Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 30
30
Accepted
Government consistently lacks transparency and evidence in justifying scheme selection, fueling political bias concerns.
Conclusion
We have previously expressed concern about a lack of evidence and transparency to justify scheme selection in other parts of government.67 In our 2020 report on the Towns Fund, we found that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government was not open about the process it followed and did not disclose reasons for selecting or excluding particular towns. This lack of transparency fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process.68 In our 2022 report on local economic growth, we found that the 61 C&AG’s Report, paras 1.8 and 2.7, Figure 5 62 C&AG’s Report, para 1.10 63 C&AG’s Report para 1.9 64 C&AG’s Report, paras 9, 1.8 and 1.9 65 NHP00005 66 Qq 102–107, 115, 116 67 Q 108 68 Committee of Public Accounts, Selecting towns for the Towns Fund, Twenty-Fourth report of Session 2019–21, HC 651, 2 November 2020 The New Hospital Programme 17 Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities’ principles for awarding grants of levelling-up funding were only finalised by ministers after they knew which bidders would win grants as a result.69
Government Response Summary
The government accepts the overarching concern about transparency in scheme selection processes, acknowledging a past omission in record-keeping. It commits to ensuring future practices allow for providing evidence on decision outcomes, balanced against protecting sensitive information, thereby addressing the underlying issue raised by the committee's contextual observation.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented 2.2 The department accepts that there was an omission in record keeping around the final selection of schemes that would be included in the Health Infrastructure Plan in 2019. However, the process was based on clear criteria and the department, NHSE, HM Treasury and No10 Downing Street agreed that the final list of schemes was the right one. 2.3 The government regularly sets out the selection process for major capital programmes before bids are invited and decisions are made. Selection criteria for schemes to take forward will vary but will consistently consider the strategic context, economic impact and risks, commercial factors, financial factors and deliverability; in line with HM Treasury’s Five Case Model as recommended by the Green Book. Scheme selection decisions in major capital programmes are inherently complex, requiring comparison between different criteria and consideration of their relative value. The department also considers the advice of NHSE when allocating funding for major capital programmes. 2.4 The department is committed to ensuring its practices, procedures, and advice result in rational decisions made through an appropriate process that take account of the right criteria. As a result, the department will be able to provide evidence on decision outcomes as needed, balanced against its responsibilities to protect certain types of information, such as commercially sensitive information.