It is probably not one for the beach but the National Audit Office's report into financial management at the DCMS makes for interesting reading.
It is not a confidence booster. The over riding picture that the report paints is of a department - and therefore ministers - making decisions, often in a salami-slicing way, without being fully aware of the financial consequences.
Take the decision to cut administration costs at the DCMS by 50% together with the same cut at arms-length bodies including Arts Council England. The arts council has been particularly annoyed by this. It says that significant admin savings had already been made. The organisation is not simply a cash machine, its chair Liz Forgan said recently - they provide advice, support, nurturing and so on. So far, the arts council has concentrated on sorting out the new national portfolio and effectively "parked" discussions on how it could save 50%.
The report seems to side with the arts council.
"Insufficient account was given of the relative impacts on frontline delivery or the longer term impact that these reductions will have. Going forward, access to self-generated reserves and restructuring funds will provide the opportunity for the Department to differentiate further between the different bodies, although as yet the Department is not in a position to assess fully what impact the cuts made will have on frontline delivery."
Then there is the abolition of the UK Film Council which, if you recall, was axed in a somewhat brutal and sudden fashion.
The report suggests the decision was rushed.
"The Department announced the closure of UK Film Council in July 2010, but it had not performed sufficient analysis of the financial implications of the decision. It announced the transfer of functions four months later, but still had no formal arrangements in place as to which Film Council staff would transfer to other bodies. It had also not calculated the expected costs of closure, although it had decided the transfer of functions would take place on 1 April 2011."
Quite how much money will be saved by the abolition of the film council remains to be seen. The BFI, which takes over, announced last week that 44 film council staff are moving over including the head of the film fund, Tanya Seghatchian. Around 25 people are being made redundant.
Variety magazine has suggested that the money recouped from the UK Film Council's investment in The King's Speech will, by terrible irony, equal the £11m administrative cost of shutting it down in the first place.
It is a similar picture with the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council which the DCMS abolished and transferred powers to the arts council.
"When the Department presented information on the proposed closure of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, it identified the ongoing costs of the activities it wished to continue, but was not able to identify the actual closure costs that would be incurred, or the full marginal costs of transferring activities to Arts Council England."
The report examines a department which had a total expenditure in 2009-10 of £5.67bn. Of that, £452m went to the arts. That's less than half the £924m spent on the Olympics that year. Museums and galleries got £368m; architecture and the historic environment £165m and libraries £147m.
The DCMS is also guilty of salami-slicing or as the report says:
"Undifferentiated top-slicing of budgets can leave organisations exposed and unprepared for the future, and can lead to higher overall costs or the displacement of costs elsewhere."
One of the main conclusion's is this: The NAO "has not been able to conclude that the Department is achieving value for money."
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said this:
"Financial management at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has improved, but there is still a way to go before I can say that it is achieving value for money. Some decisions have been made based on insufficient financial information and analysis, as exemplified by the decisions to merge and close some arm's-length bodies. This can leave organisations exposed and unprepared for the future and lead to high overall costs or the displacement of costs elsewhere."
Read it in full here.
