This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/09/farmer-payment-scheme-undermined-by-whitehall-rifts-mps-to-be-told

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Farmer payment scheme undermined by Whitehall rifts, MPs to be told Farmer payment scheme undermined by Whitehall rifts, MPs to be told
(about 7 hours later)
A government programme to deliver £1.8bn of EU payments to farmers has been undermined by rifts between senior civil servants, MPs will hear on Wednesday. Two senior civil servants who were expected to deliver European Union payments to farmers have been accused by MPs of indulging in a “childish spat” which could cost the public hundreds of millions of pounds.
The public accounts committee will question officials over “persistent rows” between staff from the Rural Payments Agency and the Government Digital Service at a hearing. Liam Maxwell, the government’s chief technology officer, and Mark Grimshaw, the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), became involved in “visibly confrontational” behaviour when they were supposed to be ensuring that farmers received £1.8 bn of EU cash.
Related: Online farm subsidies claim system suspended after IT problems
Members of the public accounts committee said that their inability to function as a team over several weeks resulted in delays which could cost the taxpayer up to £600m.
One MP questioned why both men remained in their jobs and called for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [Defra] to mount an inquiry so that someone “carries the can”.
It follows the release last week of a highly critical report from the National Audit Office (NAO), which found that the rows damaged the delivery of common agricultural policy money to farmers.It follows the release last week of a highly critical report from the National Audit Office (NAO), which found that the rows damaged the delivery of common agricultural policy money to farmers.
A major component of a new payment system was suspended in March over its failure to allow farmers to input their data. Instead the system returned to a manual paper-based system.
The government is expected to face EU fines of hundreds of millions of pounds because of the payment system’s failings.The government is expected to face EU fines of hundreds of millions of pounds because of the payment system’s failings.
MPs will question officials from the Rural Payments Agency and the Government Digital Service about the NAO’s findings, which highlighted “deep and persistent personal rifts at senior levels” that resulted in “personal confrontations”. In a highly unusual move, the auditors report highlighted tensions at the top of both organisations as one of the main reasons that the scheme failed, saying it affected “implementation and delivery”.
At one point, ministers were forced to intervene to quell a row between officials, the NAO report said. A major component of a new payment system was suspended in March over its failure to allow farmers to input their data. Instead the system returned to a manual paper-based system.
The new process, called Rural Payments, was created in 2012 to address failings in how the government previously delivered subsidy payments. Maxwell was brought in from the Government Digital Service to take charge of the programme eight weeks before it launched. The committee heard that this move resulted in tensions with RPA staff at including Grimshaw.
However, the scheme, developed between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Rural Payments Agency and the Government Digital Service, had originally been too narrow in scope, auditors said. During the select committee hearing, NAO head Amyas Morse chided the behaviour of both civil servants and urged them to explain their clashes which he said were “distressing to staff and visibly confrontational”.
It focused mainly on procuring IT systems and did not set out the wider organisational transformation required to improve payments to about 88,000 farmers and agents. “I just want to say to both of you, we very rarely indeed write reports that relate to personal behaviour like this. This is a most unusual event,” Morse said.
Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said “significant challenges” remained for the programme. Neither mandarin went in to the specifics of their rows. Details of the confrontations – such as where they happened, when they happened and what was said – have not been put into the public domain by the NAO and were not raised by the committee.
“The Department [for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs], the Rural Payments Agency and Government Digital Service have not worked together effectively to deliver the common agricultural policy delivery programme. There are serious lessons in this episode for all three. Stephen Phillips, a Conservative committee member, said their behaviour “cost the taxpayer tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of pounds as we now know”.
“This means that costs have increased and systems functionality has not improved at the rate expected, either in the back office or the user-facing front end. This does not represent value for money at this stage.” “I want to give both of you the opportunity to defend your behaviour and then ask both of you why you are still in post,” he added, and called for Defra to launch an inquiry into who was to blame.
Maxwell said rifts had been cause by “geography” and differing cultures within the departments, with his team based “on one floor of the department” while RPA staff had occupied the rest of the building.
“They were culturally very different,” he said. “People dressed differently. People used different methods of reporting, much more traditional ways of reporting of management information. The programme itself used modern digital techniques to help report what was going on. And I think people found this very difficult.”
Maxwell was described by committee member Richard Bacon as being a “Mr Fancypants” character who had been dropped in to sort out a government department for the Cabinet Office. Maxwell said he would not use that term.
Grimshaw said there had been “very much a difference in terms of approach” between RPA staff and the GDS.
“My focus as the head of the paying agency for the UK has always been on reducing disallowance and providing accurate payments to our customers.
Meg Hillier, the chair of the committee, asked Defra’s former permanent secretary, Bronwyn Hill, to explain how she had tried to resolve the “frankly childish spat” between senior staff.
Hill said she had held weekly meetings to try to work out what was at the heart of the tensions, but said she had been “disappointed” by the pair’s relationship. She said she was wary of blaming either Maxwell or Grimstone because she wanted to complete the work.
Related: Britain's EU exit would devastate nation's farmers, says study
The new payment process, called rural payments, was created in 2012 to address failings in how the government previously delivered subsidy payments.
However, the scheme had originally been too narrow in scope, auditors said. It focused mainly on procuring IT systems and did not set out the wider organisational transformation required to improve payments to about 88,000 farmers and agents.
A spokesperson for Defra was asked to explain if the department would be launching an inquiry into who was to blame for the breakdown in relations. She did not respond before publication.