This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/7784868.stm

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Efficiency drive 'to cost £81m' Transport Dept plan 'incompetent'
(30 minutes later)
A government efficiency drive designed to save £57m has left taxpayers with an £81m bill, a report by MPs has claimed. A "stupendously incompetent" government efficiency drive designed to save £57m has left taxpayers with an £81m bill, a report by MPs says.
The Department for Transport scheme aimed to cut administration costs by basing payroll, finance and personnel services all on one site in Swansea.The Department for Transport scheme aimed to cut administration costs by basing payroll, finance and personnel services all on one site in Swansea.
But the Commons public accounts committee report says it was late to start, is still not fully introduced, and is set to make losses. But the public accounts committee said it had started late, had not been fully introduced and was set to make losses.
The Whitehall watchdog condemned the scheme as "stupendously incompetent". The computer system had even issued messages in German, the MPs added.
Edward Leigh, the committee's Conservative chairman, said it was one of the worst cases of "project management" the committee had ever seen.Edward Leigh, the committee's Conservative chairman, said it was one of the worst cases of "project management" the committee had ever seen.
He said the computer system was distrusted by staff and had at times issued messages in German. In some cases the service is worse than that previously provided Edward Leigh, Commons Public Accounts Committee chairman In some cases the service is worse than that previously provided Edward Leigh, Commons Public Accounts Committee chairman
"The department knew that it was pushing things with such a tight timetable but, without robust challenge to such a risky strategy, ploughed on confidently," said Mr Leigh. "The department knew that it was pushing things with such a tight timetable but, without robust challenge to such a risky strategy, ploughed on confidently," he added.
"The result was lamentable. The underlying computer system was inadequately procured and tested, resulting in an unstable set-up when it was switched on," he added."The result was lamentable. The underlying computer system was inadequately procured and tested, resulting in an unstable set-up when it was switched on," he added.
The programme was supposed to be in place by April this year, but currently only two of the department's seven agencies were using the new system, he said.The programme was supposed to be in place by April this year, but currently only two of the department's seven agencies were using the new system, he said.
"In some cases the service is worse than that previously provided," he said."In some cases the service is worse than that previously provided," he said.
'No dismissals''No dismissals'
In its report, the committee said: "Despite the extent of mismanagement in this case, no individuals have been dismissed or properly held to account."In its report, the committee said: "Despite the extent of mismanagement in this case, no individuals have been dismissed or properly held to account."
Mr Leigh called on the department to work to deliver a functioning, trustworthy and beneficial system.Mr Leigh called on the department to work to deliver a functioning, trustworthy and beneficial system.
The shared services centre in Swansea was originally forecast to cost £55m and lead to £112m of savings - a benefit of £57m.The shared services centre in Swansea was originally forecast to cost £55m and lead to £112m of savings - a benefit of £57m.
But the department now estimates the programme will cost £121m and save £40m, meaning taxpayers will have to make up the £81m difference.But the department now estimates the programme will cost £121m and save £40m, meaning taxpayers will have to make up the £81m difference.