Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee

Recommendation 28

28

Public spending data lacks sufficient explanation of policy impact and non-financial key performance indicators.

Conclusion
Both of the professional bodies that responded to the Committee’s request for evidence addressed the collection and use of data. The ICAEW told us that a lot more could be done to explain how public spending has been used to meet policy objectives and the needs of the population, and noted a lack of commentary on the non-financial KPIs used as metrics for policy progress on matters including education, levelling up, tackling poverty, crime 42 Q 37 43 Q 41 44 Q 38; Committee of Public Accounts, Covid-19: Cost tracker update, Thirty-Eighth Report of Session 2021–22, HC 640, 23 February 2022 45 Qq 28, 40; Public Accounts Committee, Bounce Back Loans Scheme: Follow-up – Report, HC 961, 27 April 2022 46 Q 38; Public Sector Fraud Authority Website 47 Q 42 48 Qq 42–43 18 Whole of Government Accounts 2020–21 levels, progress on major strategic infrastructure projects, or illegal immigration.49 This echoes our own concerns raised in the report on the 2019–20 WGA, where we stated that current Government policies and economic context were not reflected in WGA reporting, and we recommended changes to the Performance Report.50 The ACCA made particular note of the scope for expanding and enhancing the reporting of data relating to the Net Zero and wider sustainability targets, and commented on the need for this data to be subject to external audit.51
Government Response

A response document is linked to this report, dated 2 April 2024. Response attribution to this conclusion has not been verified. Read the response document ↗