Proceeding contribution from Ian Davidson (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 12 March 2009. It occurred during Debate on Public Accounts.
Public Accounts
Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been canvassing, and sometimes it is difficult to know whether people are a "don't know" or a "won't say". Sometimes, when they do not tell us something, we do not know whether they do not know it or just refuse to tell. It is cause for concern when those at the Treasury tell us that they will tell us, and then refuse to tell us. They have generally been more open with us on these matters. Having made the point, however, I have no desire to make too much of it I suspect that I shall return to it only three or four more times during my speech. Leaving aside the question of the Treasury's not replying to a question to which it swore that it would reply, I want to raise a number of other points. I remember receiving an astonishing response relating to the shared services centre being set up by the Department for Transport for the Department and its agencies. At the time when we investigated the matter, the establishment of the centre, which had originally been going to save us £57 million, was going to cost us £81 million. The Department told us that it would not actually cost us that amount, because it would take action to reduce the figure. No one was dismissed as a result; I believe that people moved on. The point has already been made about careers possibly being slightly blighted, but there was not the degree of accountability to which others have referred. Another issue that interested me was the NHS pay modernisation scheme, when GPs' mouths were stuffed with gold. As the debate proceeded, what was increasingly noticeable was the contrast between the extent to which partners in general practices had hoovered up as much of the available money as they thought they could possibly get away with, and the amount that they were giving to their staff. If I remember correctly, the salaried GPs received 3 per cent. increases over a period of two years—although it may have been one—while some nurses' salaries actually fell. As far as I know, those facts were not picked up anywhere else in the system. In the light of those examples, I have some sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) about the need to hold the Government to account. However, some of his statements have led me to conclude that he is a true zealot when it comes to open markets. I see that he takes that as a compliment, but I have not finished my point yet. He confessed that he would be perfectly happy to see shipyard orders going abroad and believed that all British defence orders should be opened up to international competition, notwithstanding the impact that that would have on jobs in the United Kingdom. His clear expression of that view gives us some understanding of why he speaks from the Back Benches rather than the Front Bench. I am quite sure that it is not the view that will be expressed shortly by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), although I will happily give way to him if he wishes to assure us otherwise. Answer came there none.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 489 c505-6
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Accountability Audit Cost effectiveness Civil service Government departments Public expenditure National Audit Office Standards Committee of Public Accounts
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:15:30 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537725
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537725
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537725