§ Baroness Mallalieuasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made in meeting the service delivery targets set out in the paper Commitment to Service. [HL3980]
§ Lord DonoughueThe table below sets out the performance achieved by the regional service centres during 1998–99 against the targets published in the charter documentCommitment to Service, second edition.
224WA
RSC Performance Data (per cent.) for Financial Year 1998–99 (unless otherwise specified)
Total Arable Area Payments Scheme Oilseeds Main payments 99 Advanced payments 99 Final payments 99 Beef Special Premium Scheme Advance payments (1998) 99 Balance payments (1997) 99 CID applications issued (1998) 99 Premium paid CIDs issued (1998) 99 Suckler Cow Premium Scheme Balance payments 1997 99 Advance payments 1998 98 Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances Claims 1998 99 Sheep Annual Premium Scheme Claims marketing year 1998 99 Environmentally Sensitive Areas Applications 84 Claims 96 Environmentally Sensitive Areas Conservation Plan Applications 73 Claims 84 Farm Woodland Premium Scheme Applications 84 Claims (1998) 98 Injurious Weeds Complaints 99 New Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme Applications (1998) 92 Claims 99 Protection of Badgers Act 1992 Licence applications 98
RSC Performance Data (per cent.) for Financial Year 1998–99 (unless otherwise specified)
Total Strychnine Permits Applications 99 Agricultural Wage Inspections Complaints 95 Wildlife & Countryside Act Licence applications 98 Correspondence Answered within 10 working days 97 Complaints Numbers receiving response within 10 working days 87 Footnotes:
- (i) The relatively high failure rate for the FWPS applications was due to the diversion of staff resources in two of the RSCs to higher priority work.
- (ii) The relatively poor performance for the ESA schemes was primarily caused by uneven workloads, staff turnover and the introduction of a new computer system.
- (iii) The 87 per cent. response rate to complaints to the RSCs is explained by the fact that often cases require referral to HQ or the national scheme management centres and thus take some time to resolve. It must be stressed however that in all cases where the 10-day target was not met a holding letter was issued to the complainant.
General Notes:
- (i) The total percentage has been calculated by setting the entire number of applications or claims cleared within the target time, against the total number received. Applications and claims not cleared due to reasons beyond our control (incorrect information supplied by applicant, etc.) are not included as failures to meet target.
- (ii) The Farm Conservation Grant Schemes 1989 and 1991 applications and claims and pilot NSA claims have been omitted from the table since these schemes are now closed.
- (iii) During the year 16 formal complaints were made to MAFF's central Complaints Adjudicator, of which 2 were referred elsewhere and 3 are still outstanding. Of the cases dealt with, 6 were determined in the complainants favour and 5 were not upheld.