05 July 2002
When it comes to public sector finance it is usually fairly obvious who plays the role of the bad guy – step forward the Treasury.
With its predilection for parsimony and prudence, saying 'no' to requests for more cash seems to come very easily to the keeper of the government's purse strings. Of course, those within the department would say their approach to spending is fair, reasonable and for our own good.
However, if the results of the latest Public Inquiry, conducted with Reed Accountancy Personnel, are anything to go by, the Treasury may not be as unpopular as is often suggested.
Those working on the front line, it appears, do not hold it in such traditional low regard. In the run-up to the announcement of the Spending Review, it seems fears that the department is an out-of-control, miserly monster are largely unwarranted.
Asked if the Treasury is 'becoming too powerful and should be reined in by Number 10', only 14% of public sector finance staff 'agree strongly', with a quarter 'agreeing slightly'. More than a third – 34% – are neutral and a further 9% 'disagree strongly'.
Maybe nobody wants to make waves in the final run-up to the determination of which department gets what. And, surprisingly, support among central government is mixed, with a third taking a neutral stance.
But it does seem that there is broad – and genuine – backing for its approach to financial planning, because the shift to a three-year planning cycle is (generally speaking) well received.
'Medium-term planning of use of resources enables a more rational planning agenda than incremental ad hoc spending,' says one health worker.
In fact, there appears to be an appetite for longer-term planning.
'Probably I would go for five-year plans, with the ability for a substantial review in the middle of the period, and annual audits,' says Eugenia Skelly, finance manager with the Oxford Women's Training Scheme. 'Three years or less is too short a time for an improvement to be achieved, become effective and be measured.'
Others think that even if three-year planning is retained for most services, priority areas would benefit from longer-term planning.
There is limited support, though, for increased spending on areas other than health and education priorities. While 16% 'agree strongly' that spending elsewhere should rise, this is balanced by 12% 'disagreeing strongly'.
The highest support for a shift in spending comes from those in central government, where 54% agree that there should be increased budgets for other departments.
Government attempts to link funding to performance levels through Public Service Agreements receive mixed levels of support across the sector. Overall, 19% agree 'strongly' and 33% 'slightly', though support is highest in central government.
There, 44% strongly support the proposition and a further 22% 'agree slightly', with only 12% in Whitehall refusing to toe the party line and 'disagreeing strongly'.
Support for the link between performance and spending is fairly strong in local government – one in five 'agree strongly', with another 32% 'agreeing slightly'.
One area where there is broad support, particularly among those in councils, is the suggestion that the 'Treasury should demonstrate its commitment to "new localism" by rewarding frontline services in the Spending Review'.
Not too surprisingly, almost one in three in town halls 'agree strongly' and a further 45% 'agree slightly'.
PFjul2002
