Left column


Helping Mozambique address its huge post-war challenges … the launch of a new book on the NAO’s 900 year history … a framework to help the UK government oversee the £734 billion of taxpayers’ money spent each year. The common thread is improved Parliamentary oversight and accountability. This aim is at the heart of the […]


Ensuring Government delivers: an international and 900 year viewpoint

Posted on December 21, 2016 by

Westminster HallHelping Mozambique address its huge post-war challenges … the launch of a new book on the NAO’s 900 year history … a framework to help the UK government oversee the £734 billion of taxpayers’ money spent each year. The common thread is improved Parliamentary oversight and accountability. This aim is at the heart of the NAO’s role and therefore of the new book by former Assistant Auditor General, David Dewar; it was the subject of my presentation at the Houses of Parliament to a Mozambican delegation; and it has been a key theme of my work in our cross-government team this year.

It was sobering to talk to a delegation of seven senior Parliamentary officials from Mozambique about Parliamentary oversight and accountability. Their country faces basic constitutional problems, immense poverty (more than half of Mozambique’s 24 million people still live below the poverty line and life expectancy is just 50 years for men and 52 years for women), and corruption has become a major concern. On top of that, although their 16-year civil war ended in 1992, Mozambique is still suffering from the effects of the war and tensions remain between the ruling Frelimo party and the Opposition, the former rebel movement, Renamo.

MozambiqueThe good news is that Mozambique discovered offshore gas fields in 2011 and President Nyusi, who came to power in January 2015, has pledged to use this resource to transform the country and its economy.

This is one of the reasons the Mozambique delegation was in the UK seeking to understand good practices and procedures for Parliamentary financial oversight. As discussed previously in our blog post Think global, act local, such discussions with international delegations are one of the ways that the NAO helps to support the national audit offices of other countries.

The UK actually has a 900 year history of some form of national audit, from the operations of the medieval Exchequer to the work of the NAO today, which is detailed in the book “A History of British National Audit”, published on 22 December (see more below). It’s not surprising, therefore, that we are further down the ‘maturity’ path as regards accountability to Parliament and taxpayers, than Mozambique. But there is never room for complacency when it comes to holding government to account for how it spends public money – some £734 billion of it every year in the UK (as detailed in our post on the Whole of Government Accounts).

UK Accountability processAlthough we provide external audit scrutiny and help Parliament scrutinise government in a wide range of ways (see more later), it is government’s duty to build into its activities suitable arrangements to safeguard value for money and allow it to account to Parliament for its performance (e.g. through Annual Reports and Accounts, or at evidence sessions with Parliamentary Committees).

When a country’s system is in its infancy, as in Mozambique, it’s crucial to long-term success that accountability to Parliament is built in at the start. But here in the UK such accountability arrangements also need more attention, as we found in our cross-government report earlier this year. In recent years accountability has tended to be an afterthought when government introduces reforms and restructures – as we explained in our post Spending your money wisely.

Within a tough global economy, the government has taken on enormous challenges across a huge number of highly complex and extensive reforms, with the intention of improving the efficiency and the effectiveness of public service delivery. The result is fewer people, with reduced budgets, applying new delivery approaches, often through devolved or contracted out delivery (see also Making public sector markets work), all requiring scarce skills, which are often also new to the civil service, such as creating ‘exotic’ company and financial structures, or applying cutting-edge new technology. We recognise that this is challenging. But what this tumultuous year in politics tells us is that government must always remember to provide transparency and accountability – it must engage effectively and openly with Parliament and citizens about its objectives and challenges, its progress, and the impact on citizens, if it is not to erode public trust altogether.

Among our key cross-government publications this year, was a pair of reports focused on the government’s overall system for planning and managing public sector budgets and performance in the UK. These two reports (Spending Review 2015 and Government’s management of its performance: progress with single departmental plans) set out what we believe is needed to create a strong, coherent and enduring framework for ensuring the government can prioritise and achieve its objectives, while also providing accountability both internally and to Parliament and the public.

Management frameworkTo achieve value for money and the government’s stated aim to be “the most transparent government ever” will require the same thorough management approach across government as for any well-managed organisation (see diagram). The essential “power” to drive the cycle, without which it simply cannot work, is good performance information, discussed in more detail in our post Measuring performance delivered through others.

To generate information on its own performance, government has tried a number of different approaches over many years, with incoming administrations tending to scrap the approach of the previous one. We were clear in our report on single departmental plans that, this time around, government needs to stick with this new approach. The approach must be embedded and improved as part of an overall management framework for the long term that helps government deliver, no matter who is in power or what their policy objectives are.

At a recent Public Accounts Committee evidence session, the Permanent Secretary at HM Treasury agreed, saying, “We are totally committed to it”. The Committee has now published its report, Managing Government Spending and Performance, welcoming single departmental plans as an “important step forward”, but challenging HM Treasury and Cabinet Office to develop them much further and “ensure that the work improves the information that Parliament and the public can access to understand government’s plans and to see how it is performing”.

Performance information for management and accountability is one of five principles for an effective management framework that we set out in our report Spending Review 2015, and which formed the basis for our specific recommendations.

Principles for an effective cross-government
planning, management and coordination system

Principle 2

Evidence to support decisions: Robust evidence is essential to understand whether the government is achieving value for money, to make fair comparisons to prioritise spending and to redesign services.


An integrated view across organisational boundaries: The need to tackle complex issues to achieve outcomes requires a cross-departmental approach. Public sector organisations need to collaborate and to understand the links between services.


A longer-term view: Decisions about spending and how services are provided can have long-term effects on public finances and outcomes. These effects need to be considered when assessing value for money.

An understanding of the capability to deliver: Realism about what is required to transform services, ideally based on past experience, is essential. It is critical that departments and their partners have both the skills and capacity to make the changes.

Timely information on performance to review success and hold organisations to account: A critical aspect of ensuring that projects are delivered successfully is maintaining an understanding of how they are performing.


Of course, the scale of the challenge to achieve an integrated management approach across the whole of government is greater than for most other organisations, and government’s plans are always shifting and changing. A grand plan cannot simply be imposed from the centre of Whitehall, once and for the whole of the Parliament. But the “golden thread” can be joined up through the whole system if there is transparency, and if individual departments and public bodies also focus on having an effective management system from the bottom up (see our post The glue to managing change).

All this adds up to the conclusion, for me, that accountability is not just an add-on, something we as taxpayers demand of government but which government could manage quite well without. Rather, accountability is as essential to the effective working of government business as any other aspect of public management.

C&AG and PAC, Houses of ParliamentBack at the Houses of Parliament, a Member of the Mozambique Parliament asked me how independent the NAO’s report recommendations are – whether we seek agreement from government before publishing our reports. I stressed, firstly, that we are very proud of our independence from government, and also that we consider this independence to be a real privilege, which we treat with great care. David Dewar and Professor Warwick Funnell’s new book shows just how hard-fought that independence has been through our history.

At the same time, one of our key aims is to drive public service improvement, so it’s important that our recommendations are taken up by government, which means that they need to be accepted as being right and useful. So we certainly discuss the recommendations with relevant organisations and we follow up the extent to which our recommendations, and those of the PAC, have been implemented and the improvement that has resulted.

A key issue I discussed with the Mozambican delegation is the role that the NAO plays in driving public service improvement. As auditors, we do not provide specific advice to organisations, as this would undermine the independence of our audit. But the organisations we audit particularly appreciate our perspective across the whole of government. So we do share valuable insight more generically, including by explaining what we would look for when undertaking an audit or value for money study – which is sometimes formalised and made available on our website’s self-assessment resources page. Wherever possible we also highlight good practice and lessons learnt, especially on the topics of particular importance to government, such as Transforming public services.

Like Mozambique’s state auditors, the NAO is on a continuing path in pursuit of accountability and improvement in public services. Over the last nine centuries the NAO and its predecessors have overcome many challenges to build the framework of audit and accountability we have today. But there remain challenges, and those wanting to know more about this history will be interested in the new book.

The NAO will, of course, continue to act both as a ‘critical friend’ in driving public service improvement, and as a champion of accountability. I welcome your comments and invite you to contact us about any of the many issues this involves.

‘A History of British National Audit: The Pursuit of Accountability’

By David Dewar, former Assistant Auditor General at the UK National Audit Office, and
Prof. Warwick Funnell, Professor of Accounting and Public Sector Accountability, University of Kent
Published by the Oxford University Press on 22 December

A History of British National AuditA History of British National Audit” charts the pursuit of public accountability and the challenges overcome throughout the 900-year history of the NAO and its predecessors, from the medieval Exchequer to the work of the NAO today.

The book’s key themes include:

  • securing operational and financial independence;
  • extending the range and depth of examinations from an audit concerned mainly with matters of financial appropriation and regularity into major examinations of economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and
  • relationships with Parliament, the UK Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury, spending departments, and other audited bodies.

The book reviews continuing developments in such areas as: rights of access and inspection; issues of probity and governance; and the importance of providing added value from audit work. It also considers the need for further change as the public sector continues to develop and wider-ranging arrangements and new accountabilities are introduced for the delivery of programmes and services.

David Dewar joined what was then the Exchequer and Audit Department (E&AD) in 1953, becoming a Director of Audit in 1977 and Deputy Secretary of the E&AD in 1981. He was Assistant Auditor General from 1984 to 1994.

See also the History of the NAO and Amyas Morse’s post for the 150th anniversary of the role of Comptroller and Auditor General, The next 150 years.


Antonia Gracie

About the author: Antonia Gracie is the NAO’s lead on the theme of accountability to Parliament, including government’s reporting of its performance. She has extensive experience of examining cross-government topics and the role of the strategic centre of government: Cabinet Office and HM Treasury.


The first photo, of Westminster Hall, the oldest remaining part of the Houses of Parliament, comes from the Explore Westminster website.

Share this article on social media:


4 responses to “Ensuring Government delivers: an international and 900 year viewpoint”

  1. @JagPatel3 says:

    For a mature democracy, it is a foregone conclusion that Parliament should be able to scrutinise the work of Government and that it is the duty of Government to build-in necessary business processes to ensure that taxpayers get value for money, in the procurement of assets and services for public use.

    However, whereas the actions of Government are communicated to the public via policy pronouncements on its gov.uk website, it is nigh on impossible to separate out the true facts from such pronouncements because they are framed in language which propagates half-truths and sometimes, downright lies, with the deliberate intention of deceiving. Even more worryingly press releases, which are the primary source of information for the fourth estate about what Government is doing, are crafted in such a way as to, in effect, say ‘look here, not there’ thereby focusing their attention exactly where Government wants them to, away from areas which it would rather not defend in public.

    One of the reasons for this modus operandi is that Government is preoccupied with presentation, manipulation of words and the dark art of spinning, instead of working on its programme of reform to deliver public services efficiently, to satisfy the unfulfilled expectations of the electorate.

    The political imperative of needing to put a positive slant on everything the Government does or will do, irrespective of whether it is true or not, is the reason why spin has become the centrepiece of this Government’s communications strategy. And because Government has got a monopoly on inside information, it uses spin to divert attention away from the key issues that really matter to citizens and consequently, succeeds in supressing alternative views and criticism from those on the outside, including Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

    Conventional wisdom has it that Ministers shape high-level policy and select from policy options developed by mandarins, whilst it is the job of senior Civil Servants to define lower-level policy detail underneath, so that it can be used by the rest of the Civil Service to implement the policy of the Government. However, the eagerness with which senior Civil Servants have complied with their political masters’ desire to see policy announcements framed around presentation and spin, at the expense of substance, would explain why their skills set has been narrowed down to this single, dark art.

    It would also explain why the Civil Service has failed to deliver against promises made by the same governing elite, in their election manifestos. This failure has been brought about by the downgrading and erosion of traditional specialist disciplines such as technical, commercial and project management – skills which are absolutely essential to the delivery of public services in today’s world.

    What’s more, this intense focus of attention on presentation alone has resulted in a massive gap opening up between the leadership and lower ranks of the Civil Service, who have to deal with the reality of delivering services on the ground, on a day-to-day basis, which in itself, has led to alienation and disaffection.
    @JagPatel3 on twitter

    • Antonia Gracie says:

      Thanks for your comments, Jag. You rightly raise the issue of the quality of performance information provided to public and Parliament to hold government to account. This is a keen interest of the Committee too. As Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the PAC, said:
      “Taxpayers have a right to know how well government is spending their money. They have long deserved better than the information currently available to them — a serious shortcoming that has not been properly addressed by the introduction of Single Departmental Plans. Government internal plans offer a level of detail not available to taxpayers or Parliament and indeed for some objectives no indicators to measure progress are published in SDPs at all…. As government considers our recommendations for improving planning and performance we urge it to be far clearer with Parliament and the public about what it is doing – and how well it is doing it.”

      Following a very constructive hearing on October 17, we are now awaiting government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations in their report – here – including on transparency of performance information.

      Antonia Gracie

  2. leek says:

    There can be some thing like how is the logo of NAO designed and what’s the meaning of the figure in logo when the history is introduced.

    • Administrator says:

      Thank you for your comment. Although the NAO was created in 1983, the current logo was developed in 2005. It shows a crown over a portcullis topped with a lion – symbolising our role supporting Parliament and auditing and helping to hold to account Her Majesty’s Government. Administrator.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Right column

  • About the NAO blog

    Our experts share their views about issues and common challenges facing government, what public sector leaders should look out for and how organisations have addressed issues. Our posts draw together threads from across our reports, share secrets spilled in events and reveal our experts’ expectations for the future.

    We encourage comments that support the exchange of ideas for improvement, but ask that those posting are respectful of others.

  • Sign up for automatic feeds

    Sign up to receive email alerts:

    RSS IconSubscribe in an RSS Reader