Maff: Service Delivery Targets

Baroness Mallalieu

asked 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]

The table below sets out the performance achieved by the regional service centres during 1998–99 against the targets published in the charter document Commitment to Service, second edition.

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.

Volume 604: debated on Thursday 29 July 1999