State of policy information 2007

• Conclusions and recommendations
• Response by ministers

We carried out an audit of several policy areas which the House of Representatives has decided should be covered by the Large Projects Procedural Regulations. These policy areas compel the relevant minister to provide more information to the House of Representatives than is usual. The House of Representatives demands this particularly for policy projects which affect large parts of society or projects involving substantial sums of money.

We selected six large projects: two projects under preparation ('Space for the River' and 'Rotterdam Mainport development'), two in the implementation stage ('Works on the Maas' and 'Armoured Vehicles for the Army') and two completed projects ('ICT in Education' and 'Class Size and Quality in Primary Schools'). For each of these projects we examined whether the House of Representatives received adequate information from the minister in question on the need for and benefits of the project, and on progress and results.

Conclusions and recommendations

Generally speaking, it appeared that sufficient policy information was available on the six large projects audited. However, the information available is still not sufficiently used. Particularly in the preparatory phase of projects, when ministers and the House of Representatives try to persuade each other of the need for and benefits of a project, the information that is available is still not being used to the extent that it could be.

At the same time the information value of the reports sent to the House of Representatives is not always optimal. In order to identify potential negative side-effects and unwelcome and unexpected increases in costs and throughput times at an early state, we feel it is important that ministers give the House of Representatives all the relevant information. However, this is not a recommendation that more information should be provided to the House than at present.

The information that the House of Representatives receives in support of the policy is often unbalanced or is released too late, with the result that the members of Parliament are often more or less presented with faits accomplis. In the case of the purchase of new armoured vehicles for the Royal Netherlands Army, for example, the State Secretary of Defence did not comply with the rules for the time at which the House should be involved in the choice between 'buying off the shelf' or participation in a development project.

We frequently found that the policy objectives of the large projects we examined were not formulated accurately enough. This has an impact on implementation as it cannot be established whether the project is still on track and, on completion, whether the objectives have actually been achieved. An example of this is the large project 'ICT in Education'. The objectives of this project were formulated in general terms that are difficult to measure, such as "embed the use of ICT in schools by adopting an integrated approach", "a lead on neighbouring countries in the efficient use of ICT" and "achieve complete integration of ICT in education".

It is important that projects once started should be periodically reviewed on the need to adapt or put a halt to them. Ministers should have as up-to-date a picture as possible of developments in the costs and benefits of their project and any changes should be reported to the House of Representatives. In the projects we examined, the ministers concerned generally satisfy these requirements.

Furthermore, a good system for providing information is important for the quality of the final evaluations. After all, if the system for providing information on the results achieved by a large project has been properly set up, a ministry can make adjustments during the life of the project and draw lessons from it in retrospect. In the projects we examined, which have since been completed, there is some variation in the extent to which such learning effects were realised.

Response by ministers

All the ministers involved agreed on the importance of the proper provision of information to the House of Representatives. A number of ministers do not share our view on the extent to which the information provided to the House did not comply with the Large Project Procedural Regulations.