Memorandum 10
Supplementary submission from the Department
for Innovation, Universities and Skills
DEPARTMENT FOR INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES AND
SKILLS (DIUS) AUTUMN PERFORMANCE REPORT 2007
RESPONSE FROM
DIUS TO QUESTIONS
OF 3 MARCH
2008[6]
FROM THE
HOUSE OF
COMMONS INNOVATION,
UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE
AND SKILLS
SELECT COMMITTEE
The National Audit Office review of the DIUS
PSA targets assessed that five of the 11 elements underpinning
the targets were not fit for purpose. The Treasury guidance to
departments on APR reports for 2007 stated that "where data
systems have been externally validated the results should be summarised
[in the APR] and the department should explain how they have,
or are, responding to any negative conclusions". What
improvements are planned for the five PSA data systems which the
National Audit Office has assessed as "not fit for purpose"?
1. RESPONSE:
Comments on each of the relevant data systems
are given below under the associated measure.
1.1 Measure: Sustainable and financially robust
universities and public laboratories across the UK. (DTI PSA 2)
NAO conclusion December 2007: "RED—not
fit for purpose. We have concluded that the data system for supporting
the measurement of this sub-target is not fit for the purpose
of measuring and reporting performance against this sub-target.
Whilst the Department has identified data sources, it has not
established robust baselines or set any specific targets or defined
success criteria for all aspects of the sub-target. As a result
it will not be possible for the Department to accurately assess
whether it has achieved the sub-target at the end of the PSA period".
DIUS response: The data systems are well developed
for assessing the long term financial sustainability of universities
and public sector research laboratories so that they can deliver
high quality scientific research outputs. Setting a baseline is
not appropriate for the following reasons:
1. The metrics have been chosen deliberately
to assess quality rather than volume, this aim does not lend itself
to setting a baseline.
2. A baseline would not help in giving information
on the depth and breadth of financial sustainability.
3. Year to year comparisons might not be particularly
meaningful. They could for example, miss the key research intensive
universities becoming less financially sustainable whilst most
of the others were judged financially sustainable.
4. The needs of stakeholders can change rapidly
which might reduce the relevance of an historic baseline.
For these reasons DIUS will continue to use
the Funding Council's "trigger metrics" report to assess
progress on university research financial sustainability. This
enables DIUS to use a broad range of indicators for assessing
trajectories. Progress will be reported in the Science and Innovation
Investment Framework's (SIIF) Annual Reports with the target being
to achieve a positive trajectory on the majority of "trigger
metrics" by the end of the SIIF period (2014). DIUS notes
that there was no criticism of the actual data used which is largely
derived from the Higher Education Statistics Agency.
The Department has so far carried out two annual
monitoring exercises on the long term financial sustainability
of public sector research establishments (PSREs). These are primarily
intended to help PSREs and their parent departments assess their
long term sustainability and their ability to deliver high quality
science. This assessment is primarily intended to help PSREs assess
their long term sustainability and they will need to kept under
review as the research needs of strategic partners change. It
is therefore not appropriate to set baselines across the community,
although the two monitoring exercises note that there has already
been progress in individual PSREs moving towards sustainability.
The first monitoring exercise noted that there were well understood
problems effecting the long term sustainability of individual
PSREs. The second of these monitoring exercises has noted that
there had been improvement in some of the factors contributing
to PSREs' long term sustainability and these were especially notable
in relation to PSREs relationships to their strategic partners.
1.2 Measure: A more responsive supply of science,
technology, engineering and maths (STEM) skills to the economy.
(DTI PSA 2)
NAO conclusion December 2007: "RED—We
have assessed the data system supporting the measurement of this
sub-target as not being fit for the purpose of measuring and reporting
performance against the sub-target. The only live indicator for
this sub-target is collected as part of the report used to inform
sub-target (a). Although there are no issues with the quality
of data from this source the Department recognises that this data
alone is insufficient to offer a full analysis of success against
this sub-target which will be evidenced by a range of factors.
If this sub-target is to be retained, the Department needs to
begin work to update the Technical Note to include additional
indicators".
DIUS response: A wide range of indicators are
now published by DIUS which measure the supply of STEM skills
to the economy, and these indicators form part of the annual reporting
requirements assessing progress on the 10-year Framework. DIUS's
indicators for its new PSA includes additional STEM indicators
such as the number of A levels in maths, chemistry, biology and
physics, and the number of UK PhD completers in STEM subjects.
1.3 Measure: improving the basic skill levels
of 2.25 million adults between the launch of Skills for Life in
2001 and 2010, with a milestone of 1.5 million in 2007.(DfES PSA
13)
NAO conclusion December 2006: "While the
systems supporting the first part of the target attempt to address
the key risks to data accuracy, they do not distinguish adequately
between individuals and the number of qualifications achieved,
nor do they allow for people who achieved comparable qualifications
before 2001 to be removed from the data. Thus the data systems
as a whole are not fit for the purpose of measuring and reporting
performance against the target. Improved validation of the data
and better data collection would enhance significantly the accuracy
of the data systems".
DIUS response: the department has addressed
the issues raised by NAO on the measurement of the 2010 Skills
for Life Target as follows:
— Data collection for learners in the
prison service has been brought into the main Learning and Skills
Council collection through the Individualised Learner Record (ILR).
This allows repeat learners in the prison service to be identified
which was the main source of the NAO's concern in distinguishing
between individuals and numbers of qualifications achieved.
— Data matching between different years
of the ILR, which provides most of the data for this measure,
is being undertaken which will improve the estimate of the number
of learners achieving in more than one year. Results of this are
expected by end of May 2008.
— The publication of data on Skills
for Life is being considered as part of a wider review of Statistical
First Releases of post-16 data. This should be reporting by early
summer 2008.
1.4 Measures: ... make significant progress year-on-year
towards fair access and bear down on rates of non-completion.
(DfES PSA 14)
NAO conclusion December 2006: "The Department
has data which it can access to indicate progress against the
fair access and non-completion elements of the target. However,
the systems are not yet fit for the purpose of measuring and reporting
performance against the target, because there is no baseline for
fair access; the 2002-03 baseline year for non-completion means
that progress against that element of the target can only be measured
in future reporting, beginning with the one year's data that has
just become available".
DIUS response: The Department for Education
and Skills (DfES) Public Service Agreement (PSA) target 14 comprised
three elements: increasing participation, measured by the Higher
Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR); fair access, measured
using the relevant Performance Indicators published by the Higher
Education Statistics Agency (HESA), and non-completion, again
measured using the relevant Performance Indicators published by
HESA.
The National Audit Office (NAO) reviewed the
data systems underpinning the PSA target and reported the following
ratings: Amber (increasing participation), Red (fair access),
and Red (non-completion). Following the NAO report, DfES completed
the methodological changes recommended for the HEIPR and these
were reported in a Statistical First Release in March 2007. After
a follow-up review, NAO reported a Green rating. The Red rating
for the fair access element was based on the fact that there was
no baseline in the technical note. DfES set the baseline and revised
the technical note. After the follow up review, NAO reported an
Amber rating. The Red rating for the non-completion element was
based on the baseline figure not allowing for more than two years'
worth of data at the time of the original review. DfES revised
the baseline figure to be consistent with the HEIPR baseline year.
After the follow up review, NAO reported a Green rating.
PERFORMANCE ON
PSA TARGETS
DIUS Public Service Agreements 1 [Previously DTI
PSA 2]
This target has been assessed in the APR as
"on course" but there are a number of the underlying
measures on which performance has declined.
— Element 1 [Researchers per 1,000
workforce]
The APR confirms that this measure has a target
of 6.3 for 2006 but that performance has declined in 2005 to 5.8
from 5.9 in 2004. Why has performance on this measure declined?
Do you expect to achieve the 2006 target? What action is planned
to ensure the 2006 target is delivered?
2. RESPONSE:
Performance on this measure has moved very little
since 2002, so we do not consider that performance has declined
between 2004 and 2005. Meeting the target of 6.3 for 2006 will
prove challenging given the small amount of movement in this indicator.
However, an independent report on this indicator for the former
Office of Science and Innovation concluded that: "The UK's
rank on this measure is at odds with its rank on other indicators.
Historical models of "researchers" may not reflect current
employment and work patterns. The definition of researchers may
need to be revised to take account of the shifting structure of
knowledge-based economies". DIUS is undertaking development
work examining how to improve the coverage of this indicator.
The Government has a number of policies in place
to enhance the attractiveness of researcher careers, and DIUS
works with the Research Councils to fund researchers including
doctoral students, research staff in universities and research
institutes and Research Fellows.
— Element 3 [Greater responsiveness
of the research base to the needs of the economy and public services]
The APR confirms that performance has declined
on two of the HE measures and four of the PSRE measures.
HE measures with declining performance:
— Number of patent applications.
— Number of patents granted.
PSRE measures with declining performance:
— Number of patent applications.
— Number of licensing agreements.
— Income from business consultancy.
Why has performance declined on these measures
and what action is being taken to improve performance?
3. RESPONSE:
We assess performance against a basket of indicators
as we expect there to be year on year fluctuations on individual
indicators. In relation to the two HEI indicators mentioned, number
of patent applications and number of patents granted, although
there has been a reduction in the numbers between 2004-05 and
2005-06, there has been an overall upward trend on both of these
indicators over the last five years, with an increase in numbers
of patent applications and patents granted of, respectively, 60%
and 190%. On the indicators for Public Sector Research Establishments,
we recognise that the level of commercialisation across the community
should be increased. As the annual surveys on knowledge transfer
http://www. berr.gov.uk/dius/science/knowledge-transfer/psre/page12062.html
note, the majority of commercialisation activity is generated
by a relatively small number of PSREs. As a result we are trying
to increase the number of PSREs with effective commercialisation
programmes. In the latest round of the Public Sector Research
Exploitation Fund—which will provide £29 million from
July 2008 onwards—we are increasing the proportion of the
fund which will be available to PSREs with research which is capable
of being commercialised, but do not yet have a track record of
commercialisation.
— Element 4 [Increasing business
investment in R&D and increased business engagement]
One of the measures for this target is business
research and development expenditure as a percentage of GDP. The
APR shows that performance on this indicator has declined between
1999 and 2005 from 1.23 to 1.08.
The Delivery Agreement for the 2007 Comprehensive
Spending Review PSA 4 [Promote world class science and innovation
in the UK], states that "the 10-year Science and Innovation
framework set out the Government's overall ambition to raise investment
in R&D to 2.5% of GDP by 2014". Why was research and
development as a percentage of GDP not included as an indicator
for performance on the new PSA?
4. RESPONSE:
The overall ambition to raise Research and Development
by 2.5% includes all research development in both the Government
and private sectors and covers a longer period than the period
covered by PSAs. A range of policies managed in other Departments,
have a major bearing on business investment in research and Development,
notably the R&D Tax credits scheme.
As noted in the Science and Innovation White
Paper and the supporting evidence document, close analysis of
the industrial structure of the UK vis a vis other major economies
shows that lower shares of UK activity are in R&D intensive
sectors. Accordingly, for the new PSA target we are taking a more
sectorally focused, but still demanding indicator of the R&D
intensity of the most R&D intensive sectors. These sectors
together contribute the majority of UK Business R&D spending,
so that the DIUS PSA indicator is consistent with the longer term
ambition to raise investment in R&D to 2.5 per cent of GDP.
In measuring innovation in the economy to assess
policy impacts, DIUS supplement the Research and Development based
indicator with other evidence:
— A Departmental Strategic Objective
included an indicator of the share of firms who are innovation
active, measured across all business sectors.
— DIUS works with BERR and others to
understand innovation in non-Research and Development based sectors
such as retail and financial services.
— The Science and Innovation White
Paper "Innovation Nation" includes commitments to work
with partners to develop an innovation index, that takes a broad
view of the subject and to establish an innovation research centre
to improve the measurement and understanding of innovation in
its widest sense.
— Element 5 [A more responsive supply
of science, technology, engineering and maths skills to the economy]
Why has the indicator "to increase the number
of science students receiving enterprise training" not been
updated since the 2002 data?
5. RESPONSE:
This information was collected as part of the
reporting on projects funded through the Science Enterprise Challenge,
which has now been completed. This indicator was in some ways
unsatisfactory as it only covered the number of science students
receiving training without assessing the depth of the training
provided or its effectiveness. The indicator has also been partly
overtaken by developments as enterprise training is now not limited
to science students and is available to other disciplines as well.
It should also be noted that the National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship has started to publish a survey of entrepreneurship
and enterprise in higher education which provides a more comprehensive
picture than the indicator previously collected in relation to
this PSA.
DIUS Public Service Agreement 3 [Previously DfES
PSA target 14]
— Element 1 [Participation]
The target for this element is to increase participation
towards 50% by 2010. Given the 4% increase in performance over
the six years reported, how is the Department planning to accelerate
its delivery to ensure the required 7% increase over the final
four years to 2010?
The Delivery Agreement for the comparable target
for the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review period [2007 CSR PSA
2: indicator 6] is to "increase participation in higher education
towards 50 per cent of those aged 18 to 30 with a growth of at
least a percentage point every two years to the academic year
2010-11.
The new target will therefore be achieved if
performance has increased to just 45.5% from 43% in 2005-06. Why
has the performance expectation for this target been reduced to
below 50% for the next Spending Review period?
6. RESPONSE:
The target in PSA 3 is to increase participation
towards 50% by 2010. That 50% figure was, and remains, an important
signal of our aspirations for participation in higher education,
and we expect to continue to make progress towards it over the
next CSR period. However, the target does not suggest we would
reach 50% by 2010. The target figure is sensitive to changes in
the number of 18-30 year olds in the population—between
now and 2011 these numbers will continue to increase. Under this
demographic pressure, we believe it is realistic to aim for growth
in the participation rate of at least a percentage point every
two years to the academic year 2010-11, as specified in the delivery
agreement for the Comprehensive Spending Review.
Recently released figures for 2006-07 show the
latest actual rate is 40%, a drop of 2.7 percentage points from
the previous year. However, both the high rate for 2005-06 and
the low for 2006-07 are unrepresentative of the long term trend,
due to the short term effect of the introduction of variable fees.
We know that application numbers recovered significantly in 2007-08,
and applications are up again substantially for 2008-09, and the
participation rate for that year will be a better indicator of
progress against the PSA.
In terms of numbers, the increases in funding
over the CSR period to 2010-11 will support at least 40,000 additional
students by the end of that period. Additionally, the Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE) have been directed to redeploy,
by 2010-11, about £l00 million of teaching grant that would
have gone to support the costs of teaching students who already
hold a qualification at or above their proposed level of study.
The policy will allow over 20,000 additional students without
an existing qualification to enter HE for the first time or progress
to a higher level qualification by 2010-11, taking the total number
of additional places to some 60,000.
— Elements 2 and 3 [Fair access
and non-completion]
Reporting against both of these elements of
the PSA show improved performance. However the Committee notes
that neither of the measures has been retained for the new 2007
CSR PSA 2 [Improve the skills of the population on the way to
ensuring a world-class skills base by 2020]. Why were the fair
access and non-completion measures not considered sufficiently
important to warrant a performance measure under the new 2007
PSA?
7. RESPONSE:
Fair access to higher education remains a priority
for the Government. This is reflected in PSA 11, which is about
narrowing the gap in educational achievement between children
from low income and disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers.
A key indicator for this PSA is to narrow the gap between the
initial participation in full time higher education rates for
young people aged 18, 19 and 20 from the top three and bottom
four socio-economic classes.
Non-completion also remains a priority for the
Government. It is not included as one of the key indicators for
the new Skills PSA (2007 CSR PSA 2), because this PSA now contains
an output measure, in the form of increasing the proportion of
the workforce with higher level skills from under 30% now, to
over 40%. The target to increase participation towards 50% is
an input target. As such, the non-completion element was needed
as a counterbalance, to avoid any temptation to pursue the target
by packing courses with students who would not complete them.
As we now have an overarching output target, the separate focus
on non-completion within the PSA isn't needed—because students
who do not complete will not count towards the target's achievement.
We will, however, continue to calculate and publish non-completion
rates as one of a number of performance measures that do not form
part of the PSA.
SPENDING REVIEW
2004 EFFICIENCY TARGET
The APR stated that you are "on course"
to achieve the financial savings target by 2007-08 and that "a
contribution of £787.7 million of efficiency gains has been
recorded by the end of September 2007 in those areas for which
DIUS is now responsible".
(i) What is the Department's financial efficiency
savings target for the SR2004 period?
The Department has agreed an indicative
target of £622.2 million with HM Treasury, DCSF and BERR.
This reflects the contribution DIUS is expected to make to the
DfES and DTI legacy targets.
(ii) Please provide a breakdown of the target
to show how much the Research Councils, Further Education, and
Skills sector will be contributing to the target and which elements
of their expenditure are to be targeted.
DIUS's total indicative target of £622.2
million is attributed to the individual areas as follows:
Higher Education, Further Education and
Skills—£437.2 million
These gains are to be derived from areas
such as improved procurement practice, improved use of capital
assets and estate modernisation, improved efficiency in corporate
services, reduced administration costs and improved use of ICT.
Science and Innovation—£185
million (including the Research Councils)
These gains are to be achieved through
the Research Council efficiency programme, improved use of capital
assets and reduced administration costs.
All these gains represent genuine improvements
in efficiency and are not simply cuts in expenditure.
(iii) Please confirm which element of the
£787.4 million reported efficiency savings has been classified
by the Office of Government Commerce as "final", "interim"
or "provisional," preferably showing the figures broken
down by the Research Councils, Further Education and Skills sector
contributions.
The Department has classified its total
reported gains figure of £784.7m as follows in reporting
to HM Treasury, in accordance with the standard categorisation:
| Preliminary
| Interim | Final
|
Higher Education, Further Education and Skills
| £156.7 million | £182.9 million
| £128.7 million |
| Science and Innovation | £4.2 million
| £72.5 million | £239.7 million
|
COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING
REVIEW 2007 EFFICIENCY
TARGET
For the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review you have a target
to achieve £1,543 million annual efficiency savings by 2010-11.
The Committee welcomes the information on the new target in the
Value for Money Delivery Agreement but would like clarification
on the following areas.
With nearly half of the planned efficiency savings target
still to be finalised when the Value for Money Delivery Agreement
was published, please would the Department confirm:
(i) The final breakdown of the total planned efficiency
target and work streams.
(ii) A profile for each work stream showing the expected
delivery programme for each financial year between 2008-09 and
2010-11.
(iii) Confirmation of the key risks to the efficiency programme
and how these will be managed by the Corporate Board.
9. RESPONSE:
A breakdown of how the Department currently plans to achieve
the value for money (VfM) gains agreed with the Treasury is shown
below. This gives the expected profile of gains by year in the
CSR period.
BREAKDOWN OF CURRENT PLANS TO ACHIEVE THE VALUE FOR MONEY
GAINS TARGET
| 2008-09
| 2009-10 | 2010-11
|
| £m | £m
| £m |
| Research Councils UK VfM delivery project package
| 81 | 162 | 243
|
| Other innovation reprioritisation/efficiency gains
| 26 | 31 | 38
|
| Science and Research Infrastructure Fund reprioritisation
| 108 | 77 | 110
|
| FE Train to Gain efficiency gains | 223
| 208 | 170 |
| FE reprioritisation gains | 70
| 190 | 270 |
| FE Local Initiatives Fund reprioritisation |
48 | 48 | 48 |
| FE procurement/estates/NDPB efficiencies |
29 | 50 | 72 |
| HE reprioritisation, co-funding including ELQ
| 63 | 152 | 256
|
| HE procurement/shared services/estates efficiencies
| 90 | 145 | 200
|
| Departmental administrative costs | 4
| 8 | 12 |
| (Contingency)/still in development | -74
| -51 | 124 |
| Total target agreed as part of the CSR07 |
668 | 1,020 | 1,543
|
Key risks to the Department's value for money programme remain
those set out in the Value for Money Delivery Agreement:
— inertia across an extensive and autonomous delivery
chain. This applies in all sectors particularly in HE and Further
Education and Skills (FES) and will need to be addressed through
sector specific strategies, for instance to establish strong networks
of good practice;
— the preparedness of partner bodies, including
the private sector, to increase the level of partnership funding.
For instance, more difficult than expected market conditions might
reduce employers' willingness to contribute to or release staff
for training programmes, or reduce organisations' willingness
to invest in joint research programmes. Explaining well the benefits
of partnership funding to bodies making contributions will be
key to ensuring targets are achievable.
Responsibility for management of these risks at corporate
Board level lies with the relevant Board members responsible for
delivery of the value for money gains within their commands. Performance
of the Value for Money programme will be reported to the Board
monthly, with more detailed review being undertaken by a sub-group
of the corporate Board, the Performance Board.
April 2008
Annex
Letter of 3 March to DIUS
DEPARTMENTAL AUTUMN PERFORMANCE REPORT 2007
The Committee has now had an opportunity to consider the
Department's Autumn Performance Report 2007. There are a number
of questions on which the Committee would appreciate a response.
The National Audit Office review of the DIUS PSA targets
assessed that five of the eleven elements underpinning the targets
were not fit for purpose. The Treasury guidance to departments
on APR reports for 2007 stated that "where data systems have
been externally validated the results should be summarised [in
the APR] and the department should explain how they have, or are,
responding to any negative conclusions". What improvements
are planned for the five PSA data systems which the National Audit
Office has assessed as "not fit for purpose"?
PERFORMANCE ON
PSA TARGETS
DIUS Public Service Agreements 1 [Previously DTI PSA 2]
This target has been assessed in the APR as "on course"
but there are a number of the underlying measures on which performance
has declined.
— Element 1 [Researchers per 1,000 workforce]
The APR confirms that this measure has a target of 6.3 for
2006 but that performance has declined in 2005 to 5.8 from 5.9
in 2004. Why has performance on this measure declined? Do you
expect to achieve the 2006 target? What action is planned to ensure
the 2006 target is delivered?
— Element 3 [Greater responsiveness of the research
base to the needs of the economy and public services]
The APR confirms that performance has declined on two of
the HE measures and four of the PSRE measures.
HE measures with declining performance:
— Number of patent applications.
— Number of patents granted.
PSRE measures with declining performance:
— Number of patent applications.
— Number of licensing agreements.
— Income from business consultancy.
Why has performance declined on these measures and what action
is being taken to improve performance?
— Element 4 [Increasing business investment in
R&D and increased business engagement]
One of the measures for this target is business research
and development expenditure as a percentage of GDP. The APR shows
that performance on this indicator has declined between 1999 and
2005 from 1.23 to 1.08.
The Delivery Agreement for the 2007 Comprehensive Spending
Review PSA 4 [Promote world class science and innovation in the
UK], states that "the 10-year Science and Innovation framework
set out the Government's overall ambition to raise investment
in R&D to 2.5% of GDP by 2014". Why was research and
development as a percentage of GDP not included as an indicator
for performance on the new PSA?
— Element 5 [A more responsive supply of science,
technology, engineering and maths skills to the economy]
Why has the indicator "to increase the number of science
students receiving enterprise training" not been updated
since the 2002 data?
DIUS Public Service Agreement 3 [Previously DfES PSA target
14]
— Element 1 [Participation]
The target for this element is to increase participation
towards 50% by 2010. Given the 4% increase in performance over
the six years reported, how is the Department planning to accelerate
its delivery to ensure the required 7% increase over the final
four years to 2010?
The Delivery Agreement for the comparable target for the
2007 Comprehensive Spending Review period [2007 CSR PSA 2: indicator
6] is to "increase participation in higher education towards
50% of those aged 18 to 30 with a growth of at least a percentage
point every two years to the academic year 2010-11.
The new target will therefore be achieved if performance
has increased to just 45.5% from 43% in 2005-06. Why has the
performance expectation for this target been reduced to below
50% for the next Spending Review period?
— Elements 2 and 3 [Fair access and non-completion]
Reporting against both of these elements of the PSA show
improved performance. However the Committee notes that neither
of the measures has been retained for the new 2007 CSR PSA 2 [Improve
the skills of the population on the way to ensuring a world-class
skills base by 2020]. Why were the fair access and non-completion
measures not considered sufficiently important to warrant a performance
measure under the new 2007 PSA?
SPENDING REVIEW
2004 EFFICIENCY TARGET
The APR stated that you are "on course" to achieve
the financial savings target by 2007-08 and that "a contribution
of £787.7 million of efficiency gains has been recorded by
the end of September 2007 in those areas for which DIUS is now
responsible".
(iv) What is the Department's financial efficiency savings
target for the SR2004 period?
(v) Please provide a breakdown of the target to show how
much the Research Councils, Further Education, and Skills sector
will be contributing to the target and which elements of their
expenditure are to be targeted.
(vi) Please confirm which element of the £787.4 million
reported efficiency savings has been classified by the Office
of Government Commerce as "final", "interim"
or "provisional," preferably showing the figures broken
down by the Research Councils, Further Education and Skills sector
contributions.
COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING
REVIEW 2007 EFFICIENCY
TARGET
For the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review you have a target
to achieve £1,543 million annual efficiency savings by 2010-11.
The Committee welcomes the information on the new target in the
Value for Money Delivery Agreement but would like clarification
on the following areas.
With nearly half of the planned efficiency savings target
still to be finalised when the Value for Money Delivery Agreement
was published, please would the Department confirm:
(iv) The final breakdown of the total planned efficiency
target and work streams.
(v) A profile for each work stream showing the expected
delivery programme for each financial year between 2008-09 and
2010-11.
(vi) Confirmation of the key risks to the efficiency programme
and how these will be managed by the Corporate Board.
6
See Annex. Back
| 
