Twenty-second report of Session 2010-11 : Documents considered by the Committee on 16 March 2011, report, together with formal Minutes

Forty-second report of Session 2010-12 : Documents considered by the Committee on 12th October 2011, including the following recommendations for debate, financial services: prudential requirements; application of the Schengen acquis in Bulgaria and Romani

On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees

Over the next ten years, development aid in the form of grants should be replaced for lower middle income countries. DFID should continue to channel some of its finance through multilaterals, making greater use of their specialist skills and expertise rather than replicating these within its own bilateral programmes. DFID should also establish a financial instrument team, prepare a development finance strategy and publish a Development Finance White Paper during 2014. This strategy should include consideration of whether to establish a UK development bank. The overwhelming drive in UK aid should continue to focus on lifting people out of poverty and meeting post-2015 development objectives. The UK should continue to fund the development and delivery of key services to the very poorest people in low income countries through a system of grants. We should also continue to channel 0.7 % of GNI into development cooperation. But, to support structural transformation in lower middle income countries a significant proportion of future UK development finance should also be delivered via a system of concessional loans and other financial instruments

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.

This report examines the Ministry of Defence's progress in meeting cost, time and performance targets for its 15 top-spending military equipment projects. The Committee has reported before that the defence equipment programme is unaffordable with commitments exceeding forecast budgets over a ten year period by £36 billion. The MoD's short term decisions to keep in year expenditure within voted limits and the need to understand the full cost implications of these decisions have damaging consequences. In this year alone the cost of the major projects rose by £3.3 billion and nearly £5 billion was lost by late cancellations. The scale of problems created by this financial imbalance masks the improved performance of the majority of projects against cost and budget. The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) offered the Department an opportunity to bring its plans into balance with the expenditure limits set in the Comprehensive Spending Review. Projects such as the Nimrod MRA4 and Sentinel aircraft have been cancelled, accepting greater operational risks in some areas and writing off nearly £5 billion of taxpayer's money. But implementing the SDSR will require further decisions and the renegotiation or cancellation of a significant number of existing contracts to make the programme affordable. The Department has a poor track record in taking such decisions on the well informed basis necessary to optimise value for money. Other projects examined in detail include the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers and the Typhoon aircraft.

A preliminary report on the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc Bill published as the Committee's third report of session 2010-11 (HL 41/HC 535, ISBN 9780108472732)

How complaints are handled determines the quality of the relationship between consumers and public services. The best performing organisations welcome complaints as a way of engaging consumers. A failure to recognise the importance of complaints leads to insufficient redress for the individual, limits the impact that complaints have in improving services, and alienates the public. In some parts of public services, there are encouraging signs of increased attention to good complaints handling. However, Government as a whole cannot be said to be complying with best practice in complaints handling or adapting to the needs and expectations of today's citizen. Success depends on the right leadership. The Committee recommend that: there should be a minister for government policy on complaints handling; the primary objective of the Cabinet Office review of complaints handling in Government should be to change attitudes and behaviour in public administration at all levels in respect of complaints handling; in respect of complaints from MPs handled by ministers, replies must be accurate, clear and helpful and with no sharing of confidential information or delegation of responsibility for responding; the Government should create a single point of contact for citizens to make complaints about government departments and agencies; and the Government should provide leadership to those responsible for various parts of administrative justice, to ensure that there is a clear and consistent approach to sharing, learning and best practice.