Letter from the Chief Executive, Office
of Government Commerce, to the Chairman of the Committee
I am writing following the PAC hearing on 6
March on the NAO's Report on Progress in improving government
efficiency, at which I was a witness.
With reference to figure 29 of the NAO Report,
I was asked to indicate which were the departments given a "red"
rating for likelihood of delivery in their efficiency targets
in December 2005 (Question 63). The Committee was concerned that
these ratings were "facts", rather than "advice",
and thus should be put forward for the Committee's consideration.
As I mentioned at the time, I believe that these
ratings are not "facts", but rather management assessments
or judgements forming part of the policy advice I provide Ministers
on efficiency.
The facts of departmental progress are already
published: departments regularly publish quantified progress against
their targets in annual reports and Autumn Performance Reports.
Progress is additionally reported in aggregate in the PBR and
Budget. Departments are also able to answer on the progress and
details of their respective plans. The red/amber/green ratings
for each department are difference: they are an opinion regarding
the likelihood of delivery. On this ground, I do not believe that
they should be revealed to the Committee as a matter of course.
In addition, the red/amber/green statuses of
departments are a crucial tool for driving delivery in departments.
There is a real risk that if the ratings were made public, departments
would focus their efforts on good presentation in order to secure
a positive rating, rather than engaging in honest discussion with
OGC as to where further progress is required.
I have sought the views of Ministers, who support
this approach. I am not seeking to be unhelpful here: my approach
is conditioned by what I believe will best encourage successful
delivery.
Mr John Oughton
Chief Executive
21 March 2006
| 
