Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460-479)
MR SEAN
SHINE, MR
PETER HOLMES
AND MR
ANDY NAISH
22 MAY 2006
Q460 Chairman: Could you just answer
the question instead of giving us what might have been. Is it
yes or no?
Mr Holmes: Could you repeat the
question, please?
Q461 Chairman: The question was,
do you give a reassuring answer on each occasion when progress
is being questioned by the respective permanent secretaries that
you were going to be able to deliver your bit functioning and
on time?
Mr Holmes: Yes.
Q462 Chairman: So all your answers
were in the affirmative.
Mr Holmes: Yes.
Q463 Chairman: You would have heard
at the same meetings if there had been any messages to the contrary.
Mr Holmes: If there had been messages
we would have heard them.
Q464 Chairman: You heard nothing
at any meeting that you were at with the permanent secretaries,
with the RPA in attendance, that gave a contrary message that
everything would be all right.
Mr Holmes: That is right. Those
meetings were essentially about managing the relationship between
Accenture and RPA and Defra. Wider issues about impact on policy
or other things were not discussed.
Q465 Chairman: I am not talking about
wider impact on policy or anything; we are talking about deliverability.
We will come in detail to look at some of the mapping issues,
but in your evidence you say at paragraph 31: "RITA has been
fully stable since October 2005". That says that it is all
ready to go; you are confident it will deliver what you said it
would deliver. It does what it says on the outside of the tin,
is that right?
Mr Holmes: Yes.
Q466 Chairman: Is that what it means?
Mr Holmes: Yes.
Q467 Chairman: You were sitting there
with a smile on your face; Accenture can deliver.
Mr Holmes: Yes.
Q468 Chairman: Did you at that time
have any misgivings whatsoever that the other parts that were
complementary to what you could do were not going to deliver their
part of the project?
Mr Holmes: Misgivings is the wrong
word. We were at pains—and continue to be at pains—to
say that this is only part of a jigsaw.
Q469 Chairman: You said that before,
but let me come back and ask you the question again. Did you have
a meeting with the permanent secretaries to discuss that statement
that the system was stable at October 2005?
Mr Holmes: I cannot honestly recall.
Q470 Chairman: You cannot remember.
Mr Shine: If I understand your
question, did we have a meeting to discuss that specific point,
the answer is no. It is worthwhile saying that the RPA measures
system availability every month and has done since September 2004.
It is a fact that the system has been available 98.9% since that
point. In our submission you have that specific question. The
final release of the system that was required for making payments
went live in October and so that is why we pointed to October
in terms of the system being available from then and also the
percentage availability. From October onwards the system has been
available in excess of 98.7% of the time. We did not have a specific
meeting to discuss that; that is part of the normal monthly statistics
that are measured in terms of system availability and, as we have
said, the system was available as part of our commitments given
early in the process.
Q471 Chairman: Would you like to
re-focus your mind; when was the last meeting around that autumn
period in 2005 that you did have with the permanent secretary?
Do you have any recollection of that?
Mr Holmes: It would have been
in September or October.
Q472 Chairman: Would you like to
tell us a little more about that meeting?
Mr Holmes: To be honest I find
it difficult to recall which meeting that was.
Q473 Chairman: Mr Holmes, you have
been giving us, with remarkable clarity and recall, the reassuring
messages about what Accenture negotiated and could deliver, the
nature of the contract, the nature of the arrangements, but when
it comes to me asking you a specific question about these rather
important meetings your company was having with the permanent
secretary your collective memory has gone somewhat fuzzy. Could
you try to de-fuzz that for us and give us an insight as to what
was actually said?
Mr Shine: My recollection is .
. .
Q474 Chairman: Were you at this meeting?
Mr Shine: Yes, I was.
Q475 Chairman: Good.
Mr Shine: My recollection of precise
dates is not absolutely correct but we can check that. We had
a regular series of meetings with the permanent secretary throughout
the project. As you may have recognised, we did have some challenges
in the system throughout the summer and particularly in August
and to be quite frank the focus of the meeting in September was
focussing around those technical issues. We have commented on
some of the issues and some of the reasons why they arose which
were primarily driven as a result of unexpected volume. My recollection
is very clear of those meetings. We commented on the volume of
land changes was in fact 10 to 11 times the expected volume. The
actual number of changes to land parcels turned out to be around
10 or 11 times what was expected, so over a 1,000%. The reason
why my recollection of that meeting is so clear is because there
was a core focus on addressing the issues that had been occurring
during August and focusing on how those technical issues were
going to be resolved. As we were pointed out in previous submissions
we made a number of technical changes during that period in order
to support the increased volume that was required at the time.
It was a very detailed, technical discussion focusing on the issues
that had arisen.
Q476 Mr Williams: I think at the
beginning Mr Holmes said that although you were not responsible
for the change programme your systems were going to be responsible
for delivering it. Can you just tell us what you understood by
the change programme?
Mr Holmes: Going back to the discussions
with the RPA in 2002 during the procurement there were a lot of
briefings about the change programme and it was about bringing
the organisations together; it was about having a new approach
which was essentially a task-based approach to dealing with the
claims and driving efficiencies out through this process so that
there would be an office rationalisation process and a general
efficiency. It is about harnessing technology to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the Rural Payments Agency.
Q477 Mr Williams: So it is about
reducing numbers of staff in the Rural Payments Agency.
Mr Holmes: Yes.
Q478 Mr Williams: Were you seen by
the people working in the Rural Payments Agency as someone who
was likely to result in the loss of their jobs?
Mr Holmes: I do not believe so
because the die had already been cast, the decision had already
been made to go with the change programme. Consultants had been
working with the RPA in defining how the change programme would
be structured and the requirements so the die was cast by the
time we were brought in.
Q479 Mr Williams: Do you think that
the change programme coming together with the added complexity
of the contract that you had to deliver for the RPA, knowing those
things were going to come together was the decision to go on and
deliver them simultaneously a good decision?
Mr Holmes: That is a pretty normal
kind of situation where there is a major technology system or
programme that is underpinning some business change programme.
We would expect that to be something that is going to be able
to be handled.
| 
