Progress since last year
42. During our last Annual Report inquiry we identified
a number of Parliamentary Questions on which the Department had
provided limited answers on the grounds that it had been created
in May 2006 and had no information on its predecessor Department,
the ODPM. We are glad to note that new guidance to civil servants
on answering such questions, issued by the then Secretary of State,
as a result of our inquiry, appears to have solved that problem:
full answers have since been given to questions relating to the
period before May 2006.[60]
43. We also rejected the memorandum provided by the
Department in advance of the Winter Estimates Day debate on the
floor of the House, arguing that it was confused and unclear.[61]
We are glad to note that the Department responded with a new
and improved memorandum and that officials have worked hard to
meet the requirements of the Committee and the Scrutiny Unit to
provide substantially clearer information this year. None the
less, room for improvement remains. For example, a number of items
listed under "Changes sought which do not increase public
expenditure taken across government" have no monetary value
attributed to them, making it unclear how they interact with figures
given in the summary of net charges given in an associated table.
We intend to draw further detailed points to the Department's
attention in correspondence. Our
adverse comments on the Department's provision last year of full
and clear information to Parliament and the public have led to
significant improvement in its provision of information, particularly
in the answering of Parliamentary Questions, the clarity and detail
of the Annual Report, and the much more informative estimates
memoranda provided to Members of Parliament. We urge the Department
to continue to seek and implement such welcome improvements.
44. We also commented in each of the past two years
on a small but persistent and significant incidence of bullying,
harassment and discrimination within the former ODPM and its successor,
CLG. In response, the Department has taken substantial steps
to identify and resolve the problem, including the provision of
"dignity and respect" and "coaching" courses
for its senior managers and the introduction of quarterly staff
surveys to track progress in reducing the number of staff who
feel bullied, harassed or discriminated against. This work clearly
demonstrates a will and considerable effort on the part of senior
management to tackle the problem. The quarterly surveys have also
demonstrated that staff morale in CLG is significantly higher
than it was in ODPM: some 70 per cent of CLG staff surveyed in
the second quarter of 2007 agreed that "morale is good within
my team", compared with just over 40 per cent of ODPM staff
surveyed in 2005.[62]
45. What the Department has not achieved, however,
is a specific reduction in the number of staff feeling bullied,
harassed or discriminated against. The 2005 ODPM survey reported
that 10 per cent of staff felt they had been bullied, 8 per cent
had experienced discrimination and 6 per cent had reported harassment.[63]
In a letter to our Chair outlining the results of the second
quarterly survey of CLG staff in October this year (which cost
£37,000 plus VAT) the Permanent Secretary, Mr Housden, noted
that
we asked five specific questions on bullying and
harassment along the lines of the ODPM 2005 survey. Ipsos MORI
who conduct the survey on our behalf say their judgment is that
employees' attitudes on these questions remain broadly in line
with those of two years ago.[64]
46. When questioned, Mr Housden accepted that the
figures had not improved, but qualified that by pointing out that
they are neither high nor substantially out of line with benchmark
figures across other Government Departments.[65]
The Department intends to continue monitoring the situation through
its quarterly surveys, and this should also allow officials to
see whether reports of bullying, harassment or discrimination
are localised within particular teams or sections. Steps, such
as the introduction of open-plan offices, have been taken within
the headquarters building, Eland House in central London, to make
senior managers, including the Permanent Secretary and the Directors-General,
more visible and approachable, and various fora have been created
to allow staff to make their views known (an intranet forum, for
example, and a dedicated helpline for staff with complaints).
We remain
concerned about the perceived existence of bullying, harassment
and discrimination. Two years of work has brought no appreciable
improvement, in spite of the time and money spent on courses and
the clear desire of senior managers in the Department to solve
a chronic problem. Nor can the Department or the Permanent Secretary
be complacent on the grounds that other Departments perform just
as badly. We recommend that CLG review the effectiveness and
value for money of its actions over the past two years with a
view to refocusing its efforts.
55 
