Conclusions and recommendations
1. We welcome the Government's acceptance
of the need to reconcile the policy intention of its reform and
localism agenda with the legitimate demands of parliamentary accountability.
We urge the Government to consider the fundamentals of effective
accountability set out in this Report and consult fully with Parliament
on how accountability will be delivered within the context of
its reform agenda.
2. Local accountability and reformed structures
do not absolve departmental Accounting Officers of their personal
responsibility to gain assurance on the way funds voted to their
departments are spent. The Cabinet Office
and the Treasury distinguished between Accounting Officers' accountability
for system-wide issues and accountability to the local community
or service user for the performance of local bodies. Our interest
is in the financial management and value for money secured from
all departmental spending and we expect Accounting Officers to
put in place arrangements to provide us with the assurances we
need. Parliament needs to be able to assure the public that value
for money is obtained and Government must put in place arrangements
to enable Parliament to do its job.
3. The accountability arrangements supporting
the localism agenda are unclear. The National
Audit Office estimates that 37% of central government tax receipts
are devolved to local bodies. We support the aim of enhancing
local accountability and user accountability, but thinking on
how local communities and users hold bodies accountable in practice
is rudimentary. The Government's review of accountability needs
to consider the extent to which local accountability will act
as an effective pressure to secure service improvements without
due regard to value for money, particularly where there is no
local financial incentive to keep costs down.
4. The reform agenda anticipates a plethora
of delivery and accountability models, some of which are untested.
Responsibility for delivering public services will be devolved
to established entities such as local authorities with a strong
record of managing public funds but also to new and untested bodies,
for example GP consortia or free schools. The Government's accountability
review should map out the landscape of the different delivery
models and proposed accountability arrangements for each form
of reform and ensure they comply with the fundamentals we have
outlined.
5. Accountability regimes must be underpinned
by sound information systems, yet our experience suggests this
is an area of systemic weakness. Whether
to aid the 'armchair auditor' and the users of local services,
or to provide the assurance that Accounting Officers need to fulfil
their responsibilities to Parliament, information about local
delivery needs to be comparable and robust. The Government acknowledged
that where resources are devolved to local providers, performance
is likely to vary. Currently, users of local services have little
or no access to information on the cost, quality or value for
money of the services and this limits their ability to make informed
judgements between alternative providers. Even if they did have
access to the necessary information, service quality would be
likely to prove the overriding priority for service users; cost
and value for money would be secondary considerations in selecting
the appropriate service. Government should specify what performance,
financial and outcome information is needed to enable effective
transfer of responsibility to local service providers.
6. Accountability for the delivery of major
projects and programmes must be clear so those responsible for
delivery can be held to account. There
are weaknesses in personal responsibility and accountability for
major projects due to the high turnover and lack of central oversight
of Senior Responsible Owners. Government acknowledges that there
is a shortage in project management expertise. This dilutes control
over major projects, has led to cost overruns and delays and further
weakens accountability to Parliament. The Cabinet Office is updating
its current approach to enhancing project management expertise.
At a project level, Senior Responsible Owners should be held accountable
for delivering projects within an agreed budget and timeframe
and should have authority to direct those involved in delivering
the project. For all major projects and programmes, the Accounting
Officer should nominate a Senior Responsible Owner who is accountable
to Parliament alongside the departmental Accounting Officer. Steps
should be taken to reduce the present turnover of staff, which
undermines efficiency and effectiveness and makes a nonsense of
personal responsibility and accountability.
| 
