A powerful group of MPs has criticised cross-government accounts as out-of-date and incomplete.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) praised the idea behind the Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) – which sets out the combined financial position of around 1500 public sector bodies.
But it warned the document was more of an elaborate accounting exercise than a meaningful tool.
The Treasury published the second edition of the WGA in October, 19 months after the financial year it covers ended.
Margaret Hodge, PAC chairwoman, said: "The WGA should be used to identify the nation's key financial risks, such as the spiralling cost of clinical negligence – £17.5 billion in the accounts – and set out how they are being managed. It should also be used to help Government make better spending choices by highlighting the financial consequences of past decisions, such as the £144.6bn currently owed under PFI schemes and the estimated £60.9bn cost of nuclear decommissioning.
"And it should allow us to track the Government's performance in key areas such as tackling fraud and error, which costs the taxpayer some £21.2bn a year."
However, a spokesman for the Treasury said: "The WGA were published for the first time in 2011, despite legislation enabling their publication being passed in 2000.
"When compared to what was in place before, they are a giant leap forward in terms of fiscal transparency.
"They set out many future liabilities like PFI costs and pension costs for the first time and leading accountancy body the ICAEW have said they put the UK ahead of the pack in terms of financial management."
A Coalition source said the cross-party PAC should be "impartial, not a political plaything".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article