Memorandum from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DAR 02)

 

Errors In The 2008 Annual Report And Resource Accounts

 

In advance of the hearings on the Department's 2008 Annual Report and Resource Accounts, I thought I should advise you of some issues that have come to our attention following a review of the information in the Annual Report.

 

The main issue relates to some data errors which have led to an incorrect reporting of the number of FRAs failing to meet sub-target 1 of PSA 3 (Fire). There are also some data issues on PSA 8 (Liveability) and an error in the Resource Accounts dealing with Central Administration which gives inaccurate information on the reasons for an underspend. I am pleased to confirm that none of these affect the performance assessment made for each, and that no errors have been identified for our other PSAs.

 

I provide a detailed account at Annex A of the main points and the Department's plans for ensuring greater accuracy in the future.

 

 

ANNEX A

 

PSA 3: Fire

 

There are a number of separate amendments required to our reporting of performance against the fire PSA, both on the headline target and the sub-targets. None of these errors impacts upon either our assessments for the individual targets or our overall assessment of progress as "slippage".

 

Headline target

 

According to the technical note for this PSA, the headline target on fire deaths should use a baseline of March 1999 when there were 350,280 deaths from accidental dwelling fires. However, the 2008 Annual Report uses April 2000 and 349,279 deaths. This results in a small over-reporting of performance against this PSA: there were 16 fewer deaths rather than 23 against the planned trajectory.

 

Sub-target 1

 

Sub-target 1 relates to the number of Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs) where the average fatality rate per 100,000 population from accidental dwelling fires is greater than 1.25 times the national average. We stated in the Annual Report that there were eight FRAs with fatality rates above the national average. However, this is based on the use of raw numbers rather than average numbers of deaths per hundred thousand against which the target should be measured. The revised figures show five FRAs (Lancashire, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Durham and South Yorkshire) above the average, as at 31 March 2008. This correction also impacts upon the national average stated, which should be 0.49 deaths per 100,000 rather than 4.23 as reported.

 

Sub-target 2

 

According to the technical note for this PSA, the baseline for numbers of deliberate fires against which reductions are measured should be 94,000, rather than 94,050 as used in the Annual Report. This has lead to a small over-reporting of the reduction against the baseline of 60% instead of the actual reduction of 58%.

 

These errors occurred during a period of staff turnover, when a key post was vacant. Additional quality assurance processes have now been put in place.

 

PSA 8: Liveability

 

Further data corrections are also required for our reporting on the Liveability PSA.

 

On the "safer streets" indicator (f), the technical note sets a baseline for numbers of abandoned cars nationally of 310,000. In the Annual Report, we therefore give a target for a reduction of 25% to 233,000. However, the national baseline was revised downwards after publication of the technical note to 291,710 in 2002/03. The target should therefore be quoted as 219,000 (to the nearest thousand). Our performance remains significantly "ahead" at 81,650 abandoned vehicles nationally in 2006/07.

 

On the same indicator, we also measure progress against abandoned vehicles in Neighbourhood Renewal Fund areas. In the Annual Report we quote a baseline 138,000 in NRF areas in 2002/03. This was again revised downwards. We have reviewed the baseline to ensure that all NRF areas were included in the data supplied by DEFRA. The revised baseline should have been given as 124,414. To the nearest thousand, this would give a target of 93,000. Our performance against this target was 41,848 abandoned vehicles and not 39,000 as originally stated, because the original calculations did not include the correct NRF areas. Despite this error, we remain ahead against this indicator.

 

Our overall rating of progress on PSA 8 remains as "slippage".

 

Resource Accounts

 

Note 47 to the Resource Accounts attributes the underspend on Central Administration to efficiency savings. Whilst savings have been made, they do not fall within the strict definition of efficiencies set out by the OGC. The notes should have given the following breakdown:

 

· £8.6m near cash underspend - all the End Year Flexibility was drawn down to cover forecast overspends which, due to improved monitoring and control, did not materialise;

 

· £17.6m non cash underspend - this is due to the level of the cost of capital credit over which we have no control;

 

· £8.9 m "other current" resource - we had to draw down resource cover for the Thurmaston compensation payment but were not able to settle the case in year as we were still awaiting formal claim from the Co-op. (You received a separate note on the Thurmaston Planning Case in response to the Committee's questions on the Spring Supplementary Estimates on 21 April 2008); and

 

· £9.5m relates to the Pan-Government Agreement - a collective purchasing agreement managed by the Department which gives 100 central government members access to a range of digital mapping datasets and support services, which was also mapped to the Central Administration estimate line.

 

 

October 2008