7 Delivery
Proportionality
83. The Rural Payments Agency is responsible for
delivery of the Single Payment Scheme. As well making payments
this work includes inspection and enforcement of cross-compliance
rules. Susan Atkinson questioned whether the RPA took a proportionate
approach to carrying out its duties:
When there is a problem such as with a field boundary,
why is the entire payment stopped and not just that of the field
in question? Such actions can have a crippling effect on cash
flow and lead to real hardship and, in some dire cases, suicide.
Stoppages should be limited to only the matter in dispute. [...]
Nobody is above making mistakes and there should
be far simpler processes for correcting them, with perhaps a small
additional fee, rather than all payments being frozen or a calf
not being able to be registered. There is a great difference between
human error and deliberate fraud and the former should not be
treated as if it were the latter.[
117]
84. The problems of the performance of the Rural
Payments Agency over the last seven years have been well-documented.
The Agency has clearly improved, most payments are made on time
and mistakes are fewer, but we
remain concerned that farmers can be heavily penalised for a genuine
mistake but not appropriately compensated when it is the Rural
Payments Agency who is in error. This culture within the RPA needs
to be replaced by a more proportionate approach.
85. Martin Haworth, Director of Policy at the NFU,
explained that the reforms offer hope that this process might
be improved:
this reform does offer two benefits. One is the recognition
that it will be possible to take a more proportionate approach,
including using what is now called the yellow-card process. For
minor breaches that do not have an animal or human-health risk
attached to them, as a first warning, farmers can just be given
a warning without penalty. We would very much support that. It
is something that the Government can decide to implement or not;
we would certainly support it.[
118]
The yellow-card approach had the support of the Farming
Regulation Task Force. Richard Macdonald told us:
There is a question around a massive, very overt
breach as to whether you should yellow card or not, or whether
you should to go, to continue the analogy, straight to a red card.
In my experience, though, and this is not only with the Task Force
but beyond, the vast majority of breaches are not deliberate.
They are usually out of ignorance or inefficiency, if I can put
it rather bluntly, and therefore I think a yellow card system
is a really good one.[
119]
We recommend that the Government
adopt a yellow-card approach to dealing with minor and accidental
breaches.
IT system
86. Defra is developing a single IT system through
which all agencies will be able to administer the CAP. The design
of the IT system is intended to be sufficiently flexible to cope
with the changes that will be required as the Commission draws
up its implementing rules. Jo Broomfield, Director of the CAP
Delivery Programme at Defra, explained that predicting and reacting
to the implementing rules is one of the most challenging aspects
of the programme:
We have always recognised it as such. How can you
build a solution when the requirements do not firm up until six
months before you are due to deliver it? The approach we are taking
with the new solution is it is designed at the outset to be a
flexible solution, so that you can change the rules in it easily.
We have separated out the key data sets from the core processing,
so the approach we have taken gives us the best opportunity to
be able to respond to late-breaking changes in implementing regulations
as an example, or the Defra scheme design.[
120]
87. The Government developed a new IT system for
the implementation of the previous CAP deal. The failures of that
system are well known and have been the subject of numerous reports
and inquiries. Since the start of the current scheme the Government
has incurred fines of £580 million in disallowance.[121]
Mark Grimshaw explained that:
a lot of that is down to the fact that the originating
technology was not fit for purpose, because of the way that it
was specified, rather than the provision of the technology itself,
and the lack of the control across the various schemes that were
in place. One of the benefits of the new proposals is the introduction
of something called Article 69, which places the responsibility
on the agency to ensure that it can verify and control all future
schemes. That helps us in terms of building in the disallowance
capability to make sure we manage it in the first instance.[
122]
Rather than start from scratch, Defra is integrating
a product that is already in use in three European countries and
manages 2 million farmers' payments. Jo Broomfield told us that
reducing the disallowance risk is a prime concern of the IT programme
and that the product chosen has a good track record in terms of
not attracting disallowance penalties.[123]
88. Past experience shows how crucial it is for Defra
to get the delivery platform right. The RPA emphasised that the
lessons of the past had been learnt:
We took 26 lessons to be learned from all of the
reviews from the last implementation, and we have been through
them systematically. One of the big issues was that the RPA and
delivery bodies simply were not engaged in the policy discussions,
and we have been right from the outset. Not only that, but we
have successfully influenced the policy discussions to get the
outcomes to focus very much on simplicity and deliverability.
[...] So far so good; I think it is going as well as we could
have expected it to, and maybe even a little bit better.[
124]
This CAP adds complexity
to its predecessor and the implementing bodies are going to have
to achieve a lot in a very short space of time.
Peter Kendall suggested "the RPA are well prepared and are
thinking ahead about all of the issues that need to be addressed
[...] it feels as if the RPA have done a really sterling job over
recent years to get back on track and they are well-prepared for
that changeover."[125]
We agree with the NFU that the implementing bodies are in a far
better place at this stage of the development of the IT system
than was the case with the previous system. The
IT system remains, however, one of the standout challenges of
this round of the CAP not least because the precise details of
the implementing regulations have yet to be published. Given the
lessons of the past we question whether this is the right time
to be introducing a new IT system.
Digital by default
89. Access to CAP funding will be digital by default.
An 'assisted digital service' will be available for those who
genuinely cannot access the new system, be it through lack of
experience with the technology or the lack of the technology itself.
The NFU and Tenant Farmers Association welcomed steps to improve
digital communications but they both warned that a 'digital by
default' strategy risked making CAP schemes inaccessible to some
of their members. The TFA stated that:
paper-based systems must be maintained for the foreseeable
future [...] for those who lack the capability to interact with
Government on a digital basis.
the phrase "assisted digital" can have
many meanings. We would not support the idea that access to the
new schemes will be online only either applied for directly or
through agents and intermediaries. Instead, we would support the
segmentation of those customers who currently do not use SPS online
into those who could be helped, either with training, access to
broadband or better equipment, to access online services and those,
on the other hand, for whom the transition will be just too difficult.
For this latter group, which we appreciate will have to be carefully
identified, the ability to supply information on a manual basis
must be maintained.[
126]
90. Currently, 54% of claimants for the Single Payment
Scheme apply online, while 98.3% of all cattle movements were
reported to British Cattle Movement Service electronically in
October 2013. The RPA told us that "if you look at the entire
cohort of our customer base, and include those that email us,
which presupposes they have got some sort of internet capability,
83% of our claimants are online."[127]
Defra aim to encourage and support as many people as possible
to apply online but they accept this will not be possible in all
cases. Jo Broomfield, explained there are three possible options
for those who do not wish to apply online: face-to-face interaction;
collect information on paper as happens now; or use an intermediary
such as an agent to enter the information on the claimant's behalf.
The final option represents an extra cost though Defra suggested
it was one that they may well cover.[128]
91. We support
Defra's ambitions to encourage and support as many as people as
possible to apply online but there will be some for whom such
an approach is not appropriate. A paper-based application process
must be retained and those farmers who take-up this option or
who choose to use an agent must not be financially penalised as
a result.
Broadband
92. Farmers' ability to apply online is hampered
by a lack of effective broadband in rural England. The Government
is attempting to address this through the Rural Broadband Programme.
Under the programme the Government aims to rollout out superfast
broadband to 90% of areas and 2Mbps broadband to the remaining
10%. The programme, due to be completed by 2015, is almost two
years behind schedule, with the hardest-to-reach 10% most affected.[129]
A lack of transparency over coverage has left rural communities
unable to determine when, or even if, their area will be included
in the programme. For all the encouragement and support Defra
wish to offer farmers, without access to effective broadband those
farmers will not be able to apply online.
93. The Rural Communities Broadband Fund (RCBF) is
available for communities not covered by the Rural Broadband Programme.
Until maps are published defining the areas outside the programme's
reach it is difficult for any RCBF-type project to know where
to operate. The £250 million of spending announced for the
period 2015-17 further complicates this picture. The thinkbroadband
news site explains that another problem is "that the existing
superfast project may re-assess areas if costs are less than expected
or take-up is higher than expected."[130]
The difficulty local broadband schemes are facing was recently
highlighted in Oxfordshire where the Cotswold Broadband scheme
lost the support of Oxfordshire County Council when the Council
decided it was not going to separate the area due to be covered
from their contracted plans with BT.[131]
94. Ian Trenholm, Defra's Chief Operating Officer,
extolled the virtues of satellite broadband as a potential solution
for farmers but, as with community schemes, farmers are not going
to invest in technology if they think fixed broadband is on the
way.[132]
A number of authorities are now publishing
coverage maps, Cheshire and Northumberland being recent examples,
but they remain the exception. We repeat our recommendation that
details showing precisely
what areas will be covered by the Rural Broadband Programme and
when must be published in order to encourage alternative providers
to fill in the gaps and provide certainty to those wishing to
invest in private solutions such as satellite.
Advice and support
95. The NFU raised concerns about reduced resources
as Defra and its agencies contribute to efficiency savings. The
NFU explained that reductions in resource levels may coincide
with a change in CAP policy that actually triggers increased demand
for support:
it is critical that the operational knowledge gained
through the current CAP is not lost as any resource efficiencies
are implemented. Help with the completion of claims in the first
year is likely to be vital for those seeking assistance.[
133]
We agree with the NFU. Given
the complexities of the new CAP, it is crucial that the implementing
bodies do not lose key staff at a time when their help and support
will be most required to ensure a smooth transition to the new
scheme. Such support and guidance will
be required from mid-2014 onwards. We
recommend that guidance is provided to farmers in paper form in
the run-up to the start of the new scheme and from mid-2014 at
the latest. Forcing people to engage digitally when it is known
that many cannot would undermine successful implementation of
the new scheme. If farmers understand the new scheme from the
outset, there are likely to be fewer compliance issues, reducing
the subsequent cost of inspection and enforcement.
117 Ev w1 [Susan Atkinson] Back
118
Q 91 Back
119
Q 344 Back
120
Q 151 Back
121
Financial penalties incurred when CAP schemes are not applied
correctly Back
122
Q 99 Back
123
Q 100 Back
124
Q 150 Back
125
Q 67 Back
126
Ev 101 [Tenant Farmers Association] Back
127
Q 143 Back
128
Q 141 Back
129
National Audit Office, The Rural Broadband Programme, Session
2013-14, HC 535 Back
130
Thinkbroadband.com, Hampshire publishes broadband map of the big
picture, 10 October 2013 Back
131
BBC News online, Plug pulled on rural broadband projects in favour
of BT, 12 November 2013 Back
132
Q 162 Back
133
Ev 82 [NFU] Back
|
