---

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. That is why the importance of the report goes well beyond its examination of the mechanics of what went wrong in the Rural Payments Agency. There is a wider question that the House should debate: when a Department fails to deliver on a core activity, who should pay the price? I go back to what I said before about a public limited company. If a plc had failed its shareholders in the way that the Rural Payments Agency has failed the farming community, not just the chairman and the chief executive but the board would be out. Why? Because they would know in simple terms that they had not done what they were employed to do. I do not want to go beyond the boundaries of the debate, save to observe that if we look at many areas of Government—the Home Office and the Department of Health, to name but two—failed IT projects litter what those Departments have not done. Where did the responsibility lie? Now that we have a different Prime Minister, perhaps he will look at that point. When we examine the RPA’s latest published business plan, the failure is summed up succinctly in a sentence or two. It states:"““The ambitions to implement a major change programme and simultaneously deliver a flagship new scheme (the Single Payment Scheme) proved not to be achievable in the timeframe foreseen””." It goes on to say that the document covers the early stages of recovery for the RPA and outlines its strategy and business plan for 2007-08"““to meet the challenges we face to become an effective Paying Agency that meets its targets, responds to change and efficiently serves the needs of its customers.””" The process could go on until 2012, and as the Government’s reply to our report already indicates, it will cost another £55 million.