Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee

Fortieth Report - COVID employment support schemes

Public Accounts Committee HC 810 Published 8 March 2023
Report Status
Government responded
Conclusions & Recommendations
26 items (14 recs)
Government Response
AI assessment · 23 of 26 classified
Accepted 13
Acknowledged 5
Not Addressed 2
Rejected 3
Filter by: Clear

Recommendations

1 result
6 Not Addressed

The Departments have yet to fully capture the lessons that must be learnt from the...

Recommendation
The Departments have yet to fully capture the lessons that must be learnt from the employment support schemes to inform future large-scale government financial interventions. We have stressed throughout our work examining the COVID-19 pandemic the vital importance of government … Read more
Government Response Summary
The government response is completely unrelated to the recommendation, and instead discusses DVLA driving license backlogs.
HM Treasury
View Details →

Conclusions (4)

Observations and findings
7 Conclusion Not Addressed
We also asked the Departments whether the evaluations would cover the schemes’ effects on groups who were not eligible and groups that were supported, including those on furlough who took a second job.10 The Departments committed to looking at whether the evaluations could cover the groups of people not eligible …
Government Response Summary
The government response is completely unrelated to the conclusion, and instead discusses cancer waiting times and NHS funding.
View Details →
14 Conclusion
In July 2022, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) estimated that £4.5 billion had been paid to claimants as a result of error and fraud within the two schemes. It told us that this remained its best estimate of the extent of error and fraud within the two schemes.21 In July …
View Details →
15 Conclusion
As part of our initial inquiry into fraud and error across COVID-19 support schemes in June 2021, we concluded that departments did not make enough use of counter fraud expertise when designing new initiatives to ensure they minimise losses to the taxpayers, and that gaps in information sharing was hindering …
View Details →
16 Conclusion
We also received written evidence from the Chartered Institute of Taxation. It told us the SEISS application process was likely to have contributed to ineligible claims. It said that, because taxpayers rather than agents had to apply for SEISS, HMRC made the application process simple and straight forward, but in …
View Details →