8
Not Addressed
The Department provided £30 million of funding to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural...
Conclusion
The Department provided £30 million of funding to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), with £7 million allocated to the Zoo Support Fund.27 We asked the Department why the allocation to DEFRA to support zoos came from funding designed to support charities helping the vulnerable during the pandemic. We remarked that this seemed at odds with the fact that many zoos operate as businesses rather than charities. The Department explained that the design was the result of officials being “extremely concerned about the welfare of animals in zoos and what was going to happen as a result of zoos being closed during the period.”28 We asked whether this was an appropriate mechanism to support zoos, considering that a fund to support zoos was already in place through DEFRA. The Department stated that “Ministers took a view that they wanted to allocate funds to zoos” but was not able to provide any further detail.29
Government Response Summary
The government provides a general defense of its funding allocation processes and adherence to civil service codes but does not address the committee's specific concern regarding the appropriateness of allocating funds from a charity support package to zoos.
Government Response
Not Addressed
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented 2.2 DCMS agrees that appropriate records of decisions, especially in relation to funding, should always be kept. In this instance, as the DCMS Permanent Secretary confirmed in a letter dated 14 May 2021 to the Committee, she was satisfied that civil servants and special advisers at all times followed the Civil Service Code and Code of Conduct for Special Advisers in the distribution of the COVID-19 Charities Funding and that the decisions on funding were made by ministers in the proper way based on appropriately recorded written submissions from civil servants to junior ministers and the Secretary of State. All such submissions and the responses from ministers are recorded in the DCMS IT system. 2.3 The same letter set out the detailed processes involved confirming the distinction between impartial advice from civil servants and the political advice offered by special advisers. The process was that, while special advisers were present at a meeting where proposed allocations were being discussed, those meetings were chaired by a civil servant at Director General level and that the bids being considered by officials for recommendation to ministers at the time of the meeting were all eventually recommended to ministers. These were the only bids recommended. No bids were added to or removed from the list of recommendations as a result of the meeting or after that for any other reason. For a small number of bids, the monetary value of the award being recommended was adjusted between the meeting and the official submissions to ministers. The decision to do so was made by DCMS civil servants who were satisfied that the recommendations were all evidence-based and value for money. 2.4 As the Committee acknowledges, the department was working at pace in exceptional circumstances and continues to reflect on all lessons learned. While DCMS is confident that proper processes and procedures were followed in this case, the department continues to remind civil servants about their duties under the Civil Service Code and Code of Conduct for Special Advisers as well as the importance of appropriate record keeping both as part of the induction programme for new staff and in regular briefings cascaded to staff across the department.
Source
Committee
Public Accounts Committee
Report
Fifth Report - COVID-19: Government Support for Charities
09 Jun 2021
HC 250
Addressee Bodies
HM Treasury
Timeline
Recommendation age
5.1 yrs
Report published
09 Jun 2021