Supplementary memorandum by the Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister (AR 01(b))
RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS
ON ANNUAL REPORT 2005
1. EFFICIENCY
SAVINGS
Officials were asked to provide a full breakdown
of the efficiency savings achieved by ODPM in 2004-05 (Q4), together
with the annual profile for projected savings in future years
(Q19).
Since officials appeared before the Select Committee,
updated figures have become available for efficiency savings.
These show some significant interim savings in our main programme
areas of social housing, regional development agencies and homelessness.
The table at Annex A sets out these gains by year. Savings to
date should be treated as interim until such time as the data
has been subject to third party scrutiny and validation. Additional
forecast gains in homelessness mean that we are now expecting
total 2007-08 savings to be well in excess of the £681 million
previously given in oral evidence. Under OGC monitoring procedures,
savings recorded against 2005-06 will include any savings achieved
in 2004-05. Of the £181.7 million achieved to date, it is
estimated that about £168 million were achieved by the end
of 2004-05. Please note we expect further savings to be made in
2005-06 and believe the savings achieved to date reinforce earlier
statements that we are on track to deliver our savings as forecast.
2. END-YEAR
FLEXIBILITY
At Q13, Mr Unwin indicated that he would provide
a final figure for the expenditure of end-year flexibility in
2004-05. Please also provide a breakdown of how the money was
spent.
Please see the tables and information at
Annex B
3. DECENT HOMES
At Q57 Mr McCarthy promised the Committee a
breakdown of those local authorities which were having difficulty
meeting the Decent Homes targets.
Please see the information at Annex C
4. KEY WORKERS
At QQ64-5 Mr McCarthy promised the Committee
further information on the number of key workers who have been
housed through the Key Workers initiative and other programmes;
please also provide an assessment of (a) progress against the
2006 target and (b) whether the Department expects to meet the
target.
(a) Since 2001, a total of 17,627 key workers
have been helped through the Starter Home Initiative (SHI) and
Key Worker Living (KWL). The Starter Home Initiative, which ran
from 2001 to the end of March 2004, helped 10,322 key workers
to buy their first home, exceeding the original target. The Key
Worker Living Programme, launched in March 2004, is on course
to exceed its first target, to help 10,348 key workers by March
2006.
(b) The KWL Programme is on track to meet
the second part of the target to complete 6,000 new-build units
for key workers by March 2007.
Further information on the Starter Home Initiative
and Key Worker Living Programmes is contained in Annex D.
5. EMPTY DWELLINGS
MANAGEMENT ORDERS
Please inform the Committee when EDMOs will
be implemented (Q66).
The Government published the detailed programme
for commencement of the Housing Act 2004 on Monday 10 October.
There will be a phased introduction of the provisions in the Act,
leading to a common commencement date of 6 April 2006 for the
provisions contained within the Housing Act 2004, including Empty
Dwelling Management Orders.
6. HOUSING-RELATED
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr McCarthy said the Department would provide
the Committee with an analysis of the level and cost of infrastructure
provision required to deliver homes in the Growth Areas, (a) as
a total and (b) broken down by Area and forecast programme spend
(eg roads, civic amenities) (QQ73, 76-77).
Please see the information at Annex E
7. FIRE SERVICE
Mr Smith indicated that he would provide the
Committee with further information about the Firelink contract:
(a) Who are the suppliers competing for the
contract, and how does the specification for Firelink differ from
the specification for the police radio system, referred to in
QQ97-102?
The suppliers competing for the Firelink contract
are EADS Defence and Security Systems; 02 Airwave.
The high level differences between the Fire
and Police systems are:
(i) Firelink used an
output-based specification which was developed in close consultation
with user representatives from the fire and rescue services. Broadly
it mirrors the best of existing requirements, only adding new
features to enable interoperability and resilience to ensure affordability.
(ii) The Firelink specification
did not specify a particular technology, whereas the Police first
assessed their user requirement against the available technologies
and then went out to contract for a Tetra-based system.
(iii) The specification
for the Firelink system was developed in the light of the tragic
events of 9/11 and therefore resilience became a high priority.
However, improvements are being made to the existing police system
to increase this to a level more in line with the resilience requirements
of the FRS.
(iv) Firelink radio coverage
requirement is based on geographic coverage, whereas the police
system's coverage is demographic-based.
(v) The Firelink radios
are fitted to vehicles/appliances not, as in the police, on vehicles
and mobile phones for individual officers.
(vi) Firelink provides
the same radios and mobile data terminals in all fire appliances
and ensures interaction with the control rooms (ultimately to
all regional control rooms). The police system supplied a network
up front with the individual police forces supplying the rest
of the equipment which, whilst all compatible with the TETRA technology,
was not all supplied from the same company, or at the same time.
(b) Can the Department provide the Committee
with minutes of the meetings at which the Firelink specification
and contract have been discussed, referred to by Mr Cummings at
Q106?
The committees which have dealt with the early
development of the Firelink specification are the Principal User
Group, which has received advice from the Technical User Group.
In the later stages, discussion about the specification and the
eventual contract took place at Project Board meetings. For all
committees there is representation from England, Scotland and
Wales along with the Chief Officers Association. The papers from
these meetings are and will remain commercially confidential and
cannot therefore be released for publication by the Committee.
(c) Please confirm how the Department intends
to evaluate performance of the new regional call centres against
existing arrangements; and what baseline data will be used (QQ114-116)
Currently response time data before 2005 are
available at Fire and Rescue Authority level for primary fires
only (ie those that affect life and property). From 2005 onwards,
because of changes in the way information on primary fires is
processed, it will be possible to produce response times by local
authority and constituency. Further improvements in data collection
will provide response times for other fires and other types of
incident at an even more local level. Response times are calculated
from the point at which a call is received by fire control.
Data currently collected do not identify the
time taken to process calls in the control room; nor are data
collected on multiple calls (ie calls about the same incident).
The FiReControl system will be able to provide
data on the full range of incidents dealt with by the Fire and
Rescue Service, including the time taken to process calls and
the time taken to deal with multiple calls, and will produce this
at the most detailed geographical levels required. Since earlier
data sets do not include this additional information, it will
be necessary to establish a new baseline over the next two years
in order to be able to measure the changes effected by FiReControl
when it is implemented. So response times to primary fires will
be baselined against past data before 2005, and responses for
a whole range of incidents will be baselined against data collected
over the next two years.
It should be noted that these data sets are
not intended to provide a direct comparison in terms of response
times from the local station to a particular location. This is
because the FiReControl/Firelink technology solution will make
it easier to sent the nearest available vehicle to an incident,
so that vehicles will be less likely to be sent from the local
station. For example, with FiReControl system, operators will
be able to send vehicles that are on the road already, instead
of only using those that are on the station. It will also be easier
to send appliances across a regional or Fire Authority border.
What we will have is a firm evidence base to
evaluate the performance of regional control centers against current
arrangements for a range of incidents on the key factor; the speed
of response from the time the call is received to arrival of the
appliance at the incident. This is clearly the most important
measure as far as members of the public are concerned.
8. CORPORATE
IDENTITY
Please confirm what the Department's new corporate
identity, brand and brand values are (referred to in the Department's
memorandum to the Committee Q16, and at QQ124-6 in oral evidence).
The new ODPM Corporate ID, together with an
updated supporting statement and Office narrative was designed
to help us to be more effective at telling our story to our stakeholders.
It has been used on all our internal and external communications
products, stationery etc from 1 April 2004, when the full set
of guidelines was published.
This new corporate identity replaced the logo,
which was simply the Royal Coat of Arms with the wording "Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister" beneath. This was an immediate
measure designed to serve the Office after the division of responsibilities
of the old DTLR.
The figures quoted to you earlier were research
& design costs relating to the:
— the Office functions line;
— corporate identity guidelines; and
— the corporate literature guidelines
(attached at Annex G).
The Committee would be grateful if written answers
to the following supplementary questions could also be provided:
9. SHORTFALLS
IN EFFICIENCY
PLANS
At QQ7-8 Mr Unwin indicated that in some circumstances
the Department might fall short of its targets for efficiency
savings in specific programmes. Please indicate what circumstances
might prevent the achievement of efficiency savings, giving examples
if available.
ODPM is confident it will achieve its efficiency
target and the savings it is proposing to secure from individual
programme areas. The savings are to be delivered over the next
three years and we are on track to deliver them. The possibility
remains, however, that there may be slippage against an individual
programme's forecast, such that some savings fall out of the review
period and can't be counted towards our target.
Whilst ODPM is in the lead, most of our savings
are secured through third parties and we are ultimately dependent
on them to deliver. Other key risks to delivery include insufficient
buy-in and/ or capacity to deliver among our stakeholders, failure
to capture and properly record claimable savings, and in general,
increased or uncertain demand in the programme areas. We have
good management systems, clear communication strategies and support
programmes in place to manage these risks.
10. LOCAL AUTHORITY
EFFICIENCY GAINS
At Q10 of the Department's original memorandum,
cash values were provided for the efficiency gains expected in
each local authority service sector. Please indicate what percentage
of the budget for each sector these figures represent.
The table below sets out the total efficiency
gains achieved in 2004-05 and those expected to be made in 2005-06
as reported by local authorities in their Annual Efficiency Statements,
and their equivalent value as a percentage of the 2004-05 baseline
expenditure:
|
| Year | Efficiency Gains (£m)
| As % of 2004-05 Baseline
|
|
| 2004-05 | 759
| 1.9% |
| 2005-06 | 1,180
| 2.9% |
| 2004-05 + 2005-06 cumulative total | 1,939
| 4.7% |
|
The table below sets out for each service sector the approximate
2004-05 spend, the total efficiency gains expected to be achieved
by local authorities by the end of 2005-06, and their equivalent
value as a percentage of the 2004-05 spend:
|
| Service Sector | Total expected
by end 2005-06 (£m)
| Approx. spend (£bn)
| Total by end 2005-06 as % of 2004-05 spend
|
|
| Adult social services | 289.6
| 8.7 | 3.3%
|
| Children's services | 127.2
| 3.7 | 3.4%
|
| Culture and sport | 75.9
| 2.0 | 3.9%
|
| Environmental services | 137.3
| 2.6 | 5.4%
|
| Local transport | 125.1
| 3.4 | 3.7%
|
| LA social housing | 160.0
| 6.7 | 2.4%
|
| Non-school education | 86.6
| 4.8 | 1.8%
|
| Supporting people | 60.1
| 1.8 | 3.3%
|
| Homelessness | 26.6
| 0.6 | 4.4%
|
|
Since there is no commonly agreed way to allocate overall
expenditure to each crosscutting workstream, we are not able to
provide percentage information for these areas.
11. VERIFICATION OF
EFFICIENCY STATEMENTS
At Q37 in oral evidence there was discussion of the work
carried out by the Audit Commission to verify the efficiency savings
made by local authorities. Please:
(a) provide details of the work being carried out by the
Audit Commission in respect of annual efficiency statements; and
(b) provide assurances that the Audit Commission is auditing
the figures supporting the efficiency gains reported by local
authorities.
The auditors appointed by the Audit Commission carry out
an annual "use of resources" assessment covering five
broad areas of financial management, one of which is value for
money (VfM), which will include a review of the Backward Look
Annual Efficiency Statements (these are the statements in which
local authorities report the gains that they have achieved in
the financial year just passed).
Efficiency gains evidenced and any concerns will be reflected
in auditors' overall VfM assessment. In reporting back on the
results of their VfM assessment, auditors will report where they
have specific concerns about the process followed by the council
in compiling the backward looking efficiency statement or where
the statement is not consistent with the auditors' knowledge of
the council obtained through other audit work.
This work does not constitute a formal audit of the figures
in the Annual Efficiency Statements. Such work would be costly
and add significantly to the burden of regulation, and would therefore
be counter to the purpose of the efficiency agenda.
12. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
REVIEWS
The Committee understands that HM Treasury have undertaken
financial management reviews across all Government Departments.
Can the Department provide the Committee with a copy of the financial
management review report for ODPM, including the action plan?
Please see the information at Annex F.
13. ENGLISH PARTNERSHIPS
In the table at Q22 of the Department's memorandum the increase
in capital spending for English Partnerships is said to be due
to "double counting in line with resource accounting rules".
Can you explain this please?
The previous response given was inadvertently misleading,
for which we apologise.
The increase in capital DEL cover for English Partnerships
reflected changes in the way acquisitions and disposals of land
held as stock were treated in Departmental Expenditure Limits.
These changes were made following lengthy discussion with the
Treasury.
Previously acquisitions and disposals of development assets
were scored at the time of disposal in the resource DEL. The acquisition
scored at book value, offset against the disposal proceeds. The
net difference therefore, the profit or loss, scored against the
resource DEL at the time of disposal. This treatment arose because
acquisitions of land and buildings are treated as development
assets (stock ) in English Partnerships' accounts.
The new budgeting treatment required EP's acquisitions and
disposal of development assets to be scored in the DEL in exactly
the same way as fixed assets are scored. It did not alter the
accounting treatment.
The new treatment is that acquisitions of development assets
score in the capital DEL at time of acquisition at purchase price;
at the time of disposal the net book value of disposal scores
in the capital DEL and the profit or loss in the resource DEL.
In order to preserve existing levels of activity, Treasury
agreed to increase the Capital DEL and reduce the Resource DEL
for 2004-05 and subsequent years. This did not give EP extra or
lower spending power—it was designed to enable the same
levels of activity to continue under the new scoring arrangements.
The new budgeting rules for development assets require, as
with fixed assets, for acquisitions to score against capital DEL,
and write downs and depreciation to score in the resource DEL.
This is a long established arrangement for fixed assets which
could be termed as double counting. For fixed assets, and in future
for development assets, Departments need to assess in the context
of spending reviews their requirements for both resource and capital
DELs on this basis. For the change in the scoring for development
assets, the reclassification and uplifting of English Partnerships'
budgets took account of the impact of this change so that EP was
not disadvantaged.
14. PSA8
The Committee notes that the Department intends to reduce the
percentage of local authority districts nationally judged to have
unacceptable levels of litter and detritus. What key performance
indicators will be used for this assessment?
The percentage of local authorities judged to have unacceptable
levels of litter and detritus is measured through Best Value Performance
Indicator (BVPI)—BV199 (BV199a as of 1 April 2005). This
is measured through detailed surveyor assessments of a large number
of sites on several occasions within each local authority district,
using a methodology developed for DEFRA by ENCAMS; the percentage
of sites surveyed by the authority that fall below an acceptable
level (below grade B as set out by the Code of Practice on Litter
and Refuse).
Performance will be assessed using the 2007-08 BVPI results
that will become available by the end of 2008. BV199(a) is measured
annually.
[BV199 was measured for the first time in 2003-04. Audited
results for 2003-04 report that 23% of local authorities nationally
and 33% of local authorities in receipt of NRF have unacceptable
levels of litter in excess of the national benchmark set within
BV199. Results exclude non-returns and returns about which the
Audit Commission expressed some reservation in order to set the
baseline as accurately as possible.
By the end of financial year 2007-08 no more than 10% of
local authorities nationally and 17% of local authorities in receipt
on NRF will have unacceptable levels of litter and detritus in
excess of the national benchmark.]
15. FUNDING FOR
REGENERATION
What arrangements have been made to support regeneration programmes
financed by European Structural Funding, once the current European
spending programme ends next year?
If arrangements have been made, where is the money coming from?
If arrangements have not been made, what support is the Department
providing to organisations which are looking for other sources
of funding?
The current round of European Structural Funds programmes
does not finish spending next year. Although the programming period
is 2000-06, projects have until 31 December 2008 to finish spending.
This overlaps with the next programming period from 2007-13.
Negotiations on the Structural Funds Regulations for 2007-13
are ongoing, but cannot be finalised, and funding allocated, until
Member States and the European Commission have reached agreement
on the budget.
Having said that, it remains the UK Government position that
there should be an EU framework for devolved regional policy,
and that the 2007-13 Structural Funds should be focussed on the
poorest Member States. Wealthier Member States should take primary
responsibility for funding regional development from domestic
resources.
If the UK's reform proposals are accepted in full, the UK
Government has guaranteed to increase domestic resources to be
spent on regional policy within the UK so that the nations and
regions do not lose out as a result of the reform.
This amount would be the amount the UK would receive if the
current eligibility criteria for structural funds were reapplied
to the enlarged EU for the 2007-13 financial perspective. It will
use the latest regional data available before the next financial
perspective is agreed.
This will be less than presently. Under all scenarios the
UK will receive less funding for regional policy, (due to enlargement
and the strong economic performance of the UK's regions).
How the guarantee would work
It is more efficient for the UK to fund domestic regional
policy directly, through the Guarantee, than to recycle the spending
through Europe and lose more in domestic spending that it gains
in EU receipts. (Currently the UK pays
1.6 for every
1 it receives). Increasing the UK receipts from Europe would reduce
domestic spending on regional policy and reduce the Barnett consequentials
for the Devolved Administrations.
Regional Funding Allocations
In terms of planning for future domestic spending programmes,
we are asking Regions, through the Regional Development Agencies
and Assemblies, to prioritise within and across key elements of
regional spend and to advise Government where the resources should
be targeted. This is intended to align more effectively investment
and resources in the regions within regionally agreed priorities.
We have undertaken to consider the scope for bringing any
regional European funding into any future RFAs exercises (depending
on an assessment of the first round).
16. REGIONAL CENTRES
OF EXCELLENCE
(a) How will the effectiveness of these centres be assessed?
(b) What is their expected annual cost? (c) Will they
be staffed by new appointments or redeployments?
(a) An RCE Programme Management Team has been established
to monitor the performance of the RCEs and co-ordinate activities
with the ODPM. The Team has regular meetings with the RCEs and
requires each RCE to submit a quarterly report on their activities.
These reports are used to monitor RCEs' progress against their
Business Plans and any areas of concern identified can be raised
with the appropriate RCE and a resolution sought.
(b) So far, the ODPM has provided £11 million in
2004-05 and a further £11 million in 2005-06 to fund all
nine RCEs. Discussions on further funding for the RCEs are ongoing.
In addition to the funding from ODPM, individual RCEs have applied
for other government funding to assist with the delivery of specific
projects.
(c) The Directors of each RCE have either been seconded
from the host local authority or are new appointments. Similarly,
their staff have been either seconded from the host local authority
or another authority within the region, or are new appointments.
17. STAFF RELOCATION
The Departmental Annual Report notes at p46 that 103 of 240
posts identified for relocation have been relocated. What plans
does the Department have to relocate the remaining agreed posts
out of London and the South East?
At the forefront of our relocation plans is to devolve work
where possible to our Government Office Network and existing satellite
offices thus greatly reducing the costs of relocation. A significant
amount of ODPM's remaining relocation will be delivery/policy
based posts that ODPM is choosing to create in the GOs rather
than in London. We are looking at where roles need to be carried
out so that they add more value—there is no point being
based in London if your interactions are with Humberside and will
be for several years to come. There will also be a number of posts
that we will relocate from head office. These will mainly come
from back office/operational support functions, such as finance,
information management and the like.
18. SENIOR CIVIL
SERVICE
What are the ODPM's current figures for employment of women,
the disabled and those from ethnic minority backgrounds within
the Senior Civil Service? What is being done to encourage individuals
from these groups to move into the Senior Civil Service within
ODPM?
|
| Percentage of women in Senior Civil Service (SCS)
| 40% |
| Percentage of staff from an ethnic minority in SCS
| 4% |
| Percentage of staff with a declared disability in SCS
| 2.2% |
| Percentage of women in top management posts
| 24% |
|
ODPM participates in Cabinet Office led schemes such as Pathways,
the Fast Stream Summer Development Programme for Ethnic Minorities
and the Fast Stream Summer Placement Scheme for disabled candidates.
We are also, as part of our commitment to the Cabinet Office-led
10-point diversity plan, developing new targets for representation
of women and minority groups in the SCS, including what additional
positive action is needed to help ensure delivery of those targets.
19. ACCOMMODATION
What is being done to rationalise ODPM accommodation, and over
what timescale? Do these changes incur any cost, and what savings
does the Department expect from these changes in the long term?
We have already made net savings of £1 million in this
financial year by moving staff from serviced accommodation to
cheaper accommodation on the Government estate in June of this
year.
ODPM HQ currently occupies part or all of four buildings
in central London. We plan to make more efficient use of these
buildings with a view to reducing to three or two buildings by
April 2008 depending on circumstances at that time. This would
be achieved by a major refurbishment of one of the four buildings,
to enable full open plan working. A pilot has just been successfully
completed.
The estimated cost of the necessary works is between £7
million and £8 million which will be spread over the three
year period. The savings on rent and running cost would, at current
costs, be between £1.3 million and £3.5 million in 2008-09,
and between £1.4 million and £3.8 million in every year
thereafter.
20. STAFF SURVEY
When will the results and analysis of the 2005 staff survey
be available to the Committee?
ODPM intends to release the detailed results and the summary
report in electronic format to staff in the first half of this
month. A copy of the summary report will be sent to the Select
Committee at that time.
| 
