Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360
- 369)
WEDNESDAY 30 APRIL 2008
MS HELEN
GHOSH, MR
BILL STOW
AND MR
STEPHEN PARK
Q360 Chairman: I am surprised that
you are not conversant with the way that the audit process is
carried out.
Mr Park: It is not actually our
audit. We are subject to the audit but we do not agree the terms
of reference.
Q361 Chairman: You have the financial
targets that you are trying to achieve and you, therefore, have
to show what you have done to achieve them.
Ms Ghosh: That is what we do.
Q362 Chairman: Then somebody externally
comes along and says is that a valid number.
Ms Ghosh: Indeed, and that is
for the Treasury to do.
Q363 Chairman: I would have thought,
from the point of view of somebody managing the department, you
might have been interested in the audit process. There are very
few finance directors of a plc the equivalent size of Defra who
would not be interested in the way their auditors audited the
company's accounts.
Ms Ghosh: Our auditors do not
audit these accounts. They are not part of, if you use that analogy,
the company accounts.
Q364 Chairman: The Treasury are auditing
your performance.
Ms Ghosh: Against a particular
set of targets which, as we have discussed before, is as much
an issue of what otherwise would have happened. It is not money
that is within my control. It is local authority money on waste
implementation and therefore, it does not have any salience for
the accounts that we give to parliament or the accounts that we
give to the Treasury of how much I spend. It is a cross-cut of
a set of information that is put together for a very particular
purpose. It does not actually relate to my role as accounting
officer. It has no salience in terms of my role as accounting
officer.
Q365 Lynne Jones: You mentioned head
count. According to the figures that you have submitted you seem
to have 945 extra staff at the end of March 2008 than was originally
agreed in the 2004 Spending Review. You may tell me those figures
are inaccurate, I do not know, but is this a problem for you?
What impact will it have in future budgets?
Ms Ghosh: This was obviously before
my time. The original Gershon targets that were set were for an
overall saving from the department and its agencies over the three
year period of 2,500 staff of which at least 1,000 were due to
come from efficiencies at the RPA. At the same time we actually
got some new tasks for which we were given additional head count
cover. What I did as a result of the clear problems that the RPA,
and it becoming absolutely transparent that we could not expect
them to make those savings, was negotiate a new target net of
savings at the RPA which we would achieve. The 1,400 target that
we have achieved was the subsequently negotiated target. What
that is doing is taking us back to the CSR 04 target. We have
achieved 200 more than that, of which 200 in the event, because
of the improvements there, came from the RPA. It is because they
are going back to the original target which we renegotiated with
the Treasury.
Q366 Lynne Jones: The discussion
earlier on the RPA is relevant.
Ms Ghosh: It is relevant. If they
were to come and do a snapshot again, the idea that we really
would have 1,000 savings out of the RPA, we will have done but
on a slower track because of the problems with the SPS.
Q367 Lynne Jones: The department
has set up a Strategic Knowledge Capability Review and appointed
external consultants. I understand they are expected to report
this month. When are they expected to report and can you give
us any information on the main conclusions and any budgetary implications?
Ms Ghosh: I know we have commissioned
some external work on how we manage risk across the department
and how we deploy evidence in relation to that. What is the context
you are describing?
Q368 Lynne Jones: I can refer to
information from the Science Advisory Council. They have set up
a sub-group and they describe it as a Science Capability Review.
It has also been described as a Strategic Capability Review.
Ms Ghosh: It is certainly the
case that Bob Watson, our new CSA, has been working with the Science
Advisory Council and with others—and this is going to be
the subject of an inquiry that you do—to look at our science
capacity and our research spend. That is something that Bob is
already working on.
Q369 Lynne Jones: You have appointed
external consultants.
Ms Ghosh: This is a piece of work
I think which is about a point that the SAC raised for us which
comes back to risk which is do we have an evidence base about
how the various risks that the department faces all join up.
Mr Stow: We are currently setting
up what we call a research centre which is bringing together a
group of external researchers to help us with that and that is
out to tender at the moment. I do not recognise it from what you
are reading out but that we expect to set up within the next four
months or so. It is quite a long process because of the way that
academic research is procured.
Lynne Jones: There is certainly some
confusion here because there is certainly a reference to external
consultants having already been appointed and expecting to report.
Chairman: Can I suggest, if there is
confusion, that you write to the Committee in more detail about
this and if Lynne has any further points we can write to you in
advance of that letter to make certain we can get a comprehensive
reply to the area of questioning. Thank you very much indeed for
answering our questions. I am sure we shall be taking further
advantage of your offer to brief us on funding issues and in due
course to have you back before the Committee. I thank you very
much Mr Stow and Mr Park for your contribution to our affairs
this afternoon.
| 
