Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Rural Payments Agency PDF Download

Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Agricultural subsidies
Languages : en
Pages : 36

View

Book Description

Author: Great Britain: National Audit Office
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102951578
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 42

View

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: Rural Payments Agency
Publisher:
ISBN: 9780102929744
Category : Technology & Engineering
Languages : en
Pages : 76

View

Book Description
This is the third annual report of the Rural Payments Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). It is the single paying agency responsible for CAP (Common Agriculture Policy) schemes in England and certain schemes throughout the UK. This report covers the period 2003-04, during which time the merger took place between the Rural Payments Agency and the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS), CAP reform regulation was published by the EU, the agency was awarded ISO 9001:2000 quality standard for full range of services to the rural community, and the agency met all but one of its key performance targets.

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

View

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. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 0215085760
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 4

View

Book Description
On 19 March the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) announced an abrupt change of policy on how farmers must make Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) applications under the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) introduced this year. Reversing the firm stance taken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the RPA that applications must be made online only: claims are now to be submitted on paper. On 25 March, the Committee took oral evidence from Defra's Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, and the RPA Chief Executive, Mark Grimshaw, asking both to explain the reasons for this sudden U turn and to identify its implications for farmers and the public purse. With the dissolution of Parliament imminent, this report sets out our immediate conclusions and identifies a number of questions which must be addressed by Defra and the RPA as a matter of urgency.

Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Agricultural subsidies
Languages : en
Pages : 0

View

Book Description

Author: Great Britain. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780101710329
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 214

View

Book Description
Dated May 2007

Author: Great Britain: Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102975260
Category : Technology & Engineering
Languages : en
Pages : 240

View

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: Great Britain: National Audit Office
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102969788
Category : Technology & Engineering
Languages : en
Pages : 44

View

Book Description
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has delivered some value from the £39.3 million spent on its geographic information strategy and activities. However, the Department has not tracked the full cost of geographic information and systems to it or its arm's length bodies, or systematically measured benefits. The Department has been able to identify savings of only approximately £9 million. The figures for costs and benefits are both likely to be underestimates. This lack of financial information means that the NAO cannot determine that value for money has been achieved. Geographic information is a vital resource used by the Department and its arm's length bodies for a wide range of activities including policy making, decision making, day-to-day operations and keeping the public informed. However, neither the original strategy, nor the updated 2009 version, set business targets for cost reduction or quantified the benefits that could be achieved by collaboration or by sharing geographic information and systems. The aim of the strategy is to share geographic information between the Department and its arm's length bodies, as well as make best use of geographic information systems. The Department has had some success in delivering these services, but has not quantified the costs and benefits of geographic information and systems in all its arm's length bodies. Although the Department has put in place appropriate technical governance, strategic governance arrangements could be strengthened. The Department and its arm's length bodies have a good level of specialist skills, but these skills could be better integrated into the business so that the benefits of geographic information are fully realised across the Department.

Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780102954654
Category : Bees
Languages : en
Pages : 60

View

Book Description
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its Animal Health agency successfully contained limited outbreaks of Avian Influenza and Foot and Mouth Disease in 2007. The estimated £33 million expenditure by Animal Health in 2007-08 on dealing with these exotic disease outbreaks has represented good value for money when compared to the economic costs of these diseases becoming more widespread. The control of some of the more serious endemic diseases has been managed less successfully. Good progress has been made with the control of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), Scrapie and Salmonella, but Bovine Tuberculosis has continued to spread. In 2007-08, tackling Bovine Tuberculosis accounted for 39 per cent of Animal Health's total expenditure. Herd restrictions are applied immediately when disease is identified, but compliance with the requirements for routine testing to detect disease is not rigorously enforced. There are no national standards on farm biosecurity to minimise the risk of diseases spreading. The Department, Animal Health and other inspection bodies, such as local authorities, do not systematically collect and share information about biosecurity risks. Beekeepers have reported unusually high losses of honeybees in recent years and, now that the Varroa parasite is endemic, honeybee colonies are more vulnerable to other diseases. Controlling Varroa and monitoring of other diseases is hampered by the limited inspections of colonies carried out by the Department's National Bee Unit. An estimated 20,000 beekeepers are not known to the Unit's inspectors and are less likely to notify the Department of any diseases.