General comments
40. Having carefully examined the evidence, we are
convinced that many fraudsters would have regarded an attempt
to cheat the scheme as a risk worth taking. The reasons are apparent—six
out of seven claims not selected for inspection, poor risk analysis,
a slack inspection regime, a very low prosecution record and relatively
modest penalties. The low level of risk to fraudsters was most
starkly illustrated in the Foot and Mouth cull cases, where the
17 farmers who were found to have no sheep at all could not be
prosecuted because of a loophole in the Department's legislation.[39]
41. Our overall impression is that the Department
has in the past been soft on fraud and this has contributed to
unacceptably high levels of fraud within Northern Ireland agriculture.
The Accounting Officer has assured us that his Department now
operates a policy of zero tolerance to fraud. Among the initiatives
introduced are a counter-fraud strategy and an anti-fraud forum.
In addition, clear instructions have been now issued to all staff
and training courses have been provided. We acknowledge that these
are positive steps in the fight against fraud. However, the procedures
will only work if they are properly applied. In our review of
the Sheep Annual Premium Scheme, we noted that many of the weaknesses
arose out of the Department's failure to properly apply existing
control procedures.[40]
28 
