§ Mrs. FitzsimonsTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department has made in meeting the service delivery targets set out in Commitment to Service. [122930]
§ Mr. Nick BrownThe table sets out the performance achieved by the Regional Service Centres (RSCs) during 1999–2000 against the targets published in the Charter document "Commitment to Service".
1131W
RSC performance dada for financial year 1999–20001 Target area Percentage Strychnine Permits Applications 99 Agricultural Wage Inspections Visits made within 10 working days of the RSC receiving the complaint 67 Wildlife and Countryside Act Licence applications 98 Correspondence Answered within 10 working days 92 Complaints Numbers receiving response within 10 working days 80 1 Unless otherwise specified Notes:
1. FWPS claims—Under certain circumstances, FWPS agreement holders may count some or all of their FWPS land towards their AAPS set aside requirement. The AAPS set aside payment rate (to which the FWPS payment is 'linked' in these cases) fell below the FWPS rate for the first time in 1999, and the associated payments had to be restricted. Problems/delays were encountered both by the Information Technology Division in amending the payment system, and also by the RSCs in identifying the agreements/land involved. Regrettably, this resulted in a significant number of Charter failures.
2. FWPS applications—The FWPS is one of a number of measures which were notified under the new EC Rural Development Regulation (RDR), which took effect on 1 January 2000. The majority of 'failures' reported relate to applications submitted on or after that date, which cannot be approved until the England Rural Development Plan (ERDP) has received Commission approval.
3. The high failure rate for Agricultural Wages Inspections arose primarily because of difficulties at one RSC where most of the complaints were sent for investigation during a short period when the wages inspectors' time was already fully taken up carrying out IACS Arable Area Payments Scheme inspections needing urgent completion to protect the Department from EC disallowance.
4. The relatively high failure rates for the ESA Scheme were due primarily to the introduction of new and complex EC Regulations, uneven workloads and staffing difficulties.
5. The number of claims processed for the Farm and Capital Grant Scheme 1991 is insignificant compared to most other schemes. Staffing problems at the two RSCs with the largest number of claims has distorted an otherwise excellent success rate.
6. The 80 per cent. response rate to complaints is explained by the fact that often cases require referral to HQ or the National Scheme Management Centres and thus take longer than 10 days to resolve. In all cases where the deadline was not met, a holding letter was issued to the complainant detailing the reason for delay.
7. 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.
8. The Farm Conservation Grant Schemes 1989 Claims and Pilot NSA Claims have been omitted from the table since these schemes are now closed.
9. Forty four complaints were referred to the MAFF Adjudicator during the year. Ten of these were upheld and four were partly upheld. Twenty seven were not upheld. Three cases were dealt with outside of the Citizen's Charter.