Duncan Smith 'must answer MPs on muddled Universal Credit'

31 Jan 14
There are key questions about the beleaguered Universal Credit programme that Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith must answer when he appears before MPs today, the Institute for Government said.

 By Richard Johnstone | 3 February 2014

There are key questions about the beleaguered Universal Credit programme that Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith must answer when he appears before MPs today, the Institute for Government said.

Ahead of Duncan Smith’s appearance before the work and pensions select committee, the think-tank said the project was classic example of an ‘accountability muddle’ in Whitehall.

The implementation of the scheme, which will merge six existing benefits, including Jobseeker’s Allowance, has been criticised by both the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee in recent months. In addition, the Department for Work and Pensions has already written off more than £40m of computing systems following problems.

Information is required on what the consequences of the PAC report were for officials in the department, the IfG said. This was a damning assessment of unclear management structures and responsibility, and it must be clear what sanctions followed.

‘[Clearly] the immediate responsibility for the oversight and management of Universal Credit lies squarely with the permanent secretary,’ it stated.

‘We still do not know who in government was responsible for considering the PAC report, and what consequences, if any, they deemed necessary as a result of its damning content.’

It is also unclear what procedures have been changed in the department to ensure past mistakes were not repeated, the institute stated.

‘Since the NAO report, the public has again heard assurances that issues have been resolved and the project is on track with a revised timetable.

‘How can both the parliament and public and have the confidence that they are being correctly informed, including that the writing down of information technology assets is being done in a way that ensures value for money?’

MPs on the committee were also urged to ask why no ministerial directions had been issued about the project.

The system of directions is intended to act as a way for permanent secretaries to formally state their objection about a project to a minister. If a permanent secretary believes a spending decision breaches any Treasury spending criteria – of regularity, propriety, value for money, and feasibility – they must ask, as accounting officer, for a written direction to continue from the secretary of state. The accounting officer then implements the decision, but it is the minister who bears responsibility for that use of public money.

However, in the case of Universal Credit, the IfG said no direction had been sought and it was not yet clear why this was the case.

Ahead of the hearing, the institute’s deputy director Julian McCrae said: ‘There is an accountability muddle at the heart of government, which currently works in nobody’s interests. The government is embarking on numerous major projects and reforms at substantial cost to the public purse.

‘This is why it is of the utmost importance we learn from mistakes and improve the system.’

Spacer

CIPFA logo

PF Jobsite logo

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top