The delays in administering the 2005 Single Payment Scheme in England PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download The delays in administering the 2005 Single Payment Scheme in England PDF full book. Access full book title The delays in administering the 2005 Single Payment Scheme in England by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215036179
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 70
Get Book Here
Book Description
The EU Single Payment Scheme replaced 11 previous subsidies to farmers based on agricultural production with one payment for land management. The European Commission gave some discretion to Member States over how to implement the scheme, and the Rural Payments Agency, which is responsible for administering the scheme in England, opted for the dynamic hybrid model which incorporates elements of previous entitlement and new regionalised area payments based on a flat rate per hectare. The Agency and Defra encountered severe problems in the implementation of the scheme in England, and by the end of March 2006, it had paid farmers only 15 per cent of the £1,515 million due, compared with its target of 96 per cent. This caused significant hardship to farmers and taxpayers will have to pay extra implementation costs. Defra has had to secure an extra £300 million to meet the potential cost of disallowance of expenditure by the European Commission arising on the problems in administering the scheme. Following on from a NAO report on this topic (HCP 1631, session 2005-06; ISBN 9780102943399 published in October 2006, as well as a report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee (HCP 107-I, session 2006-07, ISBN 9780215033383) published in March 2007, this report by the Public Accounts Committee examines the impact of the payment delays on the farming sector, why implementation failed, the role of Defra and the changes being put in place to rectify the mistakes made. Lessons highlighted include: the Department made the scheme unnecessarily complex by choosing to adopt the most demanding implementation option; the Rural Payments Agency shed too many experienced staff at a key time; implementation of the project started before the scheme specification was finalised; and the IT system was introduced without adequate testing, a failure often seen with government IT projects.
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215036179
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 70
Get Book Here
Book Description
The EU Single Payment Scheme replaced 11 previous subsidies to farmers based on agricultural production with one payment for land management. The European Commission gave some discretion to Member States over how to implement the scheme, and the Rural Payments Agency, which is responsible for administering the scheme in England, opted for the dynamic hybrid model which incorporates elements of previous entitlement and new regionalised area payments based on a flat rate per hectare. The Agency and Defra encountered severe problems in the implementation of the scheme in England, and by the end of March 2006, it had paid farmers only 15 per cent of the £1,515 million due, compared with its target of 96 per cent. This caused significant hardship to farmers and taxpayers will have to pay extra implementation costs. Defra has had to secure an extra £300 million to meet the potential cost of disallowance of expenditure by the European Commission arising on the problems in administering the scheme. Following on from a NAO report on this topic (HCP 1631, session 2005-06; ISBN 9780102943399 published in October 2006, as well as a report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee (HCP 107-I, session 2006-07, ISBN 9780215033383) published in March 2007, this report by the Public Accounts Committee examines the impact of the payment delays on the farming sector, why implementation failed, the role of Defra and the changes being put in place to rectify the mistakes made. Lessons highlighted include: the Department made the scheme unnecessarily complex by choosing to adopt the most demanding implementation option; the Rural Payments Agency shed too many experienced staff at a key time; implementation of the project started before the scheme specification was finalised; and the IT system was introduced without adequate testing, a failure often seen with government IT projects.
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215521842
Category : Technology & Engineering
Languages : en
Pages : 44
Get Book Here
Book Description
The Single Payment Scheme replaced previous European Union production-based agricultural subsidy schemes from 2005. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, through the Rural Payments Agency, had chosen to implement the most complex option for reform in the shortest possible timescale, and the Agency had badly underestimated the scale of the task. This led to delays in making payments to farmers, erroneous payments and additional project and administrative costs, as reported in the Committee's earlier report (55th report session 2006-07, HC 893, ISBN 9780215036179). The Agency has estimated that there were £20 million of overpayments for the 2005 Scheme, and £17.4 million for the 2006 Scheme. The Agency has taken little action to recover the identified overpayments, with the risk that farmers may have unknowingly spent the money in the interim. Of 19 overpayments in excess of £50,000 paid in August 2006, the Agency had started the recovery process with only two of the farmers affected. Major changes made to the Agency's IT systems have enabled most farmers to receive payments earlier under the 2006 Scheme than for the 2005 Scheme. There has been a substantial impact on the costs of the business change programme to improve the Agency's efficiency, and the total project cost is now likely to exceed £300 million. In mid 2007, staff numbers in the Agency peaked at 4,600 and are not expected to reduce to 3,500 until 2010. The Agency is still not able to offer adequate advice to farmers on the progress of their claim. It was reluctant to specify targets by when such information would be available and when payments would be made under the 2008 Scheme.
Author: Great Britain: National Audit Office
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102951578
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 42
Get Book Here
Book Description
There was a report in October 2006 (HC 1631 2005-06) which looked at the problems in administering the 2005 single payments scheme in England. This report follows up by examining the progress made in resolving outstanding problems from 2005 and processing 2006 payments. It concludes that the new management team has instilled a clearer sense of direction and virtually all the outstanding 2005 payments were made by the end of December 2006. However the Agency has identified 34,499 cases where there might be errors in the original calculations and the review of most of these cases will be completed by the end of 2007. In the interim errors in payments in the first year were likely to have been repeated in the second year and the Agency was not able to administer the 2006 single payments scheme in a fully cost-effective manner.
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215033383
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 74
Get Book Here
Book Description
The EU Single Payment Scheme replaced 11 previous subsidies to farmers based on agricultural production with one payment for land management. The European Commission gave some discretion to Member States over how to implement the scheme, and the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), which is responsible for administering the scheme in England, opted for the dynamic hybrid model which incorporates elements of previous entitlement and new regionalised area payments based on a flat rate per hectare. A NAO report (HCP 1631, session 2005-06, ISBN 9780102943399), published in October 2006, found that the RPA underestimated the risks and complexities involved in implementing the hybrid model, and the IT system was never tested as a whole before the scheme was introduced. It failed to adequately pilot land registration, and underestimated the amount of work involved in both mapping the land and processing each claim, having to rely on often inexperienced temporary and agency staff to clear the backlog. The difficulties were not picked up early enough, neither by the RPA nor Defra, for corrective action to be taken in time, resulting in the RPA's failure to meet its own payment targets. Delayed payments have cost farmers money in additional interest and bank charges, and caused distress to a significant minority of farmers, particularly hill farmers. The cost of implementing the scheme was budgeted at £76 million but rose to £122 million by March 2006, with further cost increases likely. Following on from a previous Committee report on the RPA (HCP 840, session 2005-06, ISBN 9780215027115), published in January 2006 and in light of the NAO findings, this report focuses on aspects of policy decision-making and political accountability raised by the problems with the Single Payment Scheme. The Committee concludes the Scheme has been a catastrophe for some farmers and a serious and embarrassing failure for Defra and the RPA, and Defra's fundamental failure to carry out one of its core tasks (that is to pay farmers their financial entitlements on time) differentiates this issue from the myriad of botched Government IT projects. There is a need for greater expertise within government in the delivery of such complex IT projects, and the report also criticises the quality of advice given by the Office of Government Commerce and the IT system designed by Accenture as the principal IT contractor. Defra determined the policies which it required the RPA to implement and Defra leadership was at fault for accepting RPA statements that implementing the complex hybrid model to deadline was "do-able". The Committee argues that responsibility for this failure goes wider than the dismissal of the RPA chief executive, and ministers and senior Defra officials should also be held to account, particularly Margaret Beckett (the then Defra Secretary of State), Sir Brian Bender, (the former Defra Permanent Secretary) and Andy Lebrecht (the Director General for Sustainable Farming, Food and Fisheries). It concludes that a departmental failure as serious as this should result in the removal from office of those responsible for faulty policy design and implementation, and it recommends that new guidance on Ministerial accountability is needed in the event of such serious departmental failure.
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215037084
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 52
Get Book Here
Book Description
The Department for Transport has approved expenditure of over £11 billion between 1998 and 2021 for the development of new and existing trunk roads and motorways by the Highways Agency, and just under £1.7 billion on major road schemes proposed and developed by local authorities in five year Local Transport Plans. Following on from a NAO report on this topic (HCP 321, session 2006-07; ISBN 9780102944600) published in March 2007, the Committee's report examines the steps taken by the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency to improve value for money and oversight of the roads programme and contracting methods and project management capability. By September 2006, the Agency's 36 completed schemes in the Targeted Programme of Improvement cost 40 per cent more than estimated initially, and for schemes still to be completed, latest forecasts indicate that final costs could be 27 per cent more than original estimates. The main causes for costs exceeding estimates are increases in construction costs, higher than forecast land prices and compensation to landowners, inflation and changes in the scope of the project. The report finds that the DfT has not been rigorous enough in its oversight of the Agency's delivery of major road schemes, allowing it too much latitude on delivery and cost plans, and has failed to monitor in-year expenditure against progress and delivery milestones. The Agency is overly reliant on consultants for project management expertise and needs to develop its in-house capability.
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Public Administration Select Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215532251
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 264
Get Book Here
Book Description
Incorporating HC 983-i-iv, session 2007-08
Author: Great Britain. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102962765
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 164
Get Book Here
Book Description
This report sets out the results of investigation into complaints, using two representative case studies, about the administration of the 2005 Single Payment Scheme in England, including the Rural Land Register. The Ombudsman made five general findings of maladministration: the Rural Payments Agency did not meet the legal obligation to determine entitlements by 31 December 2005; Defra & RPA failed to heed the warning information of their own systems and from the Office of Government Commerce; RPA's and Defra's public statements in early 2006 failed to recognise the internal concerns they had; on 30 January 2006 Defra officials and Ministers considered RPA's position - the best case scenario was 70% of payments to be made by the end of March 2006 and they decided to tell Parliament that RPA would make the 'bulk' of payments by the end of March 2006; RPA was the only body ina position to estimate how much more digital mapping work it would have and its planning for the mapping process fell far short of getting it right. In short the Ombudman's principles of getting it right, being open and accountable and being customer focussed were not adhered to
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Public Accounts Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215542588
Category : Technology & Engineering
Languages : en
Pages : 48
Get Book Here
Book Description
This is the third report in 3 years on the subject of administration in England of the £1.6 billion Single Payment Scheme by the Rural Payments Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (HCP 98, session 2009-10, ISBN 9780215542588), and follows an NAO report (HCP 880, session 2008-09, ISBN 9780102963182). The Committee states that oversight of the Single Payment Scheme is a singular example of comprehensively poor administration on a grand scale. With a paucity of good management information in the Agency and the complacent oversight by the Department having acted to obscure the true situation. A focus over the last two and a half years in bringing forward payments to farmers has enabled the Agency to bring its deadline forward by nearly seven weeks, but this is still six weeks off the deadline it had planned and a long way short of the standards set in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Also there has been a negligible attention to the protection of tax payers' interests. The Rural Payments Agency has spent £350 million on a cumbersome IT system that can only be supported at huge cost and which is increasingly at risk of becoming obsolete, with the data held in the system remaining riddled with errors and efforts to recover overpayments having been slow, disorganised and haphazard. The Committee identifies poor leadership within the Agency and a lack of attention by the Department. Each claim costs over six times more to process in England than in Scotland. Further the Department was not able to demonstrate an adequate grasp of the costs of administering the scheme. The Committee states that responsibility rests with the Accounting Officers to resolve this misadministration.
Author: Great Britain: National Audit Office
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102981346
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 46
Get Book Here
Book Description
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)
Author: Great Britain: Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102975260
Category : Technology & Engineering
Languages : en
Pages : 240
Get Book Here
Book Description
The Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ann Abraham, has upheld complaints from nine farmers about the Government's handling of a subsidy scheme which caused them to miss out on payments they were entitled to. The farmers complained to the Ombudsman about the administration of the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) in 2005 and 2006 by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), The SPS is the latest generation of the EU schemes intended, among other policy aims, to give farmers direct income support. The farmers complained about RPA's handling of their claims to the SPS on a number of counts, including that they provided poor quality and sometimes ambiguous guidance on how to make a claim; failed to return applicants' telephone calls when this had been promised; misdirected applicants about the status of their cases; delayed letting applicants know that they would not be paid; and did not explain their decisions properly. RPA also failed to consider the effects their errors and omissions had on the farmers when they came to complain. In one case, a farmer misunderstood the new form and only claimed a subsidy for the year 2005. She did not activate her claim and subsequently did not receive a payment. No one questioned her mistake, even though RPA knew this was a common error by farmers. Losing a payment of over £13,000 left the farmer unable to pay all her bills and reliant on her partner's goodwill. She found out her mistake almost a year after submitting her claim, when she asked what had happened to her payment. Another farmer also misunderstood the new form and guidance and did not activate his claim. He was then led to believe by the RPA that he would be paid, which was not the case. He and his wife found the confusion and uncertainty of their circumstances particularly stressful. The farmer had to increase his overdraft, sell land and take on extra part time work in order to meet the financial shortfall. As a result of the Ombudsman's investigation the farmers will each receive a written apology from the Permanent Secretary of Defra and compensation of £500 for the inconvenience, distress and frustration that they experienced. They will also receive individual payments to put right the financial impact of RPA's failures. In addition, the Ombudsman has also asked RPA to provide an action plan setting out the changes they have made to prevent other farmers experiencing the same problems in future.
