NAO claims it is value for money
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.NAO claims it is value for money
The public's principal spending watchdog, the National Audit Office, made savings worth less than half of a tenth of 1 per cent of the public spending it examined last year. That means taxpayers, civil servants and benefit receivers are amazingly honest and proper in their handling of public money, or else the NAO has some catching up to do.
Each year the NAO audits a huge amount of public money - pounds 557.2bn. This represents income from taxpayers and charges and spending on everything from bedpans to debt interest. The NAO says its suggestions for better accounting by public bodies generated savings of pounds 13m (0.002 per cent) while its proposals for getting better value for public money produced savings of about pounds 290m (0.05 per cent). The NAO says its record stacks up well against its administrative costs. It claims to save pounds 7 for every pounds 1 spent on its 750 staff at its London headquarters. David Walker
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments