House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER BY DCMS ON THE 2003 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT

PSA TARGETS

PSA Target 1: To ensure all public libraries have internet access by the end of 2002.

Q1. Can the Department provide more informative data on the provision of public Internet access from public libraries, including data on the types and speeds of connections (ratio of narrow to broad band), and the ratio of population base to library Internet terminals in boroughs across the country?

A1. The People's Network programme[1]has enabled over 99%—well over 3,000 libraries in all—to be connected to the Internet. All libraries in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are online. The remaining 20 libraries in England will shortly be connected once local refurbishment or technical programmes have been completed. The People's Network programme was delivered on time and in budget; we believe that this represents a significant achievement.

Eighty-nine per cent of public libraries in England provide broadband (2Mb and over) Internet access to the public. The remaining 11% are based almost exclusively in rural areas where broadband continues to be unachievable or uneconomical.

The network bandwidth for all library services has improved dramatically because of the People's Network except for a very small number of innovative library services that already had high bandwidth networks. Many libraries had no network connections at all prior to People's Network implementation.

The ratio of public library Internet terminals per head of population is about one per 2,000 head of population. That are about 23,500 terminals for 49,500,000 people in England. This will vary between library services.

Q2. Is it the Department's aim to ensure that all public libraries provide Internet access free of charge? If yes, what is being done to achieve this and what timescale is envisaged for the achievement of free access? If not, is there a uniform policy, or at least Departmental guidance, on charging access, including issues of charge ceilings, charge types (flat-rate/per hour) and concessions?

A2. The Department would like to see all public libraries provide internet access free of charge and at December 2002, some 90% of library services were offering this. However, the decision on whether to charge rests with each local Library Authority. The guidance issued for implementation of the People's Network recommended that all Internet access should be free of charge. Where library services insisted on charging they had to provide information on how they were meeting government commitments to social inclusion.

Q3. Please explain why Internet access does not feature in the new DCMS PSA Targets for 2003-06. Does the Department believe it has now fulfilled its role in relation to the Government-wide target of universal internet access by 2005? If not, please detail the action being taken.

A3. Given that over 99% of libraries are connected to the Internet, effectively, the original target has been met. The success of the People's Network will provide us with a platform on which to extend our role beyond the provision of access. The focus now will be on engaging excluded communities, increasing the sophistication of usage amongst existing users, and measuring impact. Additionally, the People's Network will evolve into a web-based service delivering a subset of new digital services to the public. These will include a national online enquiry service and a virtual reference shelf.

PSA Target 2: To introduce at least 12 Creative Partnerships by March 2004, targeted at deprived areas, ensuring that every school child in the Partnership has access to an innovative programme of cultural and creative opportunities

Q4. Could the Department provide a note explaining the way in which the Creative Partnerships initiative is being evaluated in qualitative, as well as quantitative, terms?

A4 Quantitative and qualitative outcomes for the first phase of Creative Partnerships (2002-04) have been agreed in the Policy Framework between DCMS, DfES and Arts Council England. These are the subject of a national evaluation being carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), on behalf of Arts Council England.

NFER will produce an interim report in April 2004 and a final report in January 2005. NFER is using a variety of data collection methods to inform their evaluation: questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, attendance data collection and case studies. This will be supported by information from other datasets where possible.

Arts Council England also collect quantitative data which DCMS monitors on a quarterly basis. The most recent figures show that in the year to September 2003, there were 81,163 pupil attendances at 1,010 Creative Partnerships projects. In addition, 1,982 teachers took part in a total of 9,924 hours of continuing professional development.

(a) Could the Department provide an overview of interim evaluation findings in terms of qualitative indicators?

Arts Council England has recently completed an internal stocktake of Creative Partnerships during the first academic year (Sept 2002—July 2003). The stocktake found perceptions among participating schools and cultural/creative partners about the quality and impact of Creative Partnership projects, in particular:

— 90% of schools thought the quality of experiences for pupils were excellent or good;

— 85% of creative organisations thought the quality of experiences for pupils were excellent or good;

— 78% of teachers thought the impact on teaching staff was excellent or good;

— 77% of teachers thought the CPD opportunities were excellent or good;

— 76% of creative organisations thought the impact on their organisation was excellent or good.

NFER's interim evaluation report will measure change during the first year of Creative Partnerships and will be available in April 2004. NFER is conducting ten case studies as part of the qualitative evaluation. These will focus on whole school approaches to developing a creative teaching and learning environment through CP and the impact of Creative Partnerships on pupils.Many of the individual Creative Partnerships are also undertaking local research projects which will measure qualitative as well as quantitative indicators. First reports will be available from early 2004.

(b) Has the Department undertaken any evaluation, or intend any, to establish the level of genuine additionality from the partnerships in terms of outcomes or whether they are largely the brigading together of existing initiatives under a new name?

As noted above, in the year to September 2003, Creative Partnerships supported an additional 1,010 creative and cultural projects, involving 81,163 pupil attendances and 4,213 teachers. DCMS monitors quantitative information about the programme on a quarterly basis.

Creative Partnerships is delivered on the ground by locally based Creative Directors, whose role is to help schools to develop their programme priorities and to act as brokers between schools and creative and cultural practitioners in developing sustainable partnerships. Individual Creative Partnerships projects are developed from the grass roots up, driven by the needs and priorities of the schools and with close support from the Creative Director. This model leaves very little scope or incentive for duplication or re-badging of existing work.

Each partnership is assisted by an Advisory Group, typically made up of representatives of participating schools, Local Education Authorities, Local Government, existing local arts, education or regeneration fora and representatives of local creative organisations and businesses. The Advisory Groups assist partnerships in making links with other regional and local organisations and existing strategies for the arts, education or regeneration. This helps to ensure that Creative Partnership activity within the region is complementary to, and not duplicating existing work.

NFER's evaluation will assess the additional impact of Creative Partnerships. DCMS's Chief Statistician is a member of the Arts Council's Research and Evaluation Steering Group for Creative Partnerships.

(c) The Department is aiming to double the programme in size by 2006. Is the plan to do so based on an evaluation of both quantitative, and qualitative, performance information? If so, please provide a summary for the Committee.

There was a 2001 General Election manifesto pledge to build on the existing Creative Partnerships in order to offer children the chance to develop their artistic and creative talents. As noted above, the Arts Council's internal stocktake of Creative Partnerships shows that 90% of schools and 85% of creative organisations regard the quality of experiences for pupils as excellent or good. Teachers also rated the impact on teaching staff highly (78% excellent or good) and 77% thought that the CPD opportunities were excellent or good. Planning for programme expansion between now and September 2004 will draw comprehensively on stocktake findings and recommendations and, as we move forward, will take into account interim findings from the national evaluation of Creative Partnerships.

PSA Target 3: To raise significantly, year on year, the average time spent on sport and physical activity by those aged five to 16

Q5. The above target seems to be rather ambiguous. What, in the DCMS estimation, would amount to a significant yearly increase in the amount of time spent on sport or physical activity by children?

Q6. Could the Department provide the Committee with clear and consistent, "year on year" data so that an evaluation of PSA target 3 can be carried out effectively?

6a. How does the Department itself, for internal purposes, evaluate its performance on this target?

Q7. The new PSA target for 2003-06 is narrower in scope than your previous target: it aims only to increase the amount of time allocated to PE lessons for children, rather than seeking to increase the overall amount of time spent on sports and other physical activity by children. It seems that the efforts of the Department are now aimed at encouraging a change in policy within schools rather than a change of bbehaviour, culture or attitudes amongst children and parents—on the face of it, a much simpler exercise.

7a. Why was the target changed?

The answers to these questions are closely linked and it might be helpful to group these together.We do, of course, accept that the original PSA target was open to interpretation. When drawing up the target we already had a starting point: Sport England's Young People and Sport National Survey 1999, published in February 2000. Taking into account time spent per week on curriculum PE, outside lessons in term time and during the previous summer holidays, this Survey suggested that, on average, young people spent eight hours 23 minutes a week on sport and physical activity. The objective at the time was to raise this to nine hours a week by 2004 and we stated this in the DCMS 2002 Annual Report[2]

We do not have "year on year" data. We also pointed out in the DCMS 2002 Annual Report[3]that progress and evaluation against the target was to be measured by further national surveys in 2002 and 2004. The results for 2002, published in February 2003, suggested that, on average, the time spent by young people on sport and physical activity had decreased to eight hours 12 minutes a week. As noted in the DCMS 2003 Annual Report[4]while this was disappointing, the results revealed some more encouraging trends, notably that the proportion of pupils receiving at least two hours of PE a week in school had increased by almost a half (from 33% to 49%) and that the number of young people taking part in sport in youth clubs had increased by over a tenth (from 49% to 55%).

It may be helpful to clarify the position regarding the scope of the new target by setting out the full text (responsibility for which we share with DfES). This is:

"[to] enhance the take-up of sporting opportunities by five- to 16-year-olds by increasing the percentage of school children who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high-quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum from 25% in 2002 to 75% by 2006."

There are two key aspects of the target:

— it covers not only PE but also school sport within and beyond the curriculum; and

— it is expressed in terms of take-up by school children, not provision by schools.

DCMS and DfES therefore believe that the target can indeed only be achieved by effecting changes in the behaviour, culture and attitudes of children and parents rather than simply in policy within schools (although this, too, is critical).

In respect of the decision to change the target, we recognised soon after the target had been set that, by covering all sport and physical activity undertaken by children in a variety of settings, the target was considerably broader than the scope of DCMS interventions. Consequently, it proved difficult to assess the extent to which those interventions were responsible for changes to children's behaviour and, therefore, for achievement of the nine-hour objective.

At the same time, two major policy documents[5]placed a much greater emphasis on delivering sport to children through the education system. In January 2001, the Government also announced its intention to offer children an entitlement to two hours a week of high-quality PE and school sport.As a result of these factors, the existing DCMS target was replaced with a new target focusing on delivery of the two-hour entitlement.

(b) The new PSA target is for 75% of all school children to receive at least two hours PE per week. What special measures, if any, are being taken in relation to primary schools where less than 30% of children currently receive two hours PE per week, but where general behavioural patterns for later life are perhaps most likely to be influenced?

The principal delivery mechanism for the two-hour entitlement is the network of School Sport Partnerships. These will cover 2,400 secondary schools and 13,500 primary and special schools—some 75% of all schools in England—by September 2005. Within these Partnerships, each primary school receives additional funding to release a teacher from timetable for 12 days a year to build subject leadership in PE and to develop and deliver a programme of high-quality PE and school sport. These "Link Teachers" are assisted by School Sport Coordinators, qualified PE teachers who are funded to be released from timetable for two days a week to coordinate and develop after-school activity, out-of-hours learning, inter- and intra-school competition and local community links in their own secondary school and their partner primary and special schools. A full-time Partnership Development Manager, usually employed within a Specialist Sports College, is responsible for the strategic development of the Partnership, liasing with external agencies and ensuring the production, review and implementation of a Partnership Development Plan.

Specialist Sports Colleges and School Sport Partnerships are two of eight workstrands within a national strategy for PE, school sport and club links that is designed to deliver the entitlement. Others that contribute significantly at primary age are:

— Club Links—establishing multi-skill clubs to develop general physical literacy;

— Gifted and Talented—establishing talent-support programmes and locally based multi-skill academies to help identify and support talented young performers;

— Professional Development—providing support to teachers, particularly in primary schools, to deliver a broad, balanced and inclusive programme of high-quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum in order to raise pupils' attainment;

— QCA Investigation—exploring and developing ways of improving the quality of PE and school sport and investigating the difference that they make to children and the impact that they have on schools; and

— Swimming—increasing the number of children who can swim at least 25 metres by the end of Key Stage 2.

The national strategy for PE, school sport and club links is being jointly delivered by both DCMS and DfES. Policy responsibility for school timetabling belongs to DfES alone, although each individual school is responsible for its own timetable.

Q8. Sport England reported that in 2002 40% of PE teachers in primary schools, and 39% in secondary schools reported that the sports facilities at their school were `on the whole inadequate' or `fairly inadequate'. The equivalent figures in 1994 had been just 23% and 24%, and in 1999, 22% and 33% among primary and secondary PE teachers respectively. Will any of the new initiatives or funding address this problem?

A8 Please see the answers provided below.

Q8a. Is it realistic to expect to be able to enthuse children for sports if the facilities available in schools are unsatisfactory?

Facilities in schools are an important factor in attracting children into sport and retaining their participation, alongside high-quality teachers and coaches. That is why the Government is now investing heavily in school-sport facilities:

— New Opportunities for PE and Sport—£581 million (in England) from the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) to bring about a step change in the provision of sports facilities for young people and the community generally. As well as offering sporting opportunities, the programme will also have a long-term impact on key issues facing local communities such as education, health, crime and drugs use. New and modernised facilities funded through the programme will integrate and support wider local strategies to improve PE and school sport; integrate sport, education and health outcomes; and encourage innovative approaches that make use of best practice in the design and management of facilities;

— Space for Sport and Arts—£130 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF), NOF, Sport England and Arts Council England to provide greater opportunities for both pupils and the wider community in deprived areas to participate in arts-based and sporting activities by providing new, or modernising existing, facilities in primary schools; and

— Sporting Playgrounds—£10 million from the CMF to enhance primary-school playgrounds in order to improve levels of physical and sporting activity and, in turn, improve behaviour and whole-school standards.

Q8b. How much has been spent on school sports facilities since 1994?

Expenditure within the New Opportunities for PE and Sport, Space for Sport and Arts and Sporting Playgrounds programmes is as follows:

— New Opportunities for PE and Sport—£57.7 million awarded to 220 stage-two approved applications, £8.3 million to 11 fast-track projects and £23.7 million for 150 development grants (total £89.6 million). All funding will be committed by the end of 2005;

— Space for Sport and Arts—all £130 million of the SSA scheme has been allocated and the majority of the projects should be completed by March 2004, with all of them completed by March 2005; and

— Sporting Playgrounds—£5 million anticipated expenditure this financial year and £5 million in 2004-05.

  DfES capital-investment figures representing (a) grant support for investment in school buildings and (b) allocations to schools in LEAs including PFI credits, borrowing approvals and capital grant since 1994 are set out in the following table. It is not possible to disaggregate this information in the manner requested.

Financial year Capital investment (£m)

1993-94    606

1994-95    613

1995-96    625

1996-97    683

1997-98    755

1998-99    969

1999-2000 1,302

2000-01 2,100

2001-02 2,221

2002-03 2,769

2003-04 3,780

2004-05   4,458*

2005-06   5,072*

*  projected

Q9. The Report emphasises the Department's cooperation with the Department of Education on increasing the levels of participation in sports activities. Have you also improved your cooperation and coordination with the Department of Health in this area, as recommended by the Health Select Committee in 2001[6]and agreed with by the Government in response to the report?[7] Please supply the Committee with examples of this cooperation where possible?

A9. Since the Health Select Committee's report in 2001, DCMS has improved cooperation and coordination with DH in terms of both formal and informal official contacts, policy making and delivery in a number of areas, specifically:

— officials in the two Departments instituted monthly keeping-in-touch meetings and regular informal joint working;

— Sport England has funded of a strategic placement within DH to work on the physical-activity agenda from spring 2003. The official concerned leads the DH strand of the Activity Coordination Team (ACT) programme to increase levels of physical activity (see answer to question 10);

— DCMS and DH now routinely collaborate on processes such as the quality assurance of Local Public Service Agreements focused on sport and physical activity.

"Game Plan" contained the headline recommendation that DCMS and DH should jointly lead on the establishment of a cross-Departmental Sport and Physical Activity Board. Beneath that headline recommendation fell a number of others, all requiring close joint working between the two Departments. In order to scope the work and working structures required to carry out those recommendations, DCMS and DH jointly appointed a secondment from the Cabinet Office who reported to Ministers in both Departments in June. The actions taken since are incorporated in the response to question 10 below.

Finally, DCMS continues to be a member of the DH-sponsored National Alliance for Physical Activity which provides a forum for policy makers, experts and practitioners to share experiences and learning on strategies, plans and projects that aim to promote increased participation in physical activity.

Q10. What is the Department doing to promote sports as part of a wider Public Health agenda again as recommended by the Health Select Committee?[9]

DCMS and DH are working together to increase participation in sport and physical activity in the community as part of a wide public-health agenda. Actions being taken include:

— establishing a joint DCMS/DH body, the Activity Coordination Team (ACT) to deliver the "Game Plan" participation objectives and tackle the increase in obesity rates and physical inactivity.

— establishing a project board, which includes DH, to take forward "Game Plan" recommendations focused on improving the delivery of sport and physical activity by local government and the NHS.

— a NOF-funded pilot Regional Health and Activity Coordinator post in the North West, running from autumn 2003 to autumn 2006, to coordinate health and sport issues at a regional level.

— the establishment of SkillsActive as the Sector Skills Council for Active Learning and Leisure provides another opportunity to promote sport as part of the wider public-health agenda. As well as overseeing the training, professional development and workforce planning of coaches, sports development officers, fitness instructors and facilities managers, SkillsActive maintains the register of exercise professionals responsible for exercise referral schemes run by Primary Care Trusts.

PSA Target 4: To increase the numbers of children attending museums and galleries by a third by 2004

Q.11 Why is the Department relying on an estimate to evaluate the performance of the numbers of child visitors in museums?

A11. The estimate of 6.7 million children attending DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries in 2002-03 was based on the latest data available at the time the Annual Report for 2002-03 was produced. These were the returns for the period April-October 2002.

(a) What is the margin of error in this estimate thought to be?

The outturn for 2002-03 was 7.5 million, 12% better than the estimate.

(b) What is the cost of this achievement per child visit?

Between April 1999 when free access for children was introduced and March 2003 the number of child visits increased by 2.36 million. The investment in free access for children is approximately £9 million a year, which equates to a cost of approximately £3.80 for each additional child visit generated since free access for children was introduced.

Q12. Are there changes in the numbers of children participating in school visits to museums?

(a) If so, is the Department taking measures to reverse any decline?

A12. Yes. The number of children participating in school visits to the state-sponsored museums is increasing. In 2002-03 DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries received 1.9 million visits from children in organised school groups, an increase of 200,000 on 2001-02.

Our policy is to encourage the involvement of schools with museums and galleries and this is a current priority in our Funding Agreements with them and in our PSAs.

(a) Please supply details of the age profile within the overall increase in child visits to museums and galleries.

The increase is in children below the age of 16. We do not collect further details of age profile as we have no operational reason for doing so.

PSA Target 5: To increase by 500,000 by 2004 the numbers of people experiencing the arts

Q13. How does the Department define "experiencing the arts"[11]as used in PSA target 5?

(a) The Annual Report refers to ONS survey data on the number of people attending at least two "arts events" in the past twelve months. How are "arts events" defined?

(b) Does a visit to a museum and/or gallery count as an "arts event"?

A13. "Experiencing the arts" is defined as attending at least two events in the past 12 months.

"Arts events" are defined as:

— a play or drama;

— an exhibition or collection of art, photography or sculpture;

— an event connected with literature;

— a performance of opera/operetta;

— a classical music concert;

— a jazz concert;

— live dance, including ballet, contemporary dance, African People's dance, South Asian dance, or some other dance; and

— A craft exhibition.

Therefore, visits to galleries to see an art exhibition are included, but visits to museums are not.

Q14. The DCMS Annual Report states that "many people attend art events who would not otherwise do so", as a result of audience development programmes run by Arts Council England. What is the evidence to support this claim for causality?

A14. Arts Council England's New Audiences Programme (NAP) has been comprehensively evaluated. Arts Council England is currently collating information from a range of research and evaluation reports to provide a comprehensive picture of the achievements of the programme. Interim findings will be presented to DCMS by the end of 2003. Many of the projects funded by the New Audiences Programme have collected information from audiences which indicates whether their attendance at a NAP-sponsored event is their first attendance at an arts event in 2 to 3 years. This will provide evidence that people are attending, who would otherwise not have done so.

PSA Target 6: To conduct a value for money study of the organisations sponsored by DCMS by April 2002, significantly improving the average performance by 2004

Q15. What were the results of the first performance assessment of DCMS funded bodies conducted in spring 2003?

(a) Could the Department provide a note explaining the performance indicators used, and provide examples illustrating their use?

(b) Are these bodies on target to meet the PSA requirement of significant performance improvements by 2004?

(c) Could the Department explain what would qualify as a "significant" average improvement in order for the Department to fulfil its target?

A. 15 Following a study of how best to capture value for money, we put together two sets of performance indicators—one for the national museums and galleries and one for the Lottery distributors. These are published in our SR2000 Technical Note. These highlight operational efficiency and delivery of outcomes and contain the following indicators:

— Total number of visits.

— Numbers of child visitors.

— Numbers of visitors aged over 60.

— Numbers of repeat visitors.

— Numbers of web-site visits.

— Numbers UK visitors from the C2DE socio-economic groups.

— Percentage of collection stored in correct environmental conditions.

— Numbers of learners in on-site and outreach educational programmes.

— Evaluation of overall user satisfaction.

— Non-grant income per visitor.

— Grant in aid per visitor.

The indicators for the Lottery distributors are tailored to each organisation, since they have widely differing remits. However, indicators illustrating efficiency (average cost of processing each application, and average time taken to process each application) are common to all.

In order to focus delivery and avoid duplication following SR2002 the value for money measure supporting PSA6 was rolled forward and formed the new value for money measure, supporting PSA4 for the 2002-06 spending period.

The baseline for PSA 6 indicators was set in 2002, and progress against these was assessed in 2003 (now as PSA4). Assessment was made by a panel comprising the Senior Responsible Owner for the PSA, DCMS officials (NDPB sponsor divisions; Finance and Planning, Strategy Policy and Delivery Division) and HMT officials. The panel met to consider both quantitative data for the indicators set out above and qualitative data drawn from our work with the key organisations we sponsor. The panel was then asked to come to a view as to what progress had been made.

It was the panel's clear view that significant improvement across the range of indicators had been made. There is no reason to believe that this trend will not continue and enable the bodies to demonstrate significant performance improvement by 2004. The panel's assessment states:

"The national museums are meeting the challenge to drive down levels of grant-in-aid per visitor while increasing overall income raised from other sources. This has been achieved through the strong increase in visitor numbers overall whilst the accompanying increases in repeat visitors and satisfaction levels indicate that quality has been maintained. The challenge remains to increase the share of visitors from under represented groups (C2, D, E) with a target of 8% increase between 2003-06 through increasing focus on the customer requiring new skills within the workforce. Progress will be tracked through review of targets and funding agreements and the annual collection of statistics on visitor numbers.

The challenge faced by the lottery distributors is to bear down on costs while numbers of applications are falling. There is evidence that improvements can be made when effort is focused on particular problems of timing or cost. The Department will consider whether further encouragement is required through financial directions."

DCMS sponsored bodies are all very different, with different histories, governance structures, roles and responsibilities. Following consideration with HMT as to how best to define "significant improvement" it was therefore decided that the panel should address this in each case when it was in possession of all the data. In this way we aim to adopt a more sensitive approach that will provide the department and the organisations themselves with the information they need, not only to monitor progress but also to help identify issues of concern.

TOURISM

Q16. Could the Department provide a note detailing the nature of savings expected as a result of the re-organisation which created VisitBritain?

A16. The merger of the British Tourist Authority with the English Tourism Council to form VisitBritain will reduce costs by £1.74 million per annum. This is made up as follows:

Cost reductions £m

Salary savings 1.2

ETC costs (such as HR and publicity) 0.440
0.1

Total 1.74

The one-off cost of the merger was £4.1 million, including redundancy costs of £3.8 million. The savings will be directed into marketing focused activity.

Museums and Galleries

Free Entry

Q17. What progress has been made in tackling the non-financial barriers to museum and gallery visits, such as recommended by this Committee in 2002?

A17. The Committee recommended that more specific work needs to be done to achieve the objective of broadened access. We welcomed this recommendation and it is now a cornerstone of our policy for museums and galleries. We have :

— pledged under our new PSA2 to increase the number of visitors to our sponsored museums and galleries from the C2, D and E socio-economic groups by 8% over the current spending review period;

— ensured that this features as a core target in the Funding Agreements of all of our sponsored museums and galleries;

— encouraged our sponsored museums and galleries to deliver projects which focus specifically on broadening access.

Q18. What progress has been made in terms of the accuracy and level of detail of the visitor statistics compiled by museums and galleries supported by the Department?

A18. In supplying statistics to the Department, Museums follow the guidance that we issued in 2000. This sets out what information is required, how it should be collected and in what form it should be presented.

In order to ensure accuracy within data sets and consistency between data sets, the core data on total visits; number of child visits; and number of visits from over-60s is collected and used as the basis for a discussion with DCMS on a monthly basis. Other data is discussed on a six-monthly basis. In both cases we seek to check for and explain any obvious discrepancies. The annual data request is reviewed by DMCS and the museums concerned annually and amended to reflect current needs while ensuring that there is a consistent data set.

Museums' own internal audit teams check the quality of the data that is supplied.

Q19. Could the Department explain why the DCMS Annual Report does not provide any detailed analysis and explanation of the pattern of visitors to museums and galleries and explain how a reader should otherwise evaluate the success of a flagship policy?

A19. The headline figure for the first twelve months of free access, an increase of 70% in visitors to the former charging museums and galleries, is included in the Executive Summary on page 6 of the 2003 Annual Report.

Details of the impact on each of the former charging museums of the first twelve months of full Free Access were published in a DCMS press notice on 1 January 2003.

A more detailed analysis, based on the first seven months of full free access, was included in the Department's Memorandum to the Select Committee and published as part of the Committee's report: "National Museums and Galleries: Funding and Free Admission," on 11 December 2002.

Funding for Museums

Q20. Could the Department explain why the funding of some museums undergoes such extreme fluctuations—for example, the funding of the National Museum of Science and Industry increased by about 20% in 2002-03, but will drop by more than 6% in 2004-05?

A20. The increase in grant-in-aid in 2002-03 is explained by two factors.

First, from 2002-03 all the former charging museums sponsored by DCMS, including the National Museum of Science and Industry, received a substantial full-year uplift in grant-in-aid to compensate them for a loss of income on going free.

Secondly, from 2002-03 we provided new money for specific major capital projects (primarily repairs). This funding ceases when the project is complete and becomes available to reallocate to other repair projects at other sponsored museums. At the National Museum of Science and Industry we provided an additional £1.5 million for specific capital works in 2002-03 and £3.45 million in 2003-04

The drop in overall funding to the National Museum of Science and Industry in 2004-05 reflects a lower need for funding for specific capital works and the completion of an Invest to Save project for which the Museum receives special one-off revenue funding in 2003-04. In 2004-05 we will increase the Museum's core revenue funding by nearly £1.5 million (an increase of 1.5% real).

The National Lottery

Q21. What evidence is there that the Fair Share programme has made a difference to the distribution of Lottery funds to deprived areas?

A21. Evaluation of the fair share initiative will be carried out jointly between the Community Fund and New Opportunities Fund. The evaluators are currently gathering and reviewing information in order to refine their methodology, to identify key issues and to identify case study areas. Initial indications are that this stage of the work will be completed ahead of schedule with the first report likely to be available at the end of summer 2004.

(a) What proportion of the £176 million ear-marked for spending 2002-05 has been spent and on what?

The overall total for the initiative is £179 million. This is because an extra £3 million has been allocated by the Community Fund to the Open Grant Scheme.

The information available for each of the three different components of the initiative is as follows:

(i) The Community Fund Open Grant Scheme (allocation £90 million): to date, £46.6 million in grants has been made, some 51% of the target;

(ii) The fair share Trust (allocation £50 million: the £50 million allocation was transferred to Community Foundation Network (CFN)—the organisation responsible for distribution of the funding—in August 2003. Work on this allocation has begun and the first funding for projects is due to be released early next year. This funding will provide longer-term funding for designated neighbourhoods in fair share areas. Distribution is planned over the next ten years.

(iii) The "Transforming Your Space Programme" (allocation £39 million): £2.1 million has so far been drawn-down by local authorities to further development work on their area strategies. This total is expected to rise sharply in the coming weeks as payments are made for the first year for those projects that have been approved.

Olympic Games

Q22. Could the Department provide a note detailing the cost of the Olympic Games bid for the Department so far and the projected costs up to 2006?

A22. The staff cost of the Olympics Games bid for the Department from 1 April 2003 to 30 September 2003 has been £136,258. A decision on the Olympic bid will be made in July 2005 and thus the staff costs have only been projected until 31 August 2005. The total costs from 1 April 2003 to 31 August 2005 are projected to be £750,000 in total.

More widely, the DCMS has undertaken to contribute to the costs of the bid organisation and associated planning in equal shares with the London Development Agency[12]The combined limit of this contribution is £30 million, and the DCMS limit thus £15 million. As yet, some £5.8 million of this £30 million has been committed. London 2012 Ltd expect that various private sector fund-raising programmes will generate several million in cash and value in kind support of the bid.

Communications

Q23. Could the Department provide a note detailing how it will monitor the success of the Communications Act 2003 in relation to the policy goals mentioned in the Annual Report?[13]

A23. The Communications Act builds into the functions and duties of the new communications regulator, Ofcom, the means to deliver many of the Department's policy goals for broadcasting as set out in the Annual Report. The success of the Act in achieving those goals will in large part be reliant on the success of Ofcom in discharging its responsibilities. Ofcom is required to produce a number of reports and reviews which will enable all stakeholders including the Department to monitor its performance: notably the Annual Report, the detailed annual factual and statistical report on television and radio in the United Kingdom required under section 358 of the Act and the results of specific reviews such as the review of public service broadcasting, the first of which will contribute to the BBC Charter Review.

DCMS and DTI will work closely with Ofcom and a series of high-level meetings has been established to help facilitate Ofcom's success. DCMS will also maintain regular contact with broadcasters and other stakeholders whose interests depend on Ofcom rising to the challenges which Parliament has laid upon it.

Licensing

Q24. How were the projected effects of the Licensing Act 2003 on the leisure and tourism sector (given as £1.97 billion saving in the first ten years of operation)[14] calculated?

A24. The £1.97 billion saving will not be evenly spread over the initial period of ten years. Under the new arrangements, costs will be front ended with dwindling costs over subsequent years. The calculation is based on a comparison of the current costs to the industry of the six licensing systems (alcohol, public entertainment, theatre, cinema, late night refreshment and night café) with the estimated costs to industry of the integrated single system of licensing provided by the Licensing Act 2003. This includes, for example, not only the costs resulting from fee charges but also costs associated with legal services and management time. Many businesses hold multiple licences and permissions, which result in recurring costs, which are now available within a single licence. The full details of the comparative cost-benefit analysis were published in the Regulatory Impact Assessment ("the RIA") which accompanied the Licensing Bill when it was presented to Parliament in November 2002 and is available in the Library of the House.

Financial Accounts

Q25. Why is the financial back-data from 1998-99 onwards not consistent between the DCMS Annual Report 2002 and the DCMS Annual Report 2003?

A25. The data in the two reports derive from a Treasury database, but are on different bases due to changes in the treatment of expenditure in budgets between the two years.

In April 2001 the Government moved to resource accounting and budgeting (RAB) to align financial management and reporting in central government with most other sectors of the economy.

HM Treasury introduced a transitional regime in the 2000 Spending Review (SR2000) in order to allow departments to gain more experience in monitoring and forecasting non-cash costs (cost of capital charges, depreciation and accounting- based provisions to meet future expenditure) which are an important element of RAB. These non-cash costs were included in Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) in the 2000 Spending Review but were moved into to Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) during the 2002 Spending Review (SR2002). This inevitably has consequences for the presentation of public expenditure data in that the totals shown for AME and DEL will vary considerably between the two years.

Financial data in the Annual Report 2003 are presented on the basis of SR2002 budgeting rules, whereas financial data in the Annual Report 2002 were presented on the basis of SR2000 budgeting treatment. The difference in budgeting treatment caused the main differences between the two reports.

Q25a. Can the Department provide a note explaining in full the reasons for any restatements and changes that have been made in respect of the accounts from 1998-99 onwards?

Q25b. Can the Department provide a reconciliation of the two sets of figures?

A25a&b. The reasons for the changes in data between the two reports fall into two broad categories—changes in budgeting rules, and changes that were specific to DCMS's financial regime.

Full reasons for the changes are set out below.

(a) Amendments arising from the change in budgeting rules from SR2000 to SR2002.

The following categories of expenditure were removed from the Departmental Expenditure Limit and Annually Managed Expenditure control totals in SR2002:

— cost of capital charge in respect of public corporations;

— profit/loss of public corporations (including self-financing public corporations).

SR2002 also incorporated changes in the way that capital expenditure by public corporations (including self-financing public corporations) was treated.

Charges associated with holding and using assets and other non-cash costs (ie cost of capital charge, depreciation, impairments and provisions) moved from AME to DEL. In addition the cost of capital charge was reduced from six (6) per cent to three and a half (3.5) per cent in April 2003.

Grants used to fund capital expenditure outside the public sector moved from capital DEL to current DEL.

(b) Amendments to data arising from changes in the DCMS financial regime

— The Historic Royal Palaces was reclassified as a Public Corporation and its outturn data was revised in July 2002;

— Machinery of Government changes in January 2003; and

— Royal Parks Agency expenditure was reclassified from Administration Costs to Programme Costs in March 2003.

Q25c. Can the Department explain why the Annual report does not include a note explaining such important changes to the figures?

A25c. While the footnote to the 2002 Departmental Report explained that non-cash costs would move into DEL when DEL was measured on a full RAB basis after SR2002, there is no explanatory footnote provided in the 2003 report. We note that some Departments have provided a detailed footnote in their 2003 reports and accept that the DCMS report would have benefited from one. We will ensure that all material changes in financial data in future Annual Reports are clearly explained.

Q26. What is the explanation for the 25% increase in administration costs provided for in this year's provisions, and the further 10% increase planned for next year?

A26. The 25% increase represents the difference between actual spend in 2001-02 and planned spend in 2002-03. The amount unspent in 2001-02 was rolled forward into 2002-03. The 2002-03 allocation also included a one off transfer of £4 milion from the Department's programme costs into administration costs.

The difference in actual spend between 2001-02 and 2002-03 was approximately £3.3 million, an increase of aproximately 11%. The additional expenditure funded:

— machinery of government changes,

— an increased contribution to the Government Office Network,

— IT developments (Freedom of Information Act measures, business continuity, data protection and electronic records management),

— increases in the Department's analytical capacity,

— the short term acquisition of additional accommodation to house staff transferred under machinery of government changes, plus increased costs relating to our existing accommodation, and

— work on a number of items of new legislation, which also increased substantially our requirement for legal services.

It also funded investment in training and other support for project management techniques and the professionalisation of our public appointments process as part of Touchstone, our business services review. Touchstone changes are designed to deliver a more effective relationship with the many public bodies the Department supports.

The additional planned expenditure of 10% in 2003-04 (to £40,878k) includes an increase of £5 million, agreed by the Treasury, to help address the longstanding problem with the Department's administration costs since the Department was created in 1992. This continued the funding for some of the initiatives outlined above an additionally for the implementation of Game Plan recommendations, the developing regional agenda, and work on a number of reviews in the broadcasting sector, including the BBC Charter Review.

Q26a. What is the explanation for the fact that the provision for administrative capital expenditure this year is four times higher than last year, and that over the next two years, further increases of 85% and 49% respectively are planned?

The capital expenditure figure of £413k in 2001-02 shown in the 2003 Departmental Report is incorrect. It is based on a mistaken interpretation of net book value for which we apologise. The correct figure should have been £905k.

The capital provision in 2002-03 of £1,661k was increased to allow a complete technology refresh of the Department's PCs. The further increases in 2003-04 and 2004-05, but with no further increase in 2005-06, are due to the costs of electronic records management, a planned refresh of other information technology hardware and the costs of engaging with central initiatives in the areas of e-business and modernising government. The Department is, however, looking for ways to minimise costs and, along with falling prices of IT hardware, it is likely we will underspend this provision.

Q27. Are the fees of external consultants included in the administration budget?

A27. Yes.

(a) if yes, what amount has been spent/allocated for external consultancy services in each of the years reported?

The amounts spent on external consultancy for each year reported were:

2001-02—£358k

2002-03—£595k

The amount budgeted for external consultancy in 2003-04 is £540k and the current estimated budgets for the following two years are £440k and £340k respectively

Management of Resources, Delivery, and Change

Q28. How are the outcomes and value of reforms such as Touchstone to be measured and evaluated?

A28. The primary benefits are evaluated in terms of efficiency and effectiveness in delivering our PSAs and other core work.

For example: Project and programme management training has resulted in clear programmes of work for each of the Department's 4 priorities. Each programme is the responsibility of a senior official and the Management Board is now able to monitor delivery of these programmes and manage risk better. OGC training and the use of Gateway reviews have helped ensure corrective action and competent delivery of big challenges such as the Golden Jubilee and the Commonwealth Games.

The Department is more efficient because project based working allows additional pressures to be met. The September 11 and Bali memorial services, and work to support the recovery of cultural treasures in Iraq are examples of increased capacity and competence. Efficiency generated by centralisation and streamlining of some core functions is also measurable. For example, since centralising our public appointments process, 80% of appointments campaigns have been completed within our 15 week target timescale—compared to only 50% a year ago. We make between 70 and 100 appointments each year, and we now have 11 staff working full time on this, compared to the more than 50 staff who had some involvement prior to centralisation. These changes have allowed us to do more—and better: the Commissioner for Public Appointments gave DCMS centralised unit as an example of good practice to the Public Admin Select Committee.

Externally, our effectiveness in delivering through NDPB's has increased through revised and simpler funding agreements (which they have welcomed) which are linked to specific outcomes. Touchstone also led to a client manager being assigned (from within the existing sponsor division) for each NDPB. In addition, every NDPB now has a map of key contacts within the Department. The establishment of the NDPB helpdesk has also given NDPBs one central contact point for financial policy and related issues.

There is still more to be done and the Management Board and Ministers continue to modernise the way we work.

Q28a. Do you anticipate that less micromanagement of NDPBs by the Department will lead to savings in the Departmental budget?

We have moved to a more strategic approach. The benefits are an improved dialogue with our NDPBs about the outcomes we seek, and greater clarity about how their activities contribute to the delivery of our priorities. This provides more focus, leading to greater value for money from our input. This change of emphasis is also intended to result in some staff resource being freed up to work on other priorities.

Q29. Certain of the DCMS sponsored bodies such as the British Library, English Heritage, Sport England, and the Arts Council have been singled out for reforms, and will receive extra funds in the 2003-2006 period for this purpose. What were the criteria for the selection of these particular bodies?

A29. As part of the 2002 Spending Review, we assessed our sponsored bodies against a number of criteria covering general organisational health, quality of performance and delivery, and stakeholder perceptions. As part of the review we considered:

— performance data, including performance against funding agreement targets;

— findings of reviews and audits;

— indicators of efficiency and general financial health;

— quality of governance and management;

— handling of risk management;

— overall strategic capacity;

— views of stakeholders, including customers.

Having made the assessment, we prioritised the sponsored bodies by considering the overall strategic importance of each, in terms of size, spend, profile and contribution to the delivery of strategic Government priorities. From this exercise we identified the following candidates for reform/modernisation in 2003-04: the British Library, the British Museum, English Heritage, the English Tourism Council and British Tourist Authority (now VisitBritain), and Sport England. Apart from the British Museum, which used its own resources to fund its reform programme, all these bodies are receiving some additional funding to help deliver reform. The Arts Council England's reform programme, mentioned in the Annual Report, had been completed before we drew up our reform strategy.

(a) To what extent is the Department engaging in micromanagement as opposed to strategic guidance in relation to these reform processes within NDPBs?

We are focusing our reform strategy on improving delivery of strategic priorities, with any operational changes involved being very much a means to that end. The detailed design of the individual reform programmes is a matter for the NDPBs concerned, but there is regular monitoring by the Department to make sure that the funds invested in reform are actually delivering the desired outcomes.

Q30. The DCMS is putting in place a "matrix" of performance indicators and systems of evaluation for its NDPBs.[15] Does the Department subject itself to the same rigorous performance assessment, including consumer orientated targets?

A30. Performance is monitored against a range of performance indicators and reported to the Management Board on a quarterly basis. These indicators are:

— PSA Delivery: we use the PMDU derived traffic light model for assessment of progress on projects supporting the delivery of our PSA targets. Each project is discussed periodically at the relevant PSA Programme Board, where corrective action can be identified if necessary and then reported to Management Board.

— Managing Staff: we monitor and present statistics on:

— sick days;

— length of vacancies;

— update from skills database;

— diversity.

— Efficiency & Control: resource management accounts and risk registers are analysed, pressures identified and presented for discussion and resolution of issues as appropriate.

— Dealing with the Public: the Department's direct public interface is limited by the fact that responsibility for delivery rests mainly with our NDPBs. We do however, take our public facing role very seriously. The Management Board monitors a range of statistics designed to give an indication as to how well we are performing. These indicators are:

— The number of letters from the public, MPs and members of the House of Lords answered on time;

— The number of Parliamentary Questions answered on time;

— Payment of agreed invoices within 30 days of receipt;

— Percentage of enquiries to the Department's Information Centre that are answered within 2 days.

(a) If so, why are such performance indicators and the analyses to which they give rise not in evidence in the Annual Report?

The performance monitoring report described above came into operation in April 2003 and data was therefore not available for the last annual report. However, we will consider including it in the next one.

Q31. Considering the breadth of the remit of DCMS, could the Department provide a note explaining how just four PSA targets can be used to effectively assess the performance of the Department in all areas between 2003-06?

A31. Our current 4 PSA targets reflect our Strategic Priorities which focus on Children and Young People, Communities, Economy and Delivery. By focusing on a small number of key Strategic Priorities means that we have a clear framework for our work and we can communicate that framework in a clear and meaningful way. It would be very difficult to provide a meaningful set of PSAs that reflect everything the department does, since our work is indeed very broad. Therefore we chose, with the agreement of Treasury, to use the PSAs as "core samples" of our work. We believe they are a good indicator of the overall health of the department. We do, of course, undertake a range of other important "core functions", which form a large part of our day-to-day work and underpin our Strategic Priorities.We are reviewing our PSAs to ensure they reflect what we do, as we prepare for the SR04 spending review. We welcome the Committee's views on the content of our current PSAs in this context.

DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND HISTORY

CURRENTLY

1. The DCMS is currently responsible for:

Culture

— historic environment;

— Royal estate and parks;

— Architecture and design;

— Museums and galleries;

— libraries;

— the arts;

— the Government Art Collection;

— cultural property;

— creative industries and film.

Media

— broadcasting;

— press and censorship issues;

— ownership issues.

Sport

— sporting policy including the Olympic bid;

— horseracing and the Tote (including the levy).

Other

— gambling;

— alcohol and entertainment licensing;

— tourism;

— National Lottery: overall policy and a great proportion of the areas in which spending occurs (including the Millennium Commission).

2. The DCMS has a large number of associated public bodies, to whom policy responsibilities and resources are delegated. A number of these are also lottery distributors. The Department is also the BBC's sponsoring department with the BBC Agreement (which underpins the Royal Charter) being made between the Governors and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The key organisations include:

3. The nature of DCMS responsibilities create important links with a number of other Departments:

— HM Treasury (the usual expenditure relationship plus tourism and links with HM Customs over cultural property);

— DfES (youth sport, arts, drama and music, heritage and the role of museums and galleries as providers of educational experiences);

— Home Office (cultural property);

— DTI (joint responsibility for communications policy (Ofcom) and coordination of support for the creative industries (including advertising, architecture, the art and antiques market, crafts, design, designer fashion, interactive leisure software, the performing arts, publishing, software and computer games) and cooperation on the DCMS' specific sponsorship of the film, radio, TV and music industries);

— FCO (British Council promotion of British culture abroad—especially film, Olympic bid intelligence and, eventually, promotion, some tourism issues).

HISTORY OF THE DEPARTMENT

4. The Department of National Heritage was established on 11 April 1992 after the general election. Its functions were previously carried out by a variety of departments: Privy Council, Home Office, Education and Environment departments and a number of other public bodies. The first Secretary of State for National Heritage was Rt Hon David Mellor MP. The Department became responsible for the arts, conservation and heritage issues, museums and galleries, broadcasting, film and media as well as sport.

5. Department for Culture, Media and Sport was established on 14 July 1997. The change of name was explained by the new Secretary of State, Rt Hon Chris Smith MP, in the following terms "although heritage is a very important part of what the department does, it's only a part and it's a name that really has a flavour of the past about it . . . whereas this is a department which primarily is interested in the future—all the work on film, broadcasting, the media and the cultural life of the country".

6. The accretion of responsibilities has been:

Date Policy area (originating department)

1997 National Lottery

1997 Millennium

2000 Alcohol and entertainment licensing (Home Office)

2001 Gambling (Home Office)

  7.  Table of financial data:[16]

Year Total Allocation £m No of Staff Administration costs £m* Secretary of State

1992-93 1,004    955 23 Rt Hon Peter Brooke CH MP

1993-94    974 1,122 23 Rt Hon Peter Brooke CH MP

1994-95    975 1,188 25 Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell MP

1995-96    914 1,132 21 Rt Hon Virginia Bottomley JP MP

1996-97    913 1,178 21 Election (Bottomley/Smith)

1997-98    914    652 21 Rt Hon Chris Smith MP

1998-99    919    658 22 Rt Hon Chris Smith MP

1999-2000 1,026    681 26 Rt Hon Chris Smith MP

2000-01 1,045    654 26 Election (Smith/Jowell)

2001-02 1,086    641 32 Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP

2002-03 (estimated) 1,237    719 38 Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP

*Includes fees for eternal consultants. Costs for 2001-02 £358k; 2002-03 £595k; 2003-04 £540k (estimate); 2004-05 £440k (estimated); 2005-06 £340k (estimated).