AGRICULTURE SELECT COMMITTEE: IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
27. No recent developments.
Recommendation 20: We recommend that any publicly-financed
grant scheme for the modernisation of vessels working within low-impact
fisheries meet the criteria of the continual reduction of fishing
capacity in line with available fish stocks, safety, the sustainability
of the fishing method and that short-term targeted assistance
would be effective (paragraph 76).
28. Under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries
Guidance, a structural fund providing EU grants for fishermen,
Member States may establish grant programmes covering the period
2000-2006. Separate programmes are being established for each
of the Objective 1 and transitional Objective 1 regions, and for
the remaining areas of the UK. The Ministry and the devolved administrations
are separately responsible for measures in their own countries
and are developing programmes in consultation with interested
organisations. It is envisaged that measures to promote safety
and sustainability will be among the priorities for funding.
Recommendation 21: We recommend that MAFF provide
clear guidance on the legal title to licences and quota in the
context of transactions between individuals and/or organisations
Recommendation 22: We believe that there is a
strong case for taking certain low-impact fisheries such as mackerel
hand-lining out of the quota system altogether which would encourage
new entrants, and we urge MAFF to examine this possibility with
care (paragraph 97).
Recommendation 23: We recommend that, in conjunction
with representatives of the fishing industry, the Government devise
proposals for managing the existing trade in licences and quota,
with a view to introducing them as a matter of urgency (paragraph
Recommendation 24: We recommend that the Government
consult the fishing industry on the merits and drawbacks of tradeable
quotas and the most appropriate form for their introduction in
the UK, including the future management role of the POs and the
extent of safeguards, for example to protect fishing-dependent
communities, and report on the outcome of these consultations
within a year (paragraph 101).
29. Joint UK industry/departmental working group
meetings were held to consider the Committee's recommendations
on quota management and licensing and how they might be pursued
in the UK context. A report from the working group was published
in September 2000 and a copy has been sent to the Select Committee.
The report recommended that Fisheries Departments should draw
up a guidance note for fishermen which would include advice on
entitlement to quota and licences; that low impact fisheries should
be accommodated within the general framework of quota management;
and that the UK's existing quota management arrangements should
not be replaced by a system of individual transfer quotas (ITQs).
The working group also concluded that no further measures were
necessary to manage the existing trade in quota other than to
consider provision for recording permanent transfers through the
annual reconciliation of fixed quota allocation (FQA) units. This
will be considered as part of a wider review of FQAs, which is
being brought forward to commence in autumn 2000.
Recommendation 25: We support the principle of
no take zones and closed areas and we recommend that MAFF sympathetically
consider and encourage research into specific proposals brought
forward by the industry. However, we emphasise that under the
CFP these measures would have to be non-discriminatory and apply
to all vessels not just UK fishing. They would therefore have
to be agreed on a European basis (paragraph 106).
30. The possibility of closed areas has been discussed
in the UK Fisheries Conservation Group. The industry in the south
west has met with CEFAS scientists to discuss the benefits of
a potential closure in their area and has been in discussion with
fishermen from other countries working in the area to see if a
common viewpoint can be found. The UK secured agreement at the
December 1999 Council to the establishment of an area closed to
sandeel fishing for 2000 stretching from mid-Northumberland to
the Moray Firth to protect the food needed by breeding sea birds.
This closure has subsequently been extended for a further two
years for 2001 and 2002. The December 1999 Council also settled
on the need to develop a recovery plan for the cod stock in the
Irish Sea. Details were agreed over the first few weeks of 2000
and included an area closure to protect spawning cod. Subsequently
a gentlemen's agreement to keep beam trawlers out of the area
was put in place. A range of additional technical conservation
measures for the Irish Sea has been developed. This should be
formally adopted by the Council of Ministers soon, following receipt
of the European Parliament opinion. It is intended that the new
measures should apply from 1 January 2001. Discussions at EU level
with the fishing industry on necessary revisions to the cod area
closure for 2001 took place in October.
Recommendation 26: We recommend that MAFF examine
the feasibility and effectiveness of introducing in the UK a similar
system to the Icelandic arrangements for the non-profit sale of
over-quota fish (paragraph 108).
31. This issue was discussed in detail with the UK
industry at a joint Government/industry working group. There was
no enthusiasm for moving towards a similar arrangement in the
UK and it was considered unlikely that support would be forthcoming
from other Member States even if the UK wished to do so. Such
a policy would only work where a discard ban operated and this
would be difficult to police in the mixed fisheries found within
Community waters. A current research project on the economic aspects
of discarding, which will be analysing the experience of the Norwegian
discard ban and lessons for the EU, may provide new information
in due course.
Recommendation 27: We recommend that MAFF consider
measures to reduce discards through more flexible quota management
and that it continue to promote within Europe the use of more
selective fishing gear (paragraph 109).
32. We are taking action to monitor the effects of
new technical conservation measures. We will also use the results
of research into the economic aspects of discarding in considering
further improvements nationally and at EU level.
Recommendation 28: We recommend that the Government
attend to the publication of the concordat on fisheries management
as a matter of urgency (paragraph 111).
33. The MAFF/Scottish Executive concordat on fisheries
was published on 3 November 1999.
Recommendation 29: We recommend that the jurisdiction
of the Sea Fisheries Committees and the Environment Agency be
reviewed to ensure consistency of approach within individual fisheries
34. Action has been subject to the receipt of two
reports. The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review was published
in March 2000 and the Government intends to publish its response
by the end of 2000. '1888 - 2000 and beyond', a
report by the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees was published
in June 2000. At the annual statutory meeting held in July 2000
between the ASFC and MAFF chaired by Elliot Morley an initial
discussion of the report took place. Further detailed discussions
will be held once the ASFC has completed a consultation exercise
with the industry and other interested parties.
Recommendation 30: We recommend that the government
set out its objectives for the future role of POs, including the
devolvement of further responsibilities in order to streamline
the management process, taking into account the cost and ability
of POs to take on those responsibilities, and the position of
the non-sector fleet. Duplication of tasks between willing POs
and MAFF should be eliminated, subject to appropriate audit checks
35. The Government is pursuing this recommendation
in the context of the implementation of new EU legislation on
data management. Arrangements for improving data flows through
electronic communications are being discussed with POs.
Recommendation 31: We recommend that the Government
make more use of electronic communications in licence issues,
particularly with regard to the single licence rule for the pelagic
fleet (paragraph 118).
36. The Fisheries Departments in the UK completed
a joint review with industry of pelagic management arrangements
in Autumn 1999. A number of changes were recommended including
some on the easing of the arrangements for issuing and collecting
herring licences. The new arrangements were introduced in time
for the 2000 herring fisheries.
Recommendation 32: We recommend that the Government
prepare an audit of all regulations and their compliance costs
relating to the UK fishing fleet and that this work be used as
a database which can be updated to provide accurate and accessible
information on the regulatory burden when considering new measures.
We also recommend that similar audits and databases be established
for compliance cost with regulations in each of England, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland (paragraph 119).
Recommendation 33: We recommend that the Government
either commission itself or bring pressure to bear on the European
Commission to initiate research into the comparative costs to
the fishing industry of compliance with the regulatory framework
in the different Member States of other charges pressing on it
and the comparative levels of support (see paragraph 120)
Recommendation 34: We recommend that UK diplomatic
posts be charged with monitoring the means of implementing EU
directives and the costs pressing on the industry in other Member
States and that this information be disseminated to the UK industry.
Where there are clear discrepancies in approach, the UK Government
should provide an explanation for the additional requirements
it has introduced, although the presumption should always be in
favour of ensuring UK fishermen are treated equally with their
counterparts in other Member States. The approach to regulation
should always be guided by the principles we set out in paragraph
3 of this Report (paragraph 122).
Recommendation 35: We recommend that the Government
continue to review all regulations imposed on the fishing industry
with a view to ensuring that the regulatory system be streamlined
and restrictions removed unless there is reason for their continuance
consistent with the objectives we have set. However, we recommend
the continuation of the designated ports scheme as a means of
concentrating the industry and ensuring more effective management
37. Priority has been given to reviewing the operation
of quota management (see comments under recommendations 21-24)
and a further review of the licensing arrangements for fishing
vessels, with particular reference to the capacity penalties applying
to the transfer and aggregation of licences. Specific action has
been taken to provide for a fast-track procedure for the transfer
of licence entitlements between fishermen.
Recommendation 36: We recommend that if the satellite
monitoring requirements are extended to vessels under 24 metres
in length the Government either take up any EU funding available
to subsidise the installation of the necessary equipment by the
industry or produce reductions in the regulatory burden on fishermen
to balance the costs (paragraph 127).
38. The position has not changed since the update
provided in March 2000. Fisheries Departments will see how the
regulatory burden on fishermen can be reduced in the light of
the experience gained from the satellite monitoring of fishing
vessel activity. Decisions on any extension of satellite monitoring
remain unlikely in the immediate future.
Recommendation 37: We recommend that the Government
commission a review of how the prosecution process for fishing
offences could be made more efficient, more speedy and more consistent
Recommendation 38: We recommend that the penalties
for serious breaches of fisheries regulations be increased and
that information tables be published on the fines levied in different
courts to ensure common levels of charges. We also recommend that
licences be revoked for second offences (paragraph 136).
39. As set out in the orginal Government response
and subsequent update, the existing situation addresses these
points as far as possible.
Recommendation 39: We recommend that to increase
transparency the Government propose that the European Commission
speed up publication of its reports on enforcement so that both
areas of difficulty and improvements, in general and in individual
Member States, are highlighted in a timely fashion (paragraph
Recommendation 40: We urge the Commission to ensure
more regular inspections of European port practices and to produce
an annual report to the European Parliament (paragraph 139).
40. We have brought these recommendations to the
attention of the Commission. Although the Commission has not provided
any reports on enforcement activity since early 1998, the Commission
held a major conference on enforcement in October 2000 and plans
to undertake a three year assessment of enforcement in early 2001.
Recommendation 41: We recommend that MAFF encourage
reciprocal visits by fishermen to other Member States in order
to build up trust between fishermen and to encourage the sense
of a common purpose. Furthermore, we recommend that the Government
promote visits by its own regulators to other Member States to
exchange knowledge on best practice. We also recommend that the
Government monitor the standards of enforcement applied in the
Member States through its embassies and rigorously pursue any
breaches with the European Commission (paragraph 141).
41. This recommendation has been drawn to the attention
of fishermen's organisations. In addition, following a meeting
in July 2000 between UK and Spanish Ministers, arrangements are
in hand for the establishment of a UK-Spanish fishing industry
liaison committee. Contact at official level is continuing, as
Recommendation 42: We conclude that in general
the UK is providing an acceptable standard of enforcing regulations
and that it has taken steps to address areas of weakness identified
by the European Commission (paragraph 142).
42. There is no new action required.
Recommendation 43: The Minister pointed out that
enforcement "is about sustainable management". This
message has to be brought home to the industry but this can only
be achieved where there is trust between the two sides. We can
offer no easy solutions to this problem, only a reiteration of
our conviction that the Government must set out a clear framework
for its strategy on fisheries and must
work with the industry to ensure parity of treatment within the
EU. It should also seek to transfer a proportion of the regulatory
task to fishermen so that ownership of the process is genuinely
shared (paragraph 143).
43. See comments on recommendations 1 and 2.
Recommendation 44: We recommend that MAFF initiate
a full review of the powers of the Sea Fisheries Committees and
publish it together with a timetable for any necessary action
Recommendation 45: We recommend that the funding
arrangements for Sea Fisheries Committees be re-examined in order
to establish a secure, permanent financial framework within which
they can plan and perform their duties (paragraph 149).
Recommendation 46: We recommend that the Ministry
investigate the powers available to Sea Fisheries Committees and
other local management bodies to take action on environmental
grounds and publish proposals for consultation on action needed
to close the loopholes (paragraph 150).
44. See comments on recommendation 29.
Recommendation 47: We recommend that the Government
publish outline proposals within the next twelve months for the
introduction of coastal and zonal management of fisheries which
should involve the management of research, monitoring of activities
and common regulatory processes (paragraph 153).
45. The SFF and NFFO have issued a document on zonal
management and the Greenwich Forum held a conference on this subject
in September 2000. These actions have usefully promoted debate
about the scope for zonal management which the UK is encouraging
the Commission to take up in its forthcoming Green Paper on the
Recommendation 48: We of course welcome the reassurance
by the European Commission and others that the 6 and 12 mile limits
will be carried over into any future shape the CFP might take
and we fully support the retention of the 6 and 12 mile limits
after 2002 (paragraph 154).
46. There is currently no new action required.
Recommendation 49: We recommend that SFIA undertake
a campaign aimed at the industry and port officials to persuade
them of the benefits of electronic auctions and that guidance
be given where necessary on the updating of the grading equipment
47. The SFIA has considered that it should provide
information, advice and contacts so that the industry and responsible
officials at individual port markets could assess the advantages,
disadvantages and timings of introducing electronic auction systems.
Several markets have already introduced electronic auctions and
others are either planning to do so or are still considering their
options. The SFIA has been providing technical advice on grading
systems and has participated with individual skippers in trials
of grading, labelling and electronic data transmission at sea.
Recommendation 50: We recommend that the SFIA,
in consultation with the industry and taking account of the views
of supermarkets, devise a marketing strategy to cover the catching
sector through to the suppliers with the aim of increasing the
competitiveness of the UK fishing industry (paragraph 169).
Recommendation 51: We recommend that a forum be
established under the auspices of the SFIA to bring together retailers
and merchants and industry representatives on a regular basis
to discuss how both sides can adjust to the needs and concerns
of each other (paragraph 169).
Recommendation 52: We recommend that a separate
working group be established to focus on areas of difficulty and
opportunity for UK fish sales to the catering sector (paragraph
169). We recommend the SFIA take forward the initiative on eco-labelling
48. Retailers, merchants and industry representatives
have been brought together in the Fish Industry Forum whose members
are contributing to the strategy (see recommendations 1 and 2)
which aims to cover the catching sector through to suppliers and
to contribute towards increased competitiveness of the UK industry.
Catering representation has been added to the SFIA's Development
Advisory Committee, on which retailers were already included.
Additionally, the SFIA's recently expanded Trade Development team
is regularly calling on "key accounts", including the
major retail and catering groups and their fish product suppliers
49. The SFIA is taking forward the initiative on
eco-labelling as part of a much wider EU Concerted Action programme
covering labelling requirements for fish and fish products. The
next steps are to consider the practical operation, management
and control of quality labelling and monitoring schemes. For any
credible eco-labelling system, there must be accurate and auditable
systems for tracing the origin of the labelled fish. EU funding
has already been agreed for a further Concerted Action project
on traceability in the fish industry - "Tracefish" -
in which the SFIA will participate.
Recommendation 53: We recommend that the marketing,
processing and port facilities scheme be reinstated in order to
enhance the competitiveness of the UK sea fishing industry (paragraph
50. Grants for marketing, processing and port facilities
are proposed as part of the programmes of FIFG aid described in
the response to recommendation 20 above.
Recommendation 54: We recommend that the Government
together with the SFIA and the Food Standards Agency initiate
a campaign to promote the perception of fish as a healthy, convenient
meal option for all ages (paragraph 172).
51. The SFIA budget for 2000-01 contains funds for
market development, including advice to consumers on the benefits
of eating fish. The SFIA's corporate plan envisaged that its resources
would not enable continuation of a mass media advertising campaign
in addition to this without Government funding under the EU fisheries
structural fund (FIFG). On the basis of the range of priorities
for expenditure under FIFG the Government has decided not at this
stage to allocate funds to a further mass media campaign, following
the substantial expenditure of recent years.
52. The Food Standards Agency continues to give the
long standing Government advice on healthy eating. People are
encouraged to eat a balanced diet made up of high proportions
of fruits and vegetables and starchy foods, with moderate amounts
of meat, fish and alternatives, and milk and dairy foods and small
infrequent amount of foods high in fat or sugar. The specific
advice on fats in the diet encourage people to eat one portion
of oily fish a week.
Recommendation 55: We recommend that the Government
consider extending liability for paying the SFIA levy to the aquaculture
sector (paragraph 181).
53. The SFIA has recommended to the Government that
the levy should be extended to include farmed salmon and migratory
trout. Following discussions with Government, the SFIA intends
to consult representatives of the salmon and trout industry on
this proposal. Extension would require primary legislation, for
which Parliamentary time would need to be found.
Recommendation 56: The availability of grants
in other EU Member States to help processors there meet the requirements
of the Urban Waste Water Directive seems to us a clear-cut case
of the UK industry being disadvantaged in a competitive market.
Unlike fishermen with quotas, merchants and processors are not
guaranteed a percentage share of the market and they are forced
to compete with their counterparts in other Member States for
the custom of supermarkets and caterers. The impact of the charges
on their competitiveness does not even appear to have been assessed
by the Government (paragraph 188).
Recommendation 57: It is essential that the imposition
of the increased charges on processors by the water authorities
be delayed, and then only phased in, to
give the industry time to develop alternatives and to minimise
waste (paragraph 189).
54. The Government welcomes the settlement of the
dispute between the Grimsby Fish Merchants' Association and Anglian
Water. The agreement negotiated and now in force governs the future
basis of trade effluent charges at the port from 1 July 2000.
This is a long-term settlement, to provide a stable basis for
charges for at least three years, and a large part of the deal
is a co-operative effort to reduce the volume and potency of the
affluent. A solution to the charges issue that also reduces discharges
to the environment is doubly welcome.
55. The settlement at Grimsby is not the end of the
issue of trade effluent charges nationally, but it does suggest
that, with proper sensitivity and local negotiation, an agreed
basis of charges is possible even where our commitment to higher
environmental standards necessarily increases the costs of effluent
Recommendation 58: We commend the far-sighted proposal
for a National Institute of Fisheries in Grimsby to the Government
and urge MAFF to explore with the Department for Education and
Employment the possibility of establishing such an Institute,
to provide for the whole fishing industry a similar range of training,
research, advisory and scientific study to that provided by the
North Atlantic Fisheries College in Shetland and national institutions
in other EU countries (192).
56. At a meeting with the consortium interested in
the proposal for a National Institute based at Grimsby, the Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food invited the consortium to develop
its case for an Institute further, in support of its request for
grant aid towards a feasibility study.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
(1998-99 Session): MAFF/Intervention Board
Departmental Report 2000
Recommendation 1: We reiterate our recommendations
that the fishing safety grants scheme and the fish processing,
marketing and port facilities schemes be reinstated in order to
enhance the competitiveness of the UK sea fishing industry.
1. The Government believes that the fishing safety
grants scheme which was closed in 1999, providing grant aid for
safety equipment which was already mandatory, was not effective
in reducing the number of accidents. The Government is encouraging
the industry to develop a stronger safety culture and has begun
to consult the industry on a new programme of training courses.
Fisheries Departments propose to make these courses free to fishermen
through the allocation of grant aid under the fisheries structural
fund for the period 2001-2002 and 2003-2004. Fisheries Ministers
are also considering with the industry a grant scheme to support
trials of innovative equipment which will bring safety benefits.
Grants for marketing, processing and port facilities are also
proposed as part of the programmes of grant aid described above.
Recommendation 2: We recommend that MAFF ring
fence its R&D budget to guarantee that there are no further
reductions in this area.
2. The Committee will want to note the main elements
of the MAFF Spending Review 2000 settlement in respect of its
science programmes. Increased funding has been provided in the
3. £26.2m over the SR 2000 period for research
and surveillance on TSEs in sheep, plus an additional £10.5m
to invest in facilities for this work;
4. Over £57m for the improvement and refurbishment
of laboratory facilities at MAFF's Veterinary Laboratories Agency
for TSE research; and R&D, diagnosis and surveillance of other
major animal diseases including those transmissible to humans;
5. Some £14m to complete procurement of a new
marine research vessel.
6. On the R&D programme expenditure, the Ministry
plans to keep its spend constant, in real terms, at about £106m
throughout the SR 2000 period. Ministers will be examining the
results of a recent public consultation on the draft MAFF R&D
Strategy 2001-2005, and the advice of the new MAFF Science Committee
which will advise on these and budgetary issues.
Recommendation 4: We expect MAFF to examine rigorously
other heads of expenditure to ensure maximum efficiency in delivering
7. MAFF is committed to ensuring maximum efficiency
in delivering its policy objectives. The Better Quality Services
Reviews of CAP Administration and IT have been completed and changes
are now being implemented. The Department's Better Quality Services
programme for reviewing all its services and activities is continuing
and over 60% of the programme, by value, will be completed by
Recommendation 5: The Foreign Affairs Committee
recommended that there should be just two sets of objectives for
the FCO: one annual, one for three years. This seems to us a sensible
suggestion as it allows for annual assessment of progress as well
as planning for the whole of the CSR period. We therefore make
a similar recommendation in respect of MAFF.
8. Departmental objectives are agreed for the period
of the CSR but the Department continues to seek to ensure that
there is a range of related targets to enable both annual assessment
of progress and longer term planning. We have reported on annual
progress against objectives in the Departmental Report 2000 and
will continue to do so.
Recommendation 6: We do not dispute that MAFF
made representations to the Treasury but the Ministry seems to
have adopted an unnecessary degree of cynicism in accepting what
it perceives to be unhelpful and unworkable targets. We expect
to see much greater ownership of the Business Plan and a stronger
commitment to a workable public service agreement.
9. MAFF is committed to improving its business planning
process, which is now in its third year of operation. Plans and
targets have been cascaded internally to help ensure that staff
at all levels know what their work unit is about and are clear
on their role and responsibilities within it. As part of the Spending
Review 2000, MAFF has now published a new Service Delivery Agreement
for 2001 - 2004, which incorporates revised Public Service Agreement
(PSA) targets. These will be fully incorporated in our business
plans for 2001/02. A central aim of MAFF's internal communications
strategy is to ensure that staff are aware of the 'golden thread'
which pulls together the Department's aims and objectives, the
Business Plan, group and team business plans within it and personal
objectives of the individuals within each team. We aim to have
good business planning prepared in a way that involves and empowers
staff and ensures rigorous performance review. The Department
is also establishing an independent review of MAFF's corporate
and group business plans before the end of this financial year.
Recommendation 9: We recommend that MAFF audit
all regulatory activity against need, comparative cost and the
actions of competitors and ensure access to regular intelligence
on competitor performance in these respects.
10. An updated response to this recommendation was
provided in the Government's Reply to the Ninth Report from the
Agriculture Committee, Session 1999-2000, "MAFF/Intervention
Board/Forestry Commission Departmental Report 2000", paragraph
Recommendation 10: We believe that administrative
costs of other CAP schemes, such as the Countryside Stewardship
Scheme, are too high in comparison to the funding paid to farmers.
At a time when MAFF's budget is under severe pressure, rises in
the cost of administration, particularly if they are at the expense
of payments to those the Ministry serves, would be wholly unacceptable.
11. MAFF continues to seek to deliver agri-environment
schemes in the most cost effective manner recognising that, to
achieve maximum environmental value for money, detailed input
from technical staff is required. Between 1996/97 and 1999/2000
the cost of implementing the schemes has been reduced, as a proportion
of payments to farmers. During this period, the costs for scheme
monitoring and the provision of technical advice rose from £12.3
million to just over £14 million, while payments to farmers
12. In addition, in order to cope with the doubling
of applications for Countryside Stewardship in 2000, we introduced
a number of steps to help streamline the application process.
13. We also plan to carry out a major review of agri-environment
schemes to consider reshaping and simplifying them in time to
feed in to the mid-term evaluation of the England Rural Development
Programme in 2003.
Recommendation 11: We recommend committed MAFF
involvement in the establishment of regional and cross-regional
strategies and furthering those strategies.
14. MAFF has worked closely with the Regional Development
Agencies and other regional partners during the preparation of
regional economic strategies, and regional chapters of the England
Rural Development Plan.
15. We are now working up detailed proposals for
strengthening our regional strategic activities through greater
integration with the Government Offices for the Regions (GOs),
and from 1 April 2001 we will have a Director, supported by a
small team, in each GO. The closer relationship with the GOs will
enhance our contribution to regional policy making, putting the
food chain at the heart of regional economic planning, in partnership
with other agencies including the RDAs.
Recommendation 12: We expect information to be
made available on the full cost of the inquiry to the public purse,
including, for example, the cost of officials' time in all relevant
16. The BSE Inquiry report was published on 26 October
2000. Information on the full cost of the inquiry to the public
purse will be made available to the Committee.
Recommendation 13: We expect to see great improvements
in the Report next year and recommend that every effort is made
to reduce the cost and length and increase both the accuracy and
the ease of reference of this important document.
17. The Committee considered the 2000 report to be
'a great improvement'; it was commended in particular for its
length, readability and cost. The 2001 report will be equally
mindful of the above recommendations.
Recommendation 14: We hope that the Intervention
Board will continue to work to persuade the Treasury of the importance
of adopting public service agreement targets and performance measurements
which relate more directly to the needs of clients.
18. As part of Spending Review 2000 the Intervention
Board has worked closely with Treasury to draw up a Service Delivery
Agreement containing challenging targets and performance standards
that reflect both the regulatory nature of its business and the
requirements of its customers. The latter have been drawn from
regular contact with customers through six-monthly 'Trade Consultation
Group' meetings, more frequent trade liaison committees, and annual
customer satisfaction surveys.