Cross-government working

Many cross-government projects that come before this Committee are hindered by missing or inadequate data. The government has historically had an issue with poor quality and inconsistent data and with ineffective data sharing arrangements. Whilst there have been some positive improvements, such as establishing data standards across government, difficulty with data sharing was the most commonly identified barrier in a recent HM Treasury survey about cross-government working. In addition, insufficient data capacity and capability across government means the skills needed to interpret data are not always available, which can hinder projects, and make it difficult to evaluate effectively what works. Recommendation 2: HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office should work with the Evaluation Taskforce and the Analysis function to: • identify the key data needed to deliver, monitor and evaluate cross- government projects; and • help departments to collect the data and have the analytical capability to interpret it.

Effective cross-government working is fundamental to delivering government’s priorities but there is a lot of work to do to make it more than just a ‘nice to have’. Efforts have been made to incentivise cross-government working through reward and recognition but HM Treasury acknowledges there is a lot of work still to do. In 2019, the Shared Outcomes Fund was set up to fund pilot projects that test innovative ways of working across the public sector, with an emphasis on thorough plans for evaluation and whether these small-scale projects can be scaled-up. More recently, HM Treasury has developed guidance to encourage joint-bids at spending rounds. But HM Treasury concedes that it is disappointing there were only 28 joint bids at the last Spending Review. It recognises that it is going to have to do more in the next Spending Review to encourage joint bids from departments and to make more top-down requests for joint bids. 6 Cross-government working Recommendation 3: HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office should: • share lessons learned from the Shared Outcomes Fund; • produce guidance for Departments setting expectations on cross- government working ahead of the next Spending Review.

HM Treasury has taken initial steps to evaluate what works but now needs to fully embed this to improve cross-government working. In 2021, the Government set up a joint Evaluation Task Force to support evaluation of policies and programmes across government. HM Treasury made greater use of its powers, requiring departments to include plans for evaluations for it to approve funding at the 2020 Spending Review. More recently, the Task Force has set up an evaluation registry which shows what government has already done in a policy area and what others are planning so that examples of good practice can be better shared. Review of this will become mandatory prior to business case approval from next year. All business cases should include plans for monitoring and evaluation. However, departmental approvals processes vary in terms how much they take these plans into account as part of their approval decision. Recommendation 4: HM Treasury should use its influence to improve cross- government working, for example by only approving business cases that clearly demonstrate a link to the relevant cross-cutting aim they support, appropriate plans for evaluation, and detail on what cross-government outcomes and outputs should be delivered.

Government does not consistently report on cross-cutting outcomes. The Cabinet Office and HM Treasury are responsible for supporting and monitoring the delivery of departmental objectives and 20 cross-cutting outcomes set-out in Outcome Delivery Plans (ODPs). Departments published their first ODPs in July 2021 but cross-cutting outcomes were not always consistently reported. For 2023–24 departments will only be required to produce internal ODPs. HM Treasury expects Departments to set out their performance against their ODPs in their 2023–24 annual reports and accounts. Recommendation 5: Cabinet Office should publish departments’ ODPs to improve transparency, along with plans to deliver them. The Cabinet Office should also more clearly publish cross-cutting outcomes and progress made against them. Cross-government working 7 1 Setting-up and delivering cross- government working

On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from Sir Alex Chisholm, Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, and from Cat Little, Second Permanent Secretary at HM Treasury, about cross-government working.1 We also took evidence from four practitioners to understand more about the key challenges and opportunities they have experienced from cross-government working. They were: Catherine Hutchinson, Head of the Evaluation Task Force; Will Garton, Director General for Levelling Up, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC); Chris Thompson, Director for Net Zero Strategy, Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero; and, Nathan Moores, Director for Shared Services at the Cabinet Office.

Both our reports and those undertaken by the National Audit Office (NAO) regularly demonstrate the importance of a shared vision and objectives, coordinated programme and risk management, and compatible data and technology to ensure successful cross- government working.8

In May 2023, HM Treasury set out six joint delivery models for cross-government working in Managing Public Money, including details on responsibilities and accountabilities for each model. At one end of the spectrum covered by these models, joint delivery can involve simple collaboration, where departments may collaborate in the development of policy they have an interest in. At the other end, a machinery of government change would be required, with responsibility and funding transfer from one department to another by order of the Prime Minister.9

It is important to understand how these models are being used across government and identify which model of joint working is most appropriate in different circumstances. HM Treasury explained that it had not yet analysed what proportion of cross-government working was undertaken through each of the different models but said this would certainly be something they could consider taking forward.10

Departmental witnesses told us how effective cross-government working begins with a shared vision.11 Cabinet Office told us that a vision does not always arrive ready- made and it is important for the departments involved to understand and appreciate the ‘common goal’.12 We also heard that getting buy-in from departments is key.13 This is often easier when the policy area has a high level of political support, for example climate change; and where there is senior political agreement on priorities.14

As well as a shared vision, clear outcomes need to be established and shared between departments to measure success.15 Clearly defined responsibilities and accountability structures are also important.16 Cabinet Office told us that alongside encouraging cross- government working by explaining the financial benefits to those involved, it is also important to ensure a culture exists which recognises and appreciates cross-government efforts.17

HM Treasury and Cabinet Office have identified a range of barriers to effective cross-government working. The most commonly identified barriers included: structures 7 Q 44; C&AG’s Report para 5 8 Q 1; C&AG’s Report para 6 9 C&AG’s Report para 1.4, Figure 2 10 Q 49; C&AG’s Report para 1.4 11 Qq 2, 38, 45 -46 12 Qq 45, 46 13 Q 2 14 Qq 46, 82 15 Q 38 16 Q 48; C&AG’s Report para 11 17 Q 47 Cross-government working 9 and bureaucracy hindering planning and delivery; ministerial priorities not being well understood; inconsistent join-up in spending decisions and allocations; a lack of routine data sharing between Departments; and poor arrangements for sharing best practice and learning.18

Departmental witnesses told us that the extent of these problems can depend on the policy area, but highlighted that sharing lessons across government can be difficult because there is not a single place to find information.19 Cabinet Office told us that it tries to disseminate good practice through the work of the functions and the Evaluation Task Force.20 However, HM Treasury accepted that more needs to be done to share best practice and tell people about the benefits of cross-government working to encourage departments to work together.21 Missing or inadequate data

Many of the projects and programmes brought before the Committee suffer from a lack of good quality data or are adversely affected by government IT systems not ‘talking’ to each other.22 Issues with data was identified as the main barrier to cross-government working in HM Treasury’s and the Cabinet Office’s survey of 229 departmental practitioners in 2022. 63% of respondents felt that technical issues made it difficult to share data effectively across government and 62% saw departmental unwillingness to share data across government as a major barrier to effective cross-government working.23

We have reported time and time again on the impact of poor IT, and are aware of the extreme complexity and inconsistency of data systems across government, for example within the criminal justice system.24 The Cabinet Office told us that across government there are around 205 core systems that run HR, finance and payroll and, to compound this problem, there are a further 655 systems that support these.25 We heard how departments are beginning to improve data consistency by establishing standards, and enabling data- sharing across government, although issues remain, including accessing data from the private sector.26

The Cabinet Office told us that one of the bigger challenges across government is extracting the value out of the data to drive insights and decisions in a timely way.27 Without good data it is difficult to evaluate effectively what works.28 In addition, insufficient data capacity and capability across government means skills needed to interpret data are not available. The Cabinet Office told us it launched the ‘One Big Thing’ initiative to deliver data training and claimed that 40% of civil servants have signed-up so far.29 18 Q 12; C&AG’s Report, paras 15 and 1.14 19 Qq 12–14 20 Q 44 21 Q 67 22 Q 20 23 Q 29; C&AG’s Report, para 1.14 & Figure 4 24 Qq 20, 28 25 Q 22 26 Qq 72, 21, 28, 55 27 Q 22 28 C&AG’s Report, para 2.7 29 Q 55 10 Cross-government working 2 Improving the delivery of cross- government working Incentivising cross-government working

Additional funding is an incentive used to encourage cross-government working, with the Shared Outcomes Fund being the most recent initiative.30 It was set up in 2019 by HM Treasury to fund pilot projects that test innovative ways of working across the public sector, with an emphasis on thorough plans for evaluation.31 Total funding made available through the scheme was £600 million, and HM Treasury claimed over 60 projects have now received this support. It told us the idea of the Shared Outcomes Fund is to test and scale up pilot projects where evaluation has shown they work.32

However, there is little incentive for departments to invest in programmes that deliver benefits elsewhere in government.33 We challenged HM Treasury on whether Permanent Secretaries received sufficient recognition for delivering outcomes across multiple departments. HM Treasury acknowledged the importance of rewarding and recognising those who invest time in cross-government delivery and that HM Treasury needed to use every lever available to try to increase the use of cross-government working. HM Treasury told us that politicians in government played an important role in incentivising senior officials to deliver cross-government working by setting cross-cutting priority outcomes.34

HM Treasury told us that joint bids at Spending Reviews was another way it had tried to encourage departments to pool resources and work together to generate benefits. It told us that at Spending Review 2021 it had identified departments that were most involved in cross-cutting shared outcomes and made clear it was expecting a joint-bid from them. It was disappointed that only 28 joint-bids were submitted in the last Spending Review despite its issuing guidance and training over 1,000 finance and policy officials on developing joint-bids. The joint-bids included the beating crime plan and the illegal drug strategy. HM Treasury recognised that more needs to be done to support and encourage joint-bids in the next Spending Review. It told us that Managing Public Money now sets out the benefits of submitting joint-bids, but acknowledged it needed to do more to communicate these benefits and support departments in submitting joint-bids.35 Evaluating cross-government working

In 2021, the Government set up a joint Evaluation Task Force to support evaluation of policies and programmes across government.36 The Head of the Evaluation Task Force told us that only 8% of all government major projects and plans have a robust evaluation plan in place and as a result there is still limited evidence about what works. HM Treasury claimed it has assessed approximately 300 evaluation plans covering around £140 billion of 30 C&AG’s Report, para 19 31 C&AG’s Report, paras 19, 3.4 32 Q 67; C&AG’s Report, para 3.4 33 C&AG’s Report, para 19 34 Q 81 35 Qq 67, 68 36 C&AG’s Report, paras 16 and 3.8 Cross-government working 11 spend.37 It told us how it made greater use of its powers, requiring departments to include plans for evaluations as part of the 2020 Spending Review. However, it recognises that more needs to be done to see fundamental change and successfully embed the importance of robust evaluation across government.38 The Head of the Evaluation Task Force told us that plans are in place to “keep pushing” by developing more toolkits, and making things “more practical” by continuing to demonstrate what departments have already done.39

The Head of the Evaluation Task Force told us it is working to encourage departments to share learning.40 She also told us about the ‘evaluation registry’ which holds information on what evaluation government has already done in the sector and what departments are planning for the future.41 The Head of the Evaluation Task Force is hopeful that the transparency provided by the registry will help drive healthy competition between departments to achieve their best.42 We challenged the Head of the Evaluation Task Force on whether those delivering programmes know about the registry. The Head of the Evaluation Task Force said that it was currently rolling the registry out across departments and that it will become mandatory from next year. The Task Force aims to ensure that evaluations are planned, plans are put on the registry and when the evaluation is complete departments put the final report on the registry, which should be viewable by members of the public in March 2024.43

HM Treasury’s Green Book guidance on business case appraisal makes clear that plans for monitoring and evaluation should be proportionately included in each spending proposal that is submitted.44 Departments approaches vary in how much they choose to take these plans into account as part of their approval decision.45 DLUHC updated its business case template to include a requirement to provide details of any ring-fenced costs for impact evaluation of all investments of more than £100 million, and for smaller investments which are innovative, contentious or untested.46 Reporting on cross-cutting outcomes

It is not always clear which departments are involved in delivering policies which cut across departmental boundaries. Departments report on their priority outcomes in Outcome Delivery Plans (ODPs). Departments published their first ODPs in July 2021.47 In October 2023, as part of Spending Review 2021, the government published a list of 76 priority outcomes, 20 of which are cross-cutting outcomes. These cover major policy areas including net zero, health and social care, and levelling up. The Cabinet Office and HM Treasury are responsible for supporting and monitoring the delivery of departmental 37 Q 31 38 Qq 60, 62 39 Q 31 40 Q 35 41 Qq 14,15, 16 42 Q 32 43 Qq 15, 16 44 HM Treasury and Government Finance Function, The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government, para 8.8 45 Q 34 46 C&AG’s Report, Evaluating government spending, Session 2021–22, HC 860, 2 December 2021, para 3.22 47 C&AG’s Report, paras 4, 11, 1.9 12 Cross-government working objectives and cross-cutting outcomes set out in ODPs. Some departments used their ODPs to explain where more informal joint working was involved in delivering other outcomes but this was not reported consistently in the relevant ODPs.48

In 2022, the Government said that it was focusing on producing ODPs for 2023–24 rather than the plans for 2022–23 which it would cover retrospectively in the 2022–23 Annual Reports and Accounts. For 2023–24 departments will not be required to publish their ODPs.49 We challenged HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office on the difficulties for citizens of tracking cross-government outcomes, such as obesity or drugs policies, under these arrangements. The Cabinet Office told us that the decision on whether to publish ODPs was taken by Ministers but that it plans to continue using unpublished ODPs to assess performance internally.50 HM Treasury told us that departments need to be transparent about their performance and it still required reporting in annual report and accounts about the performance of government departments for the current year.51 48 C&AG’s Report, paras 5, 9, 1.9 49 Q80; Letter from HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office to William Wragg MP, Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, 6 July 2023 50 Qq 79, 80 51 Q 75 Cross-government working 13