GDS, RPA and Defra leaders slammed for 'childish turf war' that led to failures in £154m CAP programme

Dysfunctional and inappropriate behaviour are a slap in the face to cash-strapped farmers, says PAC chair Meg Hillier

Senior leaders at the Government Digital Service (GDS), the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) and Defra have all been slammed for what MPs described as "dysfunctional and inappropriate behaviours", which were "inexcusable and deeply damaging" to the £154m Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Delivery Programme.

The CAP programme was aimed at developing new systems and processes to support the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in England. It was established in 2012 to address previous failing in how the CAP was delivered.

But the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said that the project was hampered by a "childish turf war" between the departments, which came at the expense of cash-strapped farmers - many of which have been paid later than in previous years, at a time when they are already suffering financially.

A few months ago, the National Audit Office (NAO) criticised the departments involved for their "ineffective collaboration", and now MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have had their say on the matter - agreeing with the NAO that the departments were unable to work together successfully, and adding that the GDS actually hindered delivery of the programme - which was the opposite of its purpose.

"The Government Digital Service was created to help improve IT projects, but instead hindered delivery of this programme," the PAC report states.

This was partly because it introduced a level of innovation and risk to the programme back in January 2013, without assessing whether the department was capable of managing the changes. It also did not provide sufficient support during implementation, the PAC said.

The PAC suggested that the departments' failure to work together impacted on implementation and delivery of the programme, potentially costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in financial penalties.

When asked for an explanation of their behaviour neither the government's CTO, Liam Maxwell, nor the chief executive of the RPA, Mark Grimshaw, could give an acceptable answer to the PAC, it said.

"The departments' efforts to resolve issues, such as weekly meetings with the main protagonists, failed, and the Cabinet Office also did not halt the disruptive behaviour. Highly paid public servants need to get the job done and such behaviour is unacceptable," said the PAC.

Meg Hillier MP, chair of the PAC, said that the programme was set up to deliver support to UK farmers, but instead it delivered "an appalling Whitehall fiasco".

She continued: "It was frankly embarrassing to learn of senior and highly paid civil servants arguing to the detriment of hard-pressed farmers.

"Explanations such as 'we worked on different floors' and 'we dressed differently' are a slap in the face to them and a dismal excuse for failures that could severely hit the public purse."

Hillier added that the programme should not have ended up as a "digital testing ground", and slammed the managers of the project for having lost sight of the purpose of the programme and instead "devoting their energies to a childish turf war instead".

The PAC recommended that the department should review its approach to tackling serious failures of management and put in place measures to stop this happening again.

Hillier suggested that the department should start to rebuild trust with farmers by setting out exactly when it expects to pay them in future. "We will be expecting the department to address this as a matter of urgency," she said.