“The 2013/14 audit of the Scottish Government Consolidated Accounts: Common Agricultural Policy Futures programme”
Agenda item 4 is to consider the Auditor General for Scotland’s section 22 report “The 2013/14 audit of the Scottish Government Consolidated Accounts: Common Agricultural Policy Futures programme”. Do members have any comments?
I have three points to ask about. A new information technology system will, from this year onwards, make payments to Scotland’s farmers, crofters and land users under the new common agricultural policy. The Auditor General says in her letter to the convener, which is at annex C of paper PA/S4/15/8/7:
“The programme will continue to carry significant risk right up until implementation and beyond.”
That is exactly what the people who are trying to work with the programme are finding. The letter says that the business case costs have increased from £102.5 million to £178 million, which is a 74 per cent increase. Paragraph 9 says that
“The largest area of spend is on the IT delivery partner.”
I assume that “delivery partner” refers to an IT company. The costs there have gone up from £28.8 million to £60.4 million, which is a 111 per cent increase. By any standards, those are vast increases.
We have been here before on IT projects. We must find out the reasons for the increases, including from the EU. It is very comfortable to blame the EU, believe me—I have done so plenty of times in my life, too. I hope, convener, that we would want to ask a lot of questions of the project’s accountable officer, the EU and the stakeholders who know an awful lot about what is going on here.
Paragraph 11 of the letter is, for me, the most worrying one. At the end, it says that
“there has been less progress on ... key parts of the process”.
That will affect those who must use the process and the IT system. That is extremely worrying. We must ask stakeholders about that.
The system depends on individual crofters and farmers having broadband, because the applications need to be completed online—they can also be completed on paper, which I welcome. Those who use the system are being encouraged to do so online, but if they do not have access to broadband, they cannot. There is an overlap on that issue to reports that the Auditor General has brought before us on superfast broadband.
There are significant issues. In practical terms, the process used to take an individual an hour to do; now, it is taking them at least three hours. It has a massive implication for individuals.
I hope that the committee will agree to look closely at the issue not only from an audit point of view because of the sheer increase in costs, but from a human point of view, because it is affecting the day-to-day lives of people who are running businesses right across Scotland. It is not going well. I ask that we give the matter some consideration.
I was hoping that the update would be very positive, but it raises more concerns. Paragraph 16 says:
“The programme will continue to carry significant risk”,
which is the point that Tavish Scott raised.
My concern is paragraph 5. It says that, at this stage, 435 single applications forms have been submitted, which compares with the 1,914 forms that had been submitted by this stage last year. We are significantly behind.
My main concern is that
“The EC requires payments to be made to farmers by June 2016, but in Scotland payments are normally made in the preceding December”—
in other words, December this year—
“and this is the timetable the Scottish Government is working to.”
The letter then says that the Government
“has been considering contingency plans ... That work has shown that the software package would be a viable short-term contingency ... , but would not be capable of meeting the December target ... for payments.”
As Tavish Scott mentioned, farmers and crofters across the country will be seriously concerned about bank loans and cash-flow issues, because the funding that they normally get in December may not arrive until June the following year.
I am very concerned about the impact on farm payments. I am afraid that the update has not brought the assurance that I had hoped for. When the Auditor General says that there is “significant risk”, farmers and crofters across Scotland should be seriously worried.
11:30
The thing that I find most disturbing is that in a single committee meeting we have dealt with two issues from the EU that are adding a cost burden to this Government and to the taxpayer.
Because of the delays, there are increased costs in the CAP futures programme due to the need to deliver the IT solution in a compressed timescale, as the Auditor General highlights, and due to changes in the European Commission’s requirements. I want to know whether its requirements are fully described and whether we fully understand where we are with them. They have been so late and they come out in dribs and drabs. Are we at the end? Will we be faced with last-minute changes or can we say that we have a proper definition?
There is no doubt that the programme carries risks. The Government is absolutely right to target December—that must be the date for payments. There are concerns about the programme, and the committee needs to highlight them.
We have two options. The first is to note the update, which is not what colleagues seem to be keen to do. The other option is to consider taking oral evidence from the Scottish Government. Is that members’ preferred approach?
I think that we should do that.
I very strongly agree with Colin Beattie’s point. As he will remember, the EU regularly qualifies its accounts in respect of agricultural payments. It would be quite nice to have the EU auditor in here, to audit him—or her: I apologise—on their performance, too.
Are we asking for an EU representative—
I will leave that to your good judgment, convener.
I think that we should.
We will invite two witnesses: someone from the Scottish Government, and an appropriate representative from the EU to whom we can put the matter. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you, colleagues. We move to item 5, which, as we agreed, will be taken in private.
11:31 Meeting continued in private until 12:10.Previous
Section 23 Report