Streamlining Farm Oversight

The Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) has made some progress in following up the recommendations of the Farming Regulation Task Force, which called for a new approach to the culture of regulation. But farmers consider the rate of improvement continues to be slow. Eighty-four per cent of farmers surveyed believe oversight bodies should co-ordinate their activity more. The cost of complying with regulations is on average around a tenth of a farm's net profit. The NAO estimates that, during 2011-12, nine separate government bodies made at least 114,000 visits to English farms. More than half of these were to carry out disease surveillance and testing and 30 per cent to check for farmers' compliance, at a total cost of £47 million. The bodies inspecting farms often collect the same information separately and there is only limited sharing of intelligence which would help with the better targeting of resources. The current approach will not deliver the scale of change expected by the sector, and contrasts with the progress made in Scotland where oversight bodies have come together to identify redundant activity and cut one in six farm visits. Defra has not collected sufficient data to understand the scale, nature, and effectiveness of English farm oversight activity. It does not routinely collect or analyse data on the overall number and pattern of farm visits, or on levels of compliance across all regulatory regimes. Alternatives to physical inspections might be more widely adopted as a way of improving compliance.

While arrangements for identifying and testing for risks to food safety are relatively mature and effective, similar arrangements for the authenticity of food are not. Government has failed to identify the possibility of adulteration of beef products with horsemeat despite indications of heightened risk. A split in responsibilities for food policy between the Food Standards Agency and two Whitehall departments in 2010 has led to confusion among stakeholders about the role of the Agency and Defra in responding to food authenticity incidents. Local authorities said they continue to be unclear on whom to contact in certain areas of food policy. Local authorities reported 1,380 cases of food fraud in 2012 - up by two-thirds since 2010. The Government recognizes that it needs to address weaknesses in its intelligence gathering and sharing and its understanding of opportunities for fraud throughout the modern food chain. Only one-third of English local authorities record laboratories' test results on the Agency's national database. The total number of food samples tested by official control laboratories in England has gone down by a quarter since 2009-10. Although a substantial amount of testing is carried out by private food businesses, public authorities do not know the amount, nature or results of these tests. Among the NAO's recommendations is that some resource should be shifted from such activities as the inspection of slaughter houses to the checking of the manufacture of processed meat products and the long supply chains involved, but this will require European agreement.

Each of the areas in the Whole-Place Community Budgets scheme has identified potential benefits from taking a more integrated approach to frontline services, focusing on outcomes like preventing avoidable hospital admissions or reducing reoffending. Greater Manchester, which covers ten local authorities, has estimated net savings of some £270 million over five years, while in West Cheshire savings of £56 million are estimated for the same period. In general, government has only limited information for identifying opportunities for integration or making an assessment of costs and benefits, which is needed to support the case for integration. In some instances where government has identified integration opportunities, benefits have not been achieved because of implementation difficulties. While the centre of government has recognized the importance of integration, it does not have clearly defined responsibilities to support or encourage frontline integration initiatives across government. It is early days for Whole-Place Community Budgets, central government and the four local areas have worked together effectively to assess the case for local service reforms. The true scale of potential benefits will become clear only if projects are implemented and evaluated robustly. Foundations have been laid but continuing collaboration - including sharing of data - between local and central government and delivery partners is essential to maximize the potential of Whole-Place Community Budgets. Accompanying this report, the NAO has released a case study looking at the four Whole-Place Community Budget areas, finding that these areas have taken a positive first step in assessing the case for integration (HC 1040, ISBN 9780102981339)

For many years Governments have sought to breakdown silo working in departments and ensure better integration across departments to ensure more effective services and better value for money. The Cabinet Office and the Treasury are best placed to support and promote integration across the Government, as they are responsible for coordinating policy and allocating monies. However, they are failing to provide the necessary strategic leadership and are not doing enough to tackle the barriers to integration. These include the lack of good information to identify where the Government could do better by joining services, funding arrangements which make it difficult for bodies to invest in joint working, and the risk that Accounting Officers are reluctant to pool budgets in case they lose control and authority. In contrast, the Whole-Place Community Budgets programme has involved local public bodies and central government working together to develop evidence-based plans for new integrated services. Four local areas have analysed in detail the expected costs and benefits of integration and their findings show clear potential for improving outcomes and reducing costs. The Department for Communities and Local Government, which manages the Whole-Place Community Budgets programme, has provided effective support to date. However, if other central government departments are not committed to Whole-Place Community Budgets it may, like similar initiatives in the past, fail to deliver any significant and lasting change. The programme must be evaluated properly to see whether the early promise translates to real change on the ground and improves value for money.

This ground-breaking book addresses the challenge of regulatory delivery, defined as the way that regulatory agencies operate in practice to achieve the intended outcomes of regulation. Regulatory reform is moving beyond the design of regulation to address what good regulatory delivery looks like. The challenge in practice is to operate a regulatory regime that is both appropriate and effective. Questions of how regulations are received and applied by those whose behaviour they seek to control, and the way they are enforced, are vital in securing desired regulatory outcomes. This book, written by and for practitioners of regulatory delivery, explains the Regulatory Delivery Model, developed by Graham Russell and his team at the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The model sets out a framework to steer improvements to regulatory delivery, comprising three prerequisites for regulatory agencies to be able to operate effectively (Governance Frameworks, Accountability and Culture) and three practices for regulatory agencies to be able to deliver societal outcomes (Outcome Measurement, Risk-based Prioritisation and Intervention Choices). These elements are explored by an international group of experts in regulatory delivery reform, with case studies from around the world. Regulatory Delivery is the first product of members of the International Network for Delivery of Regulation.