Answers to Written Questions for the Department
SR2004 PSA TARGETS
1. PSA Target 1 (Enhance the take-up of sporting
opportunities by five to 16-year-olds) is a joint target with
DfES. Despite using the same data, DCMS have reported progress
as being "ahead" whilst the DfES Annual Report reports
it as being "on course". On what basis have you reached
a more favourable assessment than DfES?
The SR04 PSA target builds on the SR02 target
that aimed to enhance the take-up of sporting opportunities by
five to 16-year-olds by increasing the percentage of pupils in
England taking part in at least two hours of high quality school
sport and PE within and beyond the curriculum to 75% in 2006.
This target was exceeded by five percentage points in 2005-06.
We therefore considered that the SR04 target was ahead of trajectory.
We had agreed this assessment with DfES prior to publication of
our report. However they later changed their assessment to "on
course": given that the SR04 target is 85%, getting to 80%
two years earlier could bear either interpretation.
2. For PSA Target 2 (Halt the year-on-year
increase in obesity among children under 11), you have assessed
progress as being "on course", citing a Health Survey
for England statistic showing obesity remaining constant at 14.9%
(p. 42). The DfES Annual Report takes the view that this data
is insufficient evidence and reports progress as being "not
yet assessed"; and it cites (at page 19) evidence suggesting
an increase in obesity amongst under 11s of 1.2% between 2002
and 2005
Why does DCMS's assessment of progress against
PSA Target 2 differ from that of DfES?
This is a joint PSA between DCMS, DH and DfES.
The three Departments agree that progress against the PSA target
will be measured through the Health Survey for England (HSE) of
obesity prevalence in children aged two to 10.
Annual performance is measured by comparing
HSE figures for aggregate three-year periods (ie 2002-04 against
2003-05, against 2004-06 and so on until 2008-10). Three-year
aggregates are used on account of the limited sample size. Halting
the increase would mean no statistically significant change in
prevalence between the two three-year periods 2005-07 and 2008-10.
We agreed our assessment of target as "on
course" with DH and DfES prior to publication of our report.
While DfES chose to include some supplementary analysis of the
data, performance against the PSA will continue to be measured
using the HSE data.
3. For PSA Target 3 (Increase the take-up
of cultural and sporting opportunities by adults and young people
from priority groups), the 2006 Autumn Performance Report (p.
25) states that "the first indication of progress against
the baseline will be available in March 07. It will be published
[...] in the Departmental Annual Report". Why has this not
happened?
Is DCMS now able to provide an assessment of progress
against these targets?
Progress was not published as part of the Departmental
Annual Report due to a delay in publishing the Taking Part Annual
Report. A report into progress against this PSA was therefore
published in June 2007. A copy of the full report can be found
in the research section of our website (www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Research).
The report presented data from the first six
months of the second annual survey. This sets out current progress
and presents the results of the new data in two formats. The first
compares the estimates from the latest six months with data collected
during the same period 12 months earlier. Using this method of
comparison there was one change large enough to be detected at
this stage: a significant increase in those with limiting disabilities
attending historic environment sites. The second format presents
the rolling year estimates. This method uses the most recent 12
months of available data and compares them with the final baseline
estimates. Using this method of comparison there were no differences
identified.
Since current data show little, if any, progress
against the target our overall assessment of progress is "slippage".
A clearer picture of progress will emerge once the full twelve
months of the second annual survey are available. We will report
against this data in our 2007 Autumn Performance Report.
SR 2002 PSA TARGETS
4. In relation to PSA Target 2 (Increase
significantly take-up of cultural and sporting opportunities by
new users aged 20 and above from priority groups), the Department
states on page 35 of the Annual Report that it is on course to
meet an indicator on sports participation and that final results
are "to be reported in the Department's Annual Report 2007"—this
very document. What is the latest assessment of performance against
this indicator?
The summary of progress should read:
"We have met three targets on museums and
heritage participation, we have partly met one indicator on sport
participation and we have not met two indicators on arts participation.
The overall target is therefore partly met."
The detailed information given for each indicator
is correct, including the explanation of the assessment of progress
against the sport indicator on page 36.
5. For PSA Target 3 (Improve the productivity
of the tourism, creative and leisure industries), the Autumn Performance
Report noted that the target for productivity improvements above
the service sector as a whole was not being met. The Annual Report,
however, offers provisional figures which suggest that the target
will be met
What is the reason for the projected upturn in
productivity improvements, particularly in the "tourism-related
and other leisure" sector? Is the Department now in a position
to provided validated figures which would indicate whether or
not the target has indeed been met?
The final validated 2005 figures are provided
below:
The Departmental Annual Report incorrectly stated
that 2005 was the final year of this target: it should read 2006.
We will note this in the Autumn Performance Report later in the
year. 2006 data will be released provisionally in December 2007
and then validated by June 2008.
Current data show that the Creative Industries
are on course to meet the target, having seen annual percentage
increases in productivity figures higher than those for the service
sector as a whole. However tourism and leisure-related industries
are not currently on course to meet the target. This means the
overall assessment of the target is slippage.
There has been productivity growth in the leisure
industries, particularly in gambling and sport, along with some
of the smaller parts of the tourism industry such as travel agencies
and other accommodation. However this is counteracted by falls
in the productivity of hotels, bars, pubs and nightclubs caused
by big falls in GVA (gross value added) but relatively stable
employment.
The 7 July bombings are a possible reason for
the slump in these sectors. It would be reasonable to assume that
tourist orientated businesses had already taken on seasonal employees
and could not respond rapidly to reductions in demand.
The limitations of the measurement of this PSA
are explained in the target's Technical Note. In particular, we
use low-level results which are more prone to sampling variation
meaning that some fluctuations remain in the data. These may indeed
be correct but it is nevertheless advisable to consider the trend
and averages over several years, rather than solely the change
between any two particular years.
FUTURE PSA TARGETS
6. When does the Department expect to finalise
new PSA targets under the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007?
PSAs will be announced as part of the Comprehensive
Spending Review announcement, expected in the autumn. The delivery
agreements underpinning the PSAs will be published on the same
day as the CSR White Paper.
7. What role does DCMS envisage for the Select
Committee in examining PSA target Delivery Agreements, in the
light of the statements by the former Chief Secretary of the Treasury
in evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on 30 January 2007?
Does DCMS plan to submit draft Delivery Agreements to the Committee?
DCMS has been working with its partners to develop
the PSA delivery agreement that it is responsible for and working
closely with those other departments that lead on the PSAs to
which we will contribute. Because we have had to work to a tight
timetable to develop the delivery agreement, it has not proved
possible to share this in draft with the Select Committee. Nor
will we have the opportunity to do so before the final version
is sent to the Treasury for publication alongside the White Paper.
However, we would hope to work with the Select Committee on the
delivery of the PSAs in which we are involved after the outcome
of the Comprehensive Spending Review is announced.
EFFICIENCY
8. In response to the Committee's questions
on the Autumn Performance Report, DCMS provided revised forecasts
of efficiency savings by NDPBs. Savings reported on page 51 of
the Annual Report show that NDPBs have not only met the 2006-07
forecast but have already substantially overshot the target of
£114 million to be met by the end of 2007-08. Savings in
local authorities, on the other hand, have not met the forecast.
What is the reason for the slippage against planned
efficiency savings in local authorities? What action does DCMS
plan to take to improve performance?
The Local Authorities figure provided for the
Annual Report (£84.6 million), included £70.4 million
final figures plus £14.2 million provisional figures. The
provisional figures were the mid-year figures provided by upper
tier councils only and therefore not fully representative of the
overall position. The latest figures reported indicate that local
authority cultural services are on target to deliver against the
£146 million sought by 2007-08. The local government efficiency
team in DCMS continue to work with councils on improvement and
efficiency, running regional workshops on good practice and contributing
to cross-government guidance.
9. Can DCMS confirm that the overall target
will be deemed to have been met in 2007-08 even if that is achieved
by balancing above-target savings in NDPBs against below-target
savings in local authorities?
Yes; though as we explain above, that is not
what we currently forecast.
10. What is the Department's target for cashable
efficiency savings for March 2008, and what if any interim targets
does it have for 2006-07? What proportion of the gains reported
to date are cashable?
The Department's target is to realise efficiency
savings of £262 million by March 2008, of which at least
half will be cashable (£131 million). We have no binding
interim target for 2006-07 but monitor returns to see whether
contributing organisations are on their agreed trajectories.
In the latest data return of 30 June 2007, DCMS
reported gains of £204 million of which £156 million
were cashable. (These figures have been updated since the Annual
Report.)
11. To what extent have DCMS's reported efficiency
gains been (i) internally audited and (ii) externally audited,
and what were the auditors' conclusions?
The Treasury advises that our NDPBs are not
required to audit efficiency gains, although they should have
the correct systems in place to be assured that all reported gains
are auditable. This is in large part due to the disproportionate
cost of auditing. However, efficiency gains are discussed and
approved by the boards of our NDPBs, and the Department carries
out checks to help us be confident in the gains reported.
Furthermore, in March 2007, the Department's
Internal Audit carried out a full review of the way the efficiency
programme is being managed by DCMS. This review concluded the
following results:
— Risk Management: Full Assurance.
"There is a comprehensive programme risk register in place.
This is reviewed regularly as part of meetings and risks are ranked
in order of their severity. The register documents actions to
be taken, review dates and changes in the assessment of the risks.
Contingency arrangements are in place."
— Control: Substantial Assurance. "The
controls in place are generally adequate and effective and comply
with OGC guidance. We have made recommendations relating to the
guidance provided to NDPBs, which could impact on the effectiveness
of delivery and also to ensure the Department assesses the reliance
they can place on NDPB assurances."
— Governance: Full Assurance. "There
are appropriate governance structures in place to support effective
delivery of the efficiency programme. There are appropriate terms
of reference".
12. Page 51 of the Annual Report refers to
"various measures" that will be used to ensure that
savings are genuine efficiencies and not simply cuts in services,
including customer satisfaction surveys and Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs). Can the Department supply further details of these measures,
as well as the results of these surveys and KPIs?
As agreed with the Clerk, here are some examples
of quality measures from a sample of the NDPBs taking part in
the Efficiency programme:
Arts Council England
There has been no detrimental impact on service
delivery. The number of Regularly Funded Organisations has increased
from 1,008 in 2003-04 to 1,015 in 2006-07.
They have retained full Regional Office delivery
to the South East despite switching from two Regional Offices
to one. Business volume for the region has increased from £17.3
million in 2004-05 to £18 million in 2006-07.
All Creative Partnerships have been set up as
originally envisaged at reduced cost per child resulting in a
total efficiency saving of £18 million in 2006-07.
British Library
The BL's user and visitor satisfaction has either
been maintained or even improved since the start of the efficiency
programme (visitors to exhibitions that rated the quality of their
visit as "excellent" or "good" was 98% in
August 2004 and was still 98% in March 2006. Readers rating the
services and facilities they used in the reading rooms as either
"excellent" or "good" was 92% in August 2004
and 96% in March 2006).
UK Sport
UKS have made operational savings in drug testing
whilst maintaining a constant level of testing. The number of
tests has remained at 7,000 over the period.
Tate
The number of Tate Members has risen from 65,000
in March 2005, to 74,000 in March 2006.
Royal Parks
Whilst achieving administration staff efficiencies
the Royal Parks have maintained full reception services.
National Gallery
Efficiency savings have not seen a drop in the
number of opening hours at the Gallery, which were at 59 in March
2005, and remain at 59 at March 2006, and the percentage of the
Gallery's collections stored in the correct environmental conditions
has actually increased from 90% in 2005 to 94% in 2006.
OLYMPICS
13. What impact has the announcement of the
increase in funding for the Olympics had on the Department's management
of its own budget?
The increase in funding for the Olympics is
not expected to have any impact on the Department's management
of its own budget. Government grant-in-aid for the Olympics will,
as now, be channelled through DCMS. From 1 April 2008 additional
funding will be provided to DCMS from the Exchequer and from the
Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department
for Transport. The costs of wider policing and security will be
met by the Home Office.
14. Has funding to any other areas of DCMS's
budget been cut in order to fund increases in Olympics cost estimates?
Have any areas of DCMS's budget been earmarked for potential cutting
should there be future increases in expenditure on the Olympics?
Funding to other areas of DCMS's budget has
not been cut in order to fund increases in Olympics cost estimates.
The £9.325 billion funding provision for the Olympics, announced
on 15 March 2007, includes £2.747 billion of contingency
(£0.238 billion of which is for wider policing and security).
Consequently there are no plans to cut DCMS's budget should there
be future increases in expenditure on the Olympics. The expectation
is that such increases would be met within the substantial contingency
that has been provided.
CAPABILITY REVIEW
15. How will the Department assess whether
the transformation action plan has addressed the weaknesses noted
in the Capability Review?
The Department published an outline Transformation
Action Plan concurrently with the DCMS Capability Review in March.
This sets out in general terms how we propose to strengthen our
capabilities in leadership, strategy and delivery. As with other
Departments, our response to the Capability Review will be subject
to a full Cabinet Office assurance process at 6, 12 and 24 months
after publication. Key to establishing our baseline will be data
from our 2007 staff opinion survey and a similar survey recently
undertaken with our NDPBs. We will carry out further surveys as
the programme is developed and implemented, in order to track
progress against key indicators.
STAFF IN
POST
16. DCMS plans a reduction of 30 staff in
post from 2006-07 to 2007-08, measured in terms of staff years
(Annual Report, page 67), and the Department indicated to the
Committee in March that it was examining all areas of the Department's
business, looking for areas of work which were "lower priority
or time-limited", where savings in staff posts could be made.
Has DCMS reached any conclusions on how the proposed reduction
in 2007-08 will be achieved?
All divisions in the Department have now examined
all areas of their business and have identified areas where reductions
in staff numbers can be made. To minimise disruption we have a
programme in place to redeploy staff by carefully scrutinising
new vacancies and offering new posts to surplus staff as they
arise or by not renewing loan contracts (around 25% of staff are
on loan from other departments) so that they return to their parent
department.
SPENDING PLANS
FOR 2007-08
17. DCMS resource DEL and administration
costs are estimated to fall in 2007-08 after increasing for the
past five years (p.64). What are the reasons for these decreases
and what are their implications for DCMS operations?
18. DCMS capital DEL is estimated to increase
64% from 2006-07 to 2007-08 (p.64). What are the reasons for this
increase?
Prior to SR04, Capital grants to the private
sector scored in the Resource DEL with the outturn reflected in
the Resource tables. In 2005-06 these grants were reclassified
as Capital expenditure. The Department has worked with its sponsored
bodies to ensure that projects and programmes were not adversely
affected by this change and that expenditure was correctly scored.
This involved a re-examination of outturns for 2005-06 and 2006-07
which affected the Resource and Capital totals for those years.
We are continuing to monitor budgets closely in 2007-08 to ensure
final outturn does not breach control totals.
In addition to this the Resource total for 2006-07
was affected by £31 million Resource DEL cover for LOCOG
(the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games). The DEL
cover was drawn down through the annual End Year Flexibility exercise.
Cover for 2007-08 was not agreed when the tables were published.
The Capital figure for 2007-08 was further enhanced
by a transfer from Department for Communities and Local Government
of £175 million for the Olympic Delivery Authority part of
an agreed tranche of payments towards the infrastructure work.
19. Figures for Grant-in-Aid to Sport England
provided on page 58 of the 2007 Annual Report bear no relation
to those provided on page 91 of the Sponsored Bodies Report 2006,
or those on page 57 of the English Sports Council Annual Report
and Accounts for 2005-06. Could the Department explain how these
can be reconciled?
Figures in the DCMS Annual Report for 2007 cannot
be reconciled with those on the Sponsored Bodies Report 2006 or
the English Sports Council Annual Report and Accounts for 2005-06
as the figure entered into the DCMS 2007 Annual Report for Sport
England reflects the total Grant-In-Aid available to Sport England
for drawdown rather than the actual Grant-In-Aid drawn down and
spent in 2005-06. This anomaly arose due to an error by DCMS Finance
division, with incorrect figures being entered onto the Table.
Action is in hand to rectify this error on the electronic version
of the Annual Report on the Internet.
With regard to the comparison of the 2007 DCMS
Annual Report figures for 2006-07 and the Sponsored Bodies Report
2006, the Estimated Outturn figure shown in the DCMS Annual Report
2006-07 shows the amount of Grant-In-Aid actually drawn down by
Sport England whilst the Sponsored Bodies Report 2006 shows the
Grant-In-Aid (including Exchequer End of Year Flexibility funding)
that it was estimated at that time would be available to Sport
England in Financial Year 2006-07.
20. Figures on page 59 of the 2007 Annual
Report for 2005-06 outturn in 2005-06 and estimated outturn in
2006-07 of Grant-in-Aid to the Gambling Commission are significantly
higher than the plans set out on page 43 of the Sponsored Bodies
Annual Report 2006. Could the Department account for the variance?
For 2005-06, the Grant-in-Aid outturn figure
of £12.132 million in the DCMS Annual Report 2007 was actually
the Spring Supplementary Estimate figure for that year and was
included as the result of a transcription error. The correct outturn
figure for 2005-06 was £9.740 million which is consistent
with the estimate shown in the "Sponsored Bodies Report 2006".
An amendment will be made to the Annual Report on the Department
website.
For 2006-07, the higher estimated outturn Grant-in-Aid
figure in the DCMS Annual Report 2007 was due to the increased
capital costs relating to the setting up of the Gambling Commission
and its relocation from London to Birmingham.
ANNUAL REPORT
FORMAT
21. The 2007 Annual Report has no accompanying
Sponsored Bodies Annual Report, although a summary of grant-in-aid
to each NDPB is provided on pages 58-9. Could the Department provide
reasons for not issuing a Sponsored Bodies report for 2007? Did
DCMS undertake any consultation to inform its decision?
We reviewed our approach to the way we report
on our sponsored bodies in the Department's Annual Report following
the Cabinet Office's decision to discontinue their "Public
Bodies" publication. Departments were instructed either to
include data that would previously have been included in "Public
Bodies" in Departmental Annual Reports, or in a suitable
separate document published on the Department's website.
We therefore decided it would be more efficient
if we published the required data for DCMS public bodies as a
new separate website document ("DCMS Public Bodies Directory
2007"). We included in the Annual Report an overview setting
out a description of the relationship with our sponsored bodies
and the context in which they operate.
We did this for the following reasons:
— We received no reaction to the change
in 2006 from a printed version of this material to a disc and
have received no correspondence suggesting that anyone makes use
of this information from this source.
— To reduce significantly the burden
on our sponsored bodies by discontinuing the need for them to
complete an entry for the DCMS Annual Report. All DCMS public
bodies are required to produce their own Annual Report and Accounts.
The information requested in previous years from sponsored bodies
for their entry in the DCMS Annual Report was essentially a duplication
of what had already been published or would be published in their
own Annual Report. The new website document included a reference
indicating where the latest copy of the sponsored body's Annual
Report and Accounts could be obtained.
— Sponsored Bodies' Annual Reports
and Accounts are checked by DCMS sponsor teams to ensure that
the correct information is included. Therefore, by discontinuing
the requirement for an entry in the DCMS Annual Report we minimised
any duplication of information that is already available elsewhere
or that would be published in the near future.
— To save time and money by eliminating
duplication of work and printing costs of a separate volume of
the annual report.
In taking these steps, we consulted the Treasury
to ensure that they were content that our proposals were not in
breach of the relevant guidance. Copies of the new document DCMS
Public Bodies Directory 2007 have been placed in the House Library.
October 2007
| 
