ESTIMATES
Letter to the Parliamentary Relations
and Devolution Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, from
the Clerk of the Committee, 15 March 2005
The Committee has had a brief opportunity to
consider the spring supplementary estimates, which were laid on
22 February and were considered in the House on 9 March. They
would like further information on the matters detailed below.
When comparing the Estimate, Written Statement
and Estimate Memorandum, there are discrepancies in the figures
published. Examples of discrepancies include (but are not limited
to):
— International Organisation Subscriptions
which are listed as £7.755 million in the Statement (RfR-1
I) compared with £7.555 million in both the Estimate (p237)
and Memorandum (para 6).
— Overseas Price Movements which are
put at £12.964 million in the Statement (RfR-1 VIII and DEL
capital change I), compared with £14.110 million in the Estimate
(p237) and Memorandum (para 7).
In addition to this there is a difference between
the DfID and FCO Estimates with regard to a resource transfer
from the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool, which supports conflict
prevention work, particularly in relation to the emergency in
Sudan. The DfID Estimate shows £1.038 million being transferred
out (p251) while the FCO's estimate shows £12.551 million
being transferred in (p239). I would be grateful if you could
explain these irregularities to the Committee and detail what
action, if any, is being taken to improve future accuracy in the
Office.
The Estimate indicates an increase in income
and expenditure (appropriations in aid) for visa and consular
services of £50.700 million. At the time of the Main Estimate,
the FCO had predicted receipts of £98.876 million but this
has increased by 51% in 2004-05 to £149.576 million. Please
provide details of this increase and explain why the original
estimate was so much lower than the one in the current estimate.
The Committee would also like to know what action, if any, the
Office is taking to improve forecasting.
The Committee notes that the Estimate Memorandum
is an improvement on the one produced for the Winter Supplementary
Estimate. In general, the mandatory section explains the reasons
for the resource changes that have been requested. Shortcomings
remain, however. The Memorandum fails, for instance, to detail
the effects of the proposed funding changes on the Office's ability
to deliver its Public Service Agreements. The Committee considers
that the discretionary section is also poor, as it does not provide
historical information on how the departmental expenditure limit
and administration cost limit have changed over time. This is
a requirement of the guidance published in PES (2004) 14. Attached
is a copy of the Department for International Development's Estimate
Memorandum from the Spring Supplementary Estimate which in our
view serves as an example of good practice. The Committee suggests
that the Office study this document and ensure that that this
level of detail is provided in future Memoranda.
I am of course aware that there may be limited
time for the Committee to consider a reply to this letter. I would
therefore be most grateful for a reply not later than Monday 4
April.
Steve Priestley
Clerk of the Committee
15 March 2005
|
