Examination of Witnesses (Questions
140-159)
WEDNESDAY 6 MARCH 2002
MR BRIAN
BENDER CB, MR
JOHNSTON MCNEILL
AND MR
HUGH MACKINNON
140. What I just do not find acceptable is that
having asked for a number you did not do something with that number,
there and then, that would, there and then, enable you to identify
that it was a fictitious number.
(Mr MacKinnon) All of the numbers used by Mr Bowden
were the numbers that appeared on his map on the farm, so if he
said the field was 4568 the farm plan would show 4568.
141. I am talking about what is done with the
number once the department gets it. How could it be that once
you had got the number you did not do something with the number
that related to this unique system that Mr Bowden had, which is
referred to in paragraph 3.6: "Mr Bowden devised a unique
numbering system of Ordnance Survey grid references for locating
some of his fields" and we have heard that they were in Iceland,
Greenland and so on. I just do not understand once you had captured
the number, the information, how it was that you could not use
that information to find out that they were fictitious grid references
.
(Mr MacKinnon) What we should have done was check
the whole number against the IACS database. That would have shown
the non-existence, if you like, of the early part of the identification
series, the two letters and the first four digits that were wrong.
142. It is so obvious. It is like asking for
a bank account number but only asking for the last two digits.
Is it not just obvious that you do that?
(Mr Bender) It is even more obvious that there should
have been cross checking.
143. Going back to Mr McNeill's point earlier
when you said that substantial resources would be required to
do this. £16 million sounds a reasonable amount to me. If
you go on to a website now you can type in a postal code and up
will come the exact grid reference down to six digits in each
direction. That does not sound to me like it would require substantial
resources, anybody could do it, you just phone up Ordnance Survey,
do you not?
(Mr McNeill) With respect, Chairman, that is where
we intend to be by 2004, it requires £130 million to get
us there. It is a substantial investment in new technology. You
must bear in mind that we are operating at this moment in time
with some very old legacy systems.
144. Quite frankly you could do it with a quill
pen.
(Mr McNeill) A lot of this work has to be done manually
and, of course, that incurs considerable expense where we have
to do manual cross checks. You will notice in the report there
were manual cross checks, to some extent, done at various stages
but that is extremely time consuming and it is extremely expensive.
We hope with the new systems we will be able to make changes to
schemes and to do cross checking of this which will be much more
cost effective in the future. We accept that, yes, this is not
good, it is not the way that we wish to set up a scheme. The scheme
rules were not good. The implementation, we accept, was not as
good as it should have been and we have to agree with you, it
is far from satisfactory.
145. Mr Bender, in paragraph 2.24 it refers
to the fact that in June 1996 checks were carried out on Mr Bowden's
contracts and it was found that he had contracts with more than
one contractor. Indeed, that he had supplied copies of the same
map and had contracts with different contractors covering some
of the same areas of land. That was in June 1996. But, as it goes
on to say in the next paragraph ". . . it was not until early
in 1997 . . ." some seven or eight months later ". .
. that the claim . . . for Objective 5b monies, began to be investigated".
Why, when it was clear that this man was a rogue, did not instantly
something get triggered that said "Hang on, we have got this
rogue, let us check everything we know about him in relation to
any scheme"?
(Mr Bender) It should have been, I accept that. Repeating
my earlier point, because he had not actually submitted a claim
some of the controls had not been triggered, that I agree. The
NAO Report itself recommends that there should be much sharing
of data across the organisation.
146. The second claim, 5b, should not have been
required.
(Mr Bender) I accept that.
147. Concerning the overall department, I did
not write down the answer earlier about the question of the total
number of prosecutions, I am not sure I heard the answer. Mr McNeill
I think said sometimes administrative penalties short of criminal
prosecution were appropriate. How many prosecutions were there?
(Mr McNeill) We undertook to write to you with the
details of that.
148. Again, this report here refers to the fact
that between 1993 and 1997 there were only seven prosecutions
of which six were successful. I think if you are able to, when
you write to us, could you do a grid breaking down the number
of instances, the number of investigations, the number of prosecutions,
how many were successful?
(Mr McNeill) I have actually just been supplied with
the data if you would like it now.
149. Well, if you can give it now, great.
(Mr McNeill) I can only give from 1997 to 2001 or
shall I write to you?
150. No, give us it now.
(Mr McNeill) 1997, 130 investigations, seven prosecutions.
1998, 123 investigations, nine prose- cutions. 1999, 98 investigations,
four prosecutions. 2000, 137 investigations, two prosecutions.
2001, 76 investigations, zero prosecutions to date.[10]
151. It does not sound to me like a whole bunch
of prosecutions, does it really? It is a trend we have found with
a lot of different departments, Benefits, Ministry of Defence
and your Department. It seems to me despite large numbers of investigations
there is a very small element of prosecution. I go back to the
deterrent point and ask you to look very carefully at whether
you ought to do more prosecutions in order to have a greater deterrent
effect. I would like to ask you another question about your department.
It is more general than this hearing but it relates to the administrative
effectiveness of your department and that is to do with correspondence.
The department wrote to all MPs not so long ago apologising for
the poor state of correspondence. I checked with my secretary
this morning, representing a rural constituency I correspond with
DEFRA quite a lot, and I have a letter outstanding from October—
Mr Osborne: You are lucky!
Jon Trickett: Which year?
Mr Bacon:—that is not uncommon. There
are pieces of correspondence outstanding for many, many months.
Among many people in my constituency, and in fact among many MPs,
DEFRA is a byword for administrative incompetence. What do you
say to that? When will your correspondence be back on an even
keel?
(Mr Bender) First of all, can I repeat the apology
my Secretary of State gave in the letter she wrote. It is deeply
regrettable, it is not something we are proud of. I think in her
letter she explained the circumstances in which it had arisen.
I do not think I would like to give you a definitive date but
we are working on it extremely hard in the department. I hope
in the very near future we will be back on track so that current
letters are replied to within the service standards deadline,
or at least the vast majority of them, and there are no long outstanding
ones. I am taking very regular meetings in the department on this
issue. It is a matter of deep regret and I apologise, as my Secretary
of State has in the letter she sent.
152. When we had Professor Likierman before
us talking about resource accounting, your department was also
flagged up as being one of the most laggardly in terms of implementing
resource accounting. Am I right in saying you have a qualified
set of resource accounts?
(Mr Bender) That is correct. I had expected to be
asked about that in the likely appearance that I will be making
later this year on foot and mouth disease because one of the reasons
for the qualification is connected with the handling and complexity
of foot and mouth disease. I have recently changed some of the
structure and people in my finance directorate, including a qualified
accountant as deputy director with the specific aim with his appointment
to get on top of this issue of resource accounting.
Mr Bacon: Chairman, thank you very much.
Chairman
153. Arising directly out of Mr Bacon's questioning,
he referred you to the Twenty-Fifth Report of the PAC session,
1998-1999, and he was making a suggestion—and actually it
is question I think I would like to ask of the Deputy Comptroller
and Auditor General—that recommendations of this Committee
have apparently not been picked up or followed properly by the
Department. I do see in paragraph two of your report that it refers
to "Previous reports by the Committee of Public Accounts
on Common Agricultural Policy schemes have emphasised the importance
of rigorous action in the case of irregular and fraudulent activity".
I do not recall, or my colleagues do not recall, seeing in your
briefing to us or in this report any mention of this matter that
my colleague raised. Is this a fair question to you and does it
not underline the importance of us all following up the recommendations
that are made and keeping the departments up to speed?
(Mr Burr) I think the recommendations were accepted
but the question is whether they were followed up.
154. I think it just underlines a very important
point and I am sure my colleagues would like to emphasise that
just because we receive a Treasury minute that says the department
has accepted the position does not mean that we should rest on
our laurels and not pursue them.
(Mr Burr) Indeed not.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Barry Gardiner.
Mr Gardiner
155. Mr Bender, we have had in many respects
a strange and almost humorous, rather surreal session this afternoon.
Can I ask, the staff member who initially tipped the wink on Mr
Bowden, because they remembered he had been under investigation
in a previous department, what has happened to that staff member?
(Mr Bender) I do not know. I will look into that.
I do not know if any of my colleagues know. Clearly he did a very
good job in remembering that and it is a pity it was not more
systematic in the organisation.
156. Indeed. I think it would be good if some
sort of commendation or recommendation was given. Can I just press
you further on this business of the systematic way in which the
department did or did not work. Can I ask you is there any perceptible
percentage shift over the past five years in the number of cases
that are taken to prosecution that have come about either through
tip-off on the one hand or through your normal course of investigation
on the other? What I am trying to get at is are you still actually
as reliant on tip-offs as you have been in the past or has there
been a change?
(Mr Bender) Can I first answer a question you did
not ask, if you will allow me. The systemic arrangements are of
course intended to remove a loop hole that would allow someone
to be fraudulent. Those are the systemic changes which have been
introduced progressively since 1995-1996. I think on your specific
question, unless Mr McNeill has the data, it is something we will
have to include in the subsequent material to the Committee.[11]
157. If you can provide me with a written note
that is fine. Now Joseph Bowden, Jo Bowden Farm, JSB Farms, J
Bowden and Sons were all aliases that this fraudster operated
under. What I am trying to get at is are farmers who apply for
subsidy now still able to use different commercial names? I have
no doubt that farmers quite legitimately do have different commercial
names but it seems to me that in so far as that is a potential
source of confusion in administering the system they should not
be allowed to apply for subsidy except under one sole name. Is
that in fact the case?
(Mr McNeill) Yes, the current regulations are far
from satisfactory and our intention is to introduce a single business
identifier which means that any customer dealing with us in regard
to a farm or a particular field must use a single identifier.
By that means we would hope to avoid this happening. As you say,
there are legitimate cases where, in fact, you could have a limited
company and you could have a father and son working as sole traders,
etc., so there are a number of issues in there which we have yet
to iron out. It is not as straightforward as one might imagine.
It is a piece of work we have started on.
158. That was a response that started with a
yes and I think ended up with a no.
(Mr McNeill) Yes by 2004, no at the moment.
(Mr Bender) We do not have a satisfactory situation
in the department or in the RPA across the department on databases.
We have several and we need to get it down to one single business
identifier.
159. What I am seeking to establish is that
at present farmers can, and still do, make applications under
different names. The promise that you are giving to the Committee
is that by 2004 they will not be allowed to make applications
under different names.
(Mr McNeill) We have not taken a final decision on
that yet, there is a lot of work to do. If they are allowed to
make applications in different names we will make sure that we
can cross-reference them to identify them in regard to the piece
of land they are making an application for. To do that we are
creating a land register which is a digital database of 1.7 million
parcels of land. That will enable us to identify if the father
and son as sole traders are making applications, are they a limited
company, if by using different names they are making multiple
applications. That will assist us in that area. We also intend
to try to get them to move to a single business identifier.
10 Ev 26, Appendix 1; and Ev 30, Appendix 1, Annex
A. Back
11
Ev 26, Appendix 1; and Ev 30, Appendix 1, Annex A. Back
|
