Treasury Minutes on the Twenty Second, the Thirty Third and the Thirty Eighth to the Forty First Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts Session 2010-12 PDF Download

Author: Great Britain. Treasury
Publisher:
ISBN: 9780101817929
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 48

View

Book Description
On cover: Government responses. The reports published as HC 801 (ISBN 9780215556448); HC 764 (ISBN 9780215559258); HC 833 (ISBN 9780215559760); HC 1035 (ISBN 9780215560407); HC 1050 (ISBN 9780215560346); HC 1036 (9780215560506). Dated September 2011

Author: Stationery Office
Publisher:
ISBN: 9780115017988
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 584

View

Book Description
The Stationery Office annual catalogue 2011 provides a comprehensive source of bibliographic information on over 4900 Parliamentary, statutory and official publications - from the UK Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and many government departments and agencies - which were issued in 2011.

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215040077
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 170

View

Book Description
The Commons Public Accounts Committee publishes its 61st Report of the Session which, on the basis of evidence from the Cabinet Office and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), examined tax disputes. At 31 March 2011 HM Revenue & Customs was seeking to resolve tax issues valued at over £25 billion with large companies, some of which included disputes over outstanding tax. In this report, the Committee expresses concern about how the Department handled some cases involving large settlements and that there needs to be proper separation between the negotiation of tax settlements and the authorization of such settlements. The Committee also states that HMRC made matters worse by trying to avoid scrutiny of these settlements, keeping confidential the details of specific settlements with large companies. This effects Parliament's ability to establish value for money, compounded further by imprecise, inconsistent and potentially misleading answers given by senior departmental officials, including the Permanent Secretary for Tax in particular over his evidence on his relationship with Goldman Sachs, in facilitating a settlement with the company over their tax dispute. HMRC governance processes in these matters were inconsistent and it has now appointed two new Commissioners with tax expertise, and plans to introduce a new assessor role to permit independent review of large settlements before they are finalised. The Committee further states that it saw little evidence of personal accountability within the Department, and that a perception has developed that large companies are treated more favourably, receiving preferential treatment compared to small businesses and individuals.

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215056993
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 44

View

Book Description
Infrastructure UK, an advisory unit within the Treasury, was established in 2010 with a remit to specify what economic infrastructure is needed in the UK, to identify the key barriers to achieving that investment and to mobilise systems and resources, both public and private to make it happen. The first National Infrastructure Plan was published in 2010. The latest update of the plan, published in December 2012, comprised over 500 prospective programmes and projects for new economic infrastructure expected to cost £310 billion. Some 64% of this amount is expected to be spent on infrastructure that will be wholly owned and financed by the private sector with households bearing the costs through higher bills or fares. Many of the investment proposals impact on energy supply and are therefore particularly time critical. The Committee believes that this will lead to higher costs which will be borne by consumers and are particularly concerned at the impact of higher energy bills on those with low incomes. Many of the programmes are broad categories and in total they include more than 200 individual projects. This does not suggest a properly targeted and prioritised infrastructure plan. Furthermore, the statutory framework provided by the Energy Bill is coming rather late in the day when the energy crunch is fast approaching. It is likely that the UK will buy ever more energy from overseas and at a higher price due to the failure to secure investment. In these circumstances greater transparency is needed over investors' costs, risks and rewards

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215041586
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 20

View

Book Description
The Committee of Public Accounts scrutinises the reasons behind individual Departments exceeding their allocated resources, and reports to the House of Commons on whether it has any objection to the amounts needed to rectify the reported excesses. The Committee may also make recommendations to Departments concerning the causes of these excesses. In 2010-11, two bodies breached their expenditure limits: The Department for Transport breached its Net Cash Requirement by £335.2 million, primarily because of weaknesses in monitoring its budget for the operation of its rail franchises; The Teachers' Pension Scheme (England & Wales) breached its Net Cash Requirement by £11.9 million because the Department for Education underestimated the number of members that would retire in 2010-11 and overestimated the contributions that would be collected from employers. On the basis of an examination of the reasons why these two bodies exceeded their voted provisions, the Committee has no objection to Parliament providing the necessary amounts by means of an Excess Vote. Nevertheless, it expects both bodies to set out what actions they have taken to improve their financial management and avoid exceeding their allocated resources in the future.

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215561152
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 44

View

Book Description
This report examines the effectiveness and efficiency of the current education system for 16- to 18-year-olds. In 2009, over 1.6 million 16- to 18-year-olds participated in some form of education and training at a cost of over £6 billion. Most studied full-time for qualifications such as A levels or National Vocational Qualifications, at a general further education college, sixth form college or school sixth form. The system governing the education of 16- to 18-year-olds is devolved and complex. The Department for Education (the Department) has overall responsibility, and the Young People's Learning Agency funds education providers and monitors their performance. Local authorities have a duty to secure provision but they have limited powers, and having duties without powers cannot work effectively. There has been an overall improvement in the achievements of 16- to 18-year-olds over the last four years. Students in larger providers have generally achieved better results. Smaller providers, by collaborating, can achieve some of the benefits of size. In a market, consistently poor providers should fail because they lose funding as students choose to study elsewhere. For the 16 to 18 education market to work effectively, there needs to be consistent and relevant information so the Department can assess value for money and students can make informed judgements about their courses and what they lead to. Also, where a provider's performance is poor, there must be clarity about the criteria for intervention, and the timing and extent of intervention. Neither is fully in place at present.

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215561619
Category : Political Science
Languages : en
Pages : 68

View

Book Description
Around half of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's budget is spent in foreign currencies. In 2008, the Treasury removed the protection it had previously provided to the Department against exchange rate fluctuations. The FCO did not have the expertise or experience to effectively manage the risk of a fall in exchange rates, and that the Treasury imposed poor value for money conditions on forward purchasing foreign currency. As a result of a decline in the value of sterling, in September 2009 the FCO faced an overspend of £91 million on its 2009-10 budget (£72 million centrally and £18.8 million overseas), out of its total budget of £1.6 billion. It made drastic cuts to reduce this overspend. The FCO did well to reduce spending so quickly, which enabled it to live within its budget. However, many of the spending cuts made were short term in nature, and involved simply delaying or stopping some activities, rather than making lasting efficiency improvements. Not enough was done to monitor and measure the impact of the cuts and there is a risk that such short term cuts can lead to increased spending in the future. The FCO needs to achieve sustainable reductions in running costs of £100 million over the next four years, and sees the overseas estate as a potential source of these efficiencies and income. But in the past, high charges have had the unintended consequence of discouraging other government departments from sharing premises.

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215561237
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 70

View

Book Description
There are legitimate concerns being expressed about the continuing financial cost of PFI for public organisations such as NHS Trusts. The Committee believes that some of the Government's case for using PFI has not been based on robust analysis, but on ill-founded comparisons and invalid assumptions. The costs and benefits identified in business cases need to be revisited after contracts are signed and periodically thereafter, to inform future procurement decisions. In particular, the Committee's view is that the Government should revisit the tax assumptions it builds into the cost and benefit case for PFI. Taxpayers could get a much better deal from PFI, and the taxpayer's position is also made worse by poor transparency of investor and contract information alongside patchy public sector commercial skills. The Treasury and departments should make full use of existing contractual rights of access and further investor information to increase transparency and find ways for taxpayers to get a share of the profits made by PFI contractors. At present, PFI deals look better value for the private sector than for the taxpayer. Private sector funds have built up portfolios of PFI projects from the large market that government has created, benefiting from potential economies of scale without any obligation to share such volume gains. Government, in contrast, has a fragmented approach and is not making use of its bulk buying power. The Treasury is seeking further efficiency savings, but achieving any savings on existing contracts will depend on voluntary agreements with investors and suppliers.

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215561862
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 40

View

Book Description
The Commons Public Accounts Committee publishes it fifty third report of Session 2010-12, on the basis of evidence from the Department of Health. In the past three years, NHS trusts in England have spent around £50 million annually on buying three specific types of high value capital equipment - Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Computed Tomography (CT) scanners, used mainly for diagnosis, and Linear Accelerator (Linac) machines for cancer treatment. The current value of these three types of machines in the NHS is around £1 billion. Patient demand for services from these machines has increased significantly in the last decade and continues to grow. Since 2007, the Department of Health has devolved responsibility for procuring and managing these machines to individual trusts but this structure is not conducive to delivering value for money. The committee is concerned that the NHS is failing to optimise its purchasing power, crucial at this time when £20 billion of savings in the NHS are required by 2015. The NHS needs to make high quality, comparable data available on machine use and cost. The procurement and management of high value equipment is fragmented and uncoordinated, leading to wasted resources and variable standards of services. Trusts have three main ways to purchase high value equipment: by dealing directly with suppliers; through framework agreements, managed by NHS Supply Chain; or by joining up with other trusts in collaborative purchasing arrangements. The Committee believes there is a lost opportunity to use collective buying power to get lower prices and the committee expects NHS Supply Chain and other collaborative procurement bodies to work with trusts to share plans on future needs and get better prices and value for money by exploiting the joint buying power.

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Publisher: The Stationery Office
ISBN: 9780215040480
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 68

View

Book Description
Under European Directives, all member states are required to install 'intelligent metering systems' - smart meters - to at least 80% of domestic electricity consumers by 2020. The UK Government has opted for a more challenging programme, with plans for energy suppliers to install smart electricity and gas meters in all homes and smaller non-domestic premises in Great Britain by 2019. The Department estimates that the smart meters programme will cost some £11.7 billion. This large complex programme requires replacing around 53 million gas and electricity meters, with significant uncertainties over the estimated costs and benefits involved. Installation costs will be borne by consumers through their energy bills, but many of the benefits accrue in the first instance to energy suppliers. No transparent mechanism presently exists for ensuring savings to the supplier are passed on to consumers, and the track record of energy companies to date does not inspire confidence that this will happen. There remain significant uncertainties in a number of key areas in the programme and the Department needs to address these by conducting proper trials to identify and manage the risks associated with an IT project involving such a substantial amount of money which is financed by individuals as consumers. The Department needs to ensure that the vulnerable, those on low incomes and those who use prepayment meters also benefit from smart meters. It would be unacceptable if these consumers bore the costs of smart meters through higher charges without getting a share of the potential benefits.