SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY
THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
1. Questions 42-49 related to the
programme management and risk management arrangements. I enclose
copies of the Restructuring Programme Controls and the guidance
on Risk Management within the programme. These explain the systems
which have been put in place to identify, assess and manage the
risks associated with the programme.
* * * *
2. Questions 53-58 related to the
expenditure on NURAD. The total spend on NURAD was just under
£14 million, most of which will be reutilised. We are currently
finalising the amount which will need to be written off, and will
include details in the April update for the Committee.
* * * *
4. Questions 114-117 ask about expected
take-up of electronic IACS claim forms in 2001. MAFF received
approximately 74,000 IACS forms in 2000. We have received around
10,000 expressions of interest in electronic submission of IACS
2001 forms, including around 1,000 from agents. If all 10,000
were to submit an electronic application, this would amount to
some 13.5% of the total number of claims.
5. Questions 141-143 asked about
the advantages of electronic claim submission to applicants. The
pilot study carried out in East Anglia last year did not collect
data on the timing of payments to participants. However, the pilot
showed that e-forms will contain fewer errors and inaccuracies
because of the inbuilt intelligence and will thus be processed
more swiftly than the average manually completed form. E-forms
will not require to be manually input to our database. As a consequence
e-form applications will complete the full internal checking process
more quickly than other forms and thus be ready for payment earlier.
Furthermore, the pilot gave a clear indication that participants
felt there was "gain for the pain" (to quote Question
142). The users valued the inbuilt intelligence within the e-form
which enabled:
(a) automatic arithmetic calculations and
totalling;
(b) internal consistency;
(d) pre-population with last year's data;
(e) intelligent Help facility; and
(f) compatibility with applicants using farm
software packages.
6. Questions 145 and 146 related
to the savings expected to accrue to CAPPA as a result of electronic
forms. The assumptions made in the CAPPA Business case about the
anticipated level of processing savings that will result from
the receipt of electronic application forms (e-forms) are set
out at Line A in the table below.
However to get a more meaningful profile of
the level of processing savings we took into account the percentage
of MAFF schemes and Intervention Board schemes that would be made
available online (% of schemes in scope), and the different levels
of customer take-up for those schemes. The total level of processing
savings attributed to e-forms is set out at Lines B and C in
the table below.
(For reference, a separate, more detailed note
on the level of customer take-up for CAPPA's electronic services
was supplied to the Committee late last year.)
The resulting level of processing savings from
the receipt of e-forms was then combined with the level of processing
savings resulting from the use of workflow technology (the system
that will automatically distribute work among staff), to give
an overall percentage of processing savings. This is shown at
Lines D and E in the table below.
| 2001 | 2002
| 2003 | 2004 | 2005
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008
| 2009 | 2010 |
| Savings from e-Forms |
| | | |
| | | |
| |
| A. Anticipated Level of Processing Savings (for schemes in scope)
| 5% | 10% | 20%
| 20% | 30% | 30%
| 30% | 30% | 30%
| 30% |
| % IB schemes in scope | 40% |
50% | 80% | 100% |
100% | 100% | 100%
| 100% | 100% | 100%
|
| % Take-up for IB schemes in scope | 45%
| 45% | 54% | 61%
| 65% | 68% | 71%
| 73% | 74% | 74%
|
| % MAFF schemes in scope | |
30% | 60% | 100% |
100% | 100% | 100%
| 100% | 100% | 100%
|
| % Take-up for MAFF schemes in scope | 5%
| 5% | 14% | 21%
| 25% | 28% | 31%
| 33% | 34% | 34%
|
| B. % Processing savings—IB schemes |
1% | 2% | 9% | 12%
| 20% | 20% | 21%
| 22% | 22% | 22%
|
| C. % Processing savings—MAFF schemes |
0% | 0% | 2% | 4%
| 8% | 8% | 9% |
10% | 10% | 10% |
| Overall Savings from e-Forms AND Workflow)
| | | |
| | | |
| |
| D. Overall % Processing savings—IB schemes
| 1% | 2% | 12%
| 17% | 32% | 38%
| 39% | 39% | 40%
| 40% |
| E. Overall % Processing savings—MAFF schemes
| 0% | 0% | 5% |
9% | 21% | 29% |
34% | 34% | 34% |
34% |
I hope that the Committee will find this information helpful.
We will let you have a further progress report in April.
19 February 2001
| 
