HL Deb 29 July 2002 vol 638 cc135-6WA
The Earl of Caithness

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answers by Lord Whitty on 16 July (WA 136) and 23 July (WA 51–52), whether the costs of administration were made on the same basis, and, if not, why not. [HL5636]

Lord Whitty

Since 1 April 2001, agricultural grants and subsidies have been administered by the Rural Payments Agency whereas the schemes which comprise the England Rural Development Programme have been administered mainly by the Rural Development Service within DEFRA. The estimated costs given in the previous answers were prepared on a comparable basis as far as possible, bearing in mind that they are two different organisations.

The Earl of Caithness

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why it costs 150 per cent more to administer grants under the England Rural Development Programme than it does for agricultural grants and subsidies. [HL5637]

Lord Whitty

The Rural Payments Agency's processing of agricultural grants and subsidies is mainly office-based, apart from a small percentage of compliance inspections in the field. It consists largely of checking the eligibility, based on standard rules, of claims received from farmers and traders and arranging payment. There is a wide customer base and the total value of payments made is £2.2 billion.

The schemes in the England Rural Development Programme are for the most part specially tailored to individual farms or projects, each requiring detailed assessment to ensure benefits will be delivered. In the agri-environment schemes, for example, the processing of applications involves a site visit by a technical expert in almost every case both to assess and develop the proposals and to give conservation management advice. Experience has shown that such visits are important in terms of securing the desired environmental outputs; for example, habitat restoration, over the life of the 10-year agreement which the land manager will subsequently sign, and hence obtaining best value for money for the taxpayer. The customer base for these schemes is narrower and the total value of payment is just over £200 million. For all these reasons the administration costs are higher.