BSE, the cost of a crisis : thirty-fourth report, together with the proceedings of the Committee relating to the report, the minutes of evidence and appendices / Committee of Public Accounts.

  • Public Accounts Committee
Date:
1999
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: BSE, the cost of a crisis : thirty-fourth report, together with the proceedings of the Committee relating to the report, the minutes of evidence and appendices / Committee of Public Accounts. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    51/68 (page 25)
    [Mr Twigg Cont] shortly after that. In other words, we would be running the scheme for six weeks or so on £87.50. 185. So it was a little bit later? (Mr Trevelyan) Yes, it was later. It was in August. 186. Can we return to our friends in the Association of British Abattoir Operators and the points in NAO appendix three. They made the point that they “thought that the initial slaughter fee on the Over Thirty Month Scheme was some three times a commercial rate of about £40 an animal and that the Government had therefore paid out more than it needed”. Would you care to comment on that? (Mr Trevelyan) Yes. They made that point to us. 187. You consulted them on the figures? (Mr Trevelyan) They came to our door. 188. And they suggested £40? (Mr Trevelyan) They suggested that they could do the job for less than those abattoir owners we had selected. 189. Were they correct? (Mr Trevelyan) When we were able to go to competitive tendering we reached a price which was lower than they had indicated. 190. Can I just go to page 45 and this is for Mr Packer possibly. It is the issue of the interim system. The report says that there was a considerable amount of manual work, an inability to carry out adequate checks, eg to ascertain whether the same animal had been included on two or more claims—a slightly important issue—and difficulty in recovering advances from subsequent payments. How do you feel about that? (Mr Trevelyan) I think those are for me. As I indicated earlier on, it was inevitable if we did not have a computer system that we would have to pay on a manual basis. 191. We know that. comments. (Mr Trevelyan) Well, yes. The second two bullet points, if I can point you to those, relate to a temporary situation. I agree that if that had remained the case we would be open to serious criticism. Because we were keeping a complete record, a one hundred per cent record, of two and a half million animals going through the scheme with every ear tag recorded we had the potential, once we had entered those into the electronic database, They are quite damning 192. You have not told me how you feel about that. Do you feel that is a justified criticism? (Mr Trevelyan) If you let me come to my peroration. 193. We are short of time. (Mr Trevelyan) The fact is that data entry has now taken place and neither of those two conditions that are indicated there now remain. 194. Were they there at the time? (Mr Trevelyan) Was I there? 195. Did they occur? (Mr Trevelyan) No. At the time of the audit we did not have the ability. If you are asking me at that point in time could I run a system to show there were no wrong payments, my honest answer is no. 196. Could I ask when you set this system up did you do a risk analysis? (Mr Trevelyan) 1 do not think we did a risk analysis at the time. 197. Is it not standard management practice to run a risk analysis? (Mr Trevelyan) It certainly is 198. Or is it not in your Department? (Mr Trevelyan) No, we have risk _ control procedures. The risk control procedures, as the NAO said, in relation to the scheme were adequate. We have in fact got a great number of controls in place. What we did not have 199. Obviously they were not adequate in this case. (Mr Trevelyan) They were not adequate to satisfy an auditor who came in in mid-scheme and said: “can you reconcile every payment made on every animal?” 200. the task. (Mr Trevelyan) I think I have taken you through that, Mr Twigg. Originally we thought we would have a very simple scheme run through markets only——— 201. So you under-estimated it? (Mr Trevelyan) and we could control it with six or seven datafields. The political decisions were then taken to change it. It talks about under-estimating the size of 202. Again you can correct me if I am wrong but I would like to move to competitive tendering. Obviously different materials are disposed of. Are you now in a position, or have you already done so, to go into a competitive tendering situation for all these different parts of the programme? (Mr Trevelyan) Are we talking about meat and bone meal and tallow? 203. Yes. Everything that is a product of this that has to be disposed of. (Mr Trevelyan) Those are the only two products. 204. What about blood? (Mr Trevelyan) Blood is categorised along with meat and bone because it is another meal. 205. But it is dealt with separately? (Mr Trevelyan) It is dealt with in the processing of. 206. As I understand it there is only company in the country, certainly on the mainland of Great Britain, that deals with it. (Mr Trevelyan) That is right. Once it has been made into blood meal then it has to be incinerated along with the meat and bone meal. 207. Yes, but as I understand it a company that is in my constituency has that contract. (Mr Trevelyan) Yes, that is right.