---

Public Accounts

I am sure that that will be borne in mind when we are looking at the use of shared services. When considering how we can improve procurement, a one-size-fits-all process does not work. In discussions with one of the officials taking over procurement, it was made clear to me that, when looking at outside procurement, one sometimes has to take into account local factors that can deliver better value for money, rather than just look at the matter across the piece. That is certainly something that I take very seriously. We know that some 90 per cent. of Committee recommendations are accepted by Departments. That shows that the process of investigation by the National Audit Office, Committee hearings and Committee reports is useful. Departments improve as a direct result of the investigative process: for example, in its 13th report, the Committee acknowledged that the Department for Work and Pensions’ handling of customer complaints’ had significantly improved since the 2005 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Many reports are critical, but what is good about the Committee is that, even in a critical report, it gives credit where credit is due. It was therefore helpful that in its 18th report, which a couple of hon. Members have mentioned, the Committee acknowledged that the Commonwealth Development Corporation had performed well, outperforming the market while investing in poor countries, since the Department for International Development restructured it in 2004. The Committee acknowledged also that, since taking over from the Strategic Rail Authority, the Department for Transport had, in letting rail franchises, delivered to planned time scales and protected taxpayer interests. The Government’s perspective on accountability has inevitably been coloured by recent events in Parliament and elsewhere, and those have placed increased emphasis on the need for public accountability from all public institutions and public servants. There is a greater awareness of the value of transparency in underpinning confidence in the use of powers under which public authorities operate. It has rapidly become essential to justify the trust placed in public organisations that use public resources of all kinds. A real public interest is at stake, too. Some people, in Parliament and elsewhere, perceive genuine value in demonstrating that public powers are used as they are intended. The Government, and other public authorities with which they work, can gain stature and public support only if they show themselves willing to account for their stewardship honestly and responsibly. We are all now even more conscious of the need for probity in the use of public funds. Trustworthy public audit is the best way to make people confident, all-round, that the right standards are being achieved and maintained. The NAO’s role is unique in providing that assurance, and that is why it is important that the Comptroller and Auditor General be able to audit central Government bodies. The CAG’s sphere of influence has grown over the years, and it has recently been extended to a number of central Government companies. When new central Government bodies are set up, the Government now expect the CAG to become their external auditor. If the CAG does not, there must be a good reason why. I am pleased to say that the Treasury has been at the forefront of such moves, ensuring, for example, that United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd, the company that was set up to manage the Government’s shareholding in banks, is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.