House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Oct 1990

Column 1422

Road Research Laboratory and other bodies, we might have come to a firmer conclusion than we have reached so far.

There is a relationship between the cost of building a road and the cost of building including the premature repairs and traffic delays. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of our report, we point out one of the major problems :

"Quite apart from the misery, inconvenience and frustration caused to the travelling public by the need for largely unforeseen and unplanned remedial work, we are not satisfied that the Department have taken proper account of the true costs involved. Whilst premature maintenance costs need to be considered in the context of total construction costs, we believe that it is distorting the argument for the Department to suggest that the only alternative to their present course is to try to eliminate all risk of any remedial expenditure."

I do not argue with that. We say that when one builds a road one must take into account the cost of putting it right. I regret that I received the minute containing the Treasury's response only two days ago. We have examined these matters for a long time, yet it was brought to my attention only yesterday.

In yesterday's Daily Telegraph I noticed an adverse comment on the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I must say that I regretted that. We normally leave it to the Treasury Minister to respond and it is very rare that action is taken in advance of his response. The article shows that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Transport anticipated the Financial Secretary. It pointed out that

"the vast majority of roads do not give rise to unexpected problems."

That is obvious. It is not our task to look at things that go right. Our task is to see whether we can improve things that go wrong. I am sorry that it was a Treasury minute ; I could have understood if it had been a departmental notification. I have not had time to go into it as thoroughly as I would wish.

Paragraph 148 of the minute points out :

"traffic delay costs could be smaller when maintenance is premature since traffic flows will be lower Costs and delays inevitably arise from maintenance,"

If one talks about a "premature" repair, one implies that the repair should have come later. If I have a repair done to my washing machine within six months, presumably it means that I will not need to have it repaired later on. However, the point is, "Was the washing machine right at the beginning?" The question is, "Was the road right at the beginning?" If it was not, how much extra would it have cost to get it right? I am sorry that we had that item.

Even though the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said several things about the Public Accounts Committee with which I do not agree, I was pleased to note that the Treasury minute goes a long way towards meeting our objections. I welcome that. In paragraph 146 it says that the Department will

"introduce as soon as practicable an improved and computerised reporting system to cover all cases of defects and premature maintenance."

I welcome that. It is what we asked for and we have got it. Paragraph 147 says :

"The principle of whole-life' costing is being introduced in setting highway design and construction standards--this takes account of both forecast maintenance and traffic delay costs."

I welcome that.

Paragraph 151 says :

Column 1423

"The introduction of a five year rolling programme is assisting in these tasks. Assessment of the whole life cost of roads and bridges will also help to identify the cost implications of alternative timings for maintenance."

I welcome that.

Paragraph 155 says :

"Amendments to the Specifications for Highway Works are being introduced to secure improvements in the construction of concrete roads."

I welcome that.

Paragraph 162 says :

"The Department accepts the Committee's view that it must further seek to improve its effectiveness in managing this area of its business."

That refers to poor workmanship and sanctions to deal with it. The minute also states that the Department of Transport "has therefore appointed an independent consultant to carry out a wide-ranging review which will take into account the Committee's views and recommendations. The Department is also introducing new methods of selecting and appointing consultants who supervise its contracts."

We welcome that.

Perhaps the Under-Secretary is unaware of the role of the PAC. It displays a unanimity of view and it is trying hard to improve the quality of the administration of the Department. We are not sniping at it, but we are trying to seek definite improvements. I am pleased to note that the Treasury minute accepts that.

Some might argue that the improvements made were already in train and indeed a great many of our recommendations are accepted even before we put them. As soon as a Department knows that we are going to investigate, it carries out an investigation itself, which is extremely valuable. We do not try to score points about that ; we could, but that is not our job. If someone takes action before we report on the matters that we are likely to report on, we welcome that. We seek to encourage that. I hope that that practice will always prevail.

We all suffer greatly because of problems on our roads. On Sunday, when I came down the M6, I encountered four major roadworks, none of which was less than five miles long. Obviously, I am very aware of the importance of repairs.

The task of the Committee is to deal with the various reports produced. We get a great deal of pleasure from the fact that we are able to deal with them competently and adequately. I could mention one or two other reports at some length--for example, that on the Crown prosecution service concerning decisions to continue prosecutions which vary throughout the country. There was also a report on hospital buildings and some of the associated problems, with which I have dealt in part only, as well as a report on the control and management of the Metropolitan police estate. That is an important report, which demonstrates that estate management should be introduced, as it should be in many other areas of our activities. There were also reports on the National Seed Development Council and the failure to receive the proper sale proceeds.

It is important to mention the publicity services for Government Departments. I welcome the Treasury minute that dealt with that and I am pleased to note that the Treasury has accepted the view about dealing with such publicity to ensure that there should be clear objectivity by

Column 1424

Departments when preparing it. That important issue was clarified and the message has gone out to all Departments, which we welcome. Once again, I should like to thank my colleagues for bearing with me during the long evenings we spent together. I look forward to continuing our efforts on behalf of the taxpayer--that, after all, is our interest.

6.23 pm

Sir Michael Shaw (Scarborough) : As always on these occasions it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge, in common with the entire Committee, the tremendous work done by our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). Normally on these occasions we refer to one another as honourable friends to demonstrate the unanimity about which my right hon. Friend has rightly spoken.

At the outset, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that Opposition Members are all too briefly with us as they move onwards and upwards. What happens to those former members of the Public Accounts Committee who must be feeling the push from underneath? Will they recirculate and come back to us before long? We all work as a good team as we pick up on each other's points and we form an effective questioning force under what has always been the very capable and tactful leadership of our Chairman, for which we thank him.

It would be remiss of me not to recall the sad loss of the former Member for Eastbourne, Mr. Ian Gow. He was a wonderful member of our Committee. He had an extremely shrewd brain and although it was not always immediately apparent, he was very kind. Some of the ways in which he put even the most casual question, however, made an accounting officer give it serious consideration. I imagine even the lightest question from him was regarded by such an accounting officer as one of threatening importance. Alas, we shall have him with us no longer.

It is important to remember that the Committee has helped to bring about a number of significant changes in Government accounting and organisation. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has already mentiond internal auditing and non-executive directors and it is also important to remember the "next steps" agencies, the importance of value for money as well as targeting jobs and responsibilities within Departments. In all those areas the PAC, along with other Committees of the House--let us not forget them as well as the work undertaken by Government Departments and their attitude to our work, which has always been welcome--has made a significant contribution.

I first joined the PAC in about 1973. I did not stay long, but I came back in 1979 and I have been a member ever since. I have seen many changes in the way in which we conduct our proceedings. In the old days, the questioning was largely undertaken by the Chairman--we were lucky if we put a question in the entire two hours of the sitting. The reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General were fairly sparse and in no way comparable to the present ones that form the basis of our inquiries. Today the effect of the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and of our reports within Government circles is much greater than it was. Certainly the Comptroller and Auditor General does more preparation than in the past. The same can be said of the Committee members before we go to our meetings.

Column 1425

Although it is not for me to say, this might be the last time that I take part in these annual debates as I do not intend to stand at the next election. In that context, I hope that I am allowed to say that the standing and importance of the PAC has never been higher. I echo the thanks that our Chairman gave to the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. John Bourne, and his staff. Without their help and comprehensive, thorough reports, our work would be impossible. I welcome the opportunity that we now have to go along to the National Audit Office to discuss matters of particular importance when they arise. While we retain our independence, our work results in great benefit for all.

I have said in earlier debates that the greatly improved Comptroller and Auditor General reports that we now receive, the greater thoroughness of our questioning and presentation of reports and the fact that our proceedings are normally open to the public give greater impact to our work generally and to our reports in particular. Publicity concerning the various issues arises when our reports are published. That is an advantage over the old system, when our meetings were held in secret.

The matters that we discuss are important and must receive attention immediately. So as we deliberate subject by subject, the media deal with each item, instead of having to deal with an assortment of subjects arising in one day's debate. By that means we can have wider influence than used to be the case.

Looking back over the year, I select for comment two items, one of which was dealt with by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, that of Northern Ireland. I have always had much sympathy for those with responsibility in that area. The conditions under which they operate cannot be regarded as in any way normal. The physical unrest and deep sectarian divisions create problems beyond my experience. But, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, danger lies in the fact that we may cease to apply, in considering the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor- General for Northern Ireland, the same judgment as we apply to reports emanating from the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Whatever sympathy we may have, because of the problems of those working in Northern Ireland, we should do them a disservice if we failed to deal with the matters that they bring to us with the same critical eye as we give to other issues. We owe that duty not only to those who live and work there but to those who have invested, and others who hope to invest, large sums in Northern Ireland. Remember, the object is to try to make things work there as smoothly and normally as possible. That will happen only if we set the highest standards of inspection to the reports that come before us. Regrettably, some extremely sad reports come to us. Occasionally one tends to say, "Never mind, it is Northern Ireland." That is the wrong attitude to take. We must examine the issues and say, "Let us try to get things right." From the reports that have come to us from the Comptroller and Auditor- General and the witnesses who appear before us, it is clear that all concerned are trying to improve matters. I believe that it will not be long before we see improvements. That will be justification for the seriousness with which we tackle the issues.

Column 1426

One is bound to feel sad when considering the report on, say, roads and the system of stocktaking the stores scattered throughout Northern Ireland. It was clear that the system of stocktaking was inadequate. Happily, the notes that we are receiving, particularly following the cross-questioning of witnesses that I conducted, show that the stores are under much better control. The system generally has been much revised, with the internal auditor now seeing that reports go direct to the top man rather than to an intermediary. Because of more effective stock control, less stock is required. That is always a good sign. If stocks can be reduced, that is a sign that the business is being run more efficiently.

As I say, many of the reports are depressing. Particularly depressing was the report about the plant nursery, and I shall comment on only a few points about which I asked questions. Obviously, no system should be allowed to continue if nobody is taking stock and stocks are increasing year by year. That way lies disaster. Indeed, had the organisation been in private hands, disaster would have occurred more quickly. One must express worry when Mr. Murray, the auditor, said that it had never entered their heads that people were not taking stock. He described that as "a fundamental error." The mind boggles at the thought that an auditor did not check to see whether somebody was taking stock. We find such fundamental problems arising time and again.

I hope that I am not being optimistic when I say that, as a result of our inquiries, things are beginning to improve. Indeed, we must proceed on that hope, just as I hope that officials are proceeding on the conviction that we shall continue to make inquiries into their activities.

My second point about Northern Ireland concerns the land registry. Although a serious lapse has been evident, we can learn from it in other areas. The land registry was set up and the same fees charged for a long time. A witness said :

"Fees were not revised in the intervening years because it was mistakenly believed that the registry was operating at a surplus, when in fact it was not covering its costs."

Why was it not covering its costs? The answer to that question was terrifyingly frank. We were told, in effect, that there had just been a mistake, and they were all sorry about it. It is terrifying to think that those who filled in the accounts did not realise that they should have been adding sums for headquarters costs. That state of affairs continued for a long time.

I cross-questioned witnesses on that issue because, although it was a basic error, it covered a significantly wider sphere. If an agency is established --the land registry, although not an agency, was a type of agency--one must consider the fees and departmental expenses. That is where the wider sphere comes in. In this case, those making up the accounts were correct, except that they did not add a big sum for departmental expenses, remembering that those involved at headquarters were anxious, for obvious reasons, to spread their expenses over as many branches as possible. The differences were enormous. When we cross-questioned the witnesses about the expenses of headquarters that could be relied on as being part of the land registry, Mr. Murray said :

"In normal circumstances I would not spend much time overlooking the land registry".

His assistant, Mr. Mackenzie, said that he spent perhaps 5 per cent. of his time on the land registry. Look at it as we would, we could not see that the enormous difference in

Column 1427

the cost of overheads that had been missed out was justified by any facts concerning the services rendered by head office. I hope that that is now being examined more cautiously ; there is a formula, but I doubt that it is accurate.

The other report that I wish to mention is "The Next Steps Initiative". This is a first-class initiative, and I am greatly encouraged by the fact that it is being brought in carefully--at times slowly, perhaps, but that is better than rushing into it without getting it right ; big costs may be involved if we do not get it right.

The Public Accounts Committee said in paragraph 3(v) of its conclusions :

"We note that, consistent with the Government's priorities for Next Steps, the agencies established so far were set more demanding financial and operational targets accompanied by additional flexibilities on financial matters and staff and pay to enhance their ability to operate more efficiently We agree with the conclusion of the C & AG that, if continued, this early demonstrated commitment on the part of the parent and central departments to the thrust of the initiative augurs well for the success of Next Steps".

I entirely agree.

The example of the cross-questioning in the Northern Ireland report makes me wonder whether we are being careful enough to ensure that, in certain cases, we are not simply creating another department to be looked after by the Department itself. I put that question to the representative of the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service--what a mouthful that is--and asked him,

"to deal with the problem of what has been described as the people back in the departments syndrome. The responsibility still lies with the Minister for the agencies so far as Parliament is concerned. (Mr. Kemp) Yes, correct.

So he will want his civil servants to brief him on statements, on questions and anything relating to an agency.

(Mr. Kemp) That is right.

That means to say therefore that the Department back home will tend to formulate a staff that will double bank the agency so that they can get the information from the agency and use it and check and put forward to the Minister.

(Mr. Kemp) I hope very much not."

I hope not too. It has been admitted that there is an interface, but if it is not carefully guarded, that interface can grow and there can be additional expenses.

Talking of expenses, departments such as town halls have a lot of fixed expenses to meet. I have noticed that the more that they can feed them out to their various departments and agencies, the more they are prone to do so. That is why they do not like getting rid of them and turning them into private enterprise efforts : then they have fewer places in which to put their overheads. I trust that nothing of that sort would be allowed to happen in Departments of state.

I thank the Chairman of the Committee for all the work that he does, and for the enormous effort that he puts in. Above all, I thank my colleagues on the Committee for the way in which they try genuinely to examine the problems, rather than seeking to turn the process into a political fight. That is the essence of the Public Accounts Committee ; long may it continue.

6.44 pm

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : As a new boy on the Committee, I shall make an extremely brief contribution, although I should add in my defence--in case I wander into a slightly longer speech than some might wish--that mine is a renewed rather than a new

Column 1428

membership. I was a member of the Committee as far back as 1966, when--as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw)--things were somewhat different.

What is still enjoyable, however, as the hon. Member for Scarborough pointed out, is the "consensus" way--if I may use the "in" term--in which the Committee members approach the task of analysis. It is significant that this is the first time since I became a member that we have sat in "confrontational" postures to discuss our work. As a new Committee member, I already have my collection of yellow cards from our Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). However, let me say while I have his good will--for I see him smiling--that on one of his foreign tours he must have bought a Brussels watch : I think that it is operating on metricated minutes, which, as everyone knows, are far shorter than the imperial minutes on the watches of the other members of the Committee.

It is a matter of deep regret to all of us that our late friend and colleague Ian Gow is not able to take part in our discussions today. We all miss his charm, wit and friendliness, as well as the pungent relevance of what he had to say.

I am a living embodiment of the contention that all is onward and upward amongst Opposition members of the Committee. As an ex-industry Minister, I should have liked to take part in the discussions on Rover ; but, as I was not a member of the Committee at that stage, it would have been rather presumptuous of me. I shall therefore save my comments until--as I hope--we examine the matter again.

I shall confine myself to two issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the criticism that he felt was due to the University Grants Committee for allowing University college, Cardiff to get into the predicament in which it now finds itself. The fact that the Committee has had to focus on that has to some extent made life more difficult for the new administration, which is having to cope with difficulties that it did not create. Its operations are clouded by the £4.4 million of repayable grant that had to be taken to ease the college out of difficulties that should never have existed in the first place.

It is to the credit of the new administration that, in the last year, it made a surplus of £4.8 million before provision to its capital account, and anticipates a surplus of £4.5 million this year. There has been a remarkable turnaround since we had our chance to discuss the fortunes of the college. Indeed, I am delighted to hear from the principal that about 25 per cent. of the £4.4 million has already been repaid, and that within six months the debt will be less than £3 million.

As well as dealing with the administrative consequences of the tragic circumstances in which it found itself, the college is making a massive inroad into the financial problems that it was forced to inherit. It is doing so against the background of rapid expansion. It is spending--not over-optimistically--£20 million on expansion, new building and the introduction of local area network facilities for the newly emerged University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology and Cardiff university college and it shows all the signs of completely shaking off the clouds that it inherited from the previous administration.

Column 1429

One interesting point, which was raised when I had discussions with the principal, was that when the Universities Funding Council makes its projections--colleagues at the National Audit Office may like to consider this and discuss it with the UFC--such discretion is used that comparisons between universities may be invalid or difficult to sustain. The principal said that that applied to the way in which inflation and staff costs are treated for future projections. University authorities may use their discretion about the precise formula that they use. The principal said that Cardiff used the UFC's most pessimistic scenario for its projections. He demonstrated the scale of such differences by saying that a 1 per cent. difference when assessing the situation means a £1.5 million difference in staff costs over five years, and a £3 million difference in overall costs in the same period.

If further analysis and reports to the Committee are to be undertaken, I hope that the UFC will consider whether it can make projections more consistent.

As a Welshman I wish to mention a matter which is of some local inconvenience to the people of Wales, and to those who choose to visit us or to come to Wales on business trips--the problems of the Severn bridge, which are mentioned in the report on roads and bridges. It will be no surprise to hon. Members to hear a Welshman say that we regard it as a sad saga.

The Friday before last people had to queue for more than three hours to cross the bridge in a westerly direction. It is not merely a question of inconvenience and cost. It upsets lorry schedules and it affects commercial drivers, who have limits placed on the hours that they are allowed to drive. However, there are wider implications than boring inconvenience. What is most galling is that the situation is unnecessary, and that came out in the report. I shall mention later the Treasury minute based on the report, but the National Audit Office report states clearly that in 1961, at the last minute, just as construction work on the foundations of the bridge was about to start, the Department of Transport introduced a new design. It was novel, and it presented new technological problems.

The NAO also said that, having introduced the new design, the Department proceeded to ignore its guidelines, procedures and standards. The Department did not carry out the calculations that would usually have been expected for a bridge design. Sadly, eight years later the bridge was showing signs of corrosion and fatigue. I am sure that the Chairman of the Committee shares our bewilderment that, far from that being a source of hand-wringing in government, section 148 of the Treasury minute, to which I referred, states that, because corrosion was discovered early in the life of the bridge, it should have been a matter of great rejoicing. According to the Treasury, as there was less traffic crossing the bridge when the corrosion was first discovered, it was less of a problem than it would have been if it had been discovered later. The problem is that we have had to put up with it for the intervening 20 years, so I do not find the Treasury's argument very persuasive, and £17 million has had to be spent on the bridge.

The permanent secretary told us that much of the work done on the bridge was to strengthen it against wind

Column 1430

damage, damage from collision with a ship and to accommodate two and a half times the planned vehicle load.

As the National Audit Office report points out, 52.5 per cent. of that £17 million was used for remedial work and only a quarter was used for anything to do with strengthening or increasing the capacity of the bridge. Three quarters of the work that has had to be carried out on the bridge was remedial, and was due to what is described in the report as "design faults". So we are back where we started in 1961, when the Department of Transport at the last minute ignored standards, practices and procedures. The resultant design faults are still blighting the lives of motorists virtually 30 years on. A fascinating coincidence--not lost on the users of the bridge--is that when the toll was increased recently, according to the report, the increase was needed to raise £50 million to carry out the balance of the work needed on the bridge. Tolls were increased to raise less money than had been demanded to carry out the remedial work. In other words, if the bridge had not needed remedial work, the tolls would not have had to be increased. The bridge needed remedial work because of design faults and it had those faults because the Department did not do its job. I find those circumstances hard to reconcile with the statement made in the House by a transport Minister who said : "The work is designed to upgrade the bridge for the future ; it is not in any sense a reflection upon the quality of the original design of the bridge, which was built fully in accordance with the standards that then applied."--[ Official Report, 27 November 1989 ; Vol. 162, c. 543.]

One wonders who was briefing the poor man. I am sure that he would not have made that up, and I am sure that he would not readily have come to the House with a statement so contrary to the facts. No Minister wants to give the House information that he knows is blatantly incorrect.

As is revealed in the National Audit Office report, the people of Wales now face cost and inconvenience because a Ministry failed to do its job and to carry out its responsibilities in the way that everyone in Whitehall thought it was carrying them out.

The Treasury is hedging its bets in its response. Paragraph 158 states :

"The Department found no evidence that standard checking procedures were not fully complied with"--

which is rather different from saying that they were, which is what one might have hoped that the Treasury would say.

"It is difficult to be precise about events which happened over thirty years ago"

that is even more dubious, it raises even more question marks-- "but it was not necessarily practicable nor appropriate fully to apply standard procedures to an innovative design."

The NAO, therefore, has it all ways. There is no evidence that the Department did not carry out its normal procedures, though the Committee and the National Audit Office criticised it for not doing so. However, the Department virtually implies that the Treasury would have criticised it had it carried out the normal procedures because, it says, the normal procedures were not necessarily appropriate to the new design. Which posture is the Department adopting? Is it saying that it did carry out the normal procedures or that it did not and that the Treasury is glad that it failed to carry them out? We are left in the dark. All we know is that the motorist is still paying

Column 1431

for errors that need not and should not have arisen--errors which were the direct result of departmental incompetence, as demonstrated by the NAO report.

The House will understand the feeling of many people in Wales that they should not have to carry the cost of that incompetence and that it ought to be borne by the Department that imposed those errors upon them.

7 pm

Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South) : I, too, pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of our Committee. I have been a Committee member for 11 years. During that time there have been two Chairmen, both of them Opposition Members who have brought a penetrating mind to that job. If this is to be the last public accounts debate for my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) though I personally doubt it--I should like to say to him that his acumen, too, has been of an extremely high order.

Two qualified accountants sit on the Public Accounts Committee. However intuitive and good the rest of us may be, it is important that colleagues with up-to-date experience of the latest accounting practices should sit on the Committee. My hon. Friend is not the youngest member of the Committee, so it is a great tribute to him when I say that he is very much up to date with what is happening and that it shows in his questioning of witnesses.

I ask the House to reflect on the Public Accounts Committee's role in the years ahead. Its role may change, as may the nature of this debate. The PAC is the watchdog of the legislature and the Administration. The Committee carries out its investigations after the event ; it does not challenge the policies of the Government of the day. It accepts policy objectives and examines what has happened. That is a strong starting point. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, the Committee is greatly supported by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the staff of the National Audit Office. About 1,000 people, most of them highly qualified, are beavering away. In their green reports they produce material that, on the whole, is of a high standard. I hope that they will not mind me saying "on the whole". There have been instances when the reports have veered into policy areas and when they have gone too far towards producing policy proposals. As a person who has a modest area of woodland, I have to declare an interest when I say that when I look back at the forestry report and see the present level of planting it is obvious to me that it has been unduly influenced by some of the activities in north-east Scotland.

I am concerned about the nature of what I call the green reports--the National Audit Office reports--in the sense that they are, quite incorrectly, seen by the media as the work of the Public Accounts Committee. That is unfortunate. It is not clear to the public that the Public Accounts Committee still has to look at those reports and decide whether it agrees with them. We shall have to overcome that difficulty.

My Committee colleagues know that I have strong feelings about the presentation of our reports. The format of our reports has changed a great deal while I have been a member of the Committee. When we visited the United States about eight years ago I was impressed by the fact

Column 1432

that there the conclusions are brought to the front of reports. A little persistence has resulted in the Committee's conclusions now being printed at the front of its reports.

Moreover, it seemed to me to be illogical that one had to be a ferret of considerable ability to find the Treasury's response to the Committee's conclusions. I refer to the Treasury minutes. I am delighted that the Committee's recommendations are now listed in the Treasury minutes and that the answers are given there. I thank the Treasury Bench for having achieved that change.

The Committee can still learn from what happens overseas. When they look at the front of any of the Committee's reports, the public can be forgiven for wondering what they are all about. I refer, for example, to the Committee's first report on financial problems at universities. I believe that there would be merit in the Committee doing what our cousins across the water do ; it should highlight the three key points on the front cover.

There is no doubt that our work is successful with the civil service, but I do not know whether it is entirely successful with the Government of the day or the House. Part of the problem, I believe, is that we still conduct too many inquiries. There is little merit in a plethora of inquiries ; the Committee would do better to conduct in depth fewer inquiries.

Ever since I became a member of the Public Accounts Committee I have taken a great interest in the national health service. I can almost reel off the number of NHS reports that the Committee has published. If, however, I did not have the most marvellous filing system in the East Cloisters, I should be unable to delve into the Committee's inquiries six, seven or eight years ago. One of the challenges for the Committee is to collate that great bank of knowledge and recommendations, some of which will become highly relevant as changes occur. At the moment the Committee depends entirely on the accounting officer's memory. The usual answer is that he was not in post at the time, so he cannot help. We are unable, therefore, to rely on the Department. Moreover, the memory of those in the National Audit Office is not quite as long as the memory of Committee members. The challenge that we must face up to in the months and years ahead is to effect a link between the present and what happened six, seven or eight years ago.

The same point could be made about privatisation. The Committee has considered privatisation and the disposal of Government assets in many of its reports. We must pool together all the lessons that we have learnt from those reports.

I believe, too, that the scope of the Committee's considerations needs to be reappraised. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough referred to Government agency agreements. There is little doubt that the Committee will have to consider closely the relationship between a Government agency, the Department and the expenditure of public money. My hon. Friend mentioned overheads. The whole structure will have to be looked at closely.

As we come to the end of the era of privatisation--there is not much left to privatise--there will be public sector bodies which are not agencies or normal Departments but which still have public money in them. When we passed the National Audit Act 1983, nationalised industries were kept outside, mainly due to the chairmen of those industries. The time will come in the near future when we should reassess our scope in that area.

Next Section

Home Page