State of Policy Information 2008

In our annual publication, State of Policy Information, we consider whether the government provides the House of Representatives with sufficient information on policy in a number of fields. We also consider whether this information can be used in practice: can the House of Representatives use it to determine whether a minister's policy decisions were well considered and whether the intended goals and results will be achieved? This year, we looked at the six policy priorities ('pillars') set by the fourth Balkenende government and investigated how the government informed the House about one of the goals in each of the pillars.

Conclusions

The government wants to be held accountable for the policy priorities set in the coalition agreement ('policy programme'). It is frustrated, however, by the way in which the goals we investigated have been formulated and considered and by the way in which progress will be measured. The House needs to be better informed if it is to determine whether goals have been achieved and whether the measures taken have had the desired impact. To begin with the consideration, the precise problem that will be addressed by the proposed measures should be clearly stated, and reasons should be given to explain why the measures will have the desired impact. In this respect, the government does not provide the House with adequate information on some of its policy priorities. This is illustrated by the proposed reform of the civil service. The government provides some considerations about why the civil service should be 'smaller and better' but they are so general that they do little to support the need for such a substantial reform programme.

The government's policy goals should also be formulated in specific and measurable terms and the expenditure budgeted for the goals should be related to the proposed measures. There is room for improvement here, too. This is illustrated by the government's goal of wanting to build between 80,000 and 100,000 new homes every year. It is uncertain when sufficient 'progress' will have been made and it will therefore be difficult to hold the Minister of Housing, Communities and Integration to account. Another example is provided by the policy to reduce crime and the theft of bicycles. The budgets of the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and of the Minister of Justice do not explain how the proposed measures will help achieve the goals. It will therefore be difficult for the House to monitor the policy's progress.

Some improvement can be seen in the way in which ministers try to measure the results of their policies but the House should still be properly informed about the results.

Recommendations

Ministers should use their 2009 budgets and 2008 annual reports to better inform the House about proposed and actual policy. By this, we do not mean that they should provide more information to the House but that they should provide more relevant information. Ministers should better explain the problems that are being addressed and how they think their policies will help. Policy decisions should ideally be backed up by measures that have been proven to work. Ministers should also formulate their policy goals in specific and measurable terms wherever possible and relate the goals, performance and expenditure to each other more specifically.

Response of the Ministers

Most Ministers agreed with our general recommendations. The two main tracks to increase policy efficiency, they thought, were to improve policy considerations in advance and to systematically evaluate the progress made. In their specific responses, the Ministers noted that their reliance on third parties in the policy preparation and implementation phases made it difficult for them to follow our recommendations in full.

Current status

The report was submitted to the House of Representatives on 21 May 2008.