Tory MP Edward Leigh, former chair of the Public Accounts Committee, writes in today's Express of 'The Idiots Who Waste Our Cash'. Mr Leigh is standing down as the post must be held by a member of the opposition.
He takes great pride in detailing patterns of waste within government.
I felt frustrated that for all the money pumped into administration our services appeared to be in the hands of people you wouldn’t trust to organise a village cake sale.
Military logistics spring to mind here. While our brave men were dying in Afghanistan eight SAS Chinooks were kept in a hangar at public expense because a bunch of second-rate bureaucrats were too incompetent to supply the technological back-up they needed to fly on a cloudy day. The decrepitude of our military campaigns, social security system, NHS and education system defies belief.
Why didn't he make these details so public previously? He was in a position of power and could have had the support of the public.
I read about what good works Westminster committees undertake. From an academic view that may be quite correct, but if there findings do not result in immediate change, what good are they? Every one of us could sit down and analyse situations but if the information we produce is not used to benefit the end-user, then it is purely a paper exercise.
If this committee passed their findings onto the highest echelons of power who refused to enact any improvements, then government ministers are responsible.
For Mr Leigh to say ' Management in Britain must be improved' is fine. Most of us know that. What did he do about it during his 8 years in his post?
He concludes 'The greater the diligence of the PAC, the greater value you receive'. I don't think so. For us to receive greater value, the PAC needs to have some clout to take immediate action upon government departments who fail to use our money carefully. Otherwise this committee, along with others no doubt, is just a talking shop and a nice financial perk for a group of MPs.
Posts
16 comments:
"Why didn't he make these details so public previously?"
The awful truth is that he did, SR. He has been writing reports (and occasional newspaper articles) on this sort of thing for donkey's.
He was a pretty damn good PAC chair from what I saw.
"If this committee passed their findings onto the highest echelons of power who refused to enact any improvements, then government ministers are responsible."
This is the truth of it.
When I was still a pen pusher, we certainly got to hear about PAC reports drubbing any organisation even vaguely relating to our organisation. It wasn't lack of publicity in newspaper articles that caused precious little to ever improve. At least, that wasn't ostensibly the reason.
The last labour government didn't believe that they ever got anything wrong( which in an individual is considered a psychological defect) so not a lot was going to happen,ever!
All PAC activity was ignored by Bliar and Brown. They and they alone knew everything. Pair of criminally insane Muppets.
"Why didn't he make these details so public previously? "
So he'd be assured of a cushy sinecure to move to..?
He had a responsibility to shout louder IPP. Just a few articles in newspapers and reports online (which few really read) isn't enough.
These people should be given priority in the MSM for headlines. It's easy enough for government departments to get press releases published.
I've heard of them too IPP, but one article now and again just isn't good enough. They weren't even 9 day wonders.
Aye that's possibly it Apogee.
Somehow the system has to be tightened up OR. Paying MPs more money to do these reports then they're stuck on a dust-gathering shelf isn't good enough.
It's another abuse of public money, tucked away as 'constructive'.
Aye Julia, he'll consider himself to be a big fish in Westminster since he's a former chair.
Edward Leigh was indeed as good as IPP says.
And he was good fun to draw.
"If this committee passed their findings onto the highest echelons of power who refused to enact any improvements, then government ministers are responsible."
Precisely, because they ignored what they were told, in the same way they ignored the civil servants who warned them about their departmental spending patterns.
Ah Mark, excellent. I did see that post at the time.
He may be 'good' but he wasn't good enough because his committee obviously had little or no influence.
Something needs to be done Mrs R other than have these endless, well paid, talking shops which this committee really is. As others say, Leigh may have been good, but he had no clout whatsoever, so what's the point of his committee, other than to draw up reports which will only be useful to historians.
I do feel you're being rather harsh, SR. The only obvious way I could see for him to be more 'effective' would have been to be more conciliatory, less critical and more supportive in the hope that the criticisms he did make would carry more weight with those in a position to change things: ministers and senior civil servants.
That's not what we need. We need more people to be more like Edward Leigh. Not Edward Leigh to be more like other people so that they might pay attention to his remaining differences.
Possibly I am IPP, but I see so many MPs, receiving large sums of money to be members of these committees, yet nothing changes.
Indeed, we may need more people like Leigh.
Post a Comment