---

Public Accounts

That was a worrying development. Civil servants have a very difficult job, but usually, whatever happens, and whatever mistakes are made, they keep their job. If something goes wrong, however, they know that they must appear before the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Johnson McNeil presided over one of the greatest failures of government and caused a lot of anguish to farmers. Our hearing, however, was delayed for the better part of a year while various sick notes were put in, phone calls were not returned and so on. Finally, he appeared, and in my view he was a perfectly adequate witness who gave his side of the story. Another message that we want to pass back to Whitehall is therefore that civil servants must realise, even if they are suspended from their post or have moved on to a different Department, that there is one place that they can be held to account on behalf of the public—in front of the Public Accounts Committee. Their superiors and the whole system must ensure that they turn up. An appearance in front of the Committee can be testing, but at the same time we try to be fair. We are not in any way party political, and we try to give praise where it is due, and to help the Government. This is not often heard from Opposition Members, but I and my fellow members of the Committee try our best not to be partisan. We try to help the Government, as best as we are able, to learn from best practice in whatever nook or cranny it can be found. By convention, the debate looks back at matters arising from the Committee's recent work. It also looks forward, however, as important lessons arise from our reports. We look to officials to apply those lessons and that experience to new challenges in whatever area of government they arise. The new challenges are many and varied. In the previous debate, in April, I think, I referred to the comprehensive spending review, which arrived earlier this month. What can we glean from it to guide the work of the Committee, given that this is the sort of tapestry on which we draw our work? Well, the squeeze is certainly on. If the aims are translated into action, the munificent Treasury will no longer be showering spending Departments with ever-increasing pots of gold. Everyone will have to raise their game to ensure that more limited increases in Government spending translate into better public services for all. Initiatives to cut waste, slash red tape and make better use of what we already have are essential if the whole edifice is not to crumble. The Government report that they are on track to realise their efficiency target of a massive £21.5 billion of savings by next March. That is really at the centre of the whole political debate—at the centre of the issue of whether political parties can deliver improving public services and lower taxation. The efficiency programme is the centrepiece of the Government's efforts to get more for less. The Treasury claimed that it had already achieved an annual £13.3 billion of efficiency savings, but I am afraid that, as we found in one of our recent reports, the claim does not stand up to close scrutiny. Our report cast doubt on the reliability of 74 per cent. of the savings claimed. It should be crystal clear whether or not any programme has achieved its goal. Efficiency gains must be real and demonstrable, and must be deliverable year after year. Remarkably, it was possible for claims to be calculated without account being taken of associated increases in costs elsewhere. Efficiency is not genuine if, as we have found in a number of cases, it has been achieved at the expense of the quality of service provided. Guarding against such—let us be generous—confusion is an important task for the Committee. I was therefore pleased to note the Government's announcement in the comprehensive spending review that there may be what we consider an important role for the National Audit Office in reviewing claimed savings on a Department-by-Department basis. That means an independent audit of what is now at the heart of political debate for all three political parties—indeed, for every political party: I see that parties other than the three major ones are represented here. If the scale of savings required is significant, the scale of projects that may cross the Committee's path in the near future is monumental. Let me list some of them. We are talking about £9 billion, already, for the Olympics; £19 billion to replace Trident; £12.5 billion for IT in the health service; at least £5.5 billion for identity cards; and £16 billion for Crossrail, which we debated earlier today and which is finally emerging from its elephantine gestation period. That is more than £60 billion in just one sentence, and I could go on and on. It looks like boom time for the contractors and consultants, but what lessons can be taken from the work of the Public Accounts Committee to ensure that it will not be the taxpayer who goes bust? We will have published nearly 70 reports by the time the Session ends, far more than any other Select Committee. I will spare the House the details of all of them. Sometimes in the past Chairmen have gone through the whole list, but I think that that is tedious, and there is no point in it. Instead, I shall focus on some of the essential verities that Government will need to grasp in response to the challenges that I have outlined. First, there is good project management. The Committee has seen a sorry succession of projects cursed by weak management and implementation. With some 100 mission-critical or high-risk IT-enabled programmes and projects, the risks are very high. Given the history of past failures, Government need structures and management processes that will secure greater success. When things go wrong, everyone pays the price. The implementation of the single farm payment scheme, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne), was inept, and my Committee said so. The timetable was near-impossible. The planning was poor. The testing of IT systems was incomplete. Responsibility was confused. Management information was scant. Above all, top managers failed to face up to the crisis, and, as we heard earlier, to answer for it. Farmers, many of them in my Lincolnshire constituency, were hit emotionally and financially, and the taxpayer had to confront a potential liability approaching £500 million. Let that fiasco be studied for years to come, and let the message be drummed home to senior civil servants: never again.