---

Public Accounts

It is my privilege to speak on behalf of the Government. I follow in the impressive footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, who was clearly respected by all parties and was highly effective in his role. I do not know whether hon. Members noticed, but he could not keep himself away from our proceedings this evening and popped in to listen to the initial remarks of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Old habits, with him at least, die hard. Hon. Members who have checked my record of service in the House will know that I have served twice on the Public Accounts Committee: once in opposition and once as a Government Back Bencher. It is a great privilege, therefore, to find myself once more a member of the oldest and, I believe, most prestigious of Committees. The Public Accounts Committee has the crucial task of overseeing how more than £500 billion a year of public money is spent. The accounting officers' equally crucial role is to appear before the Committee to answer in public for how the organisations that they manage have discharged their duties, ensuring that taxpayers' money is spent efficiently and effectively, and that value for money is achieved. As the Committee's Chairman pointed out, some reports highlight successes and other highlight failures, but I believe that there are lessons to learn from all of them. As the Public Accounts Committee and the Government alike seek to improve public services, I am keen to ensure that the Government make the most of the opportunities that Public Accounts Committee hearings provide to reflect and to learn lessons. The success of the Public Accounts Committee's scrutiny owes a lot to the strong commitment within Parliament to its work, supported by the expertise of the National Audit Office and complemented by the significant investment of time that witnesses put in. It is in all our interests to ensure that the process is fully effective. I should like to offer my support by ensuring that my officials follow up and implement as far as possible the Committee's recommendations, and that we share what we have learned widely within the Government. The work of the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office—as independent, well-resourced bodies—ensures effective scrutiny and deepens democracy and accountability. I should like to thank both organisations for the work that they do. The NAO produces an impressive number of high quality reports on a broad range of subjects, and its remit has been made broader in recent times. Before I discuss general Government initiatives that might be of interest to the PAC, however, I will endeavour to address some of the contributions made in this absorbing debate. I must gently take issue with the Chairman's scepticism of the Government's record on efficiency savings. The 48th report developed a traffic light system whereby it categorised 26 per cent. of the £13.3 billion of efficiency savings as totally accurate, 51 per cent. as representing efficiency but carrying some measurement and uncertainty issues, and 23 per cent. as representing savings that were perhaps not really verifiable in a coherent manner. Only by putting the whole of the 51 per cent.—what I would call the amber area—into the red category can doubt be cast on 74 per cent. of the total, as the headline of the report does. The report acknowledges the difficulty of measuring with total accuracy projects that are not stand-alone initiatives. Indeed, it admits that some areas of programme efficiencies achieved might actually have been understated owing to weaknesses in departmental data systems and complex relations between inputs and outputs. Furthermore, the NAO report declares:"““Projects across the programme are making significant improvements in the efficiency of public services.””" I look forward to working with the Committee on improving our data and measurement systems, but we should also give credit where credit is due as the largest and most complex efficiency programme ever undertaken in government proceeds. The hon. Member for Gainsborough also mentioned the NHS information technology programme. The programme has moved on a long way since the NAO produced its report and the PAC took its evidence. Without the programme, the NHS could no longer function, and it is already providing essential services and significant benefits to tens of thousands of clinicians and millions of patients. It is therefore a success story that ought to be acknowledged. For example, more than 5.5 million appointments have now been made using the choose and book system, representing 44 per cent. of first referrals. In addition, 397 million diagnostic images are now stored centrally, and 42 million electronic prescriptions have been used in a service that is now available in 41 per cent. of pharmacies and 47 per cent. of GP surgeries. Nearly 400,000 users are registered to use the NHS care records spine, with 45,000 NHS staff accessing it daily. National leadership has been strengthened by the appointment of a chief clinical officer and national clinical leads, and the programme proceeds. The hon. Gentleman made a point about primary care trusts, and I acknowledge that providing out-of-hours services has cost the trusts more than the Government anticipated. However, with improved commissioning, there is significant scope for reducing those costs in the future. In fact, the NAO report on out-of-hours services confirmed that we were on the right track to provide quality, round-the-clock out-of-hours services, and recognised that patients' experiences of the services were generally positive. Eight out of 10 patients were satisfied with the services, and six out of 10 rated them as excellent or good. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) mentioned two issues that he has mentioned before, as I have seen from reading some of the previous debates on PAC reports. I noted with interest that my advice to share with him bore remarkable similarity to advice that previous Ministers had been given on these occasions. On the issue of child obesity, and the question of whether the results of the national child measurement programme should be shared with parents, I know that the relevant Department is exploring and weighing all the options. My right hon. Friend will be aware that parents are being encouraged to inquire about the results, should they wish to do so, including through the provision of tear-off slips on the forms that they need to sign to give permission for the programme to proceed. On whether the BBC should fall within the auspices of the National Audit Office for accounting purposes, the Government's view is that the matter was decided as part of the charter review. The consultation that went along with that review demonstrated that the public did not want any increased power over the BBC to be given to either Parliament or the Government. Let me assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West and Opposition Members that the NAO works very closely with the BBC Trust, and the BBC audit committee has close discussions to frame a programme of reviews, which it then undertakes. Members of the PAC then make it their duty to call the BBC to account. The reports are presented to Parliament in full and are looked at closely by the PAC.