Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download HC 147 - Major Projects Authority PDF full book. Access full book title HC 147 - Major Projects Authority by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts Publisher: The Stationery Office ISBN: 021507579X Category : Political Science Languages : en Pages : 24
Book Description
The work of the Major Projects Authority is supported but without stronger powers it is unlikely to achieve its aim of a systemic improvement in project delivery across government. The projects in the MPA's portfolio represent a huge and rising cost to the taxpayer. The MPA, however, only has informal influence over departments. It has no powers if a department decides to proceed with a project against MPA advice. It needs to have stronger, more formal mechanisms for driving change, and there should be transparency where ministers or officials have rejected its recommendations. The MPA also needs to focus its efforts more on the early stages of a project, working with departments to ensure that they have devoted sufficient attention to the concept, design and business case for projects before seeking approval. It could also improve its impact by prioritising its work more effectively. The creation of the Major Projects Leadership Academy is welcomed, but the MPA needs to target top decision-makers as well as managers. Nobody in central government is responsible for overseeing projects at a strategic whole-of-government level. The Treasury should take ownership and responsibility for overseeing the government portfolio. The MPA should also publish more information on each project, including the amount spent to date, even if this means reviewing the Government's transparency policy. There is also particular concern that the decision to award a 'reset' rating to the Universal Credit project may have been an attempt to keep information secret and prevent scrutiny
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts Publisher: The Stationery Office ISBN: 021507579X Category : Political Science Languages : en Pages : 24
Book Description
The work of the Major Projects Authority is supported but without stronger powers it is unlikely to achieve its aim of a systemic improvement in project delivery across government. The projects in the MPA's portfolio represent a huge and rising cost to the taxpayer. The MPA, however, only has informal influence over departments. It has no powers if a department decides to proceed with a project against MPA advice. It needs to have stronger, more formal mechanisms for driving change, and there should be transparency where ministers or officials have rejected its recommendations. The MPA also needs to focus its efforts more on the early stages of a project, working with departments to ensure that they have devoted sufficient attention to the concept, design and business case for projects before seeking approval. It could also improve its impact by prioritising its work more effectively. The creation of the Major Projects Leadership Academy is welcomed, but the MPA needs to target top decision-makers as well as managers. Nobody in central government is responsible for overseeing projects at a strategic whole-of-government level. The Treasury should take ownership and responsibility for overseeing the government portfolio. The MPA should also publish more information on each project, including the amount spent to date, even if this means reviewing the Government's transparency policy. There is also particular concern that the decision to award a 'reset' rating to the Universal Credit project may have been an attempt to keep information secret and prevent scrutiny
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Publisher: The Stationery Office ISBN: 0215078632 Category : Political Science Languages : en Pages : 20
Book Description
The Department for Work and Pensions is responsible for the Work Programme, which aims to help people who have been out of work for long periods to find and keep jobs. Specifically the Work Programme aims to increase employment, reduce the time that people spend on benefit, and to improve support for the hardest-to-help - those participants whose barriers to employment are, relatively, greater than others on the programme. The Department assigns people to one of nine payment groups depending on characteristics such as age and the benefit each person is claiming. The Department pays prime contractors to provide support to people to get them into long-term employment using a payment-by-results approach. The amount the Department pays a prime contractor depends on its success in getting people into sustained work and the payment group of the individual. The Department has 40 contracts with 18 prime contractors. Either two or three prime contractors operate in 18 different geographic areas across England, Scotland, and Wales. Prime contractors may subcontract some or all of the support they provide. The Department will stop referring people to the Work Programme in March 2016, although payments to prime contractors will continue until March 2020. Between June 2011 and March 2016, the Department expects to refer 2.1 million people to the Work Programme and forecasts total payments to prime contractors of £2.8 billion.
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Publisher: The Stationery Office ISBN: 0215081137 Category : Business & Economics Languages : en Pages : 24
Book Description
Most of HM Revenue and Customs' (HMRC's) major tax collection systems are provided under one contract, the Aspire contract. While this has provided stability over the last ten years HMRC has not managed the costs of the contract well. It has cost some £7.9 billion over this period and generated profits for the suppliers of some £1.2 billion. When the current contract ends in 2017 HMRC intends, in accordance with government IT procurement policy, to move from the current single contract to a new model with many short-duration contracts with multiple suppliers. However, HMRC has made little progress in defining its needs and has still not presented a business case to government. Once funding is agreed, it will have only two years to recruit the skills and procure the services it will need. Moreover, HMRC's record in managing the Aspire contract and other IT contractors gives the Committee little confidence that HMRC can successfully achieve this transition or that it can manage the proposed model effectively to maximise value for money. HMRC also demonstrates little appreciation of the scale of the challenge it faces or the substantial risks to tax collection if the transition fails. Failure to collect taxes efficiently would create havoc with the public finances.
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Publisher: The Stationery Office ISBN: 021508103X Category : Computers Languages : en Pages : 24
Book Description
It is eight years since the Committee last looked at this issue and they are dismayed to find so little progress has been made in removing foreign national offenders from the UK. This is despite firm commitments to improve and a ten-fold increase in resources devoted to this work. The public bodies involved are missing too many opportunities to remove foreign national offenders early and are wasting resources, through a combination of a lack of focus on early action at the border and police stations, poor joint working in prisons, and inefficient caseworking in the Home Office. This, combined with very poor management information and non-existent cost data, results in a system that appears to be dysfunctional. Our concerns about the system were not allayed by the evidence we received. The Home Office will need to act with urgency on the recommendations we make in this report if it is to secure public confidence in its ability to tackle effectively these and the wider immigration system issues on which the Committee has previously reported.
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Publisher: The Stationery Office ISBN: 0215081013 Category : Business & Economics Languages : en Pages : 20
Book Description
The Department for Transport is responsible for a number of ambitious, expensive transport infrastructure programmes including the planned High Speed 2 programme. The Committee though is not convinced that these programmes are part of a clear strategic approach to investment in the rail network. In particular, recent proposals for a railway connecting cities in the north of England - a possible High Speed 3 - suggest that the Department takes a piecemeal approach to its rail investment, rather than considering what would benefit the system as a whole and prioritising its investment accordingly. The Department told us it will deliver the full High Speed 2 programme within its overall funding envelope of £50 billion. However, this funding includes a generous contingency and the Committee is concerned that, without appropriate controls, it could be used to mask cost increases. When it comes to the wider regeneration benefits, insufficient planning meant that regeneration benefits in Ebbsfleet did not flow from High Speed 1 as expected. Although the Department told the Committee that it has learned and is applying these lessons on High Speed 2, it needs to set out clearly who is responsible for ensuring that benefits are realised, and how that work will be coordinated.
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Publisher: The Stationery Office ISBN: 0215081218 Category : Business & Economics Languages : en Pages : 20
Book Description
The Department for International Development is the main funder of the Private Infrastructure Development Group, a multilateral agency which invests in infrastructure projects in developing countries. The Department has not used its position as by far the dominant funder of PIDG to influence the direction of its operations and improve its performance. The Department's oversight of PIDG has not been sufficiently 'hands on'. The Committee is concerned that the Department has insufficient assurance over the integrity of PIDG's investments and the companies with which it works and the Department has not done enough to put a stop to PIDG's wasteful travel policies and poor financial management.
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Publisher: The Stationery Office ISBN: 0215085647 Category : Psychology Languages : en Pages : 25
Book Description
The Winterbourne View scandal in 2011 exposed the horrific abuse of people with learning difficulties and challenging behaviour in a private mental health hospital. Concerns were also raised about a number of other institutions. As a result, the Government committed to discharging those individuals for whom it was appropriate back into their homes and communities. However, since then, too many children and adults have continued to go into mental health hospitals, and to stay there unnecessarily, because of the lack of community alternatives. The number of people with learning disabilities remaining in hospital has not fallen, and has remained broadly the same at around 3,200. It was refreshing that NHS England took responsibility for this lack of progress and has now committed to develop a closure programme for large NHS mental health hospitals, along with a transition plan for the people with learning disabilities within these hospitals, from 2016-17. Discharges from hospital are being delayed because funding does not follow the individual when they are discharged into the community. This acts as a financial disincentive for local commissioners who have to bear the costs and responsibility for planning and commissioning community services. Delaying discharge has the effect of institutionalising people, making their reintegration into the community more difficult. Some local authorities' reluctance to accept and fund individuals in the community will be exacerbated by current financial constraints. The Department should set out its proposals for 'dowry-type' payments from NHS England to meet the costs of supporting people discharged from hospital.
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Publisher: The Stationery Office ISBN: 0215085582 Category : Business & Economics Languages : en Pages : 21
Book Description
Tax and tax reliefs are plainly different and require different accountability arrangements. Put simply tax is where you get money in through taxation and a tax relief is where you make a conscious decision to forgo that income. Some reliefs are structural parts of the system to ensure a more progressive system or avoid double taxation. But other reliefs, costing some £100 billion a year, are designed to deliver a policy objective that could be met instead through spending programmes. HM Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) do not keep track of those tax reliefs intended to influence behaviour. They do not adequately report to Parliament or the public on whether reliefs are working as intended and what they cost and whether they represent good value for money. While HMRC is accountable for implementing and monitoring all tax reliefs, its statements about the extent of its responsibilities are inconsistent with its actual practices. HMRC accepts it has a role to assess, evaluate and monitor reliefs, but is unable or unwilling to define or to categorise reliefs by their purpose. While HMRC accepts the need for reporting the costs of tax reliefs, it does not see the merit in assessing the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of reliefs, or considering their cost effectiveness alongside that of alternative policy instruments such as spending programmes. HMRC does not generally assess the effectiveness of reliefs with specific objectives although in a few instances it does consider their impact on taxpayer behaviour. HMRC's failure to articulate a set of principles to guide its management and reporting of tax reliefs is a serious omission which it now needs to rectify.
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Publisher: The Stationery Office ISBN: 0215081323 Category : Business & Economics Languages : en Pages : 20
Book Description
The tax arrangements PwC promoted in Luxembourg bear all the characteristics of a mass-marketed tax avoidance scheme according to the Public Accounts Committee. Large accountancy firms advise multinational companies on complex strategies and contrived structures which do not reflect the substance of their businesses and are instead designed to avoid tax. In light of the publication of leaked documents detailing some of the tax advice it has given to its multinational clients, the Committee took evidence from PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC). PwC did not convince the Committee that its widespread promotion of schemes to numerous clients, based on artificially diverting profits to Luxembourg through intra-company loans, constituted anything other than the promotion of tax avoidance on an industrial scale. The fact that PwC's promotion of these schemes is permitted by its own code of conduct is clear evidence that Government needs to take a more active role in regulating the tax industry, as it evidently cannot be trusted to regulate itself. HMRC should set out how it plans to take a more active role in challenging the advice being given by accountancy firms to their multinational clients. In contributing to the OECD's discussions aimed at reforming international tax law, HMRC should push for a more rigorous and meaningful definition of what "substance" means in respect of business, particularly if multinational companies conduct any business in the countries where they shift profits to in order to avoid tax. The Committee believes strongly that the Government must act by introducing a code of conduct for all tax advisers.
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Publisher: The Stationery Office ISBN: 0215083814 Category : Medical Languages : en Pages : 21
Book Description
Since it was created in 2013, Public Health England (PHE) has made a good start in its efforts to protect and improve public health. Good public health is vital to tackling health inequalities and reducing burdens on the NHS. The Committee were impressed by the passion shown by PHE's Chief Executive, and his determination to challenge Government to consider public health in wider policymaking. However, we are concerned that the Department of Health is not getting local authorities to their target funding allocations for public health quickly enough, with nearly one third of 152 local authorities currently receiving funding that is more than 20% above or below what would be their fair share. The Agency decided not to change the grant distribution for 2015/16. Local authorities are also presently constrained by being tied into contracts to which the Department had previously committed, such as for sexual health interventions. It is not clear whether the public health grant to local authorities will remain ring-fenced, and they need more certainty to better plan their public health programmes. If the ring-fence is removed, there is a risk that spending on public health will decline as councils come under increasing financial pressures. There are still unacceptable health inequalities across the country, for example healthy life expectancy for men ranges from 52.5 years to 70 years depending on where they live. These inequalities make PHE's support at a local level particularly important but the Committee are concerned that PHE does not have strong enough ways of influencing local authorities to ensure progress against all of its top public health priorities. Finally, given how important it is to tackle the many wider causes of poor public health, PHE needs to influence departments more effectively and translate its own passion into action across Whitehall.
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accounts
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts