Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 19
19
Not Addressed
In its written evidence, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) drew...
Conclusion
In its written evidence, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) drew attention to the Department’s response to our previous report on the BEIS Annual Report and Accounts.38 The ICAEW told us that the Department’s response did not acknowledge its overall responsibility, and that of the Accounting Officer in particular, on fraud recovery linked to Covid schemes.39 We asked the Department to reply to this point, which echoed Treasury guidance. Referring to Bounce Back Loans, the Department told us that it set out responsibilities of commercial lenders from initial checks through to recovery processes at the time the scheme was launched. It also told us that it saw the Department’s role as one which enabled, supported and challenged the banks.40 Completeness of Companies Register
Government Response Summary
The government agrees with the committee's point but does not explicitly acknowledge overall responsibility for fraud recovery linked to Covid schemes, instead detailing existing accountability structures via designated Accounting Officers and Senior Responsible Officers. It is considering how best to manage future relationships and assurance following recent machinery of government changes.
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
5.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented 5.2 Public bodies have a pivotal role in the delivery of departmental policy objectives. DBT has 19 bodies in its more immediate delivery chain which carry out a wide range of functions on behalf of government. This includes the delivery of public services, provision of independent advice, as well as the regulation of different sectors. Whilst the sources of income vary for different bodies, they are all equally bound by the duty to assure Parliament and the public of high standards of probity in the management of public funds. 5.3 To support them in doing this, the Principal Accounting Officer for DBT has designated the Chief Executives of these bodies as Accounting Officers; responsible for ensuring that their organisation has robust governance, decision-making and financial management arrangements in place. Crucially, Accounting Officers must scrutinise significant policy proposals and plans for major projects to ensure that spend meets the high standards of regularity, propriety, value for money, and feasibility. 5.4 Meaningful oversight by DBT is exercised through a comprehensive and robust framework of engagement. The sponsorship arrangements form a key part of this, and DBT applies the Cabinet Office Sponsorship Code of Good Practice to ensure that rigorous expectations and standards are being met in respect of relationship management, the setting of strategy and objectives, outcome assurance, financial oversight, and governance and accountability. Bodies are also subject to reviews as part of the Arm’s Length Body Review Programme - the objectives of which aim to ensure that bodies remain accountable, and operate efficiently, effectively, aligned with the government’s priorities. Ultimately, reviews provide a mechanism for ensuring that bodies deliver outstanding public services and value for money for the taxpayer. 5.5 Following the machinery of government (MOG) changes in February 2023, DBT is considering how best to manage its future relationship with public bodies and the type of assurance arrangements that should be established to monitor risk and performance. 5.6 Beyond that each scheme or support programme delivered via third parties is overseen by a departmental Senior Responsible Officer. It is their role to ensure effective oversight of all aspects of delivery and to protect public money. DBT is considering how best to ensure consistency of such delivery following the MOG changes.