Latest news with #publicaccountscommittee
Telegraph
17-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Council failures blamed as watchdog refuses to sign off government accounts
Britain's spending watchdog has refused to sign off the Government's accounts for the second year in a row, blaming local councils for submitting poor-quality data on their finances. Late and inadequate filing by English councils has been blamed by the National Audit Office (NAO) for leaving it unable to vet government accounts for 2023 to 2024. Only 4pc of the 407 cash-strapped local councils submitted audited data to the watchdog. Meanwhile, 55pc shared figures based on unaudited accounts and 41pc sent no data at all. It marks an even worse track record than the previous year, when 10pc of English councils shared numbers that were up to the watchdog's standards. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the MP who chairs the public accounts committee, branded the situation 'wholly unsatisfactory' and said it posed a threat to the Government's finances. He warned: 'Yet again, failures in local authority audit have led to unacceptable levels of missing and unaudited data. This lack of transparency and ability to hold councils to account will only deepen the current precarious state of local government finances.'
The Guardian
10-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Government inheriting poor value assets due to bad handling of PFI contracts, watchdog says
Bad management of private finance contracts is leading to poor quality assets being handed back to the government, including schools and hospitals, according to parliament's spending watchdog. Its report into the use of private finance initiatives (PFI) for infrastructure comes at a time when the government has identified private investment in projects such as power plants and transport outside London as a key part of its growth agenda. However, the public accounts committee (PAC) is warning that a series of problems with PFI deals could put the government's ambitions to attract investors for such schemes 'in jeopardy'. Setting out a series of recommendations to ministers, MPs on the committee said that UK infrastructure risked becoming 'stony ground' for investors unless major changes were made. PFI took off under Tony Blair's government, which saw it as a way of building key public projects without adding to the national debt. However, these deals have long been controversial, and not have always been seen to provide value for money to taxpayers. More than 650 public sector organisations have their buildings, IT and essential infrastructure managed by a private consortium under a PFI deal, and state bodies are set to pay £136bn in unitary charges for these contracts until 2052-3. Half of the contracts – covering hospitals, schools and transport – are set to expire during the next decade. The PAC report called on ministers to ensure such contracts were carefully managed so that private sector firms complied with their contractual obligations and 'only quality assets are handed back' to government. Last year a report by the Association of Infrastructure Investors in Public Private Partnerships warned that schools and hospitals that depend on PFI contracts were in danger of 'severe disruption' unless they could find a way to cope once those contracts expire. MPs on the PAC are also calling for a more comprehensive framework for how risk is shared between the public and private sector when they work in partnership, particularly after the high-profile collapse of the outsourcing company Carillion, which halted work on new hospitals in Liverpool and Birmingham. The government also needs to provide detailed information on the pipeline of future projects in order to attract new investors, according to the PAC, amid a current lack of data about the past performance of projects or when future ones will be delivered. 'Our scrutiny has found a woefully obscured picture for any seeking to invest in big infrastructure projects in the UK, with a corresponding drain of skills overseas,' said Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the PAC. 'Without a long-term, consistent pipeline giving an idea of what to expect in years to come, UK infrastructure risks becoming stony ground for any investor.' The PAC is calling on the Treasury to identify which financing models it would support for money for different types of projects, such as energy, transport or communication, to attract investors and drive competition. A central database covering private finance for infrastructure investment should be published, according to the report, to help the Treasury to deliver value for money, given the huge amounts of money involved in such projects, such as the £14.2bn pledged by the government for the Sizewell C nuclear power station in Suffolk.
Times
07-07-2025
- Health
- Times
What is Send? How EHCP reform could lead to a fresh Labour row
Introduced under the Children and Families Act 2014, an Education, Health and Care Plan is a legal document designed to support children and young people aged 0-25 who have special educational needs and disabilities that cannot be met by the support available in mainstream settings. Eligibility is determined through a statutory needs assessment, typically initiated by a local authority. While parents or health professionals may request this, it is increasingly being done by schools. Securing an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) can be a lengthy and bureaucratic process, and in some cases, families appeal through tribunals to get support. • The dyslexia school run by a 90-year-old where pupils nail GCSEs Since they were introduced, the number of children on ECHPs has more than doubled to about 600,000, about one in 20 of all pupils. Spending on high needs children has risen by about 60 per cent to £11 billion, with special needs absorbing half of the increase in the overall schools budget. Another £3 billion increase is forecast over the next few years. Councils warn that the system is pushing them towards financial meltdown and the public accounts committee warned earlier this year that the special educational needs and disabilities (Send) crisis was 'an existential financial risk' for local authorities at was 'failing countless children'. Although there is evidence that more children are being diagnosed with conditions such as autism, much of the rise in ECHPs is thought to be because it is so hard for parents to get help any other way. Facing battles to get extra help for their children, legally enforceable rights are often the only option. Schools also have an incentive for pupils to seek ECHPs to apply for thousands of pounds in top-up funding, while councils are thought to be using them to push those with the highest needs into special schools. Despite all this, there is no clear evidence that educational results for children with special needs have actually improved. Little wonder that ministers describe the system as a 'lose, lose, lose'. An alternative vision, where more preventative help is given earlier, reducing the need for parents to launch an adversarial battle for an EHCP, could improve results all round and, perhaps, save money. The original argument for welfare reform was that more help earlier for people with disabilities to get jobs could reduce benefits spending. Politics quickly intervened and it appears now the same is rapidly happening with Send reforms. • Inside the Liverpool school with an in-house ADHD clinic There are some clear differences. Although the political timetable may make it look as though the government is turning to disabled children after finding it impossible to take money from disabled adults, in fact ministers have been planning reform to the system for months. The issue has long preoccupied Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, who is said to be devoting most of her attention to it. Labour's manifesto explicitly promised reform, saying the system was failing and pledging to improve 'inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools'. Crucially, unlike in welfare where the Treasury was determined to score billions of pounds in savings to help meet fiscal rules, in Send there is a promise of £760 million upfront to improve early intervention. For this reason, some MPs are more optimistic about a genuine win-win than a repeat of the welfare debacle. But for others, trust in government has evaporated after the attempt to force through disability cuts. The fact remains that any solution acceptable to the Treasury is likely to see fewer children with costly legal rights. For Labour, the big question after the welfare revolt, is whether it is politically possible to take any entitlements away from any vulnerable groups.
The Guardian
13-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Labour had the chance to finally kill off HS2. Instead, it's throwing more money into the pit
Where was the elephant in the room? It received not a mention in the spending review. In among the hospitals and schools, the highways and the prisons, the great beast wandered, a ghostly presence cursing all from whom it stole. I found it in a Whitehall handout, sandwiched somewhere between Leeds station and a Welsh level crossing. The transport department did not even include it in its railway plans for the parliament. It was relegated, as if an extinct species, to just one short sentence. It said it would spend £25.3bn 'to address longstanding delivery challenges' for HS2. Is it a train or not a train? This means that over the remainder of this parliament, Rachel Reeves's Treasury intends for HS2 to consume between a fifth and a quarter of the government's entire investment budget of £113bn. Yet this staggering fact was not so much as murmured in the Commons or in any subsequent media comment. There was certainly no mention of the project's constantly soaring cost on completion in the mid-2030s. According to the last public accounts committee report, even the slimmed down railway has raced to more than £80bn and is usually said to be approaching £100bn. Reeves's extravagant nuclear reactors will cost far less than that and she was happy to boast of them. Because few can easily distinguish billions from millions, let us look at the comparisons. Reeves now wants to build a railway from Birmingham to Euston at a price that is more than double the £39bn that she wants to spend over the same decade, 2025-2035, on social housing. Over the course of this parliament, the £25.3bn extra that Reeves will spend on HS2 is significantly more than the outlay on prisons and new classrooms. So by the next election, HS2 will have received £25.3bn, while two east-west railways, in the Midlands and the north, will have received £6bn between them and poor Wales just £300m. These projects got a mention, but why not HS2? Is it perhaps because Reeves is ashamed? She knows that HS2 will principally benefit commuters into London. London always wins the vanity projects. At first HS2 was built to be high-speed – requiring wide tunnels and pathways – and then reduced in speed but not in cost. Then it was said to be about capacity not speed, but this did not appear to lessen the cost. Then it was cut from 11 platforms to seven at Euston. This was a really stupid train. The project soon lost any serious supporters outside railway addicts and political cheerleaders. In 2021 ,after Rishi Sunak as chancellor cancelled the Leeds extension, the government's infrastructure projects authority gave HS2 a 'red rating', which bluntly meant 'delivery of the project appears unachievable'. The Commons public account committee said that 'value for money was at risk'. Then in 2023, Sunak as prime minister cancelled the second northern leg, to Manchester. This stripped the project of all 'levelling up' value. The most hair-raising Common minutes I know are those of the public account committee's inquiry into HS2 last December. They read like a banana republic at work. The company's umpteenth chief executive, Mark Wild, was just 17 days into his job, presumably on something like his predecessor's £650,000. Forty-three HS2 staff were identified as earning more than £150,000 a year. Meanwhile, whistleblowers alleged that costs forecasts were being manipulated to secure funding. One of them was last week paid more than £300,000 compensationafter being excluded from two roles as a result of his whistleblowing. The PAC chair, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, said that HS2 is 'a cautionary tale ... in how not to run a major project' and that Department for Transport mismanagement is 'likely to have wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers money in delay and overspends.' Yet with 33,000 staff employed and 2,000 sub-contractors and consultants having already worked their way through tens of billions at current prices, HS2 clearly knew how to relieve the taxpayers of cash. It tried to claim that, unlike schools or hospitals, it was due its money 'under contract'. The PAC caved in. It merely suggested the HS2 team perform a 'reset'. This week the reset took the predictable form of a demand for more money. The Treasury caved in too. The final fiasco surrounds the funding of HS2's destination. This is planned to be Old Oak Common in Acton, due to be completed between 2029 and 2033. The supposed extension to Euston is now not envisaged until 2038, which in public investment is close to never. Work at Euston has stopped, leaving a reported 400 families evicted from their homes and 25 hectares of dirt. This is in Starmer's constituency. Sunak said Euston would one day be rebuilt 'by the private sector', possibly implying a Canary Wharf style cluster of skyscrapers overlooking Regent's Park. Even that outrage would not realise the necessary £6bn – if not £10bn. The new Euston would merely send a handful of trains an hour to a less convenient Birmingham station than the old one. With rail travel still not back at pre-pandemic levels, Euston needs not another train but a politician with guts. The whole of Whitehall now knows HS2 makes no sense. At times like this, parliament is hopeless. Most MPs, at some time in the past, voted for its various mistakes and hate changing their minds. HS2 is the Iraq war of Treasury spending. Starmer should surely know that, on the day he took office, he should have done what Chris Christie of New Jersey did. The governor simply told the contractors of two massive Hudson River tunnels to pack up and go home. Starmer could still kill it, recouping some billions from selling HS2 land. At the same time, Reeves could have gone wild. She could have doubled the number of projects she listed this week. Hospitals could have soared in number, schools multiplied, prisons renewed. I cannot believe Reeves really thinks Britain needs them less than it needs a new railway to Birmingham. As it was, she flunked it. She took a weak decision, and could not even bring herself to mention it. Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
Irish Times
04-06-2025
- General
- Irish Times
‘Simply not good enough': MPs concerned by ‘intolerable risks' at Sellafield site
'Intolerable risks' at the most hazardous parts of the Sellafield nuclear site are being exacerbated by poor performance, substandard equipment and staff shortages that make the facility even more dangerous, according to a report by MPs in Westminster. The UK's public accounts committee (PAC) also raised concerns about the proliferation of non-disclosure agreements to settle staff whistle-blowing complaints about safety and bullying at the site, located on the Cumbrian coast about 170km from Ireland. It said safety concerns and galloping cost overruns were 'simply not good enough'. The committee has released a report on the £136 billion (€162 billion) clean-up job at Sellafield, a former reprocessing and power plant that now essentially operates as a nuclear dump. It said the clean-up of the site is too slow and management keeps missing targets. It highlighted problems at decrepit buildings such as the Magnox Swarf Storage Silo (MSSS), which has leaked hazardous nuclear pondwater into the soil for seven years. The committee said it was enough to fill an Olympic swimming pool every three years. READ MORE The committee accused Sellafield Ltd, the company that operates the site on behalf of the British state, of 'underperformance' by taking too long to clear crumbling old buildings such as the MSSS. Its report said the 'consequence of this underperformance is that the buildings are likely to remain extremely hazardous for longer'. It complained that the timeline given by the company for clearing Sellafield's most dangerous buildings has slipped by 13 years since 2018. The leaking MSSS is being slowly emptied of its lethal material, but the PAC said it needs to be removed 24 times faster than it was last year within a decade, if it is to hit targets. [ Inside Sellafield: behind the razor wire, gun-toting guards and blast barriers at the toxic nuclear site Opens in new window ] 'The intolerable risks presented by Sellafield's ageing infrastructure are truly world-class,' said Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Tory MP who chairs the PAC. 'When visiting the site, it is impossible not to be struck by the fact that one can be standing in what is surely one of the most hazardous places in the world.' The PAC found that management needs to 'fundamentally transform how the site functions'. It is already estimated the clean-up of the site will take at least 100 years. Sellafield told the PAC it had made progress in some areas. The report also warned management must do more to 'build a culture where all employees feel able to raise concerns and report poor behaviour'. The PAC was told the company had used non-disclosure agreements 16 times in the last three years when settling staff claims. [ Nuclear accident in UK or Europe could significantly contaminate food in Ireland, EPA told Government Opens in new window ] Alison McDermott, a former executive at Sellafield who fought a legal battle with the company after she made a whistle-blowing complaint about safety and bullying, said the PAC report 'vindicates everything I said' about a 'toxic and dangerous' culture at Sellafield. She said 'Ireland is not safe' due to the way the site is run: 'This is not a British problem – it's a threat to everyone across the Irish Sea. The Irish Government must wake up.' The Irish Government once sued Britain over safety fears at Sellafield. It is believed the State made no submissions to the UK's PAC as part of its latest inquiry into the site.
