Excess Votes 2006-07 : Seventh report of session 2007-08, report, together with formal Minutes

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.

The Department of Health (the 'Department') and the NHS achieved a surplus of £515 million in 2006-07, representing 0.6 per cent of total available resources. This followed two years of rising deficits, and the Department, working with the NHS, has done well in restoring overall financial balance. While the national picture is one of financial surplus there remain variations in financial performance. The surplus is concentrated in Strategic Health Authorities, whilst overall Primary Care Trusts and NHS Trusts remain in deficit Of the 372 NHS organisations, 82 recorded a deficit of £917 million, with 80 per cent of this being reported by just 10 per cent of NHS organisations. There are also regional variations, with the East of England Strategic Health Authority area having a deficit of £153 million and the North West achieving a £189 million surplus. Financial recovery is therefore inconsistent and more needs to be done so that all parts of the NHS achieve financial balance. The Committee concludes that the return to financial balance is the result of the Department's tighter performance management of NHS finances in the way funding flowed through the NHS together with a programme of support for local organisations with particular financial difficulties. In the short term, this largely centralist approach was appropriate. For the future if the NHS is to remain in financial balance more health organisations locally need to improve their financial management. Failure to keep a tight grip on financial performance will undermine health care for patients.

This report analyses the Annual Report and Accounts 2006-07 of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) (published as HC 697, session 2006-07, ISBN 9780102946369). The MoD's assessment of its expected achievements against its six Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets, which run until the end of March 2008, has deteriorated since the previous year's Annual Report and Accounts. At the end of 2007, the MoD did not expect to meet the target relating to generating forces and expects "only partly" to meet targets relating to recruitment and retention, and defence equipment procurement. The failure to meet the target for generating forces is a consequence of the continuing high levels of deployment of the Armed Forces. The Committee is concerned that the Armed Forces have been operating at or above the level of concurrent operations they are resourced and structured to deliver for seven of the last eight years, and for every year since 2002. Achieving manning balance in all three Service continues to be a challenge. Shortages remain within many specialist trades in all three Armed Services, but especially in the Army Medical Service. The report notes the failure to meet harmony guidelines in the Army and the Royal Air Force - another indicator of the pressure on the Armed Forces from the continuing high level of operations - and another target missed by all three services is for ethnic minority recruitment. The MoD continues to experience substantial forecast cost increases on equipment programmes, and the report notes delays in delivering equipment programmes to the planned in-service dates. The MoD faces difficult choices in the face of expected cuts in the defence programme and the management of a streamlining exercise to reduce civilian posts in the headquarters.

Contents: (1) Intro.; (2) Competing Approaches: Direct Popular Election v. Electoral College Reform; (3) Direct Popular Election: Pro and Con; (4) Electoral College Reform: Pro and Con; (5) Electoral College Amendments Proposed in the 111th Congress; (6) Contemporary Activity in the States; (7) 2004: Colorado Amendment 36; (8) 2007-2008: The Presidential Reform Act (California Counts); (9) 2006-Present: National Popular Vote -- Direct Popular Election Through an Interstate Compact; Origins; The Plan; National Popular Vote, Inc.; Action in the State Legislatures; States That Have Approved NPV; National Popular Vote; (10) Prospects for Change -- An Analysis; (11) State Action -- A Viable Reform Alternative?; (12) Concluding Observations.

Budget support is aid provided directly to a partner government's central exchequer, and aims to reduce poverty through helping to fund the poverty reduction strategy of the beneficiary country. DFID's use of budget support has risen to £461 million, representing nearly twenty per cent of bilateral expenditure. Budget support has been designed to improve aid effectiveness by reinforcing developing country policies and systems, and reducing transaction costs. Despite having provided budget support in some countries for many years, however, the Department has not established whether it is in practice cost-effective. DFID's main criterion for providing budget support is that benefits must outweigh the risks, a judgement which is assessed subjectively by country teams. DFID assesses weaknesses in financial systems but rarely estimates the associated risks of corruption or waste of UK funds. DFID's monitoring has basic weaknesses in specifying suitable indicators and tracking progress against objectives. Bodies such as Parliaments, State Audit Offices and civil society organisations can provide effective challenge to governments and ensure that the poor benefit from budget support funding. DFID has not historically paid sufficient attention to strengthening domestic accountability. DFID also has a responsibility to UK stakeholders to demonstrate that funds have been spent effectively.

In 2007-08, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (the Department) received £3,617 million from the Treasury. The Accounting Officer is expected to manage these resources efficiently and effectively to deliver a range of services and operations within the funding provided by Parliament. The Department failed to allocate final budgets to each of its business areas until five months into the 2007-08 financial year because: (a) planned expenditure was in excess of funds provided; (b) budget holders did not declare all financial commitments from the outset; and (c) the costs of unforeseen floods and the outbreaks of animal disease had to be managed. A similar situation had arisen in 2006-07 when the Department had to make mid-year budget reductions of £170 million to avoid the risk of overspending. The late notification of the reductions had an adverse impact on performance. In part the problems arise from the difficulties faced in sponsoring 31 delivery bodies, each with its own administrative functions and with different approaches to setting budgets and monitoring progress. Obtaining timely and realistic financial reports from delivery bodies was also difficult. A lack of awareness amongst the Department's Board Members of good financial management practice, together with cultural issues which did not prioritise financial management at a corporate level, added to the challenges. The Department's Management Board has since put in place more rigorous financial and outcome monitoring systems. Having agreed budgets for 2008-09 that accord with the Department's allocation from the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007, the problems of 2006-07 and 2007-08 are not expected to recur in 2008-09.