Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor
The man, the films, those blondes. Free DVD collection starting this Sunday
Almost £500 million of taxpayers’ money will be spent on covering the costs of the bungled implementation of a new payment system to English farmers, a parliamentary inquiry reports today.
The Single Farm Payment Scheme, introduced two years ago, aimed to pay farmers for their stewardship of the land rather than the number of animals they reared for meat.
But farmers have faced severe financial hardship as they waited months for their cash, and it may take another 18 months for the system to be running smoothly. By the payment deadline of March 2006 only 15 per cent of the £1.5 billion due to English farmers had been made. Even in May this year 24 farmers were waiting for their 2005 subsidies.
MPs on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which ensures that public spending is value for money, say that the Government’s handling of the Common Agricultural Policy reform is a textbook case of how not to set policy.
Edward Leigh, the Tory MP who chairs the committee, described the episode as “a masterclass in bad decision-making, poor planning, incomplete testing of IT controls, confused lines of responsibility, scant objective management information and a failure by the management team to face up to the unfolding crisis”.
He also heaps blame on Sir Brian Bender, former permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, now the senior mandarin at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and says he “bears a large part of the responsibility”.
It is rare for MPs to name and shame officials but this is the second time that Sir Brian has been castigated for the shambles. He was criticised earlier this year in a similarly damning report into the episode by MPs on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee.
The report today says he must bear responsibility for administrative failure that has led to additional costs that could exceed £400 million.
So far only Johnston McNeill, former chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, has been made a scapegoat over the fiasco. He is accused today of failing to tell his bosses at Defra that the project was high risk and in danger of failing.
The PAC blames the failure partly on the complicated formula for the payment scheme. Ministers decided that farmers in England should be paid an entitlement based in part on amounts they had traditionally received in state handouts. In addition a flat-rate sum was paid on the amount of land a farmer owned.
The Government had failed to take into account the increased number of claimants for payments under the new regime. In 2004 there were 70,000 farmers receiving subsidies but under the reform, vegetable and fruit growers, hobby farmers and anyone owning a piece of land was eligible for some cash for their stewardship of the countryside. The number of claimants soared to 116,000. Of these, about 14,000 were seeking less than £68, and a further 28,000 claimed amounts from £68 to £682. The PAC said that the Government should have set a £68 minimum threshold for claims to save on administration costs.
MPs are also concerned that the Government pressed ahead with a “highly risky project” at a time when the Rural Payments Agency was making 1,000 of its 2,800 staff redundant. The agency then had to bring in casual staff to process the claims.
Farmers were frustrated because they were unable to get any information from officials about the status of their claims. Instead of one official dealing with a single claim, work was shared out by specific tasks and it meant a farmer having to call various officials at different regional offices.
Even then, automated phonelines provided unhelpful responses such as “There is nothing that the call centre staff can tell you about your payment”, or “If you contact us, this will divert resources away from the urgent tasks of completing validations and making full payments”.
The PAC suggests that the Government should have introduced a trial system for the first year of the reform.
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles


A treasure trove of baubles, booty and stylish quests


Our Credit Clinic has free help and advice

Overseas contacts and local business information
2007
£47,700
2007
£41,899
2008
£41,445
Great car insurance deals online
£25,510 – 32,000
Transport for London
London
£50k
NHS
Nationwide
£
£90,000 + PRP
Essex County Council
Essex
100K
Confidential
London
5% below developer pre-launch price!
Luxury Appts, beautiful gardens w/ Thames views
Great Investment, River Views
By Funway – Thailand
from £589pp
Christmas Cruises
From only £995pp
APTs East Coast now from only
£2425pp.
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Sir Brian Bender is still employed 'earning' his pension at the taxpayers expense...and what an expense. He should have resigned or have been sacked. Why should the taxpayer have to put up with this!
J. Barber, Draguignan, France
Mr Leigh should not be so beastly to Bender,he is a cantankerous
robot at best,whoops sorry wrong entertainment package,though if one did not laugh one would drown in the stomach acid these reports induce.
Really,Mr Leigh you must keep things civil for you will very likely be sitting next to this brain in the House of Lords.
Does any one know if Sir Brian conducted his departments with any more competence before patronage tapped his shoulder and he arose to strew shredded fivers pacing backward from the Queens company?
Here is a motto for today ,mend this bloody silly Knight/Lord patronage system,then there will be those who do not fear to blow a little whistle on this nonsense of government incompetence.
robert everitt, wolverhampton,
The public sector is by its own definition a monoploy, it is also useless in delivering anything involving taxpayers money. Brown,Livingstone and Balls have dressed up state monopolies as "agencies" "executives" and all sorts of fancy private sector titles then employed the usual career civil servants and uprated councillors with grandiose titles ( sir, lord, etc etc) to run them, If this was a private sector company and this was shareholders money these idiots would be barred from office and likely fined and/ or imprisoned. It's equivalent to putting noddy in charge - actually thats unfair to noddy.
john graham, london , uk
The reason the taxpayers are paying for this exercise is......?
Whoops. I forgot, pandering. When are the people in the UK going to realise how much more they pay for EVERYTHING than they should. I can buy a Jag here for 1/2 price. Notwithstanding the currency ratios.
Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Texas