H M Treasury Annual Report And Accounts 2006 2007

Dated June 2007. Supplied via TSO's On-Demand Publishing Service

Dated July 2008

This is the first annual scrutiny by the Treasury Committee of the Chancellor of Exchequer's Departments. The Committee sets out a number of conclusions and recommendations, including: that the Treasury should include within its' annual reports a summary of the results of the annual surveys of stakeholder opinion and the Treasury's response to stakeholders; the Committee recommends that the Treasury set itself a target to ensure that the Public Service Agreements finalised as part of the next Spending Review in 2009 or 2010 include a clear statement about the resources to be allocated across Government to the delivery of each Agreement; the Committee criticises the Treasury's failure to meet its objective for the appointment of professionally-qualified Finance Directors in all Departments by December 2006 and that a relevant accountancy qualification be described as an essental criterion in all future post advertisements; the Committee views the Value for Money Delivery Agreements across Government as disappointing, and wants the Government to develop programmes that measure quality of service and efficiency effectively; the Committee commends the Royal Mint's return to profitability but is concerned about the ambitious target set for next year; that the Office of Government Commerce has failed to publish a regular annual report; the Committee expresses surprise that HM Revenue and Customs had approved a 60% increase in senior civil service bonus payments over a period of poor performance and headcount reductions, also the Committee highlights the problems experienced in VAT registrations and the failure of HMRC to meet its processing target of VAT receipts as well as poor administration of tax credits.

Olympic Delivery Authority annual report and Accounts 2006-2007

The Treasury Sub-Committee calls for much greater transparency from the Treasury in accounting for the liabilities taken on by the nationalisation and part-nationalisation of financial institutions. The report recommends that these disclosures appear in the annual Treasury resource accounts. Furthermore they should be at least as comprehensive as those made by major corporations and go further than meeting the minimum acceptable accounting standards. In particular, the Report notes that the Treasury's 2007-08 Annual Report and Accounts cover the Government's financial relationship with Northern Rock but do not comment on its performance under temporary public ownership. Given the level of interest in the fully nationalised institutions of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, and the Treasury's role in their governance, the report recommends that key performance information for these institutions be published in the resource accounts as well. The wholesale nationalisation of Northern Rock, and Bradford & Bingley has created governance responsibilities for the Treasury while these entities remain under public ownership. The Government's announcements of October 2008 created further responsibilities regarding the oversight of part-nationalised banks, and created a new body, UK Financial Investments (UKFI). The report calls for UKFI to report annually to Parliament and to be accountable to the Treasury Committee. The Committee wants the Government to identify and publish performance indicators for UKFI, and to report against these measures on a six-monthly basis. All these developments are additional challenges for the Treasury and require it to act in areas its current staff base may not be fully equipped for or familiar with. The Government must ensure the Treasury is sufficiently resourced to manage the extended responsibilities arising from the economic downturn, especially those regarding financial stability.

Over the last ten years, New Labour has boosted public spending by around a trillion pounds - that's £1,000,000,000,000 of our taxes - over £50,000 for every household in Britain. But what have we got for our money? Effective and responsive public services that are the envy of the world? Or the creation of a vast, self-serving bureaucracy that has presided over the greatest waste of money in British history? With so much money, a tsunami of extra cash, being thrown at public services - health, education, policing, defence, social services and public administration - there have been some successes. Nevertheless, the results of the Government's tidal wave of extra spending have been worse than pitiful. In department after department, it is the same sorry story - a triple whammy of incompetence, cover-up and cuts that have all but decimated public services, while those responsible have lavished money and honours on themselves. David Craig exposes the sometimes tragic, sometimes comic story of how New Labour's years of mismanagement have led to a bureaucratization of Britain that has squandered almost unimaginable amounts of taxpayers' money, caused irreparable damage to all our lives and rewarded the man responsible with the keys to Number 10.

Excellent technical writing on corporation tax abounds, but it tends to be inaccessible to public lawyers, political theorists and political economists. Although recent years have seen not only an explosion in public law scholarship but also a reawakening of interest in interpretative political theory and political economy, the potential of these perspectives to illuminate the corporation tax debate has remained unexplored. In this important work, John Snape seeks to reconcile these disparate strands of scholarship and to contribute to a new way of understanding and conceptualising the reform of the law relating to corporate taxation. Drawing on important developments in public law scholarship, the study combines elements of political theory and political economy. It advances a new interpretation of corporation tax law as an instrument of rule, through the maximisation of a nation's economic potential. Snape shows how corporate taxation belongs at the centre of any discussion of economic globalisation, not only because of the potential of national tax systems to influence inward investment decisions but also because of the potential of those decisions to shape the public interest that those tax systems might embody. Following public law and politics models, the book looks afresh at the impact of Britain's political institutions, of the processes of its representative government and of the theory that moulds and orders the values that the corporation tax code contains. This is a timely exploration of cutting-edge issues of public policy.

The period since the Global Financial Crisis and numerous scandals have exposed some areas of serious illegal and unethical conduct within western banking systems. Despite extensive reforms it is increasingly apparent however that there is a persistent problem with the 'culture' of banking in Anglo-America. US and UK state managers made substantial efforts to reform the culture of their banking sectors. However, this book argues that they focused on an extremely narrow definition of bank culture. They did so for two reasons: firstly, because the structural pressures of financialization - which are a far more important driver of the problematic features of bank culture in Anglo-America - are harder to remedy; but secondly, state managers also used their bank culture response to tackle a legitimacy crisis facing their institutions of government. In so doing they abdicated responsibility for the real problems - of inequality and instability - associated with their respective financial systems Drawing on interviews with more than 150 individuals working in financial services as well as regulators, politicians, and lawyers, The Bank Culture Debate explains the strategies employed by state managers before then examining what has and has not changed in the culture of banking in the US and UK.