| Efficiency and value for money
|
| | |
| 1. | We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government provide a definitive answer to the issue we posed in June 2007, namely whether standard accounting conventions will be used for identifying and distributing implementation costs under the new efficiency programme. We further recommend that the Government confirm in its response whether the presumed methodology for calculating savings in monetary terms set out in paragraph 17 of this Report is correct and, if not, clarify the methodology to be used. (Paragraph 21)
|
| | |
| 2. | The efficiency targets that have been set for the period from 2008-09 to 2010-11 are stretching and highly ambitious. In view of the unresolved issues concerning the effects of the current Gershon efficiency programme on service delivery, it is important that there is parliamentary and public confidence in claims about the effects of the efficiency programme for the period from 2008-09 to 2010-11 on service delivery. We recommend that the Government state explicitly that financial savings during that period will only be recorded as efficiency savings if there is sufficient evidence that service standards have at least been maintained. We further recommend that such evidence be the subject of regular external audit by the National Audit Office. We expect that this Committee and other select committees will wish to examine departmental value for money Delivery Agreements to ensure that clear baseline standards are established against which contentions about the impact of efficiency savings on service standards can be tested. (Paragraph 25)
|
| | |
| 3. | We welcome the decision of the Government not to impose new explicit targets for reduction in Civil Service numbers for the period from 1 April 2008. We will monitor the implementation of reductions in departmental administration budgets, including classification issues and the effect of such reductions on the Civil Service workforce. (Paragraph 27)
|
| | |
| The new performance management framework
|
| | |
| 4. | It is not possible to draw definite conclusions about the new performance measurement framework on the basis of the information published alongside the outcome of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review. In particular, the nature of Departmental Strategic Objectives, and the extent to which they have become different in kind from Public Service Agreements, will not be evident until the outcome indicators associated with those Objectives have been published. The decision to distinguish between Departmental Strategic Objectives and Public Service Agreements which are cross-departmental in nature is in principle a welcome one. We also welcome the clear assignment of a lead department in respect of each Public Service Agreement. However, the cross-departmental nature of all new Public Service Agreements poses a challenge for a system of accountability currently based on departmental reporting and the work of departmental select committees. We recommend that performance against outcome indicators in new Public Service Agreements be reported on in new cross-departmental publications on a bi-annual basis in relation to each such Agreement, separate from departmental annual reports and Autumn performance reports. These new publications could encourage more effective cross-cutting scrutiny of Public Service Agreements between select committees concerned. (Paragraph 37)
|
| | |
| Child poverty |
| | |
| 5. | We accept the value of an additional target relating to child poverty including a measure of material deprivation, not least in highlighting that poverty is not just about income. However, there is a risk that consideration of material deprivation will move focus away from the most pressing cases of child poverty and, in that context, we are disappointed that the Delivery Agreement does not respond to the recommendations of this Committee for a fuller analysis of the particular issues surrounding child poverty in the very poorest households. It is important that efforts to meet targets do not lead to an insufficient concentration upon the worst forms of child poverty in the very poorest households. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government set out the role played in its strategy by measures concerned in particular with the very poorest households. (Paragraph 47)
|
| | |
| 6. | We note the Government's explanation for the decision to assign HM Treasury lead responsibility for the new PSA framework relating to child poverty. However, in view of the decision to establish a Child Poverty Unit located in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, we remain to be convinced that the division of departmental responsibilities will not accentuate the possible tension between the 2010-11 target and the final target to eradicate child poverty. (Paragraph 50)
|
| | |
| 7. | The Comprehensive Spending Review is not accompanied by a clear explanation of the linkage between the Government's target to halve child poverty by 2010-11 and the proposed deployment of resources to meet that target. We are concerned that the Government may have drawn back from a whole-hearted commitment to meeting this target. A failure to meet that target would represent a conscious decision to leave hundreds of thousands of children in poverty for longer than is necessary or desirable. While we accept that there may be a long-run trade-off between meeting the 2010-11 target and longer term ambitions to increase employment, the linkage between child poverty and working households is by no means clear cut. We consider that the Government must either initiate a public debate on that trade-off, or rededicate itself to meeting the 2010-11 target, making clear at the earliest opportunity available both that the necessary resources are available within the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement and that the Government is committed to deploying those resources. (Paragraph 64)
|
| | |
| The individual spending settlements
|
| | |
| 8. | We recommend that the documentation accompanying future Spending Reviews include up-to-date figures on forecast outturns for the baseline year, as well as baselines used for the purposes of spending allocations, and an account of the differences between those sets of figures. (Paragraph 68)
|
| | |
| 9. | We recommend that the Government, in its response to this Report, clarify whether its ambition to match independent sector spending per pupil in schools relates to a static target, of such spending per pupil in 2005-06, albeit updated so as to be expressed in real terms, or a moving target, relating to projected future levels of spending per pupil in the independent sector. (Paragraph 75)
|
| | |
