Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 26
26
Accepted
Absence of contingency plans caused scramble and flawed early scheme design.
Conclusion
The absence of contingency plans contributed to the scramble at the start of the pandemic, with knock-on effects much further down the line. HM Treasury told us that it had to create a function to pay business grants from scratch within around 10 working days and linked this to the weakness or absence of early guidance on grant repayment arrangements.62 DBT told us that the initial focus on speed “framed all of the decisions then that cascaded through in terms of scheme design and implementation.”63 There were not any trusted arrangements enabling engagement with most authorities prior to schemes being announced, leaving local authorities facing queries from local businesses they were not able to answer.64 HM Treasury graphically described the situation the government found itself in part-way through the pandemic: doing their best to respond to unforeseen issues, taking reactive decisions following epidemiological developments, without guidance ready to enable anyone to deal with questions from businesses about how they would or wouldn’t be supported.65
Government Response Summary
The government agrees with the finding and commits to considering IPSOS evaluation findings, anticipated guidance from Cabinet Office and HM Treasury, and recommendations from NAO and GGMF reports when planning future schemes and contingencies by Spring 2024. DBT will also enhance understanding of local government capabilities.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: Spring 2024 The DBT will take account of IPSOS evaluation findings and best practice including anticipated guidance (Cabinet Office “Emergency Situation Grants” and the HM Treasury “Managing Debt in a Crisis” paper which are both currently being drafted) when planning future schemes and for contingencies. In addition, recommendations from the pending National Audit Office and Government Grants Management Function (GGMF) Cabinet Office reports on future delivery will be considered as part of future contingency plans. Through ongoing collaborative working, directly with local authorities and through the Local Government Association (LGA) contacts and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Local Authority Funding Directorate, the department will seek to enhance the understanding of the capability of local government systems when considering future scheme delivery model options.