Memorandum submitted by the Public and
Commercial Services Union (PCS) (RPA 09)
1. Thank you for you letter of 2 November
in which you have asked PCS to respond to the EFRA Select Committee
terms of reference.
2. As the dominant trade union representing
staff in the Rural Payments Agency it is difficult for us to respond
directly to each of the questions you raise. We are well aware
of the magnitude and scale of the change programme and the requirements
to make payments under SPS. We are also well aware of the issues
that this raises for staff in RPA who have been working under
immense pressure working round the clock seven days a week for
a considerable amount of time. This and the other issues raised
in this submission undoubtedly impact on delivery and we believe
that this is an equally important line of enquiry.
3. You will no doubt be aware of the background
to the change programme and the subsequent creation of RPA. The
key objective being to significantly reduce the running costs
of CAP Administration by investing in a new computer system. This
meant the closure of a number of front line offices and the threat
of well over a thousand redundancies. [14]At
the very outset we registered serious concerns about proposals
which would lead to so many job losses. And whilst we recognised
the need for change there was a collective view that such a significant
reduction in the workforce would have lasting implications on
service delivery.
4. The past five years have been very unsettling
for staff. Efforts were initially made to establish RPA's future
organisational structure and in turn provide staff with some certainty.
Unfortunately the announcement of CAP Reform shifted the direction
of the programme meaning a complete rewrite of how RPA would look.
The fallout of this was that uncertainty was prolonged and in
some instances offices earmarked for closure were kept open longer.
A finite structure is still not known although this has not stopped
the staff from applying for jobs where they are available. This
process, however, has been a long and painful one.
5. As time passed it became clearer that
the original objectives would not be met and that the new IT would
not deliver the expected savings further exacerbating the feelings
of staff. Today RPA still has staff in receipt of redundancy notices
(we understand RPA were the only Civil Service department to issue
such notices despite the Cabinet Office Protocols on Redundancy
and Redeployment) and staff are still threatened by redundancy.
6. The scale of the change generally and
the shift to SPS has meant that RPA is heavily reliant on temporary
and contingent workers. Presently RPA has some 900 staff temporarily
promoted into higher grades, including entire management chains.
This has meant that during times of crisis inexperienced managers
found themselves in authority. This was evident in the Customer
Service Centre emergency earlier this year. Whilst we do not doubt
the volumes of calls the centre was receiving it was staffed by
untrained managers and staff brought in off the streets.
7. It is also important to point out that
we have seen the influx of well over 1,500 casual, fixed term
and agency workers in RPA. The bulk of these are agency workers
who are paid the minimum wage to work unsociable hours. This area
has been of grave concern to PCS and we have campaigned vigorously
against their use and abuse. (PQs have been asked). RPA continues
to exploit these workers today.
8. It is not unusual for a contractor or
consultant also to occupy a civil service post. We do not have
definitive figures but parts of the organisation are being flooded
with consultants some costing as much as £2,000 per day.
Others have been constant in RPA for well over five years. The
culture is one of outsource too. When Accenture were brought in
to build the new IT system existing IT areas hived off to IBM
at the same time. During the Customer Call Centre crisis BT were
also brought in at the drop of a hat without the apparent need
for a tender process.
9. It is also worth mentioning that for
the second year running PCS has been in dispute with RPA over
pay. For the last six weeks there has been continued industrial
action over pay gaps that have further widened between RPA and
its parent department DEFRA. The background to this is that when
RPA was set up it mirrored the higher pay rates in DEFRA. In 2003
however RPA exercised its right as an Executive Agency to pay
delegation. This subsequently saw a worsening of rates (the gulf
is now as much as £3,000 in some pay bands) in RPA, since
they did not keep pace with DEFRA. Needless to say this has had
a detrimental effect on staff in RPA who despite being told that
SPS is DEFRA's number one priority do not earn DEFRA pay rates
10. We appreciate that the issues raised
within this submission are not areas that you would be necessarily
expecting to see however on behalf of PCS members in RPA we believe
that they need to be brought to your attention. We think that
they raise all kinds of questions about leadership and about accountability
at the time of great change. We have seen time and again how it
can be mismanaged in the Civil Service and from what we can see
is happening in RPA is no different.
11. I understand that the rapporteurs are
due to meet RPA trade union representatives next week. They will
be able to provide you with more background to these issues.
John Coote
PCS Negotiations Officer
December 2005
14 Projected reduction in staff from 3,500 to 1,900. Back
| 
