|
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE'S FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ON THE 2007 AUTUMN PERFORMANCE REPORT
Given that there appears to have been no actual deterioration in performance in either case, what has made the Department change its assessment against the targets PSA 1 (neighbourhood renewal) and PSA 3 (fire and rescue services) from 'on course' in the 2007 Departmental Annual Report to 'slippage' in the Autumn Performance Report?
Separately, can you confirm whether all the sub-targets of a DCLG target have to be 'on course' for the overall status of the target to be assessed as 'on course'; and is this a change in the means of assessment of the overall status of a target by comparison with the 2007 DAR?
1. In the light of the National Audit Office's analysis of the Department's 2007 Annual Report[1] which highlighted that previous assessments of our PSAs had not, in all instances, been consistent with the guidance provided, we took the opportunity to reassess our approach to measuring performance in the Autumn Performance Report. We told the Committee of our intention to do this at the officials' evidence session on the Annual Report on 22 October. This included the reassessment downwards of performance on PSAs 1 and 3 for the reasons explained in the Autumn Performance Report: slippage on the education indicator (PSA 1) and slippage against the floor target (PSA 3), despite there being no change in the data since the Annual Report.
2. The way performance is assessed differs between PSAs. Assessment is based on Technical Notes which were agreed separately for each PSA when the targets were set, including the number or combination of sub-targets that needs to be achieved for the overall target to be met. We provided further detail on the requirements for meeting each target in the Autumn Performance Report.
There has been a deterioration in the Department's performance against the indicator "net change in area of green belt in each region" (indicator within PSA 6) from 'on course' in the Departmental Annual Report to 'slippage' in the Autumn Performance Report. Why have there been reductions in the green belt area in some regions; and are these reductions expected to continue?
3. The Autumn Performance Report showed small decreases in the reported amount of green belt in four regions between 2004 and 2006; increases in another four regions; and one region remaining static.
4. Of the four regions where there was a reduction in reported green belt land, the reasons given by local authorities for the changes are improved measurement and adoption of new local plans by authorities in the North West, East Midlands and West Midlands, and the adoption of a new local plan by one authority in East Anglia. As explained in the Autumn Performance Report, the indicator is reported as "slippage" despite a net overall increase in green belt nationally because of the reductions in the four regions. 5. The increasing adoption of digital mapping by local authorities is bringing about a significant increase in the accuracy of their reporting. In these instances, the changes do not, in the main, reflect any physical changes to green belt boundaries.
6. A small number of relatively minor changes have occurred where local authorities have adopted new local development plans. Plans must comply with national policies in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, Green Belt. The Government is fully committed to the green belt and has no plans to make changes to the policy as an important tool in helping to check the sprawl of large built-up areas and protecting the countryside. However, Planning Policy Guidance does allow local planning authorities to review and amend detailed green belt boundaries, but only in exceptional circumstances and only through the plan making process, ensuring that local people are fully consulted. The plans are independently examined.
The Autumn Performance Report reports that the indicator "public satisfaction with local parks and open spaces" (a sub-target within PSA 8/ Liveability) has not been met. The Committee notes that, although satisfaction with local parks and open spaces has improved since the previous survey and baseline year (2003-04) from 71% to 73% and in deprived areas from 68% to 70, the target to achieve an aggregate level of 75% in all areas has not been met. What are the major causes of public dissatisfaction with parks, and what is the Department doing to address them? Is the Department going to continue to assess its satisfaction with local parks and open spaces in the period under the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review?
7. Improving the quality of places remains an important priority for this Department and for Government, and green spaces make an important contribution to this. Evidence from various sources, including the British Crime Survey and work undertaken by MORI, indicates that there are several factors that influence public satisfaction with a local area. These include:
· concerns about anti-social behaviour; · perceptions of cohesion; · satisfaction with housing, planning and education services; · cleanliness; · quality of parks and open spaces; and · how well informed people feel about council services
8. We are confident that the quality of green space is improving, as acknowledged by the NAO in their report on Enhancing Urban Green Spaces (2006), and the Green Flag Award Scheme has played a critical role in driving up standards. The proportion of local authorities with at least one Green Flag Award winning green space - the national standard for good management and maintenance of parks and green spaces - has increased by 74% since 2003/04 from 114 to 198. The number of Green Flag Award winning sites has increased from 177 in 2003/04 to 538 in 2007/08. However, we recognise we have further to go. We are now developing further our urban green spaces action plan, working with green space practitioners, such as landscape architects. This will support work to increase public satisfaction with parks and green spaces through community engagement and decision making, and by supporting and empowering local practitioners.
9. Going forward, we plan to use a broader measure on the overall quality of places rather than a single measure focusing solely on green space. This new measure will focus particularly on improvements in deprived areas. The broad indicator is already in the National Indicator Set for Local Authorities (NI 5) and we intend to publish our Departmental Strategic Objectives and the indicators against which we will measure our performance shortly.
The Autumn Performance Report assesses the indicator within PSA 10 "discrimination by organisation" to be on course based on 1st quarter data in the year 2007-08. Does 2nd quarter data in the year 2007-08 also support this assessment?
10. Second quarter data from the 2007-08 Citizenship Survey on the 'organisational discrimination' element of PSA10 confirms the assessment that this element of the PSA is "on course". The latest figures show that the percentage of people from minority ethnic groups who feel they would be treated worse than other races by one or more public service organisations has fallen from 38% in 2001 to 34% in April-September 2007 (against a target of an overall decrease) and that there has been a decrease in reporting for all individual organisations, such as the police and prison services, within this target.
The NAO has assessed the data systems for measuring PSA Target 9 (gender equality) as being "not fit for purpose". For the following targets, the NAO assessed that the data systems to measure them need strengthening: PSA Target 2 (regional economic performance), PSA Target 4 (local government) and PSA Target 6 (planning system). What has the Department done to improve these data systems since the NAO made its recommendations?
11. Responsibility for PSA 9 has passed to the Government Equalities Office (GEO) as part of machinery of government changes in July 2007. We understand that the GEO intends to publish its Autumn Performance Report shortly which will set out its performance assessment and data systems.
Regional Economic Performance (PSA 2)
12. The NAO's assessment of data systems highlighted its view that there are limitations to Gross Value Added (GVA) data as currently produced by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). The main shortfall was that GVA as currently calculated does not include regional pricing. In response, ONS is addressing this, and the recommendations of the Allsop Report on establishing a regional statistical presence, and has established a working group which will look at the production of real regional GVA data by 2009/10. ONS now has a regional presence in each of the nine Regional Development Agencies, which acts to quality assure regional GVA statistics.
13. Lessons have been learned for the ongoing measurement of Regional Economic Performance in the new CSR07 PSA 7 (led by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform). This will use a basket of indicators which will enable a more detailed explanation of economic performance and disparities at a regional level. However, regional GVA per head growth rates remain the best overall measure of economic performance.
Local Government (PSA 4)
14. On efficiency, the NAO has rated the data obtained from councils as "amber" because the Department does not formally audit the results. However, the NAO has recognised the other steps we have taken to provide assurance on the data and that to undertake a full audit would be costly and undermine the efficiencies achieved. They have, therefore, made no recommendations on changes to our approach.
15. Where the NAO had raised concerns that the Department did not initially report the value of efficiencies achieved by the whole of local government (councils, schools, police and fire authorities), we have since included full information on the value of efficiencies achieved by the whole of local government in each annual[2] and autumn performance report[3] as promised.
Planning System (PSA 6)
16. Data for the PSA 6 indicators are drawn from a wide range of sources, all of which are subject to quality assessments carried out by the Department's team of analysts. Where possible, data are also validated against those provided by other sources.
17. The NAO's criticisms of our data systems centre on making the supporting technical note clearer on which sub-targets count towards the overall performance measure. We took note of the NAO's findings and published three minimum indicators of success in the Autumn Performance Report. We will continue to apply these indicators in our next Annual Report.
How will the change in the PSA target structure from the 2004 SR to the 2007 CSR affect i) the Department's focus and ii) the number of performance indicators it has to report on and monitor?
The 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review and Pre-Budget Report (PBR & CSR 2007) notes that the DCLG has six Departmental Strategic Objectives (DSOs) (pp217-218). Other departments-the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, for example-have published indicators for their DSOs. Does the DCLG intend to publish indicators for its DSOs? If so, will these indicators be the same as the indicators for the PSAs?
18. The PSA structure in CSR07 represents a significant focussing of the Government's top priorities for the spending review period. The new PSAs are cross-governmental and will be delivered by departments working together.
19. Government has already published the Department's Strategic Objectives[4] and indicators for PSAs 20 and 21[5]. We intend to publish the indicators for our DSOs shortly. The DSOs will reflect the Department's priorities for CSR07, including its PSA responsibilities.
The PBR & CSR 2007 announced that the Department will generate annual net cash-releasing savings of over £880 million by 2010-11. It also indicated that by the end of 2007, departments would publish value for money Delivery Agreements setting out how they will achieve their proposed savings (p 44). Please could the Committee have a copy of the Department's value for money Delivery Agreement under the 2007 CSR.
20. The Department's value for money Delivery Agreement was published on the Department's website on 21 January 2008. We enclose a copy for your information.
Communities and Local Government March 2008 [1] Published in the evidence to the Communities and Local Government Committee's "Report on the Departmental Annual Report 2007" (January 2008) [2] Table at paragraph 5.8, 2007 Annual Report [3] Table on page 24, 2007 Autumn Performance Report [4] http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/7/A/pbr_csr07_annexd5_147.pdf [5] http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pbr_csr/psa/pbr_csr07_psacommunities.cfm |