Single Payment Scheme

: Yes. To be fair, instead of amateurs like us, a body such as the Public Accounts Committee should have a look at the issue. I would not mind so much if the problem had not been flagged up years ago. In fact, I participated in the Committee wherein the old intervention boards were abolished and the Rural Payments Agency was set up. The verbatim account of that Committee indicates that other hon. Members and I put forward two sets of questions to the then Minister, now the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. The first was about who was accountable. The Minister said that it was, of course, the chief executive of the RPA, but that responsibility and accountability ultimately lay with Ministers. So let us not have any shuffling off of responsibility. I am not getting at the Minister who happens to be sitting in the seat on this, but there is a case for ministerial accountability. Secondly, we flagged up the whole business of whether the RPA could manage the computer system. The Secretary of State got the wrong end of the stick when I made this point during the urgent question. She said that we were dealing with an entirely different system that had to be brought in because of the single farm payment, but she missed the point. Five years ago, we were raising questions about a relatively simple system, not a complex one. I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I believe that there is something in the culture not just of Whitehall but of DEFRA that needs to be examined. It could not manage even a simple system. I would have thought—there are colleagues here who have been Ministers—that, given that track record, just out of self-preservation, they would have asked some difficult, hard-nosed questions. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to say that she has taken responsibility by sacking the chief executive. That is not my definition of taking responsibility. After all, she introduced the single farm payment scheme, and she is ultimately responsible. I would like to put a few brief questions to the Minister, very much along the lines of those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York. As we all know, the key issue is that the payment window closes at the end of June 2006, yet when pressed on that in the urgent question, the Secretary of State stated:"““I cannot give him””—" that is, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)—"““a pattern of payment between then and now.””—[Official Report, 27 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 545.]" The question is, why not? At what stage does the timeline run out? We are discussing not just the livelihoods of thousands of farmers but the wider rural community, and, as hon. Friends have said, we are running up against next year's scheme as well. There is a timeline, and Ministers must have some idea. Perhaps they could share that with the House. The second issue—non-validated interim payments—has already been raised. It has been put to me by many farmers in my constituency. Once again, the Secretary of State's comments during the urgent question were inadequate. She stated:"““We are not ruling out the potential for interim payments, but we are reluctant to make interim payments if there is any possibility of their jeopardising the time scale for making full payments.””—[Official Report, 27 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 545.]" When will the Minister know that the timeline has been passed? Officials in the RPA must have some idea. My fear is that they will realise that the system will not work but will be unable to make interim payments in time to stop many farmers from going bankrupt. We all have large numbers of such cases in our constituencies. What conversations and discussions have Ministers had with the major banks about tiding farmers over during this period? Evidence has already been produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York that the deadline was 25 March for the half-yearly payment for a large number of tenant farmers. We really are up against the wire. The Minister is carrying out a review, but what confidence can we have that the IT will be able to cope with the mapping, which now seems to be the key issue? It is not something that will make any difference to the current crisis, but it is something that we must get right. My final comment is from Mr. William Brigham, a farmer in my constituency who e-mailed me. He spoke briefly about the e-mail, paper and telephone chase that he had been having over the past few months. He was not angry. I believe that he is like an old soldier—he just expects such problems. He concludes by stating:"““It is interesting to note that our area””—" mid-Norfolk—"““is covered by the Northallerton office, we sent our application to Carlisle, and all the latest contact is with Exeter.””" I rest my case.