Wat Tyler: Transparency on government spending

Wat Tyler edits Burning Our Money.

> Policy summary

Central government should be required to maintain a searchable online database detailing all payments to companies and other organisations, either directly or through government agencies/quangos.

> Policy explanation

As often observed, the best disinfectant is sunshine. And the best antidote to government waste is information.

Government spends £550bn pa of our money (43% of our income), but wastes huge amounts of it - over £80bn pa according to the ECB. A key reason is that taxpayers aren’t given enough information on where their money’s actually going. Of course, we know the big numbers because politicians like to boast about them. But when it comes to scrutinising the detail of spending, it's a lot harder to unearth the facts.

We have a right to know, in particular, who’s getting the £170bn pa the government spends on procurement and capital projects, and the £60bn pa it gives away in grants and subsidies (that’s excluding social benefits). And what it’s for.

Some of this you can already discover - if you've got a degree in government accounting, no day job, and you're prepared to spend your life burrowing through mountains of obscure accounting appendices. But a lot of the information is simply missing: short of a lucky FOI, the government does not feel obliged to tell us.

This has to change. We need our own Transparency and Accountability Act, modelled on the bipartisan bill currently going through the US Senate. That will require the Federal Government to establish "a single updated searchable database website accessible by the public at no cost that includes for each entity receiving Federal funding... for the last ten years...an itemized breakdown of each transaction, including funding agency, program source, and a description of the purpose of each funding action".

The National Review describes the proposed database as a “Google-like tool for federal accountability”.  After all the years of Labour incompetence and deceit, the Conservatives should claim the sunlit uplands of modern accountable government by offering it here.

> Political risks and opportunities

The main political risk is that open accessible reporting would make life more uncomfortable for governments of all complexions, Conservative included. It would become much easier for political opponents to gather stones to throw.

But against that, this is a great opportunity to reinforce our Conservative brand as the anti-waste party. We know that the issue increasingly resonates with voters, but right now they don’t believe any politicians’ promises to grip it (e.g. see TPA poll). Pledging a Transparency and Accountability Act would show that the Conservatives are serious.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

1. Should there be a cut-off point for small payments (say below £5,000)?
2. Is it appropriate to exclude social benefits?
3. Other than national security, should there be any exemptions (eg commercial confidentiality)?

> Costs

In principle, this ought to be cheap: all departments and agencies already have a duty to record all payments, and half a century into the electronic age, all data should be in electronic form. So we just need some simple software to pull it all together and make it available online - maybe we could even coat-tail the US version.

Of course, things are less straightforward in practice. According to the NAO, there are “some 250” separate accounting systems across central government, and some government accounting (e.g. at the Home Office) is shambolic.

But these are problems that must be fixed irrespective of this proposal, and we are given to understand urgent work is already underway to do so. Apart from anything else, much of the Gershon “efficiency” programme to drive better procurement deals depends on being able to work out how much is being spent right across government with individual suppliers.

Against that background, we are entitled to expect that the cost of this additional openness requirement would be small - tens rather than hundreds of millions. And remember, even at £800m it would pay for itself if we just saved 1% of government waste in one year alone.

 

Comments

[aristeides]

A very interesting idea and a definite yes.

Re: cut off point for small payments, if they are already tracked, why not just include them? Otherwise, there will be a sudden explosion in the number of payments of £4,999.

[Automated Robot]

I can imagine Sir Humphrey in Jim Hacker's office now:

"An excellent idea, Minister. We could announce a sensible application of the existing FoI legislation - not another tiresome initiative as such?"

...and chuckling quietly outside the office at its limited prospects of survival prospects.

The obstacles are many and significant. It would not be quick, cheap or simple. Culture change would be a further, greater challenge than the IT issues. It is an intangible or indirect benefit at best (think Gershon) so maintaining vision and drive over the long term would be difficult.

An additional question to consider is the currency (NPI) of the data: at what point must a payment be published? Commissioning? Invoice? Payment? Audit?

However, I will still support this proposal; but wonder if this may be better achieved as a consequence of other initiatives? One of those elusive objects best seen with peripheral vision, rather than full gaze, front and centre.

[Angelo Basu]

If there was an exclusion for commercial confidentiality the proposal would be a dead duck. I suspect that any current PPP/PFI private partner would refuse to have their current deals publicised so the proposal would only cover future deals. This would also be another area giving power to the anti-EU lobby in that if businesses wished to retain commercial confidentiality for existing info (possibly for new) due to Data Protection law it would be difficult to override this by Statute (although not impossible).

My understanding is that public finances are in such a mess that it is difficult for the relevant Ministers to get this level of transparency internally regarding their own departments- which is horrific. To update systems so that Ministers had that level of information, let alone in a format that would be easy to search as a private individual strikes me as an immense project, probably substantially beyond the costs of the ID card or NHS patient files projects.

This is a theoretically good idea which in practical terms falls into the same category as the whole range of New Labour's IT and Targets fetish in being incredibly expensive yet ultimately delivering dubious results. Perhaps this is my innumeracy as someone who stopped mathematical training after A levels but I don't really see how transparency of the bare figures will lead to being substantially more able to tell whether particular projects have provided value for money or not other than for those mythical experts in government accounting.

Public procurement is an area where in theory market solutions are in place, both as part of the Thatcher reforms and the wider EU procurement regime. Are we suggesting that we don't trust that the market has delivered the right results? Or is this merely a way of focusing on those areas of public expenditure which have not gone the PPP/PFI route? As someone who has worked on a number of PPP/PFI projects such transparency may well cast doubt on the efficiency of the private solutions and commend a less market driven solution...

[Mark Wadsworth]

YES.

This is a commonsense policy, not a radical policy. I have indeed sometimes spent hours on the internet trying to track down the cost of certain items and it is enormously difficult but usually not impossible. Any improvements in this are are much to be welcomed.

If public finances are indeed in such a mess that the government is forced to admit that they can't track down £80 bn of spending, then either they are too ashamed to admit what it's for, or they have genuinely lost the money. Either way is a win for the taxpayer and advocates of small government.

1. No cut off point! Similar small transactions will just be amalgamated into one larger figure.

2. Why exclude social benefits? Tax Credit overpayments and the cost of administering means tested benefits (between 5% and 10% of the cost of the underlying benefits) are very relevant statistics.

3. No exemptions. All government payrolls should be available on line (anonymised of course). National Security can be protected by showing expenditure under broad headings. Commercial confidentiality is no excuse (see loans for peerages and so on). These PPP/PFI companies have nothing to be ashamed of ... do they?

[Denis Cooper]

I might prefer to see how it works out in practice in the US. It's a huge amount of information to put on a database. If that process involved people it would be very expensive, while if it was done by an automatic feed couldn't that make it easier for clever hackers to get back into the departmental accounts?

[Mike C]

Clearly the devil is in the detail, but I do support this idea.

It's our money being spent and our right to know where it is going outweighs commercial imperatives - I therefore don't buy in to making exceptions for commercial confidentiality.

The proposal may also improve the efficiency of government use of the the voluntary sector by exposing the Civil Service's obsession with 'competive tender' processes (http://www.philanthropycapital.org/html/surer_funding.php)

I do, however have reservations about requiring historical data to be entered - on the grounds of accuracy and cost/benefit.

[edmund]

is Senator Cobdurn of Oklahoma going to get partial credit if this becomes party policy?

[Og]

YES.

An online, live-time national audit would do more for accountability than any number of James and Gershon reports. It will no doubt spawn an industry of geeks trawling through the figures in the silent hours, who do our reading for us - no one individual will be able to digest it all, after all.

[Allan Scullion]

An overwhelming yes.

I would go further and make the various Government agencies/quangos link their own accounts into the database. Know who gets the money and what for is one thing, knowing how effectively thay are using it is another. We should be able to "drill down" further into the financial mire and make sure waste is monitored at the bottom end of the chain.

[Allan Scullion]

Also... No cut off points. I'm sure the Government could find a way to hide their dodgy dealings using many small unreported payments.

[Tom]

YES

From a technical / IT point of view this doesn't need to be that complex or challenging. This doesn't have to be a live database for use in procurement, its just a central repository for copies of departmental accounts. And all government agencies keep properly audited accounts. Don't they?
And the key thing this would offer is the chance for citizens to check the figures politicians keep throwing out. If Gordon tells you he's increased spending on plastic pot plants for hospital wards by 79% in the last 5 years how are you supposed to check? Its got to the point where I think the majority of people no longer beleive the numbers they hear from politicians, and that goes for all the parties. The Tories have to adopt policies like this if they're serious about restoring trust in politics.

[aristeides]

Of course, what would make this really fun would be to apply it to the EU!

[Mark Wadsworth]

Aristeides, as you know perfectly well, the accounts for the EU for the last 13 years or so are a model of clarity.

The entire budget for each year was spent on "balancing figure/unknown".

The accounts are still in basic draft form, but no further significant changes are expected before they are finalised.

[David Belchamber]

Yes; would officials' salaries etc be included?
It might also cause systems across departments to be made compatible and bring necessary discipline to the Home Office et al.

[James Maskell]

Basically this is an extension of "Best Value". The Government spends money telling people how its spending your money...love the logic. Isnt this what Parliament is for?

[John Peters]

Yes. The policy would need to be clear, detailed and unequivocal with a commitment to introduce it in the first year of Parliament, before the new Conservative government gets infected and becomes defensive.

[John]

Actually the Scottish Tories have already floated this - sadly Scotsman subscribers only can access the detail:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1360922006

[Andy Hemsted]

A very sensible idea, and would allow for greater open government. We would then be able to see just how much we are spending on various items of government expenditure.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I think this idea sounds a good one, but in practice it might turn out to be more difficult to organise than people thought. Also I think that computers are only as good as the people who are putting the information into them and this covers a very broad area i.e. much greater room for inaccuracies.

[Tory Solicitor]

I think this is a great idea.

It would require a great deal of courage and persistence to implement it without too many exceptions.

We shouold not underestimate the power of vested interests