Recommendations & Conclusions
7 items
2
Recommendation
Thirty-Second Report - Delivering value…
Not Addressed
Government departments still have few incentives to commission and carry out high-quality evaluations of major projects. High quality evaluation is an important means of providing evidence about what works, transparency about what value a project has produced, and making the case (or not) for further investment. As we pointed out …
Read more
Government departments still have few incentives to commission and carry out high-quality evaluations of major projects. High quality evaluation is an important means of providing evidence about what works, transparency about what value a project has produced, and making the case (or not) for further investment. As we pointed out in our May 2022 report on the use of evaluation and modelling in government, in 2019, only 8% of £432 billion of spend on major projects had robust impact evaluation plans in place, and 64% of spend had no evaluation arrangements at all. The Evaluation Task Force is currently updating the 2019 analysis of how much evaluation of major projects now takes place and there is still room for improvement. In our May 2022 report we also pointed out that the same barriers such as a lack of political engagement and a lack of incentives for departments to produce evaluations had persisted since 2013. HM Treasury says it still has more to do to address these barriers, but that the time that it can take for value and benefits to be realised and the time it takes to carry out an evaluation can be barriers. HM Treasury does not, however, consider the cost of evaluation to be a barrier. Recommendation 2: HM Treasury and the evaluation task force should develop a plan that addresses the root causes of why evaluations are not routinely carried out and how to incentivise departments to carry our more high-quality and independent evaluations.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation to develop a plan for incentivising evaluations, but its response discusses supplier and market engagement with SMEs and TechUK, which is irrelevant to the committee's specific request for an evaluation plan.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
3
Recommendation
Thirty-Second Report - Delivering value…
Not Addressed
There are signs of improved cross-government working but government still struggles to establish effective governance and accountability arrangements on the most complex projects where multiple departments are involved. In our February 2024 report on cross-government working in general we concluded that “effective cross-government working is fundamental to delivering government’s 6 …
Read more
There are signs of improved cross-government working but government still struggles to establish effective governance and accountability arrangements on the most complex projects where multiple departments are involved. In our February 2024 report on cross-government working in general we concluded that “effective cross-government working is fundamental to delivering government’s 6 Delivering value from government investment in major projects priorities but there is a lot of work to do”. This is particularly so for complex major projects, which often contribute to the objectives of multiple government departments and involve a number of organisation in delivery. There are examples of good practice, such as the East-West Rail project’s growth board that brings together local and central government, and the No 10 Delivery Unit can also be effective in bringing departments together to deliver cross-cutting priorities. For some projects it may be more effective to have an organisation outside of the project delivery team accountable for delivering value. Development corporations such as those established to deliver regeneration benefits at Ebbsfleet for High Speed 1 and the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park for the London 2012 Games have been effective. But bringing together the right stakeholders to deliver value does not come naturally to government departments and this remains a challenge. Ensuring that appropriate individuals sit on project boards is also important to provide challenge to project teams, support delivery and ensure that value is delivered. Recommendation 3: HM Treasury and the Infrastructure Projects Authority should: a) analyse what governance structures and incentives work well to encourage cross-government working; and b) issue guidance on how government departments can apply the right approaches that reflect the objectives and complexity of their projects including for delivering value once a project is complete.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation to analyze governance structures for cross-government working and issue guidance. However, its response focuses on the existing Digital, Data and Technology Playbook for managing digital projects, rather than addressing the broader request for general cross-government working guidance.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
6
Recommendation
Thirty-Second Report - Delivering value…
Not Addressed
Government departments do not routinely learn lessons from their own projects or those of other departments, so are missing opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency of future projects. Applying learning about what has been successful in major project delivery can bring great efficiency and reduced costs, particularly where standardisation of …
Read more
Government departments do not routinely learn lessons from their own projects or those of other departments, so are missing opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency of future projects. Applying learning about what has been successful in major project delivery can bring great efficiency and reduced costs, particularly where standardisation of design is possible. Schools, hospitals and prison building programmes are starting to apply digital methods of design and off-site fabrication and to apply the approach of ‘design one, build many’. Of course, the success of this approach would require the supply chain to have enough of the required skills and capacity. There are government forums for the sharing of lessons about what works well in project delivery, such as the IPA-chaired Government Construction Board. However, learning across government departments still does not occur systematically, and departments must think more broadly about lessons in maximising long-term value, rather than just about lessons in delivering similar projects. The IPA acknowledged it could do more to challenge departments to learn from one project to another. Our February 2024 report on cross-government working also highlighted a lack of routine data sharing between departments and poor arrangements for sharing best practice and learning. Recommendation 6: Alongside their response to this report, the Infrastructure Projects Authority and HM Treasury should write to the Committee outlining their plans for embedding cross-government learning for future major projects. 8 Delivering value from government investment in major projects 1 Identifying, delivering and evaluating value from major projects
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the recommendation to outline plans for embedding cross-government learning. However, its response outlines reviews of commercial and digital functional standards, development of a standard taxonomy, and reviews of controls and assurance frameworks, which are not direct plans for cross-government learning.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
1
Conclusion
Thirty-Second Report - Delivering value…
Not Addressed
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and HM Treasury.1
Government response AI summary
The committee item is a factual statement about taking evidence from the IPA and HM Treasury. The government responds by agreeing to the 'recommendation' and detailing actions related to digital functions, a Technical Design Authority, and strategic supplier relationship management, which is irrelevant to the …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
7
Conclusion
Thirty-Second Report - Delivering value…
Not Addressed
High quality evaluation is an important means of providing evidence about what works and transparency about what value a project has produced. In our May 2022 report on government’s use of evaluation and modelling, we stated: “Without the right incentives, improvements to oversight and culture, and addressing challenges such as …
Read more
High quality evaluation is an important means of providing evidence about what works and transparency about what value a project has produced. In our May 2022 report on government’s use of evaluation and modelling, we stated: “Without the right incentives, improvements to oversight and culture, and addressing challenges such as sharing data, decisions will continue to be made without being informed by a robust evidence base. This can put value for money unnecessarily at risk.”7 5 Qq 4, 25, 29, 65; C&AG’s Report, para 27 and Figure 2 and 4, pages 18–19 and 22–23 6 Qq 4, 31, 64; C&AG’s Report, para 2 7 Committee of Public Accounts, Use of evaluation and financial modelling in Government, Fourth Report of Session 2022–23, HC 254, 27 May 2022 10 Delivering value from government investment in major projects The C&AG’s 2024 report provides examples of the importance of evaluation to enable government departments to understand how they can deliver better value from their major projects. The Diamond Light Source’s 2021 study into the scientific, technological, societal and economic benefits of the facility contributed to the evidence base and input to future funding requests. An evaluation of the London 2012 Olympics, meanwhile, demonstrated how it had been able to implement sustainable procurement on the programme.8
Show less
Government response AI summary
Despite stating agreement, the government's response details its efforts to encourage international collaboration on antimicrobial products and antibiotic innovation, including commissioning an evaluability assessment from July 2025 to early 2026. This does not address the committee's conclusion on the importance of high-quality evaluation for major …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
8
Conclusion
Thirty-Second Report - Delivering value…
Not Addressed
There are too few evaluations of government’s major projects. As we pointed out in our May 2022 report on the use of evaluation and modelling in government, in 2019, only 8% of £432 billion of spend on major projects had robust impact evaluation plans in place, and 64% of spend …
Read more
There are too few evaluations of government’s major projects. As we pointed out in our May 2022 report on the use of evaluation and modelling in government, in 2019, only 8% of £432 billion of spend on major projects had robust impact evaluation plans in place, and 64% of spend had no evaluation arrangements at all. HM Treasury told us that this figure is too low and that it is not acceptable for departments to have no evaluation arrangements in place. The IPA told us that most departments have gaps in terms of their evaluations but that the Ministry of Defence has particularly significant gaps. The Evaluation Task Force is currently updating the 2019 analysis of how many projects in the Government Major Projects Portfolio have robust evaluation plans.9
Show less
Government response AI summary
Despite stating agreement, the government's response focuses entirely on making public health a statutory objective for water companies, regulating sludge, and tackling antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in wastewater, with a White Paper planned for Autumn 2025. This does not address the committee's conclusion about the lack …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
9
Conclusion
Thirty-Second Report - Delivering value…
Not Addressed
In our May 2022 report on evaluation, we pointed out that the same barriers to departments doing more evaluations had been in place since 2013. These include a lack of political engagement and a lack of incentives for departments to produce evaluations. HM Treasury told us that it still has …
Read more
In our May 2022 report on evaluation, we pointed out that the same barriers to departments doing more evaluations had been in place since 2013. These include a lack of political engagement and a lack of incentives for departments to produce evaluations. HM Treasury told us that it still has more to do to address these barriers. It told us that departments have the desire to demonstrate what they have delivered for their investment. However, the time it can take for value and benefits to be realised, as well as the time it can take to carry out an evaluation means that evaluations are not always carried out. In particular, these issues of timing do not always match with the political cycle of, for example, elections and spending reviews, which can mean that departments are not incentivised. HM Treasury told us that because the cost of an evaluation is small compared to the cost of delivering a project, it does not consider cost to be a barrier.10 Cross-government working
Show less
Government response AI summary
Despite stating agreement, the government's response details actions related to monitoring healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in humans and animals, including a new data dashboard from UKHSA by Autumn 2025 and novel AMR surveillance pilots in animals until 2029. This does not address the …
Read full response →
HM Treasury