Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 8
8
The Department’s lack of transparency fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process.16 Furthermore,...
Conclusion
The Department’s lack of transparency fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process.16 Furthermore, the Department’s statements to the press, issued after the National Audit Office’s report was published, referred to the report concluding that the selection process had been ‘robust’, whereas the report makes no such statement—which is a clear misrepresentation of the National Audit Office’s report. The Department’s Permanent Secretary said he did not have knowledge of these press statements.17 9 Q 36 10 Qq 35, 40, 102 11 Q 40 12 Qq 40–41 13 Qq 41–45 14 Qq 38–39, 103 15 Q 103; C&AG’s Report, paras 1.5–1.6 16 Qq 41, 52, 102 17 Qq 105–108; and, for example, Financial Times 21 July 2020 10 Selecting towns for the Towns Fund
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
1.1 The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. 1.2 As the Committee will be aware and as set out in Treasury Minutes from December 2016 (recommendation 3b) wider government practice precludes the sharing of the full Accounting Officer advice with Parliament. The summary of the Towns selection AO assessment, the National Audit Office (NAO) report and statements by Ministers in Parliament provide much more detail about selection decisions for the Towns Fund than is available for previous, similar programmes. The full Accounting Officer advice was shared with the NAO in the usual way and a summary of the Accounting Officer advice was provided to the Committee in October 2020 and has also been published on the Towns Fund GOV.UK page.