Government response
Recommendation 1: the importance of the new IT
system cannot be exaggerated: it will facilitate all of the activities
of the Agency. In recent years there have been major problems
with some new large-scale Government IT projects. Given the scale
of the Change Programme and the consequences of failure, we hope
that the management team is right in their belief that the Change
Programme will be a success. Defra should monitor the progress
of the Programme to ensure that the timetable for its implementation
is adhered to and that it represents good value for money (paragraph
7).
Monitoring and Management
Defra monitors progress in line with the governance
structure.
- The senior Directors and Johnston McNeill, Senior
Responsible Owner are actively engaged in the Programme at both
Programme Board and Project level;
- The Programme reports to the Defra 2000 Restructuring
Board (chaired by the Permanent Secretary), the membership of
which includes Mark Addison who has overarching responsibility
for delivery within Defra and the Senior Responsible Owners for
both this Programme and erdpIT;
- The RPA Ownership Board provides the Agency with
strategic direction and oversight. Whilst the 2000 Restructuring
Board monitors the Change Programme, overall progress is reported
to the RPA Ownership Board. Both that Board and Audit Committee
consider all organisational risks, including any from the Change
Programme, that are escalated to the corporate risk register.
- RPA has a seat on and positive links with both
the Defra Electronic Business Steering Committee (EBSC) and Design
Authority;
- Regular contact is maintained with the Minister
responsible for RPA, Alun Michael, who is also Defra's e-business
Minister;
- The RPA Change Programme Director, Simon Vry,
sits on the erdpIT Programme Board to ensure consistency across
the Programmes. A reciprocal arrangement is in place with Jane
Brown the erdpIT SRO having a place on the RPA Change Programme
Board;
- Liaison between the RPA Change Programme, erdpIT
and other key Defra programmes and projects which are maintained
at a working level through the RPA Design Authority.
The Programme is run in accordance with Managing
Successful Programmes (MSP) and PRINCE II methodologies. The SRO
and Programme Director are both qualified in MSP and PRINCE.
RPA underwent an OGC Gateway 3 Review in January
2003 where the review team found that the Programme, although
still containing considerable risks, is under good control and
leadership, and stands a good chance of successful delivery. The
Programme passed the review with a 'green' status.
The review team found the following exemplars of
good practice:
- The appropriate resourcing of the Programme teams,
with strong external advice;
- Good project planning and control;
- A strong senior management team who are very
involved in the Programme and act in a collegiate manner; and
a very enthusiastic and open approach.
Approach
The Programme is recognised within its Business Case
and by OGC to be high risk with a tight timetable for delivery.
RPA therefore continuously seeks to minimise the risk of failure
by a number of means:
- Seeking to reduce risk wherever possible, e.g.
avoiding 'big bang' implementations;
- Developing detailed contingency plans;
- Transition and Business Continuity plans are
in place and being managed;
- Risk management is embedded across the Programme,
with appropriate mitigating actions in place;
- Internal and external programme assurance is
in place;
- Regular reviews of best practice and lessons
learnt from other Programmes;
- Contract and benefits realisation management
is in place.
IT Contract
RPA signed a £35m seven-year contract with Accenture
to develop the core IT processing systems necessary to deliver
the functionality to underpin the objectives set out in the Business
Case. The system will be developed in phases during the first
two years of the contract and Accenture will continue to provide
support for a further five years.
The selection process took 18 months to review 200
suppliers and RPA still managed to deliver on time and in budget.
It was essential that competition be maintained through to the
final stages so that RPA was able to get a good price for the
work. RPA have struck a very good value-for-money deal with a
company that has a good track record and sound financial standing.
As part of the deal, RPA has also secured the 'intellectual property'
rights to the new system, which will also be developed using generic
rules and so will be much easier for RPA to update.
Contract Management and Change Control functions
are in place to monitor the supplier during the development phases
with service management being developed to ensure continuity of
service post live date.
Recommendation 2: Although the late payment of bovine
scheme subsidies in the last 2 years is partly due to factors
not necessarily within the control of the RPA, such as the demands
made on staff by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, it is
clear that a major cause of delay was administrative error following
the introduction of cross checks with the Cattle Tracing System.
We recommend that the Agency continue to improve liaison between
the Cattle Tracing System and the IACS system: for that reason,
we welcome the merger of the British Cattle Movement Service with
the RPA. Given that RPA is already undergoing a major Change Programme,
this further re-organisation will require good and careful management.
Late payment on bovine systems looks likely to continue until
the new IT system is up and running. Therefore we also recommend
that the RPA solve the problems of late payment on bovine schemes
as a matter of urgency (paragraph 14).
A project board manages the merger of RPA and BCMS,
which formally took effect on 1 April 2003, to ensure that benefits
are realised from the synergies between the operations of the
two organisations. In particular, that the Cattle Tracing System
(CTS) provides an improved service to cattle keepers and to the
three UK paying agencies which rely on it for CAP subsidy purposes.
The CTS will be migrated on to a more robust platform
and the BCMS will be issuing statements to cattle keepers showing
full details of the animals recorded on their holdings. It is
vital that keepers respond by giving corrected information where
the CTS records do not accord with their own and that, at other
times, they make their returns to the BCMS promptly and accurately.
Keepers will be encouraged to use CTS On Line. Procedures at the
BCMS have also been improved so that apparently anomalous information
provided by keepers is followed up promptly and extra batch controls
have been put in place to reassure keepers that all notifications
received are captured and entered on the database.
EU rules governing the payment of bovine subsidies
are complex and regulatory scheme changes can delay the annual
roll out of required IT software. Recent changes, such as the
introduction of aggregated penalties, have placed considerable
additional strain on the older IT systems used by RPA and are
also causing difficulties in a number of other member states who
have requested that the Commission extend the payment deadline
of 30 June. RPA legacy systems are being replaced as part of its
major Change Programme but the present systems will have to be
used for 2002 and 2003 payments. Some of these are so fragile
they are beyond improvement. In the interim period, a number of
procedural changes have been made to improve claim processing
which should reduce the incidence of late payments. However, speed
of payment is dependent upon producers accurately notifying the
CTS of all movements, otherwise the claim processing time is significantly
increased which in turn delays payment. RPA will continue to work
closely with the industry to see that keepers have the advice
and information they need to avoid delays or penalties which would
otherwise arise as a result of their claims failing to meet the
rigorous standards imposed by the Regulations.
Recommendation 3: We are encouraged by the fact
that the RPA identifies farmers and other recipients as its 'customers',
but we are concerned at the poor result of the recent customer
survey. We hope that the RPA is not expecting the electronic delivery
of services to be a panacea; it is essential that at every stage
of the implementation of the Change Programme the Agency ensures
that the focus on customers is maintained (paragraph 16).
The introduction of new on-line services is a key
element to improving services to customers within a major programme,
however it is not seen as a panacea. RPA, through the Change Programme,
has introduced a workstream to focus on customers and their needs.
This workstream will ensure that all products developed by the
Programme are measured against customer needs and that where appropriate
customers are involved in the design, development and testing
of new services and products. A Steering Group provides workstream
assurance and includes customer representatives to ensure that
the customer has a direct input into the Programme. In addition,
RPA is using its network of Experts Groups to provide input to
CAP scheme delivery (comprising customers and stakeholder representatives)
and customer representatives are also kept informed of progress
through quarterly Industry Forum meetings.
All aspects of the business will be subject to this
customer focus including telephone call handling and forms design,
which have a major impact on our customer service. RPA has recently
become a Corporate Member of the Plain English Campaign. It will
use the attainment of Crystal Mark recognition to help address
the challenges of using clearer English within its customer communications
within the complex environment of EU regulation. RPA aims to provide
customers and increased choice of channels by which to access
its services, including the option of conducting business with
the Agency in ways that best meet their needs.
The 2002 customer survey indicated that many RPA
customers would consider using electronic services but also identified
that many others would choose more traditional methods of dealing
with the Agency, at least in the short to medium term. RPA will
ensure that it caters for this desire, whilst at the same time
maximising the efficiency by which this is done for the benefit
of both the customer and taxpayer.
Recommendation 4: We welcome the prospect that
new means of electronic delivery will simplify IACS forms. However,
we are not yet fully persuaded that RPA is treating simplification
of such forms with sufficient urgency. The matter should now be
given the highest priority (paragraph 17).
Whilst it is essential that claim forms contain all
the information required by the Regulations, RPA fully accepts
that further improvements can be made in form design, in the instructions
given to claimants and by including on the claim forms as much
as possible of the information which it already holds. The new
IT systems now being developed provide an ideal opportunity to
effect such changes and to introduce electronic versions with
a degree of on line validation to aid completion. RPA will test
new form designs with customers and will incorporate their views.
Customers should reap the benefit of these changes as the new
systems are delivered throughout 2004-2005.
Recommendation 5: Nevertheless, any organisation
facing such reductions in staff will inevitably face difficulties.
Good information is needed and early decisions about staffing
issues need to be taken. It will be important to retain experienced
and qualified staff. We recommend that the RPA provide details
of developments in this area in its Annual Report, and in particular
the breakdown of staffing between permanent and casual employees
(paragraph 19).
RPA Trade Union representatives have been invited
to assist with the work of 5 organisation design teams, charged
with determining roles, responsibilities and staffing numbers
needed in RPA on completion of the Change Programme. The Chief
Executive himself is leading the project overseeing this work.
Staff are regularly briefed on developments, both in terms of
emerging numbers and possible selection procedures for filling
the reduced number of posts.
A separate workstream is managing resettlement activity.
The main objectives are to maximise staff retention, in the interests
of business continuity, and to support staff through the downsizing
exercise. A network of resettlement officers has been established
and an external outplacement provider retained. Staff turnover
has been kept below historic levels by the introduction of a system
of continuity payments for eligible staff at downsizing sites.
In brief, this involves an annual payment of £1,000 for each
full year that eligible staff remain with the organisation and,
where relevant, a £5,000 lump sum bonus, on top of their
contractual entitlement, on leaving the organisation.
During the downsizing, a greater than usual reliance
has been placed on temporary staff to facilitate site closures,
pending downsizing on delivery of the new systems. RPA's Management
Group monitors changes in staffing profiles on a month by month
basis.
Details of RPA's approach to resettlement and maintaining
business continuity will be presented in its Annual Report supported
by brief details of the balance between permanent and temporary
staff numbers.
Recommendation 6: The Rural Payments Agency is
a new organisation which has faced early problems. Some of these
were not of the Agency's making while others, such as the complexity
of IACS forms and low customer satisfaction, indicate areas which
need prompt attention if the payment of CAP claims is to move
into a new era of efficiency as promised. We welcome the steps
which have been taken, and we urge the Agency to do more. We hope
that the RPA will at all times keep its customers - farmers -
uppermost in its thoughts (paragraph 20).
RPA accepts that it cannot realise its vision of
being a customer focused CAP Paying Agency unless it keeps in
mind its customers' requirements at all times. Significant steps
have been taken already in the setting up of an Industry Forum
and Expert Groups at a scheme or commodity level to consult and
inform customer representatives. RPA is also involving customers
and industry representatives throughout the process of designing
and building our new systems and procedures. In parallel with
this, RPA is taking steps to embed a customer focused culture
across the Agency through better targeted staff training and development
arrangements. RPA monitors its performance against published service
standards and actively encourages feedback on how it is doing.
Recommendation 7: The Committee will maintain
its interest in the work of the Rural Payments Agency. We look
forward to receiving its Annual Reports and updates on progress
in the implementation of the Change Programme (paragraph 21).
RPA will ensure that the Committee receives Annual
Reports and regular (quarterly) updates on progress.
Rural Payment Agency
June 2003
| 
