As the Guardian has reported this morning:
In a series of reports on efficiency across government, the public accounts committee raised concerns about the way public money is spent and accused both departments of failing to get the best value for taxpayers.
MPs found that while the government has considerable buying power, it does not adequately use it to challenge companies that owe tax or have failed to deliver public contracts.
As they also note:
One of the committee's reports said: "While it is long overdue, we welcome the co-ordination of the management of major suppliers across government. However, government is still not fully using its negotiating position as a large customer to challenge those who pay little UK tax on their profits or those who have failed to deliver effectively in previous contracts. The Cabinet Office should consider how suppliers' performance and record of paying their fair share of tax impact on procurement decisions."
I could not agree more. So long as a reasonable criteria can be defined - and those proposed by the government so far utterly fail in that respect - assessing the suitability of a government contractor on the basis of their tax paid and, as importantly, on their disclosure of their tax paid is wholly appropriate behaviour for any government.
And candidly I doubt the EU would uphold a challenge.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I agree, Richard. But this is not simply – or even mainly – an issue of putting in place processes, guidelines, or whatever.
Over the years I’ve become increasingly aware of cases where civil servants responsible for project management have frequently questioned the nature and standard of the work, services and/or technologies (mainly IT) they are receiving from commercial providers. What seems to be the case is that where these are relatively minor issues they’ve been allowed to push back on the contractor/consultant, etc and get an improvement. But in many cases where the failings are more signicant (as with the NHS IT project that has been reported on this week, where I was for some years privy to information on what was going on)the message has come down from on high that they should back off, put up with and work around what they’re being given and keep quiet.
In short, the processes existed to do something about the standard of work being recieved and the skewed nature of the relationship between public and private entity. But the default position of minister and mandarins (who may, of course, claim they are only doing what their minister wants) is to avoid doing pretty much anything that might upset a commercial provider.
The belief in and commitment to ‘private good, public bad’, has much to do with this craven approach. But so to does the fact that many of the commercial entities that work in and around government (SERCO, G4S, the big consultancy companies, etc etc) are now so big in terms of the scale and scope of the services they provide, and/or in terms of their influence and power within government, that they are, effectively, running government.
Add into that mix the fact that many ministers and senior civil servants aspire to move into the private sector once their time as a public servant is done, and you have all the explanation you need as to why disasters such as the NHS IT system, shite armoured vehicles, aircraft carriers that are not fit for purpose, and, yet to become public, the impending debacle of the universal benefit system, are not just tolerated but almost encouraged.
So by all means put in place transparent, workable processes that penalise companies that exploit their relationship with government (for that is what it is). But if those mechanisms are to work – and support the many public servants who know only too well that the services and technologies they are receiving from commercial companies are shite – their needs to be a culture change at the heart of government. Personally I see no sign of that happening any time soon, regardless of what the PAC or any other body might say, and certainly not from politicians whose ideological standpoint is minimal government and the obliteration of public services.
As usual, I fear you are right
Ivan, from repeated personal experience, you are correct sir!
What “reasonable criteria” would you suggest?
No time to answer that now
But start by looking at the Fair Tax mark
Given the EU is, by definition, a hot bed of neoliberalism, no possibility can be ruled out.
Look at their own accounts. Have they ever been signed off on?
You entirely miss the near absurd standard of accuracy required of government accounts to which commercial accounts never aspire
All the separate EU accounts have to be approved for the “EU” accounts to be signed off. The UK government have many accounts. We require 95% signed off whereas the EU wants 98%. The just under four percent NOT signed of last year-the auditors stressed was not suspected to be all fraud. It is about 4-5 billion euros so about 10-12 euros were head of population of the EU i.e about 20p a week.
The EU spends in the 27 countries. The central accounts are always approved. It is the spending in the member states that isn’t. A few years ago, one of those countries was the UK.
It is not perfect but not as represented by UKIP. If I am misinformed I’m sure Richard will point it out.
For some reason this is never explained by the BBC TV news or most newspapers. I wonder why?
You are right
Well, I wouldn’t say that exactly. I think most reasonable people would agree that public money should be held to a higher standard in terms of accountability.
There is an element of choice involved with private money, taxes on the other hand are mandatory.
But to then apply the same criteria for assessment is wrong
No no, please do not misunderstand. The assessments of public vs. private money should be different, just as accountability for a charity would be much different than a bank.
But even using their own level of accountability/assessment, the EU has failed to meet even that standard for years.
But note what Ian said as to the standard required
Could anyone meet that?
If true, they should merely change the %.
The problem would be if business seek the same flexible arrangements. That would be worrisome.