry into the performance of MAFF's
regional service centres (RSC's) is something of much interest
to our members.
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
REPORT
The Minister of Agriculture's consultation exercise
late in 1999 confirmed three major areas of concern for farmers:
— the need to reduce the burden of
paperwork;
— the need to reduce the inspection
burden;
— the need to ensure consistency and
fairness in scheme administration.
It was against this background that we understand
MAFF commissioned PriceWaterhouseCoopers to look at the Review
of CAP Administration.
It appears that one of the recommendations from
this as yet unpublished Report is to close nine of the RSC's and
establish a new combined Intervention Board/MAFF agency for CAP
payments.
It is against this background that HUKI makes
the following general comments, without reference to any individual
service centre.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The performance of Centres varies as does the
attitude of farmers to their local centres.
The actual location of the Centre directly influences
the frequency with which farmers visit. The potential rationalisation
of RSC's, which from a cost saving point of view could be attractive,
could have a very adverse effect upon the frequency that farmers
visit them or indeed make contact via the phone.
It could be argued that a local centre is not
necessary provided a central office performs efficiently. However
given the increasing plethora of legislation and new schemes,
HUKI's belief is that local assistance to farmers is vital if
successful uptake is to be achieved. In this scenario provided
that local MAFF officials were available locally, an actual regional
office might not be so necessary. We believe it essential that
this farmer liaison role is conducted by MAFF officials and not
sub-contracted to a third party.
One of the benefits of the existing MAFF RSC's
is that they have and do act as the interface with the local farming
community. This is especially important as the much valued Regional
Agricultural panels have been disbanded and ADAS, the government's
advisory and extension service, has been privatised.
The actual efficiency of Centres varies widely.
Many of the concerns expressed by members of Holstein UK &
Ireland relate to slow turn-round of correspondence and officials
not appearing to understand certain schemes etc. Our members also
believe that face to face resolution of queries etc is a very
valuable role for RSC's, but again wide variations are reported
over the user-friendliness of Centres. Electronic and IT approaches
are not a substitute for practical help with form filling!
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The present Regional Service Centres, do not
really meet the needs of farmers, although this varies widely.
Scheme processing might be more efficiently
carried out via a central centre but it is essential that trained
MAFF personnel are available regionally to explain specific queries
in a face to face manner. Sub-contracting this to a third party
would not be appropriate.
The plethora of red tape and new schemes means
that it is essential that a close local link is maintained between
MAFF and the farming community. It is obviously a balance between
cost saving and ensuring successful uptake of schemes etc by farmers.
These two issues may not be completely compatible.
Finally the MAFF Regional Service Centres provide
one of the very few tangible links that "grass-roots"
farmers have with government. Given the fragile state of UK agriculture
and its effect on the rural economy, it would, in our view, be
unwise to adopt too much of a centralised approach.
3 May 2000
| 
