3 Future developments
30. The Programme faces ongoing risks, with the number
of applications the Company deals with rising steeply as by 2011
it takes on responsibility for all students in the student finance
system.[74] The Department
told us it would review options for removing this work from the
Company if the service failed again in 2010 but the only real
option would be to hand the work back to local authorities; an
option it told us it had not examined in detail. The Department
further explained that, because of the need to ensure continuity
of service and the lead time required to introduce any change
of service provider, it was to an extent locked in to its current
arrangements. It has sought to improve the service by changing
the management arrangements of the Company.[75]
31. The Updating Memorandum drew our attention to
two developments which may have implications for the design of
the Programme and the role of the Company. The status of the Company
is "under consideration", and proposals on how student
support is administrated, taking into account the Government's
response to the Browne Report, will be developed in a Higher Education
White Paper, expected in early 2011.[76]
Through the Memorandum, the Department also informed us that in
January 2011 there will be a final OGC Gateway Review, which will
review the strategic business case for the Programme, and the
financial benefits realised to date.[77]
32. A number of the problems experienced by the Company
and Department in 2009 are not unique to this particular programme
or department. In recent years our predecessors have repeatedly
criticised departments for failing to ensure programmes and related
IT systems were effectively piloted before the launch of a new
national service.[78]
Similarly, our predecessors have observed numerous problems encountered
by departments in their management of arm's length bodies in the
delivery of services and introduction of new systems.[79]
We put it to the Department and the Treasury that, where there
are generic lessons to be learned from programmes which have experienced
difficulties, there ought to be a better process of sharing information
about them, not just within the individual department responsible,
but across Whitehall. The Department agreed, suggesting that this
could involve the National School of Government, and affirming
that the permanent secretaries of all departments needed to act
collectively to ensure learning was shared throughout Whitehall.[80]
74 C&AG's Report, para 1.2 Back
75
Q 144-147 Back
76
Ev 18; Public bodies reform-proposals for change, Cabinet Office
press release, 14 October 2010 Back
77
Ev 18 Back
78
For example: Committee of Public Accounts, Tenth Report of Session
2002-03, Individual Learning Accounts, HC 544; Fourteenth
Report of Session 2003-4, Inland Revenue: Tax Credits,
HC 89; Forty-fifth Report of Session 2004-05, Criminal Records
Bureau: delivering safer recruitment?, HC 453; Fifty-fifth
Report of Session 2005-06,The Delays in Administering the 2005
Single Payment Scheme in England, HC 893 Back
79
For example: Committee of Public Accounts, Fifty-fifth Report
of Session 2005-06,The Delays in Administering the 2005 Single
Payment Scheme in England, HC 893 Back
80
Qq 160-161 Back
|
