4 Letter from the Cabinet Office to the
Clerk of the Committee
Thank you for your letter of 15 September 2005
setting out Select Committee's questions concerning the Cabinet
Office's Departmental Annual Report (DAR) 2005. I apologise for
the delay to this reply.
2. My response deals with the questions
in the same order as your letter.
THE USE
OF RESOURCE
AND EFFICIENCY
SAVINGS
Paragraph 2: Efficiency savings
3. The 2002 Spending Review set Cabinet
Office a PSA target requiring a 2.5% annual efficiency saving
and progress against this has been set out in previous Departmental
and Autumn Performance Reports. This target was superseded by
the efficiency target which formed part of our 2004 Spending Review
settlement and future reporting will be against the more detailed
measures underlying the SR2004 efficiency target. Last October,
we published an Efficiency Technical Note (ETN) setting out the
detail of our plans for delivering against the Gershon and Lyons
requirements. The ETN can be found on the Cabinet Office website
at:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/etn/index.asp
4. The National Audit Office have been involved
in a review of our ETN and a revised version will be published
after it has been cleared with HM Treasury—we expect this
to be towards the end of October and will notify the Committee
when the revised version is available.
Paragraph 3: Estimated outturn costs
5. You have asked about figures in the tables
in Section Four of the DAR. The tables follow a standard format
prescribed by HM Treasury for all departments and currently there
is no requirement from Treasury for departments to include any
comments on trend.
6. Table 5 shows a significant increase
in "other" administrative costs between 2003-04 and
2004-05. The figure for 2003-04 is based on actual outturn as
shown in published resource accounts for that year. The figure
for 2004-05 was an estimated outturn—this has now been superseded
by actual outturn for 2004-05. Schedule 2 of the Cabinet Office
resource accounts for 2004-05 (HC 372)—shows that other
administrative costs for 2004-05 were £130,362,000, an increase
of just 4.1% on 2003-04. The actual outturn figures in the accounts
will replace the estimated outturn figures shown in the 2005 DAR.
Administration costs in the estimated outturn figure included
costs which were subsequently classified as programme costs.
7. In Table 6 the increase in casual staff
from 2003-04 to 2004-05 is explained in note 3 to the table.
8. In your letter you refer (penultimate
sentence of paragraph 3) to a 6% increase in outturn spend for
2004-05. I am not sure of the source of the figures you are quoting,
and if you would let me know I will of course provide an explanation.
But if for example the figures you have been reviewing include
programme spend, an increase in overall resource spend would not
necessarily be incompatible with achievement of efficiency targets.
9. It would not be appropriate for me to
give you details of staffing matters in the intelligence agencies—the
Intelligence and Security Committee is the body specifically charged
by Parliament to handle oversight matters relating to the security
and intelligence agencies.
Paragraph 4: Dispute with ITNet UK over the "True
North" project
10. You have asked if the dispute with ITNet
over the "True North" project has been resolved. I am
pleased to say that this was settled amicably in July 2005 with
no further payments being made by either side. The Cabinet Office
has taken on responsibility for some leased hardware with payment
streams totalling £5.9 million and is actively considering
how this can be put to best use across the public sector.
11. The costs involved were as follows:
| Purchase of Assets* |
|
|
Initial investment | £5.0M |
| Total Investment |
£5.0M |
|
|
|
| Litigation costs |
|
|
Cabinet Office dispute resolution and |
|
|
litigation team + witness statements |
£2.0M |
|
Legal costs |
£1.4M |
|
Disbursements |
£1.3M |
| Total litigation |
£4.7M |
|
|
|
*The Cabinet Office made one single payment to ITNet during the
contract—a prepayment of £5 million (ex VAT) for Assets.
This has been fully impaired as part of the Cabinet Office Resource
Accounts 2004-05.
12. You have asked what lessons have been learnt by the
Cabinet Office from the project. I believe that the Cabinet Office
acted correctly in terminating the contract when we did, defending
itself against the claims for damages and reaching a settlement.
However, I am considering a thorough review of the project, to
ensure that the Cabinet Office is able to take stock and to learn
lessons for the future. I will of course let you know once we
have determined how best to proceed.
Paragraph 5: Page 54—Spending by local authorities on
functions relevant to the department
13. Table 1 of the DAR shows spending by Local Authorities
on civil protection. This appears in the DAR because Cabinet Office
was responsible for emergency planning grants to Local Authorities
from 2001-02 to 2004-05. This funding has now been transferred
out of Cabinet Office and future DARs will no longer show these
details. Further information can be found in the Estimate Memorandum
for the 2005-06 Cabinet Office Main Estimate provided to PASC
in May this year.
Paragraph 6: Resource spending on CMPS
14. You have requested information on the decrease of
the Cabinet Office's resource spend on CMPS. CMPS, now incorporated
into the National School of Government, operates on a cost recovery
basis which requires it to drive efficiencies through all levels
of their business. One visible manifestation is that the amount
of income CMPS generates has increased, while the level of funding
provided by Cabinet Office has reduced proportionately.
Progress against SR2002 Targets
15. You have asked for further information on each of
the Cabinet Office's PSA targets.
Paragraph 8: PSA Target Number 1
16. You have pointed out that we have reported that the
Cabinet Office is "on course" to meet its target of
delivering over 60 Regulatory Reform Orders (RROs) by 2005, however,
in the commentary provided we have stated that the Cabinet Office
does not expect to deliver 60 RROs by 2005-06. Therefore, how
can the Cabinet Office claim to be "on course" for PSA
1 whilst reporting that it will miss its target of 60 RROs?
17. This is because our assessment of being "on
course" is measured against the overall target, rather than
against individual elements of the target.
18. As the commentary in the Annual Report indicates,
there has been slippage on the programme of Regulatory Reform
Orders (RROs), but this is one element of the overall target.
Several proposals originally considered for delivery via RRO have
been or will be, delivered by other means.
19. Proposals to make it easier to simplify unnecessary
or over burdensome legislation via RROs and other means were put
out as part of a consultation in July, "A Bill for Better
Regulation". The Cabinet Office will be assessing the responses
to this consultation before bringing forward measures to amend
the 2001 Regulatory Reform Act.
20. Next, although we have reported that the rate of
compliance with the RIA process has risen significantly in recent
years and remains close to 100%, you have pointed out that there
is no information on monitoring and improving the quality of the
RIA process. You have asked for details for what processes are
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.
21. The Better Regulation Executive (BRE), which superseded
the RIU in May 2005, does have processes in place for ensuring
the quality of RIAs. These include routinely scrutinising RIAs
to ensure that they are fit for purpose, providing training to
departments on RIAs and the RIA process as well as consultancy
advice during policy development. Moreover, major proposals are
subject to scrutiny by the Panel for Regulatory Accountability
chaired by the Prime Minister, at which consideration is given
according to the quality of the RIA. The Panel has withheld clearance
for a number of proposals on the basis that the RIA needs further
work.
22. Information on the quality of RIAs has been made
publicly available. The National Audit Office (NAO) has published
regular reports on RIAs and Better Regulation since 2001. The
reports have provided an independent assessment of the quality
of RIAs produced by Government and have tracked the Government's
progress in raising the general standard of RIAs.
23. The report published in November 2001 asserted that
the technical guidance promoted by the then Regulatory Impact
Unit was in line with the NAO's characterisation of effective
RIAs that add value to policy development. More recent annual
reports have reiterated this and the March 2005 report registered
an improvement in the sample of RIAs against those assessed the
previous year under the same selection/assessment framework and
methodology.
Paragraph 9: PSA Target Number 2
24. PSA 2 requires the Cabinet Office to work with departments
to help them meet their targets, consistently within the fiscal
rules. You have asked 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"?
25. Further, 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.
26. In answer to the above, the Cabinet Office remains
committed to ensuring that the information which underpins reporting
on PSA targets is reliable. PSA 2 is a joint target for which
HM Treasury and the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit (PMDU) within
the Cabinet Office are both responsible, although each monitors
a different subset of the targets.
27. We are confident that in those target areas with
which PMDU is concerned Departments have in place extensive and
robust systems to ensure the accuracy of the data they collect
to support performance monitoring. PMDU's assessment framework,
which is regularly reviewed with Departments, examines the quality
of planning and performance management information in order to
ensure adequate measurement systems are in place to monitor delivery
of these PSAs. We have observed significant improvements in the
quality of these systems over the past four years.
28. We accept that there are some areas where data collection
needs to improve, and work is in place to ensure that this is
happening. HMT and PMDU are increasingly working together to ensure
that Departments improve their collection of data relating to
all target areas.
29. We recognise the value of the work of the NAO in
validating the data systems of performance reporting. However,
we believe that an extensive programme of validation of the performance
data itself, covering the judgements that Departments make on
the basis of it, would not add sufficient value to existing arrangements
to be worthwhile. Any benefits that might arise would also have
to be weighed against the greater financial costs and administrative
burdens which would be imposed by such a process.
30. The Comptroller and Auditor General (through the
NAO) already has powers to scrutinise the validity of performance
data itself where he has concerns. Many of the PSA targets are
measured by performance indicators based on National Statistics,
which are subject to quality control by the Statistics Commission.
Paragraph 10: PSA Target Number 3
31. The Cabinet Office has reported that it will achieve
96% electronic delivery of services by 2005. You have asked for
a definition of "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. You have
pointed out that the health services do not appear in the Cabinet
Office forecast for electronic service delivery capability. You
have asked why this is and what are the forecast figures for electronic
service delivery as defined by the Treasury.
32. We define Electronic Service Delivery as the capability
to deliver services across electronic channels. Electronic channels
are not limited to the internet but include other channels such
as e-enabled call centres, digital TV, Kiosks, SMS and EDI. A
full list of services is available on the Cabinet Office website
at:
http//www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government/docs/resources/msword/btiannexa.doc
Health services are included in the target. Details of health
services start at page 137.
33. The last assessment against the target found that
76% of services are electronically enabled with a forecast of
96% to be enabled at the end to the target period. Further information
is available on the Cabinet Office Website at:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government/resources/esdreports.asp
Paragraph 11: PSA Target Number 4
34. You have pointed out that the Committee welcomes
the rise in numbers of under-represented groups in the Senior
Civil Service. However, the Committee is 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.
35. You have asked for details of pro-active action being
undertaken by the Cabinet Office to meet its target for improving
the recruitment of women and people with disabilities into the
Civil Service.
36. The Chief Diversity Adviser to the Civil Service
has conducted a review of equality and diversity and developed
a 10-Point Plan aimed at increasing diversity, particularly at
senior levels. This Plan was developed in consultation with key
stakeholders and has been endorsed by the Civil Service Management
Board. It will be published on 1 November.
37. A key element of the Plan is the requirement for
Departments and Agencies to have stretching diversity targets
for their SCS populations for women, women in top management posts,
black and minority ethnic staff and disabled people; and diversity
targets for their feeder grade populations. (Grade 6 and 7). The
Plan sets out 10 key areas for change that, taken together, will
pick up the pace of progress towards departmental and corporate
diversity targets. It includes action on maximising positive action
recruitment, including use of search consultants and advertising
agencies and identifying talented people from under-represented
groups for appropriate development. Action will also be taken
to ensure that equality and diversity issues are explicitly considered
as part of the SCS recruitment process, either through panels
being representative of the candidate field, or through involvement
of an internal or external diversity adviser.
38. A new corporate diversity development scheme for
talented staff at feeder grade level will be launched and departments
will be responsible for running their own positives action development
schemes for more junior staff. The Plan also commits to further
opening up of flexible working opportunities at senior levels
in order to attract a more diverse pool of talent; all SCS and
feeder grade posts will be available on a part-time or flexible
working basis, unless robust justification can be offered as to
why they should not be.
39. Progress against the 10-Point Plan and the diversity
targets will continue to be measured by the Cabinet Office and
at a departmental level through the Diversity Champion's Network,
who will make an annual progress report to the Civil Service Management
Board. Projects are underway with Departments to work towards
improving the coverage and quality of data on ethnicity and disability,
especially around addressing cultural issues and barriers to declaration.
40. The 2004 Fast Stream diversity figures do show a
drop in percentages of applications and successes in respect of
gender; however, they must be read in light of the revisions to
the selection process introduced in the 2005 Fast Stream competition
which early evidence indicates a positive impact upon gender.
Applications to the General Fast Stream from women (overall figures
for the entire Fast Stream are not yet available) increased to
47% in 2005 from 40.1% in 2004.
41. In the 2004 competition applications from women decreased;
however, in terms of their progress through the selection process,
female applicants were more successful than their male counterparts
in the GFS and Economists schemes but not as successful in the
Statistician and GCHQ competitions. Some 5.8% of women who applied
for the Fast Stream were recommended for appointment, compared
with 5.2% of male.
42. The Fast Stream Recruitment figures for 2004 do not
show a drop in Fast Stream recruitment of candidates with a disability
as stated in the committee's question. To clarify the position,
the overall percentage of applicants declaring a disability increased
to 3.2% in 2004, up from 2.4% in 2003. The proportion of candidates
recording a disability who were recommended for appointment increased
from 3.5% in 2003 to 7.3% in 2004.
43. The Fast Stream Outreach and Diversity programmes
are examples of pro-active action undertaken by the Cabinet Office
to increase the diversity of the Fast Stream Recruitment Process.
The Summer Placement Scheme (SPS) was piloted in 2003 to address
concerns regarding the under representation of people with disabilities
in the Senior Civil Service (SCS). It seeks to provide high calibre
undergraduates/graduates with work placements in Government Departments.
The main aims of the scheme are to remove any perceptions of barriers
to work within the Civil Service, provide candidates with experience
of any adjustments they may need for the work place and ultimately
promote the Civil Service as an employer of choice. In 2004 the
SPS provided 68 placements across 22 government departments.
44. The diversity programmes provide development opportunities
to ethnic minority and disabled undergraduates/graduates and despite
not specifically providing a gender based development programme
57% of the candidates on the ethnicity and disability programmes
for the 2004-05 period were women.
Paragraph 12: PSA Target Number 5
45. You have asked for further details on the six-monthly
surveys of public sector and public service managers. Annex A
provides the breakdowns of the survey results which you have requested.
Paragraph 13: Further issues regarding the DAR
46. I have attached at Annex B an extract from our current
Departmental Plan which gives a breakdown of initial budget allocations
to units for 2005-06. Schedule five of the Resource Accounts (HC
372) also provides an analysis of resource expenditure by objective.
We are undertaking further work in this year's planning exercise
to refine the link between unit costs and objectives in the overall
plan.
47. I trust that the Committee find this information
useful and that it answers their questions. If there are any further
questions or concerns about the Departmental Report then please
do not hesitate to contact me.
19 October 2005
Annex A
PROGRESS AGAINST SR 2002 TARGETS—RESPONSE TO PARAGRAPH
12
A. 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?
Background:
The Cabinet Office's Public Service Agreement 5 (PSA) was
designed to improve Public Services by working with Departments
to redesign services around the needs of customers and embed the
four principles of reform with progress measured by survey results.
Two key surveys are commissioned by the Office of Public
Services Reform to measure progress. One involves senior public
service managers (PSMs) and is conducted bi-annually and the other
is an annual survey of SCS members in key delivery departments.
The surveys seek to measure and track perceptions on how the reform
agenda for public services is progressing, generally and specifically
within departments for SCS or sector area for public service managers.
Who we survey: Each survey we invite a random sample
of c800 to 1,000 senior public service managers across England
and Wales from specific public services covering:
— further and higher education;
When: We have surveyed public service managers twice-yearly
(May/June and November/December) since December 2002 (a total
of five research surveys to date).
How: The survey is internet-based and respondents
are invited to participate via an invitation letter sent to them
by post shortly before the survey starts. A link is provided in
the letter to the online survey.
What: We seek respondents' views on their perceived
awareness and support for the reform agenda and perceptions of
how the reform agenda for public services, based on the Prime
Minister's four principles of reform (national standards, devolution
and delegation, flexibility and choice), is progressing, generally
and specifically within their sector.
Results: Key indicators are published in the Cabinet
Office's annual Departmental and Autumn Performance reports. They
are also reported on the HM Treasury website. The Cabinet Office's
Autumn Performance Report for 2005 is expected to include the
results for the measurement of PSA 5 from the sixth research survey.
BREAKDOWN OF
PUBLIC SERVICE
MANAGERS PSA 5 PROGRESS
INDICATORS DATA—SPLIT
BY SECTOR
Please note the points below when looking at the following
data:
— These summary tables only show the overall percentage
agreeing (those who strongly or tend to agree) with the statement.
Full responses for each statement are provided in tables A-D in
Annex 1.
— The tables disaggregate the results for public
sector managers in health, education, local government and the
police. Results for transport managers are not disaggregated because
the base sizes obtained in each survey are too small to report
on separately. They are, however, included in the overall totals.
— Responses from the Further and Higher education
sector are also not provided separately because of the small number
of returns for these questions. However, to provide comparable
trend data, they are not included in the overall total as they
were first surveyed in December 2003.
Table 1
NATIONAL STANDARDS
My organisation is clear about the national standards
it needs to deliver (% strongly or tend to agree)
| Sector | Baseline
| | | |
|
| December 2002 | June 2003
| December 2003 | July 2004
| January 2005 | |
| Overall Total | 90 | 94
| 92 | 94 | 92
|
| Health | 96 | 97
| 94 | 96 | 95
|
| Local Government | 87 | 93
| 92 | 94 | 91
|
| Education | 95 | 96
| 94 | 96 | 97
|
| Police | 83 | 89
| 87 | 88 | 83
|
| | |
| | |
— The vast majority of public service managers in
all sectors feel that their frontline organisations are clear
about which national standards they have to deliver.
Table 2
| Sector | Baseline
| | | |
|
| December 2002 | June 2003
| December 2003 | July 2004
| January 2005 | |
| Overall Total | 48 | 48
| 47 | 49 | 45
|
| Health | 25 | 30
| 26 | 32 | 33*
|
| Local Government | 48 | 42
| 47 | 47 | 43
|
| Education | 73 | 61
| 65 | 69 | 67
|
| Police | 51 | 56
| 54 | 57 | 46
|
| | |
| | |
* Statistically significant increase from baseline to January
2005 at the 95% confidence interval<et
— Over time, more public service managers in the
health sector (eg Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities—see
Annex 2 for a complete list of public service managers sampled
in each sector) agree that their frontline organisations are able
to decide how best to spend their budgets.
— The statistically significant increase from the
baseline to January 2005 means that this is a real difference
in perceptions. Importantly, the increase in agreement corresponds
with a decrease in disagreement rather than an increase in the
number of public service managers who are neutral.
— Levels of agreement in the education sector (eg
primary and secondary schools and LEAs) are much higher than for
other sectors.
Table 3
FLEXIBILITY
Staff working practices are flexible to provide high quality
services (% strongly or tend to agree)
| Sector | Baseline
| | | |
| |
| December 2002 | June 2003
| December 2003 | July 2004
| January 2005 | |
|
| Overall Total | 52 | 53
| 55 | 60 | 58* |
|
| Health | 42 | 53
| 56 | 60 | 58*
| |
| Local Government | 59 | 63
| 65 | 73 | 67 |
|
| Education | 59 | 51
| 52 | 61 | 57 |
|
| Police | 47 | 46
| 45 | 45 | 46 |
|
| | |
| | | |
* Statistically significant increase from baseline to January
2005 at the 95% confidence interval<et
— There has been a statistically significant increase
over the last three years in the number of public service managers
who agree that their staff working practices are flexible.
— As with devolution, there is a significant corresponding
decrease in those actively disagreeing with the statement.
Table 4
CHOICE
My customers have a choice of the services they receive
(% strongly or tend to agree)
| Sector | Baseline
| | | |
|
| December 2002 | June 2003
| December 2003 | July 2004
| January 2005 | |
| Overall Total | 25 | 27
| 25 | 32 | 32*
|
| Health | 17 | 23
| 30 | 34 | 37*
|
| Local Government | 31 | 32
| 28 | 35 | 30
|
| Education | 39 | 36
| 36 | 37 | 44
|
| Police | 8 | 8
| 4 | 9 | 7 |
| * | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Statistically significant increase from baseline to January 2005
at the 95% confidence interval
— There has been a statistically significant increase
over the last three years in the number of public service managers
overall who agree that their customers have a choice of services
they receive.
— This is largely driven by a significant increase
in agreement (and corresponding decrease in disagreement) by senior
managers in the health sector and a smaller (and therefore just
falling short of being statistically significant) increase in
agreement from managers in education.
B(i) According to the survey, 68% of public service managers
believe that there is no choice in public service provision. .
.
The figure of 68% quoted above includes those who are neutral
about whether their customers have a choice of services (who neither
agree nor disagree with the statement), as well as those who actively
think that choice does not exist. The full figures for January
2005 (taken from table A in Annex 1) are as follows:
"Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
`My customers have a choice of services they receive'?"
Strongly/Tend to agree—32%
Neither agree nor disagree—26%
Strongly/tend to disagree—41%
Don't know—1%
So the proportion of public service managers who actively
disagree that their customers have a choice of services they receive
is 41% not 68%.
Furthermore, looking in more detail by sector at those who
actively disagree on the amount of choice available to their customers
(table D in Annex A), 75% of police public service managers do
not think that their customers have a choice. This figure is significantly
higher than the other areas and is a clear outline in terms of
the data as a whole.
The result of this difference in the data is a negative skewing
of the overall figure of 41% disagreeing with the statement above.
Removing the police respondents from the sample, results in the
following figures:
| January 2005 data | Overall total PSMs (%)
| Overall total excluding police |
| PSMs (%) | |
|
| Strongly/tend to agree | 32
| 37 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 26
| 28 |
| Strongly/tend to disagree | 41
| 34* |
| Don't know | 1 | 1
|
* So if the police managers' responses are excluded, the figure
of public service managers that actively disagree that their customers
have a choice of services they receive drops to 34%.<et
B(ii) . . . What action is being taken to address this?
The provision of choice is increasingly a feature of public
service delivery. Since the targets for PSA 5 were set, the choice
agenda has been elaborated in the five-year departmental strategies
published in 2004, which are now being implemented. To give some
examples:
— There is a strong emphasis on choice in healthcare
(as is reflected in the data); a recent example this year is where
a choice of four to five providers has been introduced for cataract
operations, building new capacity in ophthalmology and helping
to bring down waiting times for cataract surgery to three months.
— Looking further across public services, choice
and personalisation is supported through Direct Payments in Social
Care, choice based lettings have been very popular in Housing
and choice in Education is developing through City Academies.
Choice in child care is also being provided through extended school
provision. Moreover choice is supported through Government funding
of the voluntary sector to help provide more targeted services.
C. 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?
The Office of Public Services Reform's 2002 survey of a random
sample of senior managers. in public services was commissioned
to provide a baseline against which to measure perceptions of
progress in embedding the four principles of reform. The baseline
figures and targets are below:
| Principle | Survey question
| Baseline 2002-03 | Target 2004-05*
|
| National Standards | My organisation is clear about the national standards it needs to deliver
| 90% | Maintain current level
|
| Devolution and delegation | My organisation decides for itself how best to spend its budget in order to meet its priorities
| 48% | 52% |
| Flexibility | Staff working practices are flexible to provide high quality services
| 52% | 56% |
| Choice | My customers have a choice of the services they receive
| 25% | 29% |
| | |
|
* The targets were to achieve a statistically significant
increase from this baseline and, as with all PSA targets, were
agreed with HM Treasury.
The Office of Public Services Reform expects to have data from
the sixth research survey and to be able to report on the final
outcome against this target in the Autumn Performance Report published
by the Cabinet Office later this year.
Annex 1
FULL RESULTS FOR TABLES 1-4
A. NATIONAL STANDARDS
How much do you agree or disagree that your organisation is
clear about which national standards it needs to deliver?
| | Total
| Health | Local Govt
| Education | Police
|
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| Unshaded: 7 Nov 2002 to 7 Jan 2003 |
| 1,126 | 326 |
284 | 237 | 239
|
| Unshaded: 2 May to 27 June 2003 |
| 969 | 306 |
178 | 218 | 205
|
| Unshaded: 12 Nov 2003 to 7 Jan 2004 |
| 803 | 227 |
203 | 175 | 184
|
| Unshaded: 10 May to 9 July 2004 |
| 765 | 266 |
184 | 160 | 127
|
| Shaded: 1 Nov 2004-7 Jan 2005 |
| 651 | 244
| 160 | 133
| 107 |
| | % | %
| % | % | % |
| Strongly/Tend to Agree | Dec 2002
| 90 | 96 | 87 |
95 | 83 |
| June 2003 | 94
| 97 | 93 | 96 |
89 |
| Dec 2003 | 92
| 94 | 92 | 94 |
87 |
| July 2004 | 94
| 96 | 94 | 96 |
88 |
| Dec 2004 | 92
| 95 | 91 | 97
| 83 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | Dec 2002
| 4 | 1 | 7 |
4 | 3 |
| June 2003 | 2
| * | 2 | 2 |
3 |
| Dec 2003 | 4
| 4 | 5 | 3 |
2 |
| July 2004 | 2
| 1 | 4 | 3 |
2 |
| Dec 2004 | 3
| 2 | 6 | 1
| 3 |
| Strongly/Tend to Disagree | Dec 2002
| 6 | 3 | 6 |
* | 15 |
| June 2003 | 4
| 2 | 5 | 1 |
8 |
| Dec 2003 | 4
| 1 | 2 | 2 |
11 |
| July 2004 | 3
| 2 | 2 | 1 |
9 |
| Dec 2004 | 5
| 3 | 3 | 2
| 14 |
| Don't know | Dec 2002 | *
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
0 |
| June 2003 | *
| * | 0 | * |
0 |
| Dec 2003 | *
| * | 0 | 0 |
0 |
| July 2004 | *
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
1 |
| Dec 2004 | *
| — | 1 |
1 | — |
B. DEVOLUTION AND
DELEGATION
How much do you agree or disagree that your organisation decides
for itself how best to spend its budget in order to meet priorities?
| | Total |
Health | Local Govt | Education
| Police |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| Unshaded: 7 Nov 2002 to 7 Jan 2003 |
| 1,126 | 326 |
284 | 237 | 239
|
| Unshaded: 2 May to 27 June 2003 |
| 968 | 305 |
178 | 218 | 205
|
| Unshaded: 12 Nov 2003 to 7 Jan 2004 |
| 803 | 227 |
203 | 175 | 184
|
| Unshaded: 10 May to 9 July 2004 |
| 765 | 266 |
184 | 160 | 127
|
| Shaded: 1 Nov 2004 to 7 Jan 2005 |
| 652 | 244
| 160 | 134
| 107 |
| | %
| % | %
| % | %
|
| Strongly/Tend to Agree | Dec 2002
| 48 | 25 | 48 |
73 | 51 |
| June 2003 | 48
| 30 | 42 | 61 |
56 |
| Dec 2003 | 47
| 26 | 47 | 65 |
54 |
| July 2004 | 49
| 32 | 47 | 69 |
57 |
| Dec 2004 | 45
| 33 | 43 | 67
| 46 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | Dec 2002
| 10 | 10 | 11 |
7 | 14 |
| June 2003 | 13
| 14 | 10 | 13 |
14 |
| Dec 2003 | 12
| 11 | 8 | 11 |
16 |
| July 2004 | 12
| 11 | 10 | 12 |
18 |
| Dec 2004 | 13
| 16 | 10 | 7
| 17 |
| Strongly/Tend to Disagree | Dec 2002
| 41 | 64 | 41 |
19 | 36 |
| June 2003 | 39
| 55 | 48 | 25 |
30 |
| Dec 2003 | 41
| 63 | 45 | 22 |
30 |
| July 2004 | 39
| 57 | 43 | 19 |
24 |
| Dec 2004 | 42
| 50 | 46 | 25
| 37 |
| Don't know | Dec 2002 |
* | 1 | 0 | 0
| 0 |
| June 2003 | 1
| 1 | 0 | 1 |
0 |
| Dec 2003 | *
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
0 |
| July 2004 | *
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
1 |
| Dec 2004 | 1
| 1 | 1 | —
| — |
| | |
| | | |
C. FLEXIBILITY
How much do you agree or disagree that staff working practices
are flexible to provide high quality services?
| | Total |
Health | Local Govt | Education
| Police |
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| Unshaded: 7 Nov 2002 to 7 Jan 2003 |
| 1,121 | 324 |
283 | 236 | 238
|
| Unshaded: 2 May to 27 June 2003 |
| 960 | 303 |
178 | 214 | 204
|
| Unshaded: 12 Nov 2003 to 7 Jan 2004 |
| 797 | 227 |
201 | 174 | 181
|
| Unshaded: 10 May to 9 July 2004 |
| 762 | 266 |
184 | 158 | 126
|
| Shaded: 1 Nov 2004 to 7 Jan 2005 |
| 651 | 244
| 160 | 133
| 107 |
| | % | %
| % | % | % |
| Strongly/Tend to Agree | Dec 2002
| 52 | 42 | 59 |
59 | 47 |
| June 2003 | 53
| 53 | 63 | 51 |
46 |
| Dec 2003 | 55
| 56 | 65 | 52 |
45 |
| July 2004 | 60
| 60 | 73 | 61 |
45 |
| Dec 2004 | 58
| 58 | 67 | 57
| 46 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | Dec 2002
| 21 | 27 | 20 |
18 | 16 |
| June 2003 | 22
| 25 | 16 | 21 |
24 |
| Dec 2003 | 20
| 20 | 18 | 22 |
22 |
| July 2004 | 19
| 19 | 13 | 20 |
27 |
| Dec 2004 | 22
| 24 | 20 | 21
| 21 |
| Strongly/Tend to Disagree | Dec 2002
| 28 | 30 | 21 |
22 | 37 |
| June 2003 | 25
| 21 | 21 | 27 |
30 |
| Dec 2003 | 25
| 23 | 17 | 26 |
33 |
| July 2004 | 21
| 20 | 15 | 20 |
28 |
| Dec 2004 | 20
| 18 | 13 | 22
| 34 |
| Don't know | Dec 2002 | *
| 0 | 0 | * |
0 |
| June 2003 | *
| 1 | 0 | 1 |
0 |
| Dec 2003 | *
| * | 0 | 0 |
0 |
| July 2004 | *
| * | 0 | 0 |
0 |
| Dec 2004 | *
| — | 1 |
— | — |
D. CHOICE
How much do you agree or disagree that your customers have
a choice of services they receive?
| | Total
| Health | Local Govt
| Education | Police
|
| | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| Unshaded: 7 Nov 2002 to 7 Jan 2003 |
| 1,121 | 324 |
283 | 236 | 238
|
| Unshaded: 2 May to 27 June 2003 |
| 958 | 303 |
177 | 213 | 204
|
| Unshaded: 12 Nov 2003 to 7 Jan 2004 |
| 792 | 225 |
199 | 174 | 180
|
| Unshaded: 10 May to 9 July 2004 |
| 761 | 265 |
184 | 158 | 126
|
| Shaded: 1 Nov 2004 to 7 Jan 2005 |
| 651 | 244
| 160 | 133
| 107 |
| | %
| % | %
| % | %
|
| Strongly/Tend to Agree | Dec 2002
| 25 | 17 | 31 |
39 | 8 |
| June 2003 | 27
| 23 | 32 | 36 |
8 |
| Dec 2003 | 25
| 30 | 28 | 36 |
4 |
| July 2004 | 32
| 34 | 35 | 37 |
9 |
| Dec 2004 | 32
| 37 | 30 | 44
| 7 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | Dec 2002
| 24 | 27 | 25 |
29 | 16 |
| June 2003 | 24
| 25 | 28 | 32 |
14 |
| Dec 2003 | 25
| 20 | 32 | 34 |
13 |
| July 2004 | 25
| 22 | 27 | 37 |
13 |
| Dec 2004 | 26
| 25 | 33 | 27
| 19 |
| Strongly/Tend to Disagree | Dec 2002
| 51 | 56 | 43 |
31 | 76 |
| June 2003 | 48
| 51 | 40 | 29 |
78 |
| Dec 2003 | 50
| 50 | 40 | 29 |
82 |
| July 2004 | 43
| 44 | 38 | 25 |
78 |
| Dec 2004 | 41
| 37 | 36 | 27
| 75 |
| Don't know | Dec 2002 |
* | 0 | 0 | *
| 0 |
| June 2003 | 1
| 0 | 0 | 3 |
0 |
| Dec 2003 | *
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
0 |
| July 2004 | *
| * | 0 | 1 |
0 |
| Dec 2004 | *
| — | 1 |
2 | — |
| | |
| | | |
Annex 2
BREAKDOWN OF PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGERS' SURVEY SAMPLE BY
SECTOR
HEALTH
Chief Execs of PCTs
Other Executive Board members, eg Director of Clinical Services,
Director of Finance
Chairs of PECs (Professional Executive Committees)
Chief Execs of NHS Trusts
Clinical Directors of NHS Trusts
Medical Directors of NHS Trusts
Other Executive Directors of NHS Trusts
Chief Execs of Strategic Health Authorities
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Chief Execs
Assistant Chief Execs
Chief Officers/Directors
Local authority leaders
EDUCATION
Primary school heads
Secondary school heads
LEA Directors of Education
LEA Assistant Directors of Education
Further Education (Principals)
Higher Education (Vice-Chancellors)
POLICING
Deputy/Chief Constables
Assistant Chief Constable
Chief Superintendents
Superintendents
TRAINS/LIGHT
RAILWAY
Chief Executives/MDs/Chairs of Train Operating Companies (TOCs)
Board Members/Directors
Managers
PRESENTATION AND
INTERPRETATION OF
DATA
It should be remembered at all times that a sample, and not
the entire population of senior public service managers, has taken
part in this survey. In consequence, all results are subject to
sampling tolerances, which means that not all differences are
significant.
It should be noted that combined totals have not been weighted
to take into account different response rates or different population
sizes of each of the sub-groups, and so should be seen as indicative.
Where percentages do not sum to 100, this may be due to computer
rounding, the exclusion of "don't know" categories,
or multiple answers. Throughout the volume an asterisk (*) denotes
any value of less than half of one per cent, but greater than
zero.
Annex B
| Management Unit | Budget Allocations
| |
| 2005-06 | |
|
| £'000 | |
|
| | |
| | |
| Business Development Division | 450
| |
| Ceremonial Secretariat | 1,692
| |
| Civil Contingencies Secretariat | 5,256
| |
| Committee on Standards in Public Life | 467
| |
| Communication Group | 7,760
| |
| Corporate Development Group | 11,854
| |
| Defence and Overseas Secretariat | 3,877
| |
| Economic & Domestic Secretariat | 1,396
| |
| e-Government Unit | 17,492 |
|
| European Secretariat | 1,706
| |
| Financial Management Division | 2,454
| |
| Government Communication | 2,388
| |
| Govt Whips (Commons) | 1,297
| |
| Govt Whips (Lords) | 508 |
|
| Histories, Openness and Records | 1,963
| |
| Her Majesty's Stationery Office | 2,015
| |
| Human Resources | 2,059 |
|
| Infrastructure Division | 37,545
| |
| Independent Offices | 1,770
| |
| Intelligence & Security Secretariat |
8,377 | |
| Intelligence & Security Committee | 393
| |
| Office of Public Service Reform | 1,753
| |
| Parliamentary Counsel's Office | 0
| |
| Prime Minister's Delivery Unit | 3,599
| |
| Prime Minister's Office | 19,810
| |
| Private Offices Group | 4,612
| |
| Regulatory Impact Unit | 3,589
| |
| Strategy Unit | 3,554 |
|
| SUB-TOTAL | 149,636
| |
| Central Budgets | |
|
| Central Overheads | 2,055
|
| Consultancy | 15,516
|
| Non-Cash | 50,077
|
| TOTAL | 217,284
| |
| Comparison with 2004-05 budget | 254,052
| |
| | |
19 October 2005
| 
