By David Williams
26 June 2009
The existing system for holding government departments to account needs to be reformed, according to a report by an influential group of MPs.Good government, published by the Commons public administration select committee on June 18, recommends that the National Audit Office should be given more resources and powers and a broader remit.
The MPs said an enhanced ‘National Accountability Office’ would have a clear responsibility for holding departments to account on performance. It could also give a more comprehensive view on ministries’ effectiveness than the ‘patchy’ picture currently provided by the NAO.
The wide-ranging study recommended devolution of power to frontline services ‘wherever possible’, and that ethical regulators, such as the Committee on Standards in Public Life, be made statutory.
It urged governments to be more disciplined in the number of policy proposals they produce and to abandon the ‘fixation’ on short-term concerns led by the media.
The committee also criticised the ministerial structure. It argued that there should be fewer ministers and they should stay in post for longer to build the expertise necessary to do their jobs well. Chair Tony Wright said: ‘Now more than ever, there needs to be a wholesale change in the political culture to arrest the decline of public trust in government.’
Guy Lodge, associate director at the Institute for Public Policy Research, told Public Finance that the committee was right to recommend a stronger, broader NAO that would be able to criticise policy.
He also questioned the number of ministers. He said: ‘When you become a minister you have a licence to meddle… your incentives are to have an initiative to get on to the Today programme, and I’m not sure it’s conducive to long-term strategic policy development.
‘What often gets missed is the churn rate of civil servants,’ he added. ‘It’s often higher than for ministers. That… diminishes the area expertise of civil servants. More importantly it dilutes accountability.’
An NAO spokesman said the agency had ‘read the report with great interest’ but would not comment on whether it should have an expanded remit. ‘We do what Parliament asks,’ he said.
