National Audit Office Press Releases
|Printable version||E-mail this to a friend|
Investigation into the acceptance of gifts and hospitality
The NAO has published the findings from its investigation into the acceptance of gifts and hospitality by government officials.
“Public officials are sometimes offered gifts and hospitality by external stakeholders which it is reasonable for them to accept. This can, however, present a risk of actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and undermine value for money or affect government’s reputation. While most, but not all, cases declared by officials appear on the face of it to be justifiable in the normal course of business, we found some weaknesses in the oversight and control of gifts and hospitality. This needs to be addressed by the Cabinet Office and departments.”
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 9 February 2016
The National Audit Office has yesterday published the findings from its investigation into the acceptance of gifts and hospitality. The report examines the rules and guidance for central government officials and published transparency data on the gifts and hospitality received by departmental board members, directors-general and senior military officers between April 2012 and March 2015.
The NAO also reviewed the gift and hospitality guidance and the gift and hospitality registers in three case study departments: the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS), HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and Defence, Equipment and Support (DE&S), a bespoke trading entity within the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
The key findings of this investigation are:
- Accepting modest hospitality is sometimes justified. Officials often need to engage with a range of external contacts in order in order to carry out their work efficiently and effectively.
- The Cabinet Office has a principles-based approach to guiding officials on whether they can accept gifts and hospitality. The three principles are: purpose (in the interests of government); proportionality (not over-frequent, over-generous or disproportionate); and avoidance of conflict of interest.
- Rules and processes on gifts and hospitality could be more stringent. The NAO found that policies and practices fell short of good practice in some respects.
- There are some weaknesses in controls over gifts and hospitality. Departments should use a risk-based and proportionate approach, but the NAO found weaknesses in some areas, for example locating gift and hospitality registers and management oversight of trends and local practices across departmental groups.
- The publication of hospitality record of senior officials helps to promote public accountability. Reporting started in 2009 and has become part of the transparency agenda.
- Some departments are not meeting the transparency requirements. The Cabinet Office requires departments to report the hospitality accepted by board members and directors-generals and above (‘senior officials’) each quarter. Twelve out of 17 departments, including BIS and HMRC, have published this information for every quarter from April 2012 to March 2015.
- The NAO estimates that senior officials in 17 departments accepted some £29,000 of gifts and hospitality in 2014-15. Senior officials accepted gifts and hospitality 3,413 times between 2012-13 and 2014-15. The total number of reported cases of senior officials accepting gifts and hospitality ranged from 718 times in BIS to 20 times in DFID. Levels of hospitality are likely to reflect different rules and reporting requirements as well the different roles of departments.
- The NAO estimates that officials in the 3 case study departments accepted a total of over £150,000 of gifts and hospitality in 2014-15. Although the total value of hospitality accepted may not be high, the reputational risks around accepting it can be substantial.
- Officials accept hospitality from many organisations and individuals. Senior officials in the 17 departments reported accepting hospitality (most often dinner) from some 1,495 different organisations (or individuals) between 2012-13 and 2014 15. Frequent acceptance of hospitality from particular organisations is not necessarily wrong, but it does need to be in the proportion to the business relationship.
- While most cases of gifts and hospitality appear to be reasonable, the NAO found some examples where acceptance may not have been consistent with the Cabinet Office principles. Most of the hospitality and many of the gifts accepted seem reasonable and consistent with the principles. However, in its review of the registers and transparency data, the NAO identified some concerns. These included: tickets to professional sports and cultural events, sometimes accompanied by a spouse and/or children; bottles of champagne; and iPads.
Latest News from
National Audit Office Press Releases
Departmental Overview 2015-16: Cabinet Office05/12/2016 13:15:00
This Departmental Overview looks at the Cabinet Office and summarises its performance during the year ended March 2016, together with our recent reports on it.
Local Enterprise Partnerships: census findings05/12/2016 09:15:00
This publication presents the results of our census of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). The census was conducted as part of our report Local Enterprise Partnerships, published in March 2016.
Departmental Overview 2015-16: Department for Work and Pensions02/12/2016 15:25:00
This Departmental Overview looks at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and summarises its performance during the year ended March 2016, together with our recent reports on it.
Benefit sanctions01/12/2016 09:30:00
The Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) is not doing enough to find out how sanctions affect people on benefits, according to yesterday’s report from the National Audit Office.
Department for International Development: investing through CDC28/11/2016 14:12:00
The National Audit Office has found that given the Department for International Development’s (DFID) plans to invest further in the private company CDC, a clearer picture of actual development impact would help to demonstrate the value for money of the Department’s investment.