This report examines the Department for International Development's financial management capability, its increasing focus on value for money, and the challenges it faces in managing its increasing programme budget while reducing its overall running costs. DFID is protected from overall expenditure reductions as the Government has committed to increasing the UK's aid spending to 0.7% of gross national income by 2013. The Department faces a substantial challenge to improve its financial management while reducing its administration costs by a third over the next four years. The Committee welcomes the planned introduction, in 2011, of a finance improvement plan. DFID must now keep up the focus on better financial management. There is concern that the Department does not quantify the likely level of leakage through fraud and corruption. And DFID is only considering fraud risk at the level of delivery method rather than at a country level. Management of fraud risk will require a stronger framework for ensuring money is properly spent on the ground, with effective monitoring and pro-active anti-fraud work. The likely increase in funding via multilateral organisations (which then determine how to distribute the aid worldwide) might not ensure value for money as DFID does not have the same visibility over the cost and performance of multilaterals' programmes as it does over its own bilateral programmes. Finally, the Committee is concerned that the Department still has insufficient data to make informed investment decisions based on value for money.

This study compares the various instruments and approaches used by the World Bank, the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, the Strategic Partnership for Africa and several bilateral donor agencies to assess and reform public expenditure management systems in developing and transitional countries. It identifies weaknesses in the current system and recommends a new medium-term, country-led, multidonor approach which is focused on better budgetary management supplemented by donor aid funds, as a key mechanism to reduce poverty and attain other policy goals.

This project, based on the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) data set, researched how PEFA can be used to shape policy development in public financial management (PFM) and other major relevant policy areas such as anticorruption, revenue mobilization, political economy analysis, and fragile states. The report explores what shapes the PFM system in low- and middle-income countries by examining the relationship between political institutions and the quality of the PFM system. Although the report finds some evidence that multiple political parties in control of the legislature is associated with better PFM performance, the report finds the need to further refine and test the theories on the relationship between political institutions and PFM. The report addresses the question of the outcomes of PFM systems, distinguishing between fragile and nonfragile states. It finds that better PFM performance is associated with more reliable budgets in terms of expenditure composition in fragile states, but not aggregate budget credibility. Moreover, in contrast to existing studies, it finds no evidence that PFM quality matters for deficit and debt ratios, irrespective of whether a country is fragile or not. The report also explores the relationship between perceptions of corruption and PFM performance. It finds strong evidence of a relationship between better PFM performance and improvements in perceptions of corruption. It also finds that PFM reforms associated with better controls have a stronger relationship with improvements in perceptions of corruption compared to PFM reforms associated with more transparency. The last chapter looks at the relationship between PEFA indicators for revenue administration and domestic resource mobilization. It focuses on the credible use of penalties for noncompliance as a proxy for the type of political commitment required to improve tax performance. The analysis shows that countries that credibly enforce penalties for noncompliance collect more taxes on average.

The Government recognises that aid spending has sometimes been controversial at home because people want to know that it is squarely in the UK's national interest. Recent crises have proved, though, why aid is so important for us as well as for the countries we assist. The 2015 Spending Review is therefore being used to fundamentally review how this budget is spent. Spending will be shaped according to four strategic objectives. The strategy sets out how, as a result of the new approach, we will: allocate 50% of all DFID's spending to fragile states and regions; increase aid spending for the Syrian crisis and the related region; end all traditional general budget support - so we can better target spending; use an expanded cross-government Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) to underpin our security objectives by supporting the international work of the National Security Council (NSC); create a £500 million ODA crisis reserve to allow still greater flexibility to respond to emerging crises such as the displacement of Syrian refugees; fund a new £1 billion commitment to global public health (the "Ross Fund") which will fund work to tackle the most dangerous infectious diseases, including malaria. The fund will also support work to fight diseases of epidemic potential, such as Ebola, neglected tropical diseases, and drug resistant infections; and use a new cross-government Prosperity Fund, led by the NSC, to drive forward our aim of promoting global prosperity.

Sound financial management will be essential at the Department for International Development as its spending increases by a third over the next four years. The Department has put important building blocks in place; however its financial management is not yet mature. The Department cannot yet assess important aspects of the value for money of the aid it has delivered, at an aggregated level. The Department's programme budget will grow by £3.3 billion from 2010-11 to 2014-15 (34 per cent in real terms). At the same time, its administration budget is going to reduce by a third. The Department has increased the number of finance professionals it employs, but this expertise needs to be used more effectively across the business. In addition, new financial information systems do not yet provide the data needed to support well-founded decisions and forecasts are still an area of weakness. After a thorough review the Department now has a high level plan. Along with actions to strengthen measurement of aid projects, this has the potential to help strengthen the focus on aid results and value for money. But key risks need to be managed and a single strategy for doing so is needed. With greater spending in higher risk locations and more fragile states more must be done to assure that fraud and corruption risks are minimised. Although the level of reported fraud is low, it is likely to be under-reported. The NAO has found that the investigation of fraud is reactive and the Department does not attempt to quantify its estimated likely fraud losses

The Ministry has improved its financial management since the Committee's last report in January 2011 (HC 574, ISBN 9780215556042). Many of the Ministry's processes have improved, including modelling and forecasting, but the Ministry has not achieved significant improvements in the delivery of key financial outcomes and therefore has much still to do. The most serious issue is the Ministry's inability to report its financial affairs on a timely and accurate basis. The Ministry's own resource accounts for 2010-11 were delivered late and there were significant problems with the accounts produced by two of its major arm's length bodies, the Legal Services Commission and HM Courts Service's Trust Statement. The Ministry faces significant accounting challenges for the 2011-12 financial year, due to the required earlier publication of the accounts. The Ministry needs to break the cycle of continuing failure to produce accurate and timely accounts. It also faces considerable challenges in meeting its tough spending review commitments, but without a full understanding of its costs, the Ministry risks unnecessarily cutting frontline services, which are critical to the poorest in the community, rather than ensuring savings are achieved through genuine efficiencies. Maximising the income it obtains will help the Ministry and fine collection is improving, but it is being outpaced by the growth in fines outstanding. Excellent financial management is critical to the Ministry's future success as it seeks to achieve significant efficiency gains while coping with workload pressures, such as increases in the prison population, that are largely outside its control.

Dated October 2007. The publication is effective from October 2007, when it replaces "Government accounting". Annexes to this document may be viewed at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk