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. 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: Richard Bacon
Publisher: Biteback Publishing
ISBN: 1849546169
Category : History
Languages : en
Pages : 244
Get Book Here
Book Description
Government failure is affecting everyone. The single mum worried sick by a tax credit demand from HMRC to 'repay' thousands of pounds she never received; the family whose holiday was ruined because the Passport Office couldn't issue passports in time; the school that couldn't open at the start of term because CRB checks were being carried out by an organisation in meltdown; the farmers led to bankruptcy and even suicide by a Kafkaesque system for administering farm payments; and rail operators facing an uncertain future because the Department for Transport inadvertently landed the whole rail franchising system in chaos. Why is government getting it so wrong? Richard Bacon and Christopher Hope delve into the astonishing world of cock-ups and catastrophes and ponder why those at the top continue to fall short.
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: 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.
Author: Sir John Bourn
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons
ISBN: 9780470725344
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 426
Get Book Here
Book Description
Drawing on 20 years of experience as Comptroller and Auditor General, and head of the United Kingdom National Audit Office, Public Sector Auditing: Is it Value for Money? is Sir John Bourn’s own account of the role and influence value for money auditing has in holding governments to account and in helping public bodies improve the ways in which they deliver services. Key features include: In-depth case studies from UK, US, Canada, China, India and Australia; Detailed analysis of complex areas of public expenditure such as health, education, privatisation, regulation, defence and IT; Examples of how auditing can promote positive outcomes rather than negative post mortems. This book is relevant for people working in both the public and private sectors, and should be essential reading for the staff of public sector audit institutions around the world, as well as commercial accountancy firms and students of accountancy, politics, economics and public management.
Author: Great Britain: National Audit Office
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102944723
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 38
Get Book Here
Book Description
This NAO report examines the state of financial management in the European Union. It is divided into three parts, with appendices. Part one, looks at the background; Part two, presents key findings in respect of the main expenditure areas, irregularities and possible fraud; Part three, looks at improving the financial management. Amongst the findings and recommendations of the National Audit Office are: for 2005, the European Union's expenditure totalled £71.1 billion, with a revenue of £72.3 billion, and the UK's net contribution coming to £2.5 billion, comprising payments of £8.3 billion, with a £3.5 billion abatement. Against this background of financial contribution, was a report from the European Court of Auditors, in October 2006, which found the accounts of the European Union did reflect the revenue and expenditure for the year, but had noted some errors in relation to balance sheet items, which led the Court not to issue a Statement of Assurance, which confirms the legality and regularity of the European Community's expenditure. For the NAO, the main findings included the views of the European Court of Auditors, that financial management had been strengthened and consolidated. Further anti-fraud measures, as introduced by OLAF (the European Union's Anti-Fraud Office) had also been strengthened, and that European Union expenditure was not subject to excessive fraud. The NAO sees the success of gaining a Statement of Assurance, as linked to the implementation of the European Commission's action plan of simplifying the rules and regulations governing European Union programmes (as noted in the HCP 498, session 2004-05, ISBN 0215023870). The Court of Auditor's also noted some weaknesses in the UK's management and control of structural measures programmes, and the NAO states that relevant UK authorities should ensure their risk management arrangements focus on the need for proper control and management of European Union funds.
Author: Great Britain: National Audit Office
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102951592
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 64
Get Book Here
Book Description
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme provides compensation to victims of violent crime. In 2006-07, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (the Authority), which covers England, Scotland and Wales, received 61,000 applications and paid some £192 million to victims. Awards are determined by a tariff, with fixed compensation for each type of injury. Dissatisfied applicants can apply to the Authority for a review of their case and, if they remain dissatisfied, can appeal to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (the Panel), which received 2,136 appeals in 2006-07. In 2006-07, the Authority's administrative costs were £23.6 million, and the Panel's £4.9 million. This report examines whether the Authority and Panel provide a more cost effective and better quality of service than when last investigated in 2000. The report finds the Authority's service has declined, and it has not met its targets. The average time to resolve a tariff case has increased from 364 days in 1998-99 to 515 days in 2006-07. There were 81,600 unresolved cases at the Authority and 2,400 at the Panel in October 2007. Half of the applications are rejected as ineligible, and these need to be identified much earlier in the assessment process. The Authority has recently initiated a major reform programme, and has diagnosed problems with current ways of working - too bureaucratic and repetitive - and early signs are that the changes are bringing improvements. The NAO makes a number of recommendations for further improving the service to victims and on improving the efficiency of case processing and management of the caseload.
Author: Great Britain: National Audit Office
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102969795
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 48
Get Book Here
Book Description
Under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, IPSA became responsible for creating a new system to pay MPs expenses and is now responsible for running and regulating that system. IPSA's operating costs in 2010-11 were £6.4 million, its staff is now reduced from 88 to around 60. Between May 2010 and March 2011, IPSA processed 134, 696 separate claim lines, paying out some £118 million. This report examines the value for money that IPSA has achieved. It concludes that whilst the new scheme is clearly preventing misuse of money, IPSA did not initially have sufficient regard to the impact its scheme was having on the ability of MPs to fulfil their duties. IPSA needs to accelerate streamlining of its own procedures and give greater priority to minimising costs necessarily falling to MPs
Author: Great Britain: National Audit Office
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102953060
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 40
Get Book Here
Book Description
Holding managers to account for the resources they have been allocated is key to improving financial management at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This need has been recognised by the Department and reflected in a programme to improve its financial management, but the Department's Management Board recognises that establishing a culture of tighter control over its expenditure will take time. This initiative must remain a top priority and managers throughout the organisation will need to produce more reliable estimates of costs to justify their bids for resources and track the cost effectiveness of work done. The budgets agreed by the Management Board at the outset of 2006-07 and 2007-08 exceeded the funds available. In early 2006-07, increased spending to remedy difficulties with the Single Payment Scheme led to a risk of overspending in that year and the Department instigated a review which identified savings of £170 million against its original budget of £3,854 million. During the early part of 2007-08 further commitments above the agreed budget allocations meant the Department was at risk of exceeding its spending limit by £140 million. In July 2007, the Management Board identified savings which partially balanced the budget and continues to work towards a balanced budget for the year end. Effective monitoring by the Management Board and greater integration between the systems for monitoring performance delivery and financial expenditure would help better management of budgets. The NAO recommends that the Management Board set budgets from 2008-09 onwards that balance with the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review and develops benchmarks to test the rigour of proposed budgets and to provide confirmation that these resource bids accord with the Department's strategic objectives.
