Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 25
25
Deferred
Treasury acknowledges government's current lack of systematic evaluation for company interventions and non-interventions.
Recommendation
We asked the witnesses about how robustly government collates and shares evaluation findings and lessons on this topic. The Treasury suggested that this was something they “can probably be a bit more systematic on”. It provided the example of the covid support business grant schemes as a “systemic evaluation that is taking place right now”.73 It also said it would be keen to learn the lessons from the Silicon Valley Bank case and that the Financial Stability Board was carrying out an exercise to do this.74 UKGI told us that nine cases out of 10 that it examines do not result in a government intervention.75 However, the Treasury acknowledged that it does not systematically evaluate interventions or non- interventions in a way that would add understanding across government, and said that it was grateful to the NAO’s work for highlighting this.76
Government Response Summary
The government agrees with the recommendation to systematically evaluate interventions and non-interventions, setting a target date of July 2024. It commits to working with Cabinet Office and UKGI to consider future changes, potentially including placing conditions on departments to report back to the centre.
Government Response
Deferred
HM Government
Deferred
6.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: July 2024 6.2 The government agrees with the Committee on the importance of evaluation. To ensure best practice and learning is applied when considering interventions in different sectors, the centre of government, including UKGI, HM Treasury’s Special Situations team and Cabinet Office, acts as a source of expertise to support departments drawing on experiences of previous company distress cases. 6.3 To date, evaluation of company cases has not been formalised. This is an area of potential improvement. HM Treasury will therefore work with the Cabinet Office and UKGI to consider future changes, potentially including placing conditions on departments to report back to the centre. 6.4 It is the responsibility of LGDs to evaluate their interventions, as they are best placed to understand sectors they are responsible for, their departmental objectives and legal obligations. HM Treasury and Cabinet Office will consider how to capture and share cross-cutting issues and whether requirements for departmental evaluation can be further strengthened. 6.5 In addition, government interventions are often scrutinised by Parliament, such as the inquiries on Carillion, Silicon Valley Bank (UK) and Bulb Energy. Departmental Select Committees may also hold hearings or exchange correspondence with departments on bespoke interventions, such as CF Fertilisers and Celsa Steel. This provides further rigorous evaluation. 6.6 As highlighted by their report, the National Audit Office provide further evaluation by regularly scrutinising government’s response to company distress cases, from Northern Rock to Bulb Energy. As outlined in response to recommendation 4, HM Treasury will circulate the NAO’s recent report and good practice guide to departments.