3 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee
to the Cabinet Office
The Committee has some questions concerning
the Cabinet Office Departmental Annual Report 2005 (Cm 6543) which
was presented to Parliament in June 2005.
THE USE
OF RESOURCES
AND EFFICIENCY
SAVINGS
The Cabinet Office has a target to achieve efficiency
savings of 2.5% on administrative costs. It would be helpful to
readers of the Departmental Annual Report (DAR) if it included
information showing the savings made in preceding years. On page
28 of the DAR you report that the Cabinet Office will have to
deliver efficiency savings of 3% per annum, £25 million in
annual efficiencies by 2007-08, to meet Gershon and Lyon's requirements.
We would like to see a more detailed breakdown of how the Cabinet
Office expects to achieve this efficiency saving. It is our understanding
that the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission have reviewed
efficiency plans for reasonableness. Can you make these reports
available to the Committee?
We note that the estimated outturn costs of
£191 million for "other" administrative costs have
increased by 53% (as reported on page 57 of the DAR). However,
there is no information provided in the DAR to explain this increase.
Why have these costs increased? There is also no explanation given
for the increase in casual staff from 50 in 2003-04 to 153 in
2004-05. Can you give us an indication of the nature of these
posts, as well as the nature of the casual staff roles in the
Security and Intelligence Agencies? Overall, the Cabinet Office
published outturn spend for 2004-05 went up by 6% from the previous
year. How does the Cabinet Office reconcile the increase in costs
with the need to meet its efficiency target?
We would also like to you to confirm that the
dispute with ITNET UK over the "True North" project
has been resolved, and to provide details of the overall costs
involved. How does the Cabinet Office plan to learn from its experience
regarding the project?
On page 54 of the DAR there is a table showing
"spending by local authorities on functions relevant to the
department". What are these functions?
The resource spending of the Cabinet Office
on CMPS fell by £1,599,000 from 2002-03 to 2003-04. The estimated
outturn for 2005-05 also shows a decrease of a further £707,000.
Can you explain the reason for this?
PROGRESS AGAINST
SR 2002 TARGETS
Performance against five out of the Cabinet
Office targets six targets is wholly dependent on the actions
of other departments. It is therefore very difficult to effectively
assess the input of the Cabinet Office to meeting these targets.
In its report "On Target? Government by Measurement"
(HC 62-I, 2002-03) PASC recommended that "reporting on shared
target should make clear the contribution that each of the responsible
departments have made towards the achievement of the target"
(paragraph 132). We are concerned that the reporting in the DAR
may not do this adequately.
The Cabinet Office reports that it is "on
course" to meet its target of delivering over 60 Regulatory
Reform Orders (RROs) by 2005, however, in the commentary provided
you state that the Cabinet Office does not expect to deliver 60
RROs by 2005-06. How can the Cabinet Office can claim to be "on
course" for PSA 1 whilst reporting that it will miss its
target of 60 RROs? Although you report that the rate of compliance
with the RIA process has risen significantly in recent years and
remains close to 100%, there is no information on monitoring and
improving the quality of the RIA process. What processes are there
in place for ensuring the quality of RIAs? How many of the RIAs
have been quality assured and have been found not to comply with
the technical guidance?
PSA 2 of 2002 requires the Cabinet Office to
work with departments to help them meet their targets, consistently
within the fiscal rules. How confident is the Cabinet Office that
it can rely on other departments reporting their progress accurately
against targets particularly when the NAO has reported that "20%
of departments reviewed were not collecting data for the measures
specified"? The Committee would also like to repeat its recommendation
from "On Target?" that there should be a process of
external validation of performance against PSA targets carried
out by the National Audit Office (paragraph 135).
The Cabinet Office has reported that it will
achieve 96% electronic delivery of services by 2005. Can you provide
us with a definition for "electronic service delivery"?
The Treasury's supporting technical note for the Cabinet Office
PSA 3 on electronic service delivery states that the services
included in this target were both UK central government and the
health service. However, health services do not appear in the
Cabinet Office forecast for electronic service delivery capability.
Why is this the case? What is the forecast figure for electronic
service delivery as defined by the Treasury?
PASC welcomes the rise in numbers of under-represented
groups in the Senior Civil Service. However, we are concerned
that the "2005 targets for both disabled people and women
in the Senior Civil Service remain a significant challenge"
(page 18) especially as the Fast Stream Recruitment figures for
2004 show significant drops in Fast Stream recruitment for both
groups. What pro-active action is being undertaken by the Cabinet
Office to meet its target for improving the recruitment of women
and people with disabilities into the Civil Service? What action
is being taken to try to ensure a fuller response to ethnic monitoring
within the Civil Service?
Progress against PSA 5 is in part measured by
way of a six-monthly survey of public sector managers (page 25).
Would it be possible to provide a breakdown of the public sector
managers views by sector? According to the survey, 68% of public
service managers believe that there is no choice in public service
provision. What action is being taken to address this? The Committee
would also like to know the basis on which the targets for the
survey responses have been set. For example, how was the target
of 29% agreeing/strongly agreeing with the statement "my
customers have a choice of the services they receive" chosen?
FURTHER ISSUES
REGARDING THE
DAR
Although we welcome the fact that the DAR is
concise, we believe that improvements could be made by making
links to the Cabinet Office's five year business plan and providing
financial information that can be linked to each of its activities.
For example, the Office for Public Services Reform is principally
responsible for delivering PSA 5 but you cannot gauge from the
financial information how much of the Cabinet Office resource
is allocated to this function. Can you provide us with a breakdown
of financial costs of the Units within the Cabinet Office?
The Committee would appreciate a response to
this letter by Friday 14 October.
15 September 2005
| 
