---

Public Accounts

I was going to restrict myself from that particular area. I do not take the view that attitudes to the royal household are a party political matter. While this is an immensely valuable opportunity for us to raise those matters of value for money—those who have been paying attention may have identified my views—I do not see the issue as central. This is just a bonus; it is like shooting fish in a barrel, like so many of the things that we do. Coming back to the question of managing to give criticism where it is due without lapsing into partisan disputes, the Committee has, on balance, handled that very well. In particular, I pay tribute to Opposition Members, who could easily lapse into making that mistake, and to the Chairman, who has in general managed to avoid that difficulty. However, we face genuine problems in how we present criticisms of the Government and the language that we use. Many of our arguments about how Government procurements or decisions have been progressed are quite complicated and in many ways quite dull. They do not provide a soundbite or a snippet, whether for the "Today" programme or something else. There is always a balance to be struck between being inflammatory to attract attention—if people do not do that, they do not get any coverage—and being worthy and boring, and therefore not achieving very much. I am not sure that we have always got that right. We need to continue to bear that in mind. As well as examining the 27 million reports that we receive every week, the PAC gives us the opportunity to cover some other issues. One of my favourites has been referred to, and I am glad that it is a growing interest of some other Members, who obviously spot a dripping roast when they see one. I have also been particularly interested in the social origins of senior members of the civil service and other Government Departments. We all welcomed the information from the Ministry of Defence that the Army has the worst record in this regard, with about 90 per cent. of top generals coming from that narrow band of educational experience—public school, and mostly Oxbridge as well, if I remember correctly. Clearly, they do not reflect the society that they seek to defend. I have been pursuing that, and I want to make a couple of points. The great success of the Jobcentre Plus office network roll-out has been mentioned. I do not have the date of the Committee hearing in front of me, but I asked:""Can you give us a note about your top 20 staff, giving an indication of how many of them were in either public school or Oxbridge or both in order that we can compare it with other departments from whom we have had information?"" The response came back:""I have interpreted my Top 20 as my senior team at Director level…and my Customer Service Directors…who are responsible for operational delivery and the customer experience—a total of 23. Of these 23, only one was educated at Oxbridge."" Then she says that, none the less, he is okay; I am prepared to concede that on rare occasions that may well be the case. The point has been made that people who have come through a service have a much greater knowledge of it, and because they will be there for some time, are more likely to have a commitment to its ongoing success. However, I also remember asking the permanent secretary to the Treasury the same question:""May I ask how many of the top 20 officials in the Treasury are drawn from the same background as you of public school and Oxbridge?"" I also asked for a note. I got a note back, which is appended at the back of the document:""The Treasury does not routinely hold this information for individual members of staff. Disclosure of this information is a matter for the individual concerned."" That raises two issues, which the Minister ought to take on board. First, why does the Treasury not produce such information when other Departments have been perfectly prepared to produce it? It seems to me that if the Treasury declines to produce the information, it must feel that it has something to hide. Secondly, there is an issue about a permanent secretary giving a commitment to the Chairman of the Committee, and to its members, and not carrying it through. He said in the first line of his reply to my question:""I am very happy to give you the information."" When a permanent secretary says that in front of us, we not unreasonably expect to receive the information. It does not seem acceptable to get a reply in writing that says:""The Treasury does not routinely hold this information for individual members of staff. Disclosure of this information is a matter for the individual concerned."" I hope that that matter will be taken up and pursued.