| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok) (Lab/Co-op): I shall start with a tribute to the Chairman, of whom I heard from one of my hon. Friends the high words of praise, "He is not nearly as bad as was expected." In my view, he is a judicious and tolerant Chair, and my only criticism is that my 10 minutes are never as long as those allowed to other hon. Members. It is worth mentioning that, to his eternal credit, the Chairman turned out for the parliamentary rugby team—we did not pass to him, but we were just getting our own back.
I also pay tribute to Sir John Bourn and the senior officers of the NAO who attend our Committee, as well as to the NAO staff who do not attend, but who undoubtedly perform valuable work in the background,
29 Jun 2004 : Column 246
and I also thank the Committee staff. Before I thank my parents, my schoolteachers and everyone whom I have ever met, burst into tears and accept my award, I shall mention the other members of the Committee.
It is valuable that many members of the Committee act as if they were self-employed by raising their interests in Committee, rather than being spoon-fed prepared questions, which happens in several other Select Committees. For example, the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) are invariably drawn from his constituency, which is invaluable because they illustrate how policies that we discuss in theory impact on real people in real situations.
The hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) spoke at length about IT projects, during which time I found myself losing the will to live—it is important that some members of the Committee take an interest in such things. I perked up when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned beer, but I understand that he used the word in a technical sense. In my view, hell will be a never-ending discussion about the gateway process for IT projects. I am pleased that the Committee includes anoraks; I am just glad that I am not one of them.
Before we get too pleased with ourselves, some points must be made about some of the senior officials who appear in front of us. It is true that many of them are extremely bright and able—I do not object to being patronised by my intellectual superiors, otherwise I would go through life in a state of perpetual irritation. Given the return of "Come Dancing", however, we should consider giving scores to some of the witnesses. When I refurbished my house, I used a leaflet from Pilkington Glass that lists various types of frosted glass according to an obscuration index. Some of the officials who come before us knowing that we have a limited amount of time deliberately attempt to lead us in the wrong direction and to obscure the points that we are trying to elucidate. On some occasions our mild-mannered Chairman should rebuke them more severely than he does. We also need a bullshit detector for some of the responses that we get from officials, not all of whom are as frank as they should be.
The final category should be the smugness score. Some officials are so pleased with themselves that if they were made of chocolate they would eat themselves, as we would say in Glasgow. I am tempted to name and shame them, but they are so conceited that I suspect that they would take it as a compliment.
It is not entirely a question of the culture in the civil service. Yesterday, we discussed complex and serious issues with officials from the Department for International Development. Their open and honest approach—they were frank, helpful and constructive—was in stark contrast to the way in which some other officials deal with such matters. Officials should be encouraged to prepare for our meetings in a way that allows them to be more helpful and constructive.
Most of the reports that we produce are fully acted upon. However, in the case of the report on the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel in relation to the sheep regime, the points that we made were not adequately accepted. That was a revelation in terms not only of the incompetence and dishonesty that
29 Jun 2004 : Column 247
was practised in that area of the budget, but of the stunning complacency of the Department's response. The report was a pretty damning indictment, yet in its responses it appeared to be unwilling to accept some of the criticism.
Conclusion 1 of the Committee's report states:
"It is of major concern that the level of discrepancies noted by the Department's inspectors, when accompanied on farm visits by the Audit Office, was many times higher than when they were not accompanied. It appears to us that, by turning a blind eye to irregularities during on-farm visits, some inspectors were complicit with farmers in claiming more money than they were properly due."
In its response, the Department said that it
"takes very seriously the view expressed by the Committee in relation to possible collusion . . . There is no evidence that collusion has taken place or that inspectors failed to follow agreed procedures . . . However it does recognise that inspectors had been provided with a considerable degree of discretion, in relation to the type of irregularities that can be reported during the inspection process."
That is a particularly mealy-mouthed way of admitting that errors were made.
The Department gives every indication of being in denial about the scale of the difficulties that we outlined. Our report rather modestly states:
"We were surprised to find that payments were being made for sheep that had apparently died".
The Department's response is inadequate. It says:
"From January 2004,"—
that is, some considerable time after not only the Committee's hearing, but the NAO's investigation—
"with the banning of on-farm burial, sight of fresh carcasses or appropriate documentation is now obligatory"
"penalties will be rigorously applied"
for future errors. We must continue to monitor that policy to ensure that it is applied in the appropriate circumstances.
"We find the circumstances surrounding the Department's 1998 decision to allow payments for sheep at unnotified locations extraordinary."
"contrary to EU rules, but the Department has no record of its decision, despite a senior official apparently travelling to Brussels to discuss the matter."
The Department's response was:
"The Department regrets that there is no record of the specific meeting in Brussels where the acceptability of the Department's interpretation of the EU requirements was confirmed."
The response continues the same vein. I can cite several more examples of similar evasive responses from the Department in Northern Ireland. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
Another part of the report states:
"The Department's failure to properly address the weaknesses in control, highlighted by the European Court of Auditors in 1994, was a serious error in judgement."
The Department responds by saying:
"The Department accepts that it should have been more diligent".
Well, that is good of it. I wonder whether anybody in the Northern Ireland civil service has been disciplined, sacked, transferred or rebuked. What does it show when a devastating report is produced but the relevant Department refuses to accept responsibility for its mistakes and is apparently in denial? That is unacceptable.
I could read out many similar examples, but I shall draw attention to only one more. Our conclusion 25 states:
"Our overall impression is that the Department has in the past been soft on fraud and this has contributed to unacceptably high levels of fraud within Northern Ireland agriculture."
The Department had the cheek to respond:
"The Department notes the views of the Committee and deeply regrets the impression created that it has in the past been soft on fraud. It would assure the Committee that this is not the case."
That is utterly incorrect. It is clear that the Department regrets being found out and that is unacceptable. It continues in its defence:
"In addition, the Department is working with its stakeholders, including farmer representative bodies, to promote high levels of probity".
If the police in Pollok met the national union of burglars to discuss the disappearance of articles from houses in the area, one would not necessarily expect a consensus. I am not convinced that farmers' representative bodies are entirely clean in the matters that we are discussing. It is difficult to believe, when the report identifies that in one specific area 58 per cent. of claims for foot and mouth were fraudulent or partly fraudulent, that some collusion with the overall farming body did not occur. In those circumstances, much more needs to be done.
I have tried not to stray from the list of items that is being discussed. However, I want to mention the National Audit Office's work on the report on health and safety in construction, which we shall debate later. Aileen Murphy and her staff were helpful and constructive in moving that forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made a point about comparing and contrasting. I welcome the fact that devolution allows us to make comparisons between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland and so on. I hope that we will do much more of that. There is scope for comparing and contrasting in a way that can serve only to drive up standards of public provision. However, we should make more international comparisons. Although we have had contacts with the French and the Germans and we shall make contacts with the Spanish, we should also compare and contrast some of our work, not least on European Union agriculture subsidies. I am sure that if there is rank fraud and corruption in EU agriculture subsidies in this country, we can learn lessons from efforts to combat such practices in other partner states.
I am glad to have been able to participate in the work of the Committee over the past few years. It has been one of the most useful and worthwhile things that I have done as a Member of Parliament, and I want to pay tribute not only to my colleagues on the Committee but to the Chairman for his inspiration and leadership of the Committee.
29 Jun 2004 : Column 249
6.30 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |