2 PRESENTATION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL
REPORT
5. In our previous reports, we have commented on
the presentation of the Departmental Report and recommended how
it could be improved in future years. We are pleased that, on
the whole, the Department's report-writers have incorporated most
of our recommendations in this area. Consequently there has been
a steady improvement over the past few years in the Report's readability
and lay-out, which has continued this year. In particular, we
recommended last year that the Department should make clear within
the main commentary of the Report exactly how it has performed
against each Public Service Agreement (PSA) target, using the
clear assessment that had until then been relegated to an appendix.[6]
This year, such information is indeed provided in the main commentary
of the Report. We are pleased that, once again, further improvements
have been made to the 'look' of the Departmental Report. Overall,
the Report is more accessible and readable than in previous years,
and contains a great sense of narrative in its description of
how Defra's work is linked together. We commend the Department's
report-writers for incorporating many of our previous recommendations
relating to the presentation of the Report.
6. However, we commented last year that the 2004
Departmental Report—at 380 pages in length—was "more
than long enough".[7]
Whilst we applauded the Department's efforts to provide additional
information to its stakeholders, we recommended that Defra should
be "as concise as possible" in its Departmental Report,
to "strike a balance between comprehensiveness on the one
hand and accessibility and readability on the other".[8]
This year's Report—at 372 pages—is only eight pages
shorter. As was the case last year, we believe the 2005 Departmental
Report—at 372 pages—is too long. We understand there
is a need to deal with all aspects of the Department's work; indeed,
this was one of our recommendations on the 2002 Departmental Report.
Nevertheless, the Departmental Report would benefit from being
more concise and selective in the information it provides. We
recommend that for those policy areas deemed to be of less importance—for
example, issues not directly linked to Defra's Public Service
Agreement targets—the Department should provide less information
in the main commentary of the Report and include more web-link
references.
7. The Departmental Report includes a 15-page chapter
solely on the Forestry Commission.[9]
We understand that this is due to an agreement between Defra and
the Forestry Commission. We also note that the Forestry Commission
already publishes its own Annual Report and Accounts.[10]
Most of Defra's other affiliated bodies—such as the Environment
Agency and the Rural Payments Agency—are given only two
to three pages each in the Report. We strongly recommend that
in future years the Forestry Commission's report is published
separately from the Departmental Report, as occurs with Defra's
other affiliated bodies. We believe this would improve the user-friendliness
of the Departmental Report, not least by making it shorter. There
would still be scope for a summary account of Defra's work with
the Forestry Commission, which should be sufficient.
6 HC (2003-04) 707, Recommendation 1. Back
7
HC (2003-04) 707, Recommendation 2. Back
8
HC (2003-04) 707, Recommendation 2. Back
9
Defra, Departmental Report 2005, pp 221-236. Back
10
Forestry Commission, Annual Reports and Accounts 2003-04,
January 2005, HC 208. Back
|
