Memorandum submitted by the Public &
Commercial Services Union (PCS) (RPA 09)
1 Thank you for you letter of 2nd
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 redundancies¹.. 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 1500 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 £2000 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 £3000 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.
Public & Commercial Services Union
December 2005
Notes
¹ Projected reduction in staff
from 3500 to 1900.
| 
